You brought quite a lot of things together, and I’d say they should be addressed separately if you want to get your message across.
On my part, for example - USSR wasn’t holy, but its demise instead of improvement is a giant tradegy that still negatively echoes in the world history.
Someone else would say there’s nothing wrong with prostitution, for example.
Some would point out folk medicine is not all entirely wrong even by medical science standards and it becomes a problem when patients ignore science in favor of unproven methods.
And at the end of it, you end up with the comment that is half wrong, and the message poorly sent.
What the actual fuck are you talking about? The fall of USSR was the second best thing that ever happened to the country I was born in. The first was the end of nazi occupation. Although the negative consequences are still echoing through the entire eastern block.
As I said - USSR was by no means holy, and some regions, particularly forcefully occupied states of Eastern Europe, gained quite a lot from its downfall.
I’m talking about a more global effect, particularly economic and political pressure USSR exerted on major capitalist powers. It was a simple sign: “the policies we implement do work, your workers can and will demand them, and you better do it or the same revolution will strip you out of all your riches”.
Pretty much since its inception, USSR was able to literally shift global policies regarding working conditions and universally available services. It’s after severe protests in pre-Nazi Germany and USSR that all major powers suddenly decided to shorten the work day from 10-12 hours to 8, then from 6 days a week to 5, introduced (except for US) full universal healthcare and higher edication, and many more policies we take for granted today.
Then, when USSR went into its demise, the improvements stopped. The income inequality rose significantly in most major economies, going straight up through the roof in the US, UK, Canada and Germany. Same happened to the post-Soviet countries themselves, even though it has been at first greatly compensated by the sheer volume of money coming from foreign investors. Social services started to receive less funding, and population is more in debt than ever.
If anything, USSR was the force that kept major powers in check and didn’t allow capitalism to do what it does best - concentrate wealth, population be damned. I know capitalism can look like magic when your country has got significant economic boost in living memory, but global trends show a very different picture.
It’s after severe protests in pre-Nazi Germany and USSR that all major powers suddenly decided to shorten the work day from 10-12 hours to 8
Some industries in the west has been adopting the 10 or 8 hour working day even before the soviet union has existed. And this is going to be only my personal speculations, but as the nature of the work itself has been changing over time, so did the time requirements.
from 6 days a week to 5
It’s funny that you mention that, because one thing that I distinctly remember from what my parents and grandparents has been telling me about the previous regime was something called “working saturday of honor”, when the workers were mandated to come work an extra day. Some of them were to compensate for the state holidays, some just to ramp up the productivity.
It’s worth keeping in mind that while Soviet Union as a state was officially established in 1922, it was simply a formality following the victory in civil war that lasted from 1917, when bolsheviks captured centers of power, thereby effectively forming a country 5 years before full victory and declaring the union.
Events of 1917 (and earlier events of 1905) were the sparks that lit the fire, and then Soviet Union as an actual country capitalized on that, furthering its influence on global policies.
Before 1917, the absolute majority of industries did not have 8-hour work day. And since then, we had giant shifts in the way we work and jobs we take, but nothing has changed in respect to work time. We went to offices, we went remote, but we still work those same 9 to 5’s.
The “working saturdays of honor” (“subbotniki”) were only mandatory during a short period in the 30’s, as Stalin ramped up the industrial machine. For the rest of the time, they were completely voluntary, and they weren’t held every week - they were more like seasonal events. Modern Russia still has them, particularly in schools and other state-owned institutions. It is considered to be part of learning to respect every work - and it is quite fun, actually.
On my part, for example - USSR wasn’t holy, but its demise instead of improvement is a giant tradegy that still negatively echoes in the world history.
I agree, but that’s not the position I described.
Someone else would say there’s nothing wrong with prostitution, for example.
Definitely better than alcoholism.
Some would point out folk medicine is not all entirely wrong even by medical science standards and it becomes a problem when patients ignore science in favor of unproven methods.
The latter is what I meant exactly.
And at the end of it, you end up with the comment that is half wrong, and the message poorly sent.
That depends on reader’s interpretation, so you are basically ascribing your own choices to me. If something isn’t clear, it doesn’t mean you can pick the wrong variant and ascribe it to author of that comment. It just means you can ask.
My point wasn’t about the content of statements, but about how such wide statements going way beyond original question will inevitably cause conflict and will drive your point across less effectively.
You brought quite a lot of things together, and I’d say they should be addressed separately if you want to get your message across.
On my part, for example - USSR wasn’t holy, but its demise instead of improvement is a giant tradegy that still negatively echoes in the world history.
Someone else would say there’s nothing wrong with prostitution, for example.
Some would point out folk medicine is not all entirely wrong even by medical science standards and it becomes a problem when patients ignore science in favor of unproven methods.
And at the end of it, you end up with the comment that is half wrong, and the message poorly sent.
That’s just my 2 cents here.
What the actual fuck are you talking about? The fall of USSR was the second best thing that ever happened to the country I was born in. The first was the end of nazi occupation. Although the negative consequences are still echoing through the entire eastern block.
As I said - USSR was by no means holy, and some regions, particularly forcefully occupied states of Eastern Europe, gained quite a lot from its downfall.
I’m talking about a more global effect, particularly economic and political pressure USSR exerted on major capitalist powers. It was a simple sign: “the policies we implement do work, your workers can and will demand them, and you better do it or the same revolution will strip you out of all your riches”.
Pretty much since its inception, USSR was able to literally shift global policies regarding working conditions and universally available services. It’s after severe protests in pre-Nazi Germany and USSR that all major powers suddenly decided to shorten the work day from 10-12 hours to 8, then from 6 days a week to 5, introduced (except for US) full universal healthcare and higher edication, and many more policies we take for granted today.
Then, when USSR went into its demise, the improvements stopped. The income inequality rose significantly in most major economies, going straight up through the roof in the US, UK, Canada and Germany. Same happened to the post-Soviet countries themselves, even though it has been at first greatly compensated by the sheer volume of money coming from foreign investors. Social services started to receive less funding, and population is more in debt than ever.
If anything, USSR was the force that kept major powers in check and didn’t allow capitalism to do what it does best - concentrate wealth, population be damned. I know capitalism can look like magic when your country has got significant economic boost in living memory, but global trends show a very different picture.
Some industries in the west has been adopting the 10 or 8 hour working day even before the soviet union has existed. And this is going to be only my personal speculations, but as the nature of the work itself has been changing over time, so did the time requirements.
It’s funny that you mention that, because one thing that I distinctly remember from what my parents and grandparents has been telling me about the previous regime was something called “working saturday of honor”, when the workers were mandated to come work an extra day. Some of them were to compensate for the state holidays, some just to ramp up the productivity.
It’s worth keeping in mind that while Soviet Union as a state was officially established in 1922, it was simply a formality following the victory in civil war that lasted from 1917, when bolsheviks captured centers of power, thereby effectively forming a country 5 years before full victory and declaring the union.
Events of 1917 (and earlier events of 1905) were the sparks that lit the fire, and then Soviet Union as an actual country capitalized on that, furthering its influence on global policies.
Before 1917, the absolute majority of industries did not have 8-hour work day. And since then, we had giant shifts in the way we work and jobs we take, but nothing has changed in respect to work time. We went to offices, we went remote, but we still work those same 9 to 5’s.
The “working saturdays of honor” (“subbotniki”) were only mandatory during a short period in the 30’s, as Stalin ramped up the industrial machine. For the rest of the time, they were completely voluntary, and they weren’t held every week - they were more like seasonal events. Modern Russia still has them, particularly in schools and other state-owned institutions. It is considered to be part of learning to respect every work - and it is quite fun, actually.
I agree, but that’s not the position I described.
Definitely better than alcoholism.
The latter is what I meant exactly.
That depends on reader’s interpretation, so you are basically ascribing your own choices to me. If something isn’t clear, it doesn’t mean you can pick the wrong variant and ascribe it to author of that comment. It just means you can ask.
My point wasn’t about the content of statements, but about how such wide statements going way beyond original question will inevitably cause conflict and will drive your point across less effectively.
But then, that’s just my opinion
Ah, well, it wasn’t my intention to persuade anyone or drive anyone to my side.