• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12 months ago

    You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

    There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn’t allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.

    And I can tell you that the “democratic voting” was also just a farce. I can’t find the source anymore but voting didn’t really have oversight. It’s in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they’re also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.

    • Cowbee [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      22 months ago

      There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn’t allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.

      The USSR was overall very pro-science. In it’s early years, it went through growing pains, as their number one task was centered around instilling Marxism in the population. Marxism itself is founded on Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Certain liberal sciences had been, at the time, focused on Idealism, such as Race Science.

      And I can tell you that the “democratic voting” was also just a farce. I can’t find the source anymore but voting didn’t really have oversight. It’s in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they’re also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.

      Do you have evidence that the Soviets were assigning votes?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 months ago

        In it’s early years, it went through growing pains, as their number one task was centered around instilling Marxism in the population.

        So like the first 3-4 decades? Because they didn’t really turn towards pro-science until the 50s when their ideological science interfered with the nuclear program. And the charlatan Lysenko remained as the director of the Institute of Genetics until 1965.

        Do you have evidence that the Soviets were assigning votes?

        Of course not. None of the voting results exist, at least I haven’t found any and I did search for them. In fact searching for them is how I stumbled upon the official voting guidebook where it’s written that the voting committee counts and verifies the votes, which leaves the door open for vote manipulation.

        Just as I can’t prove they were manipulating votes you can’t prove they weren’t and it comes down to whether you want to believe it or not. Personally I think if they have an official loophole to fudge results then the people in power would use it to stay in power.

        • Cowbee [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          12 months ago

          So like the first 3-4 decades? Because they didn’t really turn towards pro-science until the 50s when their ideological science interfered with the nuclear program. And the charlatan Lysenko remained as the director of the Institute of Genetics until 1965.

          Yes, growing pains take time to overcome. The USSR also made a great many advancements in the early years as well, being the first Socialist country comes with numerous growing pains.

          Of course not. None of the voting results exist, at least I haven’t found any and I did search for them. In fact searching for them is how I stumbled upon the official voting guidebook where it’s written that the voting committee counts and verifies the votes, which leaves the door open for vote manipulation.

          Got it, so no evidence, and pure mythology.

          Just as I can’t prove they were manipulating votes you can’t prove they weren’t and it comes down to whether you want to believe it or not. Personally I think if they have an official loophole to fudge results then the people in power would use it to stay in power.

          Ah, the “God is real because you can’t disprove him” argument. This is Idealism, and you are inventing reality to suit your personal narrative.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            Ah, the “God is real because you can’t disprove him” argument. This is Idealism, and you are inventing reality to suit your personal narrative.

            Except my argument stands on the fact that there’s an official loophole. Do you have any actual argument to back up the votes weren’t fudged beyond “I want to believe the soviets were nice people”?

            You’re free to go find the official voting information yourself, I’m not going to dig into that materials again just to find a document you most likely can’t read because you can’t read Russian.

            • Cowbee [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              02 months ago

              Except my argument stands on the fact that there’s an official loophole. Do you have any actual argument to back up the votes weren’t fudged beyond “I want to believe the soviets were nice people”?

              So does the “God is real because you can’t disprove him” argument. It stands that you have precisely no evidence and yet fully believe what you made up.

              You’re free to go find the official voting information yourself, I’m not going to dig into that materials again just to find a document you most likely can’t read because you can’t read Russian.

              Google translate exists, go for it. Find evidence for your claims and beliefs.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Right. I misremembered, it wasn’t in Russian. Here you go

                Viimased kanded lõplikku nimekirja tegi jaoskonnakomisjon valimispäeval, fikseerides valimissedelite väljaandmise. Vahemärkusena väärib selle toimingu juures mainimist seik, et valijailt kinnitust sedeli kättesaamise kohta ei võetud, seda asendas komisjonipoolne märge. Valimismäärustikud kõnealust detaili ei kajasta, kuid viite kirjeldatud toimimisviisile võib leida nimekirjade koostamise tehnilisest juhendist. (7) Esmapilgul võib asi paista vähetähtis, kuid see andis jaoskonnakomisjonide käsutusse lihtsa viisi ise „hääli kasti pannes” nõutav valimistulemus tagada. Selle kohta võib mälestustes viiteid leida juba alates Riigivolikogu valimistest 1940. a. suvel

                The (7) reference there is for “ERA, f. R-437, n. 1, s. 1.” which is the official document that isn’t digitized. However you can take a trip to the Estonian national archives and you can request access to it. You can do that here

                Now, where is your proof?

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    12 months ago

                    Since you want to play that game let’s go back to the original argument

                    You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

                    Where is the evidence for this?