[He/Him, Nosist, Touch typist, Enthusiast, Superuser impostorist, keen-eyed humorist, endeavourOS shillist, kotlin useist, wonderful bastard, professinal pedant miser]
Stuped person says stuped things, people boom

I have trouble with using tone in my words but not interpreting tone from others’ words. Weird, isn’t it?

Formerly on kbin.social and dbzer0

  • 46 Posts
  • 539 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 5th, 2024

help-circle

  • At least 12 people were killed after the attacks,[60][1][61] and more than 2,750 were wounded.[5][6] Civilians were also killed,[10][13][14] including four healthcare workers[62] and two children.[63] It is not clear if only Hezbollah members were carrying the pagers.[19] Lebanese Health Minister Firass Abiad said the vast majority of those being treated in emergency rooms were in civilian clothing and their Hezbollah affiliation was unclear.[64] He added the casualties included elderly people as well as young children. According to the Lebanese Health Ministry, healthcare workers were also injured and it advised all healthcare workers to discard their pagers.[64][65]









  • Thanks. The oblique narrative flow of this text is pretty confusing and I don’t think I understood it. The expression in question is “dictatorship of the party”, right? Was the vote inside the Presidium? From what I gather, the expression was in line with what the party elite wanted, meaning the soviet did not vote against the presidium?

    as you sneer

    My English level is only near-native, sorry. That’s not what I meant. You answered my question directly with a source that I’d trust.





  • There’s a difference between wrecking and having different opinions.

    And Mendelian genetics wrecks the party with the unhinged liberalism of accurate science supported by half of Pavlov’s students?

    As for your books, you may realize that I am a bit short on time and do not have the energy to read 4 entire novel-length books instead of specific pages or chapters.




  • I appreciate that you’re taking the time to politely respond.

    Obviously, the lower bodies decide more minutiae and local stuff and can’t go against the upper bodies’ decisions, and that goes for pretty much every democracy, just like you said. I was talking about specifically the Supreme Soviet and its Presidium, which could also be abstracted into the presidiums of every soviet. I think that’s the source of our confusion here. I’m looking at principles in making wide-ranging decisions, which are the things that can cause division. Not sure why I said üpper body".

    what was purged was liberalism and fascism

    Ah yes, known liberals and fascists such as the other two people who ruled with Stalin and whoever believed in genetics. If diverse opinions were allowed, what was the entire focus on eradicating factionalism?

    Could you cite some sources or elaborate on fighting against bureaucracy? Why was bureaucracy established and why did it remain after the war? How wasn’t Stalin before Lenin’s death a career politician?

    I have to sign off now until tomorrow.


  • Without a specific page or chapter number, I’m assuming you’re pointing to the only paragraph that mentions “centralism”. It just seems to repeat what I already replied to.

    I’ll explain further, then: At first, the lower body elects the upper body. The upper body decides everything. Then:

    1. Why not just skip the waste of time of the lower body voting on stuff? I can’t find any time something like jury nullification of a really awful presidium policy happened.
    2. Since whoever disagrees with the upper body gets expelled, the lower body will perpetually elect whomever the upper body wants. While this may have enabled a dictatorship of the proletariat for a while, this behavior blocked out a ton of new ideas and became problematic after Stalin’s straight-up purging of opponents and entrenched an oppressive old guard, by whom Khrushchev got ousted trying to get rid of.

  • Just like many things in the USSR, It was perhaps that way in principle, but nefariously twisted in practice, where it means that everyone must vote whatever the elite thinks, majority requirements be damned. Like the ancient parable of Yu the Great choosing a successor, a dictating elite are bound to self-perpetuate and stray away from the proletariat, even if that’s what they were once.