Defending The Soviet Union

[BH]

Copernicus and barbos,

Are there any reliable statistics from Soviet times deliving into how much of the population may have suffered from some sort of mental illness and what those mental illnesses were?

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus and barbos,

Are there any reliable statistics from Soviet times deliving into how much of the population may have suffered from some sort of mental illness and what those mental illnesses were?

That's really hard to say, because statistics of that sort always had political implications and were carefully monitored and managed for propaganda value. I'm not at all surprised that barbos takes such a dim view of the social sciences, given the conditions under which social scientists labored in those days. Statistics were almost never reliable. Mental illness became one of the primary means by which the CPSU attacked and marginalized dissidents. One of my acquaintances from the 1960s was diagnosed and incarcerated.

 

[barbos]

Copernicus and barbos,

Are there any reliable statistics from Soviet times deliving into how much of the population may have suffered from some sort of mental illness and what those mental illnesses were?

I am not sure what you need that for. But no, I don't have that information, I doubt anyone have it.

 

[barbos]

Copernicus and barbos,

Are there any reliable statistics from Soviet times deliving into how much of the population may have suffered from some sort of mental illness and what those mental illnesses were?

That's really hard to say, because statistics of that sort always had political implications and were carefully monitored and managed for propaganda value. I'm not at all surprised that barbos takes such a dim view of the social sciences, given the conditions under which social scientists labored in those days. Statistics were almost never reliable. Mental illness became one of the primary means by which the CPSU attacked and marginalized dissidents. One of my acquaintances from the 1960s was diagnosed and incarcerated.

I have to at least partially disagree with that. Most of the publicized cases at better inspection do make you wonder about mental state of some of these dissidents. Novodvorskaya was definitely not 100% in head department. On the other hand there were bunch of dissidents which had not been "diagnosed" with any Mental illnesses.

Now there was a recent case of "dissident"
Even Pussy Riot are not exactly well in head department. Criticizing Putin does not prevent you from being crazy.

 

[Copernicus]

Barbos, I would rank your skills in psychological diagnosis as on a par with your understanding of the social sciences.

 

[Philos]

Criticizing Putin does not prevent you from being crazy.

Folks,

I like Mr Putin.

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7252128.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Vladimir-Putin.jpg

D.

 

[J842P]

Copernicus and barbos,

Are there any reliable statistics from Soviet times deliving into how much of the population may have suffered from some sort of mental illness and what those mental illnesses were?

That's really hard to say, because statistics of that sort always had political implications and were carefully monitored and managed for propaganda value. I'm not at all surprised that barbos takes such a dim view of the social sciences, given the conditions under which social scientists labored in those days. Statistics were almost never reliable. Mental illness became one of the primary means by which the CPSU attacked and marginalized dissidents. One of my acquaintances from the 1960s was diagnosed and incarcerated.

"Social sciences" is a broad term. There's a lot of good work done under the umbrella of social sciences, however, there is a whole lot of contemptible crap as well.

 

[barbos]

Barbos, I would rank your skills in psychological diagnosis as on a par with your understanding of the social sciences.

So my skills in psychological diagnosis are excellent. I knew that already.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus and barbos,

Are there any reliable statistics from Soviet times deliving into how much of the population may have suffered from some sort of mental illness and what those mental illnesses were?

That's really hard to say, because statistics of that sort always had political implications and were carefully monitored and managed for propaganda value. I'm not at all surprised that barbos takes such a dim view of the social sciences, given the conditions under which social scientists labored in those days. Statistics were almost never reliable. Mental illness became one of the primary means by which the CPSU attacked and marginalized dissidents. One of my acquaintances from the 1960s was diagnosed and incarcerated.

"Social sciences" is a broad term. There's a lot of good work done under the umbrella of social sciences, however, there is a whole lot of contemptible crap as well.

But isn't that true of every field of study, including what people do under the rubric of "science"? Because an individual scholar or scientist uses poor methodology or poor reasoning, that is no reason to disrespect or condemn their entire field of study. People who use that kind of broad brush are usually just expressing pride of ignorance.

Barbos, I would rank your skills in psychological diagnosis as on a par with your understanding of the social sciences.

So my skills in psychological diagnosis are excellent. I knew that already.

Oh, I wasn't talking about YOU rank those skills.

 

[J842P]

"Social sciences" is a broad term. There's a lot of good work done under the umbrella of social sciences, however, there is a whole lot of contemptible crap as well.

But isn't that true of every field of study, including what people do under the rubric of "science"? Because an individual scholar or scientist uses poor methodology or poor reasoning, that is no reason to disrespect or condemn their entire field of study. People who use that kind of broad brush are usually just expressing pride of ignorance.

No, not quite. I'm dismissing whole fields that will traditionally go under the rubric of "social sciences", such as the current trends in so-called "theory". Basically, the descendants of Foucault.


But most of that is very different than other things that fall under the social science umbrella, like psychology. So different, that it doesn't seem very useful to me that they are categorized together.

 

[bilby]

"Social sciences" is a broad term. There's a lot of good work done under the umbrella of social sciences, however, there is a whole lot of contemptible crap as well.

But isn't that true of every field of study, including what people do under the rubric of "science"? Because an individual scholar or scientist uses poor methodology or poor reasoning, that is no reason to disrespect or condemn their entire field of study. People who use that kind of broad brush are usually just expressing pride of ignorance.

No, not quite. I'm dismissing whole fields that will traditionally go under the rubric of "social sciences", such as the current trends in so-called "theory". Basically, the descendants of Foucault.


But most of that is very different than other things that fall under the social science umbrella, like psychology. So different, that it doesn't seem very useful to me that they are categorized together.

So you are saying that when it comes to the relationship between power and knowledge, we know sweet foucault?

 

[Copernicus]

"Social sciences" is a broad term. There's a lot of good work done under the umbrella of social sciences, however, there is a whole lot of contemptible crap as well.

But isn't that true of every field of study, including what people do under the rubric of "science"? Because an individual scholar or scientist uses poor methodology or poor reasoning, that is no reason to disrespect or condemn their entire field of study. People who use that kind of broad brush are usually just expressing pride of ignorance.

No, not quite. I'm dismissing whole fields that will traditionally go under the rubric of "social sciences", such as the current trends in so-called "theory". Basically, the descendants of Foucault.

I think that you are just proving my point that such broad-brush dismissals are essentially cases of prideful ignorance. The social sciences existed long before Foucault. Since you don't bother to back up your puzzling claim about Foucault, it is hard to imagine what could motivate you to blame him for your attitude.

But most of that is very different than other things that fall under the social science umbrella, like psychology. So different, that it doesn't seem very useful to me that they are categorized together.

It is ironic that academic curriculums usually take psychology to be a "social" science, since it is mostly about studying the behavior of individuals. That includes interpersonal relationships and attitudes that individuals hold (e.g. that "social science" is not a worthy scientific or academic pursuit), but it really belongs to the area that is loosely termed "cognitive sciences" these days. I suppose one could claim that biology should not really be classified as a "science", given how much of it is devoted to nomenclature and taxonomies.

It is also ironic that you would so lightly dismiss those fields of study that you must inevitably turn to for information when you try to back up opinions on political and economic policies. The Dunning-Kruger effect seems to have found fertile ground in social media.

 

[barbos]

So now social "sciences" need defending. I think as long as NFL/NBA exist social "sciences" are safe.

 

[4321lynx]

Just to return to the subject of the OP, on what I believe is the 75th anniversary of the victory in the Battle of Stalingrad.

The greatest achievement of the Soviet Union was the defeat of Nazi Germany. This could not have been achieved without the Russian/Soviet manpower and its kamikaze heroism, and without the Soviet Union's amazing, and for once successful, reorganization of its industry, all of it after the most horrendous losses earlier in the war . Any more than that defeat of Germany could have been achieved without the previous victory in the Battle of Britain in 1940, which bought the (later) Allies time. It could also not have been achieved without the industrial power and the manpower of the USA.

That said, I should state that my views are best expressed by Copernicus' and he does express them in a much more restrained and scholarly way than I would have done, without the expletives and the B, C, and F bombs I would have used when talking about the Russians, the French, the British, the Poles, Ukrainans, Germans, the various Yugoslavs and many, many others. (Even the Americans, for their never-ending naivete).

And barbos has some valid points to make in all this.

 

[BH]

I just finished reading around 100 books on Communist and Soviet History. I must say wheeeeeeeeeewwwwww.

I'll say this. I do not have the time to access all the sources used to write these books, but I will say somebody on one or both sides (pro or con Soviet) has been telling a lot of lies. And I hate to use such a strong word but I think it is apropriate. It will probably be this way until the socialists/communists end up taking over (they are still a viable movement in many nations) or until communism fades from history and is no longer a threat to those with money and power and it wouldn't harm anyone to tell the truth about it because no one would care.

Weirdest thing I read. Stalin was actually a reformer who wanted to expand democracy and the power to the regular people by allowing competitive elections and opening up the Supreme Soviet to politcal parties besides the Communist Party. This included open election of party bosses in the big cities and republican level. It was these people, the bigwig party bosses, fearing losing such elections, who actually committed the great purges after getting permission from the central government claiming traitors were everywhere. Treason was used as a pretext to destory the people they felt would take their jobs from them in these elections. Stalin, Beria, and Molotov, at great risk to themselves actually stopped the purges and saved people when they realized what was actually going on. And the purges of the 30's numbered in the thousands not millions. The people behind the purges Stalin, Molotov, and Beria could not prove actually were part of it lied and said Stalin and Beria (after they had died) were behind it when they weren't. Molotov got kicked out of power partyl out of revenge and hard feeling helping Stalin and Beria.

Next weirdest thing. People after meetings with Stalin were often told "May God go with you" by him wishing them well in their endeavers.

Suprising thing: The Germans took lots of Soviet territory over the first year of World War Two. But they didn't just go in and run over the Soviets like we did with Iraq in our wars with them like I always thought. The German lost *lots* of men the first year of that war and lots of planes and tanks. The Soviet Union was by no means a push over.

Things that made me go "hmmm" was the Soviet living standards and pictures of homes in Soviet times as presented in these books. I know some people who grew up under that system. They claim their apartments were smaller than your typical home here in the US, as are most apartments anyway. But they claimed the poverty was not near as bad as the books saying they were. They were able to furnish their apartments, keep them clean, and were not that different from your typical apartment found over here.

Second, this was not in any of the books I read but I pulled up pictures of abandoned villages and homes around Chernobyl. I wanted to see if I might could deduce what a typical homeor apartment looked like by these abandoned homes the liquidators did not get to. Some of these homes had been visited by photographers and they took pictures of the insides. Many of these homes had not been visited by the "liquidators" or men who would tear up and bury the furniture in the homes because of hte radioactivity. A lot of these homes were just as nice and seemed to have been just as furnshed as any in the US during that time period. Of course these homes had not been maintenanced or cleaned for thirty years but you could still still they were nice before being abanonded. Disclaimer. These pictures are just a sample and also it will be claimed that the people living in the area around Chernobyl had to better because they worked at the nuclear power plant. I have no way of knowing these homes belonged to the plant workers or not. I am sure the apartments in Pryapit were but the homes were from the villages out in the country.

 

[rousseau]

I just finished reading around 100 books on Communist and Soviet History. I must say wheeeeeeeeeewwwwww.

I'll say this. I do not have the time to access all the sources used to write these books, but I will say somebody on one or both sides (pro or con Soviet) has been telling a lot of lies. And I hate to use such a strong word but I think it is apropriate. It will probably be this way until the socialists/communists end up taking over (they are still a viable movement in many nations) or until communism fades from history and is no longer a threat to those with money and power and it wouldn't harm anyone to tell the truth about it because no one would care.

Weirdest thing I read. Stalin was actually a reformer who wanted to expand democracy and the power to the regular people by allowing competitive elections and opening up the Supreme Soviet to politcal parties besides the Communist Party. This included open election of party bosses in the big cities and republican level. It was these people, the bigwig party bosses, fearing losing such elections, who actually committed the great purges after getting permission from the central government claiming traitors were everywhere. Treason was used as a pretext to destory the people they felt would take their jobs from them in these elections. Stalin, Beria, and Molotov, at great risk to themselves actually stopped the purges and saved people when they realized what was actually going on. And the purges of the 30's numbered in the thousands not millions.

Next weirdest thing. People after meetings with Stalin were often told "May God go with you" by him wishing them well in their endeavers.

Suprising thing: The Germans took lots of Soviet territory over the first year of World War Two. But they didn't just go in and run over the Soviets like we did with Iraq in our wars with them like I always thought. The German lost *lots* of men the first year of that war and lots of planes and tanks. The Soviet Union was by no means a push over.

Things that made me go "hmmm" was the Soviet living standards and pictures of homes in Soviet times as presented in these books. I know some people who grew up under that system. They claim their apartments were smaller than your typical home here in the US, as are most apartments anyway. But they claimed the poverty was not near as bad as the books saying they were. They were able to furnish their apartments, keep them clean, and were not that different from your typical apartment found over here.

Second, this was not in any of the books I read but I pulled up pictures of abandoned villages and homes around Chernobyl. I wanted to see if I might could deduce what a typical homeor apartment looked like by these abandoned homes the liquidators did not get to. Some of these homes had been visited by photographers and they took pictures of the insides. Many of these homes had not been visited by the "liquidators" or men who would tear up and bury the furniture in the homes because of hte radioactivity. A lot of these homes were just as nice and seemed to have been just as furnshed as any in the US during that time period. Of course these homes had not been maintenanced or cleaned for thirty years but you could still still they were nice before being abanonded. Disclaimer. These pictures are just a sample and also it will be claimed that the people living in the area around Chernobyl had to better because they worked at the nuclear power plant. I have no way of knowing these homes belonged to the plant workers or not. I am sure the apartments in Pryapit were but the homes were from the villages out in the country.

To me that shouldn't be a huge surprise. I don't think history itself reached anything resembling objectivity until the past 50ish years or so, and even then I usually get the best look at something when the book's been written in the last few decades.

Probably anything that's explicitly pro or anti Soviet can't really be fully trusted, and especially writing coming out of Soviet Russia itself.

 

[BH]

Yeah, I share your opinion too Rousseu. I don't want to come out and say whether it was good or bad, because I simply do not want to argue with people with ideological agendas either way. I can't stand arguing with people who are just arguing for its own sake regardless of what they say is true or not for ideological reasons.

If we lived right after the French Revolution and saw what happened there we probably would fall for the anti-democrat anti-republican arguments. "See, this is what we monarchists said would happen all along". It took France a several attempts to get a permanent democratic and republican type government to finally stick. Even the US did not have as many rghts to voting for the populace until the 1820's for most white men, the 1860's for black men, and then the early 1900's for women. But even though we had to go through hell to finally get democracy and republican government would we ever want to go back to a absolute monarchy despite the drawbacks that come with democracy and republicanism? No, I doubt it. Once the "quirks" were worked out it ended up being pretty good.

Will socialism ever get a second chance and work out its quirks? Who knows.

Another thing to keep it mind is we are dealing with economic systems and some people do better or worse than others under them reflecting how they may feel about such systems. If you have done well in our system you probably are not going to be as well off under socialism or maybe break even as far as direct living standards go. If you are poor under our system you might think it better. Bottom line is the system's efficiancy is going to be judged by how well it benefits you and not another.

 

[LordKiran]

No, not quite. I'm dismissing whole fields that will traditionally go under the rubric of "social sciences", such as the current trends in so-called "theory". Basically, the descendants of Foucault.

I think that you are just proving my point that such broad-brush dismissals are essentially cases of prideful ignorance. The social sciences existed long before Foucault. Since you don't bother to back up your puzzling claim about Foucault, it is hard to imagine what could motivate you to blame him for your attitude.

But most of that is very different than other things that fall under the social science umbrella, like psychology. So different, that it doesn't seem very useful to me that they are categorized together.

It is ironic that academic curriculums usually take psychology to be a "social" science, since it is mostly about studying the behavior of individuals. That includes interpersonal relationships and attitudes that individuals hold (e.g. that "social science" is not a worthy scientific or academic pursuit), but it really belongs to the area that is loosely termed "cognitive sciences" these days. I suppose one could claim that biology should not really be classified as a "science", given how much of it is devoted to nomenclature and taxonomies.

It is also ironic that you would so lightly dismiss those fields of study that you must inevitably turn to for information when you try to back up opinions on political and economic policies. The Dunning-Kruger effect seems to have found fertile ground in social media.

What is society but a collection of individuals? Really the distinction is one of scale. Like comparing atoms to molecules.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that you are just proving my point that such broad-brush dismissals are essentially cases of prideful ignorance. The social sciences existed long before Foucault. Since you don't bother to back up your puzzling claim about Foucault, it is hard to imagine what could motivate you to blame him for your attitude.


It is ironic that academic curriculums usually take psychology to be a "social" science, since it is mostly about studying the behavior of individuals. That includes interpersonal relationships and attitudes that individuals hold (e.g. that "social science" is not a worthy scientific or academic pursuit), but it really belongs to the area that is loosely termed "cognitive sciences" these days. I suppose one could claim that biology should not really be classified as a "science", given how much of it is devoted to nomenclature and taxonomies.

It is also ironic that you would so lightly dismiss those fields of study that you must inevitably turn to for information when you try to back up opinions on political and economic policies. The Dunning-Kruger effect seems to have found fertile ground in social media.

What is society but a collection of individuals? Really the distinction is one of scale. Like comparing atoms to molecules.

What is anything but a collection of its constituents? You can study the properties of an H20 molecule all you want, but it won't really tell you everything that is interesting about the properties of water. Studying the behavior of individual buyers and sellers can tell you a lot about economics, but it would be foolish to base economic policies on just studies of individual behavior. One would need to average behavioral trends over large groups of buyers and sellers. Whether you want to encourage individuals to spend (through inflationary pressure) or save (through deflationary pressure) really depends on group dynamics, not just individual strategies.