Growing similarities between the USSR and USA (As told to me by 2 former Soviets)

[Halicia]

Right now, it would not be the worst thing to have a counter power that keeps the USA's foreign actions in check.

the problem though, as illustrated in 1984, is that even if there is a 'counter power', superpowers have a vested interest in keeping their populace enslaved, even if the countries oppose each other.

The US has shown a very aggressive diplomatic stance in recent years towards foreign nationals who 'betray' the US, and by and large foreign countries meekly submit and turn these people over, because whats the alternative ? (and no, I'm not referring to terrorists, I mean more like copyright infringement, publishing leaks that embarrass US diplomats, reveal that members of the military are guilty of war crimes, or run gambling sites that cut into american profits).

[Laize]

My folks are birthers, because Russian television in US regurgitates right wing extremists. My dad complains about Obama being socialist, while complaining his social security check is too small. That should highlight the problem...

That doesn't answer my question at all. My question is fact-finding in nature and facts such as "Did the Soviet constitution guarantee warrants which were only furnished as a formality" will be true (or false) regardless of political leaning.

You don't see the difference? USSR never had to say that they were investigating anyone. Such things as NDAA, would never happen in USSR, because there was no point. Like I pointed out already, the west did not know about a major famine for over 40 years. The fact that you can respond to me and complain about NDAA, should highlight the difference. There is open debate that happens in public. The next elections will have someone run who will claim to change it, with neither Rand or Ron Paul being shot. You can than vote for these people, without having to be fearful of going to jail.

Edit: My parents blame Clinton for me moving out 15 years ago...

The NSA doesn't have to notify they're investigating anyone either... or did you miss the whole "sneak and peek" thing?

At no point have I suggested that all of our rights are forfeit. I haven't even hinted that freedom of speech is gone. My entire point is that the 4th and 6th Amendments are, in fact, being ignored. This fact means the rest of our rights exist entirely at the government's discretion.

Yes, there are always instances in which certain rights are restricted or waived. For example, while in hot pursuit or hearing someone yelling for help, an officer does not require a warrant to enter a private residence. During a trial, however, these events and the circumstances surrounding them must be put through a test to determine if exigent circumstances were present. The current regime places no such burden on federal agencies. And the federal government is, rather than suspending habeas corpus through law, suspending it through the determination that anyone they choose to detain is "an enemy combatant" and placing them in Guantanamo pending trial by military tribunal (Which do not have habeas corpus guaranteed by the 6th amendment). That they have not done so yet is immaterial to the reality that it is a factual possibility.

And I'm unconcerned with your parents' and grandparents' political leanings. I'm concerned with the facts.

[Deleted]

Certainly, at some point, there will be a revolution in the U.S. and in the country I live in as well (Denmark), if we are not dead beforehand - otherwise it would be a pretty terrible misery for the remaining populations. The force is not yet anywhere near powerful enough and the transition not ripe enough - those things are probably prevalent though in the "Arabic spring" events we have seen and the changes of government and pivot of ruling had has happened there.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Copyright Infringement really is getting stupid.

[Endus]

Question. How am I (or any of us) supposed to question the veracity of 1970s soviet politics when none of us even knew the name of the country we were in back then?

Because you're able to learn, and read. The entire field of "history" relies on looking back at an era we are no longer part of, using multiple sources to distinguish and negate bias inherent to each, to come to a better understanding of the flow of events.

A single first-person source is by no means proof of anything.

I don't take these guys as authorities on the political sciences that governed the US and USSR nor do I necessarily think their political opinions are more valid because they're older (especially given the elder's vitriolic hatred of Muslims, especially Chechnyans). When two unrelated people from the same defunct nation both independently corroborate the others' statements outlining similarities between Soviet and American authoritarianism, I tend to listen, however.

Well, that's not a reasonable stance to take. Particularly when even a cursory glance at the realities inherent to both Soviet-era USSR politics and modern American politics would show you that they are not in any appreciable way similar.

And when further research (like reading the actual Soviet Constitution Stalin drafted) bears out that they had the same rights we have, and their government trounced those rights just like ours is, I happen to think its a VERY fair comparison.

You haven't shown a single case where American rights have been trounced in any way like those of Soviets were. Not even a little. The political systems are completely different, the style and purpose of policing are entirely different, the economies are entirely different, and so on.

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 05:49 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Laize;21152299]

The NSA doesn't have to notify they're investigating anyone either... or did you miss the whole "sneak and peek" thing?

This is ludicrous.

Police are never under any obligation to tell a suspect they're being investigated. They are, in fact, allowed to deliberately lie and say that they are not, when they in fact are. This isn't new; it has never been required of police in the USA, or most other nations.

They don't have to inform you with a regular search warrant, either; police are free to wait until you leave, and then search your place. They have always been able to do this. They'd just be required to knock-and-announce, meaning a neighbor might overheard and pass the information along. Sneak-and-peek warrants give police no new privileges. They're just a minor variation on regular search warrants. They require the same justifications as any other warrant would.

[Dillon]

I'm saying that this larger problem, is what creates the distortion in which people can believe in something as ludicrous to me as, US turning into USSR. I think we have come to a sort of agreement. I like common ground.

Well I don't in particular agree with the notion that the US is becoming rather like the former Soviet Republic, but I do see where the idea and sentiment comes from and I can't wholly disagree. I prefer government to, generally, fuck off in a ditch somewhere where it can't bother anyone, but in contrast I like the idea of public healthcare because you can't be free if you're dead and being alive and healthy is actually something everyone benefits from.

These things culminate into me being in a near constant state of disgust when any politician flaps their gaping maw to spew the vile pageantry they insist is legitimate. In the end, anyone who truly values personal liberty is on some level my ally and those who despise establishment politics I could call friend.

[Laize]

Because you're able to learn, and read. The entire field of "history" relies on looking back at an era we are no longer part of, using multiple sources to distinguish and negate bias inherent to each, to come to a better understanding of the flow of events.

A single first-person source is by no means proof of anything.



Well, that's not a reasonable stance to take. Particularly when even a cursory glance at the realities inherent to both Soviet-era USSR politics and modern American politics would show you that they are not in any appreciable way similar.

You haven't shown a single case where American rights have been trounced in any way like those of Soviets were. Not even a little. The political systems are completely different, the style and purpose of policing are entirely different, the economies are entirely different, and so on.

I've said numerous times that no one has used these governmental powers to oppress anyone yet. The entire point is they can use these powers for such. I'm not sure why you seem to think we shouldn't be concerned about this just because it hasn't outright happened in this country yet. You seem to be suggesting we ought to wait for oppression to begin before we consider fighting it.

Police are never under any obligation to tell a suspect they're being investigated. They are, in fact, allowed to deliberately lie and say that they are not, when they in fact are. This isn't new; it has never been required of police in the USA, or most other nations.

They don't have to inform you with a regular search warrant, either; police are free to wait until you leave, and then search your place. They have always been able to do this. They'd just be required to knock-and-announce, meaning a neighbor might overheard and pass the information along. Sneak-and-peek warrants give police no new privileges. They're just a minor variation on regular search warrants. They require the same justifications as any other warrant would.

You mean except for the fact that Sneak and Peek warrants were:

A) Intended for use in terrorism (A purpose for which fewer than 1% of S&P warrants have been issued)

B) Intended to be used for the purpose of obtaining grounds to get a standard Search Warrant

C) Implemented with complete disregard for the purposes of a traditional search warrant (Such as outlining the exact area to be searched and what they were searching for, the address to be searched and other pertinent, highly specific information). S&P warrants are vague and used to obtain otherwise unobtainable information to get a standard warrant. You have no idea which places they're searching, whether they stuck to those areas and you don't know what they're searching for.

[Wiyld]

He used to be German,

How does one cease being an ethnicity?

[holyforce]

If I were suggesting that we're heading toward gulags and soup lines you might have a point. But MY point is that our Constitution is increasingly becoming a show piece. Executive orders to help with spurious and vague wars on "terror" which subvert a great many rights are perfect analogues of what the Soviets did. There is no slippery slope that, for example, "gun control leads to other losses of rights". Our rights are, in fact, already subject to executive discretion.

I'm simply pointing out where we already are. There is no small, minor step on the path to forfeiture of rights. They're already subject to discretion.

And in response to your logical fallacy I give you the continuum fallacy. Your seeming belief that between freedom and despotism there exist no middle groundor transitory states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

How are they rights if they're subject to discretion? In my mind correct me if I'm wrong here, a right is something that cannot be taken away, altered or lost. You are born having them, you die having them. If they're subject to discretion, we never had rights to begin with imho.

[Kasierith]

How are they rights if they're subject to discretion? In my mind correct me if I'm wrong here, a right is something that cannot be taken away, altered or lost. You are born having them, you die having them. If they're subject to discretion, we never had rights to begin with imho.

Because there is a difference between natural rights and legal rights.

[Endus]

I've said numerous times that no one has used these governmental powers to oppress anyone yet. The entire point is they can use these powers for such.

So?

I can use a shotgun to mow down a bunch of preschoolers, but that's not a reason to freak out about shotguns.
I can use a car to see how many bicyclists I can kill on my way to work, but that's not a reason to freak out about cars.
I can use a military to commit genocide on my enemies, but that doesn't mean there's a reason to freak out about the existence of military forces.

How things are used is all that matters. If these laws aren't being abused, there is no problem. You're just shouting that the sky is falling.

Worse than that; Chicken Little at least got hit on the head. You're freaking out because something might hit you on the head, ergo the sky is falling.

I'm not sure why you seem to think we shouldn't be concerned about this just because it hasn't outright happened in this country yet. You seem to be suggesting we ought to wait for oppression to begin before we consider fighting it.

Yes. I am saying that you shouldn't be worried about something which isn't happening, for which there is no suggestion that it will happen, and against which there are outstanding laws preventing it from happening.

I'm not concerned about the US invading Canada, either, and there at least we know it's something the US government did actually do, once.

You mean except for the fact that Sneak and Peek warrants were:

A) Intended for use in terrorism (A purpose for which fewer than 1% of S&P warrants have been issued)

B) Intended to be used for the purpose of obtaining grounds to get a standard Search Warrant

C) Implemented with complete disregard for the purposes of a traditional search warrant (Such as outlining the exact area to be searched and what they were searching for, the address to be searched and other pertinent, highly specific information). S&P warrants are vague and used to obtain otherwise unobtainable information to get a standard warrant. You have no idea which places they're searching, whether they stuck to those areas and you don't know what they're searching for.

A> isn't true. They're intended to let police investigate and search a location without warning the suspect that they are doing so. There's no suggestion that you've linked that they're supposed to be for terrorism suspects only. You're just making that up. They were introduced in the Patriot Act (section 213), but that doesn't mean they were intended solely for use against terrorism suspects.

B> Isn't true, either. Not even remotely. You need the same justifications for a covert entry warrant as you do for any other warrant. If you can get a sneak-and-peek, you could have gotten a regular warrant. There's nothing about the section of the Patriot Act that changes this; again, you have simply failed to provide any justification for this whatsoever.

C> Is ALSO not true. They DO outline exactly what is to be searched. They don't define what objects are to be seized, like a regular warrant, but ONLY because they aren't used to seize anything; if you take something, that lets the suspect know they were breached.

It really makes me wonder if you've even read the relevant legislation, or if you're relying on biased sources like Infowars or the like, which have no compunctions about outright lying to push an agenda.

Covert warrants are under the same requirements for justification as any other warrant. They are used to gather information without informing the suspect they are under investigation, and are ONLY issues if that is a relevant concern. Seriously, read the relevant laws.

[Elegiac]

Well this comparison isn't specious at all....-sarcasm-

Seriously. The US' problem is that privatization is viewed as the panacea for everything, and corporate interests dominate the state.

[Laize]

Well this comparison isn't specious at all....-sarcasm-

Seriously. The US' problem is that privatization is viewed as the panacea for everything, and corporate interests dominate the state.

Well aren't you late to the party and not on topic at all.

[Rukentuts]

Well aren't you late to the party and not on topic at all.

Actually it is, since communism is state ownership / control. Privatization is the opposite of that. It's one of the many reasons why comparing the late USSR and the USA aren't applicable.

[Kasierith]

Well aren't you late to the party and not on topic at all.

Really? I don't how you can attempt to draw a comparison between two countries without being bothered by that horrible inconsistency that is knowing next to nothing about the countries you are comparing.

[Mormolyce]

Well, without the will of the people to resist tyranny there's no piece of paper on earth that can prevent it. Not even foolscap. The difference between the USA and the USSR is culture and political climate, that's the real reason Americans had and have more liberty and their country is not a police state. Of course, sometimes disturbing inroads are made when the people are scared.

Okay I admit it, I just like saying the word "foolscap".

[Sunseeker]

the problem though, as illustrated in 1984, is that even if there is a 'counter power', superpowers have a vested interest in keeping their populace enslaved, even if the countries oppose each other.

Keep in mind, "1984" had a one-world order. The various segments of it simply pretended they were at war with the others. There was literally no opposition at all.

[Elegiac]

Keep in mind, "1984" had a one-world order. The various segments of it simply pretended they were at war with the others. There was literally no opposition at all.

:P To be more correct, there are three possibilities.

1) It was a one-world order with the pretense of war in order to consume resources and maintain the status quo indefinitely.
2) It was as described, a tripolar system with states that had very little difference in ideology or goals.
3) It was actually a small, isolated part of the world similar to a more extreme version of North Korea.

[Adam Jensen]

:P To be more correct, there are three possibilities.

1) It was a one-world order with the pretense of war in order to consume resources and maintain the status quo indefinitely.
2) It was as described, a tripolar system with states that had very little difference in ideology or goals.
3) It was actually a small, isolated part of the world similar to a more extreme version of North Korea.

I think that's part of the brilliance of the book, is that there are so many possibilities to what the truth actually is. O'Brien was right, the truth was whatever the government needed it to be.

[Elegiac]

I think that's part of the brilliance of the book, is that there are so many possibilities to what the truth actually is. O'Brien was right, the truth was whatever the government needed it to be.

Nineteen Eighty-Four remains one of my top ten favourite books of all time for this reason.

If you read into it, Orwell's insight about self-perpetuating tyranny applies to the Catholic Church as an institution as well.