You're viewing part of a thread.
I agree that revolutions can always be bloody, but when people say authoritarian, they mean a state where dissent is surpressed by violent means. At least in modern times, most western states (and, in fact, most states) don't suppress discourse as much as the USSR often did.
1/3 [most western states (and, in fact, most states) don't suppress discourse as much as the USSR often did.]
I have to partially disagree. While it is likely true that the USSR was more outward with its suppression methods than most western states today, countries, like America for example, do suppress dissent on a regular scale (Campus protest, George Floyd protest are just two notable examples, but there are plenty of more).
2/3 Also, speaking of America again, one of America's suppression methods is suppression through delusion, tricking people into thinking that they're actually free with constant propaganda in media and schools when the reality is that America is just as much (and maybe even more, since it's hard to compare the exact numbers to the Soviet Union) police presence and civilian surveillance as the Soviet Union did (but probably more surveillance given the advancements..
3/3 ...in technology) and all while having the largest prison population in the entire world, possibly being larger than the amount of prisoners in labor camps under Stalin (again, it's hard to compare since records from that era from the Soviet Union are lacking).
There's currently less than 1.4 million prisoners in the US, while official Soviet records show 0.79 million in executions alone under Stalin. Average that by year, and you still have 0.02 million per year.
According to official Soviet estimates, more than 14 million people passed through the Gulag from 1929 to 1953, which averages to 0.58 million per year.
Edit: That's a little bit more than two times the current US prison influx amount, and I didn't account for per capita-ing (modern US has more population in total than USSR ever did).
actual sources seem to disagree with you
Robertson drew attention to one of the great scandals of American life. "Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today," writes the New Yorker's Adam Gopnik. "Over all, there are now more people under 'correctional supervision' in America--more than 6 million--than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/01/30/the-caging-of-america
I only counted those incarcerated. You're counting community service, probation, parole, etc. And my sources are The Guardian and this academic journal.
That's just splitting hairs, but even going with your numbers, it's clearly comparable to the time of peak incarcerations in USSR. So, if we look at how the systems evolve over time, USSR incarceration rate dropped, while US incarceration rate continues to climb.
USSR having double of course isn’t comparable, and the US prison rate has been going down (well, at least until 2019, after which we got COVID and prison rates saw a gigantic dip that has been climbing bit by bit since, but still lower than 2019).
And no, it’s not just splitting hairs. There’s a difference between being constantly surveiled and watched by the state, temporarily (at least nominally); and getting locked up in a festering environment where they neglect your good feeding and, in the USSR’s case, your well-being and being forced to labor, with a much stronger KGB.
The only way you get double is by massively undercounting the actual rate of incarceration in US.
There’s a difference between being constantly surveiled and watched by the state, temporarily (at least nominally); and getting locked up in a festering environment where they neglect your good feeding and, in the USSR’s case, your well-being and being forced to labor, with a much stronger KGB.
It's amazing how you managed to write this without a hint of irony as if Snowden leaks haven't happened. The level of surveillance that's currently happening in US is far beyond anything KGB could've ever dreamed of.
If you think I'm undercounting, show me a rate of incarceration per the same amount of heads for both the United States and Soviet Union. According to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-009-9430-2, page 465, "At the time of Stalin’s death in 1953, the institutionalized population was over 2.5 million, or 1,558 prisoners per 100,000 population (Table 1). This incarceration rate was ten times that of the United States for the same year." I can email you a PDF of this paper if you want. Even in modern times, the population has been decreasing since 2013 until 2022, and according to Vox, the highest per 100,00 adults never passed 700.
It's "amazing" how all you focus on is the intelligence part while completely ditching the difference between probation and incarceration. Of course there's a difference between being held in a cell and having what's basically a search warrant on you for every step of your life by court order. And on intelligence, even if you completely disregard the judicial vulnerability, the US surveillance agencies still hold far less domestic power than the KGB's domestic cell.
Having poorly made police officers is way worse than have state policies of persecuting ideas and even forms of art. Unlike what would happen in the USSR, Snowden's leaks were not blocked and promoters of the leak weren't hunted down (except for Snowden himself, which would happen in most countries), and you are free to discuss here without being banned.
Oops, yeah, I forgot about that. But you actually see livestreamed debate about whether suppressing these protests was good (oftentimes it's highly criticized), and you don't just get prosecuted if you just express opinions online. Also, the campus protests were suppressed because the owners of the private property being protested on didn't like it. They get substantial funding from the state, but there's still a difference from the state itself doing it. Like socialists and flat-earthers don't get straight-up stamped out by police, whereas Stalin actively prosecuted people who didn't support pseudobiology.
I'm not at all trying to suggest that Stalinist Russia was more free than modern-day America, just that many people think of America as a free country when it's actually closer to Stalinist Russia than they'd care to recognize.
My point is that the United States is indeed much less authoritarian. Saying that there's no such thing as a state that's more authoritarian or less authoritarian is denying reality.
US incarceration rate is higher than what USSR had during Stalin's purges. It's hard to think of a better measure of how authoritarian a state is than the percentage of the population it keeps behind bars.
[Saying that there's no such thing as a state that's more authoritarian or less authoritarian is denying reality.]
To clarify, that's not what I said. I said that there is no such thing as a non-authoritarian state because states are authoritarian by nature, not that there aren't varying degrees of the level of authoritarianism among different states. America is in many ways less authoritarian than the USSR, but it's still authoritarian nonetheless.
Hmm, I understand what you meant to say now. However, by all common discourse and even the term's very original definition, the United States isn't "authoritarian" enough to be considered authoritarian.
most western states (and, in fact, most states) don’t suppress discourse as much as the USSR often did
This is hard to say outright just because of variation between and even within western states (I've seen very petty arrests over discourse in my state), but overall I agree, yes.
I also think it's important to understand why it was the case. Western countries all have a similar media landscape so I propose the propaganda model described in the book Manufacturing Consent applies generally to them. The result of those filters being, the loudest voices are those of state (relevant former-CIA interview!) and commercial interests (in the US, mass media it's almost all subsidiaries of Comcast, TimeWarner, Disney, News Corp, NA and Sony at this point), which may clash, but rarely ever enough to threaten the state or the status quo - the state treats the biggest companies well. Major news broadcasters aren't promoting major change even when they criticize a government or leader, they usually just say 'vote for the other liberal politician!'. The discourse is generally so tame, within the bounds of simple policy and culture changes, rather than threatening the state, so it doesn't really need to be suppressed by the state. But when it does (see Jan 6, or laws about threatening the president at all), we start seeing the limits of where discourse is allowed.
In my understanding, USSR didn't have as much luxury there. The people with the most money, rather than those with the least, have an interest in fighting the state and allowing them to have the freedom to use their money freely to gain power. So discourse which threatens the state will probably be a bit more scary to the leadership. I don't think it's a good thing (for example, it reminds me of news I saw of China's state suppression of Maoist protesters, which comes off to me as fragile and repressive) but I understand why they don't give as much liberty as the well-established propaganda model of the USA.
There's also something to be said about the suppression of discourse that our economic system implies, rather than the state suppressing it. See this clip of filmmaker George Lucas talking about freedoms in film art wrt USSR and USA. Obviously I'm not suggesting the inability to publish art is the same as being arrested by a state, obviously not! Rather, I want to highlight that one can't just point to state policy to compare the freedom of discourse.___
Peoples are lying, not history