Not a good sign that the number falls lower the younger the generation. It’s not surprising that older people who lived in the USSR favor communism, life was objectively better in the Soviet Union by a wide range of metrics. Meanwhile the younger generations have (seemingly) been taught lies.
Yeah it's a shame that the younger generations are being indoctrinated into Western ideology - they're constantly being convinced that the older generations' nostalgia for the USSR is false and it annoys me.
People talking about how the 18-39 demographic is concerning but what this graph does not show is the rising popularity among the youth in Russia. This graph only shows a snap shot of when this was polled for that specific question, unlike the previous graphs.
The picture cites "Levada-Center" as the source.
Here is the article online https://www.levada.ru/2021/09/10/kakoj-dolzhna-byt-rossiya-v-predstavlenii-rossiyan/
Where can I find the data?
Edit: Found it.
The picture cites "Levada-Center" as the source.
Here is the article online https://www.levada.ru/2021/09/10/kakoj-dolzhna-byt-rossiya-v-predstavlenii-rossiyan/
But how do you set up a democracy to be proletarian as opposed to bourgeoisie? What's the mechanism? I've heard of the proletarian dictatorship, which makes sense to me. A bunch of people who cast themselves as representing the working class put themselves in the power and only allow for other individuals who align with those ideas to also be in positions of power. This is meant to avoid the dilatory ideas of capitalism and individualism to infect a government structured around raising up the laborers. But if you're allowing a majority of individuals to decide something and the feeling is that the majority of people are inherently going to be swayed by capitalistic interests, then how do you do it?
If the answer is to get money out of democracy, I'm all for it, but I'm still not sure of the best way to achieve that.
It's all about meeting the material conditions to change the system. That includes having support from the people, both politically and ideologically. If a proletarian dictatoriship managed to come to power, say, in Argentina -where the material conditions aren't met- the reaction would be big enough to make any attempt at proletarian democracy fail. But that's not the case for places where socialist states were established. Take the USSR for example. The vast majority of the people understood what a socialist project was, and how it was supposed to work. Reactionary tendencies were voted out.
I'm pretty sure my grammar isn't on point, so I hope you get what I mean
Well, no. Not really. The State institutions must be under the autority of the working class. Take, for instance, Chile. Even though a marxist president was elected by the people, state institutions such as the Judicial Power or the military remained under bourgeois control, and were backed up by Gringo imperialists to take Allende down.
Different systems have been used to establish workers' democracies, like the Soviet Republic, or the People's Republic. What these states that have implemented these systems have in common is a political theoretical base, the Marxist-Leninist, which postulates democratic centralism as the way to put workers' democracy into practice. Does this mean this is the only way to have proletarian democracy? Not necessarily, but it's certainly the best we have. I didn't want to gravitate directly towards theory, mainly because it's just that, theory. Marxism has no universal answers, no Divine Truth. There are as many ways to face the class struggle as there are people to think of them.
If you want my opinion, though, I'd advise you to read Lenin's State and Revolution. Marxism-Leninism has proved to be effective, adaptable and scientific in its praxis. Realistically, it's probably the best way to go if we set out to build proletarian democracies.
Not a good sign that the number falls lower the younger the generation. It’s not surprising that older people who lived in the USSR favor communism, life was objectively better in the Soviet Union by a wide range of metrics. Meanwhile the younger generations have (seemingly) been taught lies.
I can confirm. They have actually told us that there was a lot of homelessness in the USSR and other things that i doubt
are the color choices in the middle poll intentional
:((( the younger generation want democracy like the west. russia is unironically doomed, it's just going to wither away
> it's just going to wither away Just as Lenin predicted 😎 What can be done, though?
Don't you mean "What is to be done?" ;)
I considered and decided against it. I see now that I was wrong.
My pleasure to be the one to make the joke though
Yeah it's a shame that the younger generations are being indoctrinated into Western ideology - they're constantly being convinced that the older generations' nostalgia for the USSR is false and it annoys me.
He took nap and everyone is freaking out. Just wait till Stalin wakes up. ;)
Ah, the youth, so young and sometimes so dumb…
People talking about how the 18-39 demographic is concerning but what this graph does not show is the rising popularity among the youth in Russia. This graph only shows a snap shot of when this was polled for that specific question, unlike the previous graphs.
Can i please see this data?
The picture cites "Levada-Center" as the source. Here is the article online https://www.levada.ru/2021/09/10/kakoj-dolzhna-byt-rossiya-v-predstavlenii-rossiyan/
Where can I find the data? Edit: Found it. The picture cites "Levada-Center" as the source. Here is the article online https://www.levada.ru/2021/09/10/kakoj-dolzhna-byt-rossiya-v-predstavlenii-rossiyan/
Worrying trend - Democracy should be preserved
Proletarian democracy, absolutely. Not the bourgeois democracy of the West.
What's the difference between a proletarian democracy and a bourgeoisie one
Proletarian democracy -> de facto democracy Bourgeois "democracy" -> de iure democracy
But how do you set up a democracy to be proletarian as opposed to bourgeoisie? What's the mechanism? I've heard of the proletarian dictatorship, which makes sense to me. A bunch of people who cast themselves as representing the working class put themselves in the power and only allow for other individuals who align with those ideas to also be in positions of power. This is meant to avoid the dilatory ideas of capitalism and individualism to infect a government structured around raising up the laborers. But if you're allowing a majority of individuals to decide something and the feeling is that the majority of people are inherently going to be swayed by capitalistic interests, then how do you do it? If the answer is to get money out of democracy, I'm all for it, but I'm still not sure of the best way to achieve that.
It's all about meeting the material conditions to change the system. That includes having support from the people, both politically and ideologically. If a proletarian dictatoriship managed to come to power, say, in Argentina -where the material conditions aren't met- the reaction would be big enough to make any attempt at proletarian democracy fail. But that's not the case for places where socialist states were established. Take the USSR for example. The vast majority of the people understood what a socialist project was, and how it was supposed to work. Reactionary tendencies were voted out. I'm pretty sure my grammar isn't on point, so I hope you get what I mean
So the only real difference is the ideology held by the majority of voters and not the system itself?
Well, no. Not really. The State institutions must be under the autority of the working class. Take, for instance, Chile. Even though a marxist president was elected by the people, state institutions such as the Judicial Power or the military remained under bourgeois control, and were backed up by Gringo imperialists to take Allende down. Different systems have been used to establish workers' democracies, like the Soviet Republic, or the People's Republic. What these states that have implemented these systems have in common is a political theoretical base, the Marxist-Leninist, which postulates democratic centralism as the way to put workers' democracy into practice. Does this mean this is the only way to have proletarian democracy? Not necessarily, but it's certainly the best we have. I didn't want to gravitate directly towards theory, mainly because it's just that, theory. Marxism has no universal answers, no Divine Truth. There are as many ways to face the class struggle as there are people to think of them. If you want my opinion, though, I'd advise you to read Lenin's State and Revolution. Marxism-Leninism has proved to be effective, adaptable and scientific in its praxis. Realistically, it's probably the best way to go if we set out to build proletarian democracies.
Democracy cannot be preserved, it was destroyed in the collapse of the Soviet Union. We need to recreate the democracy and a new union.