Thread: Western Propaganda aka клюква lol

Canadian Bacon (1995)

The Grand duke

Приключения молодого немецкого пилота на восточном фронте, которому довелось повоевать с теми самыми Ночными Ведьмами.





Ахтунг, по ссылке лейтенантские сиськи!
ru_klukva_ru: The Grand duke

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

They're both grammatical, but the emphases are different. "Universal values" implies (to me) that everyone everywhere accepts these values; "universally valuable" implies (to me) that the values have some inherent positive worth, and that everyone everywhere OUGHT to accept them. In other words, North Korean ideology does not accept private property as something good, but the libertarian assumption is that the North Koreans would be vastly better off if their society DID recognize private-property rights, at least to some degree.

That's a fair point. But (except among radical libertarians), saying that private-property rights ought to be regulated and restricted to some degree by the government is different from claiming that private-property as a concept has no inherent positive value for human well-being. (The radicals claim that restricting private-property rights to ANY degree is tantamount to denying them -- thus the cliche "Taxation is theft".) On the other hand, it's a general assumption of libertarians (not just the radicals) that such rights as freedom of religion, speech, and the press can all be logically derived from and protected by an underlying respect for private property.

Look, the majority of people in the West (I do not know how in the US, but certainly in the western Europe) DO NOT have private property in the same meaning as it was understood in the USSR. What they have is what the USSR would call "personal property". The majority of the people are employed in any country, not the business owners, and as such they have no private property. That means that only a minority of population in any country enjoys the private property rights, even in the west.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Look, the majority of people in the West (I do not know how in the US, but certainly in the western Europe) DO NOT have private property in the same meaning as it was understood in the USSR. What they have is what the USSR would call "personal property". The majority of the people are employed in any country, not the business owners, and as such they have no private property. That means that only a minority of population in any country enjoys the private property rights, even in the west.

I think a good example of a private property a typical westerner might think of is a real estate. Who was an owner of the real estate in the USSR? Say, what options would a typical young Soviet family have in that regard?

... DO NOT have private property in the same meaning as it was understood in the USSR. What they have is what the USSR would call "personal property". ...

This kind of meaning survives in the west in the term 'propertied class'. Not just any property.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think a good example of a private property a typical westerner might think of is a real estate. Who was an owner of the real estate in the USSR? Say, what options would a typical young Soviet family have in that regard?

They could

- rent a flat from the state in a multi-storey building (this right could not be revoked by the state and the payment was virtually non-existent, the right would be inherited by those who live in the flat)
- have a private house (officially, "personal" because there was no private property, only "personal property", but for you it's the same as "private"). The house would be inherited by the relatives even if they do not live there.
- being a member of a house-building cooperative (condominium?) with a share, corresponding to a flat in a multi-storey building (with the right to sell the share, that is the flat). Upon leaving the cooperative the share would be paid in money. The share would be inherited by the relatives and the cooperative members would vote if to accept a new member. If refused the share would be paid in money.
- have a country estate "dacha" in addition to their urban flat. The dacha was private while the area at which it was built usually was state property (the state gave it into indeterminate-term usage). Although if one did not build a dacha in the given place in time, the place could be taken by the state. Dacha had no street address so one only could have dacha in addition to their main residence.

That said, one could not have a flat in a multi-storey city building in private while could easily buy a separate house in a town or a village or a flat in a 2-4 flat small houses (where available). One also could buy a share in a cooperative with the right to use a flat in a multi-storey house built by that cooperative.

One COULD NOT

- buy an office
- buy a shop
- buy a plant
- buy an oil refinery
- buy a newspaper (although it was probably possible to institute a non-commercial society over certain interest such as homebrew or radio-constructing and issue papers or bulletins from the name of the society).

Originally Posted by BappaBa

The Grand duke
Приключения молодого немецкого пилота на восточном фронте, которому довелось повоевать с теми самыми Ночными Ведьмами.

И где здесь клюква? Картинки качественные. Только название колхоза на фюзеляже какое-странное.

Originally Posted by Anixx

И где здесь клюква? Картинки качественные. Только название колхоза на фюзеляже какое-странное.

Не дочитал с помощью какого оружия она хотела окончить войну к Рождеству?

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Не дочитал с помощью какого оружия она хотела окончить войну к Рождеству?

Клубнику вижу, клюкву не вижу. Комиксы классные.

Кстати, рисовали не американцы, что и очевидно.

Originally Posted by Anixx

They could

- rent a flat from the state in a multi-storey building (this right could not be revoked by the state and the payment was virtually non-existent, the right would be inherited by those who live in the flat)
- have a private house (officially, "personal" because there was no private property, only "personal property", but for you it's the same as "private"). The house would be inherited by the relatives even if they do not live there.
- being a member of a house-building cooperative (condominium?) with a share, corresponding to a flat in a multi-storey building (with the right to sell the share, that is the flat). Upon leaving the cooperative the share would be paid in money. The share would be inherited by the relatives and the cooperative members would vote if to accept a new member. If refused the share would be paid in money.
- have a country estate "dacha" in addition to their urban flat. The dacha was private while the area at which it was built usually was state property (the state gave it into indeterminate-term usage). Although if one did not build a dacha in the given place in time, the place could be taken by the state. Dacha had no street address so one only could have dacha in addition to their main residence.

That said, one could not have a flat in a multi-storey city building in private while could easily buy a separate house in a town or a village or a flat in a 2-4 flat small houses (where available). One also could buy a share in a cooperative with the right to use a flat in a multi-storey house built by that cooperative.

One COULD NOT

- buy an office
- buy a shop
- buy a plant
- buy an oil refinery
- buy a newspaper (although it was probably possible to institute a non-commercial society over certain interest such as homebrew or radio-constructing and issue papers or bulletins from the name of the society).

One could not do probably the most important thing that applies to real estate anytime anywhere - one could not buy a piece of land so that it would be their property (personal, private, call it whatever). That is, there was no such thing as private ownership of land, all the land belonged to the state, and there was no law that could protect you if they decided to "get a piece of their land back" (the one your house was built on)

Originally Posted by Eric C.

One could not do probably the most important thing that applies to real estate anytime anywhere - one could not buy a piece of land so that it would be their property (personal, private, call it whatever).

I do not think the majority of people in Western Europe are landowners. Possibly in the US many people have houses with small piece of land attached to it, but not large land masses.

That is, there was no such thing as private ownership of land, all the land belonged to the state, and there was no law that could protect you if they decided to "get a piece of their land back" (the one your house was built on)

You are wrong. A private owner can take your land at will but the state could not. There WERE laws about it. The land only could be taken if you did not use the land and had not built anything on it for a number of years. Or if the land is necessary for say, federal road or pipeline, but in that case you would be given compensation like in any country. The land was given for free and for indefinite term. Nobody could take it without compensation if you had a private house built on it.

Anyway I think the "land question" is quite irrelevant in an urbanized society where the landowners are only a tiny percent.

Originally Posted by Anixx

They could

- rent a flat from the state in a multi-storey building (this right could not be revoked by the state and the payment was virtually non-existent, the right would be inherited by those who live in the flat)
- being a member of a house-building cooperative (condominium?) with a share, corresponding to a flat in a multi-storey building (with the right to sell the share, that is the flat).

Alright. So, since we're talking about the urbanized society, let's stick with those two options, shall we?

So, the first option meant a young family would have to wait in line in the first come - first served basis and agree to whatever option (location-wise) was available. That could take a very significant time. So, where the young family ought to live for the time being?

The second option meant a young family would have to have a significant amount of money to enter the building cooperative. For example, by the mid 80's, the cost of a small cooperative apartment in Moscow was a couple of thousands rubles. How that money could be earned in the state where an average family monthly income was about 200 - 300 rubles was a mystery. There was another special mystery for a young family who managed to gather that amount with the help of all their relatives and ought to wait for 10 years or more for their cooperative apartment to be built. And where they were supposed to live for the time being?

That does not necessarily to say those options did not exist, but just to correct an assumption those options were in any way better than the options a typical young western family would experience. Were they any worse - that's a topic for another discussion.

However, I agree with you that the notion of the private property and protecting it is only practically applicable to a non-personal belonging. The private property would either be the means of production (aka private entrepreneurship) or an investment (aka speculation). And the protection of private property means that people have some kind of assurance from the state: I'm starting a business and I'm paying the state the "protection money" so that the state would maintain itself (aka buy itself some nice buildings and yachts) and protect my business from the gangs and the vandals. In the situation where everything belongs to the state, the protection of private property does not make much sense.

The only real difference for the working class was the principle of "confiscation" which was in the very core of the Soviet Law system.

Say, you're a tenant in a state-owned apartment. If you disobey the state (aka break the law), that apartment would be taken from you by the state (aka the confiscation of the belongings). And that also applies to the other belongings you mentioned: a private country-home, a cooperative apartment, a car, etc. (By the way, that was a primary reason why some of the law-breakers had a habit to register their belongings on their wife's name so as not to loose everything once they come back from the jail.) But, the society which protects private property has a different law - you would be obliged to liquidate your private property only to compensate another party for the amount decided by the court and the rest of the value of the property is yours. In the Soviet Law system there was an entity named "the people" and the law-breakers had to compensate "the people" i.e. the state. And it some cases it was very difficult to estimate the damage. For example, if you secretly made private business producing something (e.g. the food) and selling it privately beyond the norms allowed by the state, you made the proprietary damage to "the people" since the "extra food" that you produced belongs to "the people" and you stole that from "the people" and it's very difficult to estimate the price. Hence, the confiscation of everything (with the subsequent imprisonment).

For example, by the mid 80's, the cost of a small cooperative apartment in Moscow was a couple of thousands rubles. How that money could be earned in the state where an average family monthly income was about 200 - 300 rubles was a mystery.

Do you want to say that the price of realty in large cities in other countries is smaller? I heard stories about people repaying their realty credits for 20 and 30 years.

If you disobey the state (aka break the law), that apartment would be taken from you by the state (aka the confiscation of the belongings).

Confiscation was only possible as a penal measure for crimes against property such as theft, robbery, fraud, extortion etc.

you would be obliged to liquidate your private property only to compensate another party for the amount decided by the court and the rest of the value of the property is yours

In the United States one can easily get life sentence for crimes against property. Confiscation is evidently more humane.

And it some cases it was very difficult to estimate the damage.

Indeed. That's why the state made it impossible to become rich through taking others' property. In today's Russia one can steal billions, hide them, get imprisoned for some 5-6 years and then continue a billionaire's lifestyle.

For example, if you secretly made private business producing something (e.g. the food) and selling it privately beyond the norms allowed by the state, you made the proprietary damage to "the people" since the "extra food" that you produced belongs to "the people" and you stole that from "the people" and it's very difficult to estimate the price. Hence, the confiscation of everything (with the subsequent imprisonment).

In any western state if you secretly make business and do not pay taxes or, say, produce counterfeit goods, you will be imprisoned as well.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Do you want to say that the price of realty in large cities in other countries is smaller? I heard stories about people repaying their realty credits for 20 and 30 years.

The only difference is that the young families actually LIVE IN THE APARTMENTS for those 20-30 years, and the cooperative apartments took 10 or more years TO BUILD after the money was paid.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Confiscation was only possible as a penal measure for crimes against property such as theft, robbery, fraud, extortion etc.

I think I gave a good example - a person who produced more goods than the norm allows and sold it privately. That was penalized by the confiscation. For example: the peasants were supposed to work in the public fields using the means of production (the machinery, the seeds, etc.) provided by the collective household using the directions provided by the collective household. At the same time, those peasants were able to maintain the tiny pieces of land in their private use - they could use private means of cultivating the land and use the crop produced by that land to feed themselves and to sell the extra on the market. If they were found of cultivating more than the norm - they were penalized by confiscation.

Originally Posted by Anixx

In the United States one can easily get life sentence for crimes against property.

Would you be able to cite a precedence? Maybe I misunderstood what you said.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Indeed. That's why the state made it impossible to become rich through taking others' property.

Well, that's not entirely true. The nomenclature had it all by confiscating property from other people.

Originally Posted by Anixx

In today's Russia one can steal billions, hide them, get imprisoned for some 5-6 years and then continue a billionaire's lifestyle.

That's very sad. Like I said, if the personal belongings had been registered under the name of the thief's relative, they weren't confiscated as well by the Soviet State leading to the similar situation on the smaller scale.

Originally Posted by Anixx

In any western state if you secretly make business and do not pay taxes or, say, produce counterfeit goods, you will be imprisoned as well.

I think that addresses a different concern. The Soviet Laws prohibited even the small enterprises. Had any of the enterprises been legally allowed, some of them would pay taxes and some of them would evade it.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think I gave a good example - a person who produced more goods than the norm allows and sold it privately.

From the material of the employer? Which article of the penal code do you mean?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That was penalized by the confiscation.

Only the court decided whether to apply confiscation in each case. Confiscation was not mandatory and was applied only to grave and exceptionally grave crimes. Commiting a venal crime was not an automatic reason for confiscation. Confisctaion could be not only of the whole property but also of 1/2, 1/3 or any other part of the property of the offender.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

For example: the peasants were supposed to work in the public fields using the means of production (the machinery, the seeds, etc.) provided by the collective household using the directions provided by the collective household. At the same time, those peasants were able to maintain the tiny pieces of land in their private use - they could use private means of cultivating the land and use the crop produced by that land to feed themselves and to sell the extra on the market. If they were found of cultivating more than the norm - they were penalized by confiscation.

Confiscation of the excess or of the whole property? This is bullshit. Producing something in excess of a norm is not a crime against property like theft. It could not be qualified as a grave crime unless the volume of the damage was enormous. Do you have any reference to such a case? What year it was, what was the volume of damage and what part of property was confiscated?

I also did not find any reference about that such norm that limited production ever existed.

Well, that's not entirely true. The nomenclature had it all by confiscating property from other people.

Any confiscated property went to the state, not to nomenclature. In the USSR even among nomenclature were no rich people even comparable to today's medium-successful businessman.

That's very sad. Like I said, if the personal belongings had been registered under the name of the thief's relative, they weren't confiscated as well by the Soviet State leading to the similar situation on the smaller scale.

Possibly, and what? This just means the investigation did not succeed to trace where the property gone.

I think that addresses a different concern. The Soviet Laws prohibited even the small enterprises. Had any of the enterprises been legally allowed, some of them would pay taxes and some of them would evade it.

Soviet laws were favorable to enterprises where all the participants worked themselves and collectively owned the means of production. Such enterprises were never prohibited.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Клубнику вижу, клюкву не вижу.

Даже бутылку водки у русского (читай злобного/тупого) полковника не заметил? Отступления Красной армии в 1943г не увидел? Да у меня водка в самоваре закипела от такой наглости! lol

Originally Posted by Anixx

Комиксы классные.

Каждому свое, одному нравится арбуз, другому - свиной хрящик. (с)

Originally Posted by Anixx

Кстати, рисовали не американцы, что и очевидно.

Кто-то писал что-либо об американцах?

upd: Anixx, я за тебя болею в споре о собственности. =))))

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Даже бутылку водки у русского (читай злобного/тупого) полковника не заметил? Отступления Красной армии в 1943г не увидел? Да у меня водка в самоваре закипела от такой наглости! lol

Может быть, пропаганда какая-то там есть, но клюквой я бы это не назвал. Многие детали показаны очень точно.
Ничего неестественного в водке не вижу. Водка, между прочим, в армии выдавалась официально. Пьют они вечером, перед отдыхом. Это, кстати, даже в советских фильмах показывали.

Полковник вовсе не тупой, разбирается в тактике, говорит "мне нужны живые пилоты, а не герои" (по законам клюквы он должен был бы приказать закидать трупами). Он также говорит о том, что самолетов достаточно, но не хватает летчиков (по законам клюквы он должен был бы сказать "берегите самолеты, а пилотов еще нарожаем").

Про отступление - на каком, конкретно, слайде?

Doomsday Machine (1976)

Звезда Давида на фуражке китайского коммуниста.


Советский космонавт, майор авиации Джорджиана Брански.
Папаха, есаульская шинель и красные казацкие погоны без знаков различия - широко известные элементы парадной формы советских летчиков.
В петлицах все те же израильские звезды.


Советский спутник называется просто и без затей: "Известия - 2".


А вот и пресловутый космонавт Меканов, исчезнувший вместе со спутником. Разумеется, коммунисты засунули его внутрь "Известий-2" и заставили участвовать в очередном бесчеловечном эксперименте. Товарищ Меканов стал одним из тех сотен безвестных космонавтов, жертв тоталитарной советской науки, которые погибли прежде, чем большевикам удалось успешно вывести на орбиту Гагарина.
Если не видно, на груди у него бирка с надписью: "ИГОР МИКАНОВА".

Originally Posted by Anixx

Может быть, пропаганда какая-то там есть, но клюквой я бы это не назвал. Многие детали показаны очень точно.
Ничего неестественного в водке не вижу. Водка, между прочим, в армии выдавалась официально. Пьют они вечером, перед отдыхом. Это, кстати, даже в советских фильмах показывали.

Насколько я знаю, достать бутылку водки на фронте было просто негде. Наркомовские 100гр. скорее всего были разведенным спиртом. В фильмах (старых) водку разливают из фляжек на фронте, а бутылки появляются в тылу/запасном полку.

Originally Posted by Anixx

Про отступление - на каком, конкретно, слайде?

Это моя ошибка, просто у него три серии про этих летунов (Ночные ведьмы, Товарищ Лилия, Вульф и Лилия), и у меня они сложились в одну. Отступление было в другой серии.

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Насколько я знаю, достать бутылку водки на фронте было просто негде. Наркомовские 100гр. скорее всего были разведенным спиртом. В фильмах (старых) водку разливают из фляжек на фронте, а бутылки появляются в тылу/запасном полку.

Я ОЧЕНЬ сомневаюсь, что для полковника авиации (которая снабжалась намного лучше) достать бутылку водки было хоть какой-то проблемой (варианты: прислали из дома/купил в деревне, привез из Москвы/попросил подчиненных достать и т.д.). Тем более, что штаб авиационной части не обязательно должен быть прямо на линии фронта. Я также сомневаюсь, что ему кто-то мог запретить пить водку. Не рядовой же.