I'm just saying, it's ironic to use that example of a diplomat as opposed to how many people live paycheck to paycheck barely able to make ends meet or are actually homeless, I doubt those people are crying in joy when they walk into a Walmart

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you’ve missed my point entirely - that could be my fault.

The example illustrates that even for those well-connected enough in the Soviet Union the sight of a western supermarket was enough to make them weep (this was ‘88).

I brought this example up to address the false belief that people in Russia weren’t all that impressed with western products (like McDonalds) back when the Soviet Union existed.

I don’t know how you’re managing to connect that with how people live today and their experience of walking into Walmart.

Finally, this didn’t take place in Harrods but in ICA in Sweden. Hardly a luxury shop - just an average supermarket.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea of communism (extremely simplified) everyone has the means to live and people at "the top" don't get special privilege on that, obviously almost all actual implementations turn into dictatorships so the point is somewhat moot, however the fact a well connected diplomat in a communist country had to live in the same conditions as other non-well connected people would be a positive, not a negative, they'd see and hopefully be able to improve the lives of everyone as they understand what it's like.

Compare that to a majority of the rich and powerful in America, they're so ridiculously disconnected from the average experience that they literally do not understand at all what it's like for those with less.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, with that I broadly agree. But I do feel the goalposts are shifting.

In the case of “was it right for the west to feel their system was better than the Soviet one” my example simply illustrates that a western supermarket in ‘88 reduced someone from the Soviet Union to tears.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But that's really misdirecting of the overall issue right? That's why I brought up homeless or very low income people in America as a counter-example.

Sure capitalism brings us some good things because of the profit incentive driving some to continue pushing the envelope (there's pros and cons, don't want to get too in the weeds) but there's also massive inequality, compared to the ideal of a communist or socialist perspective where sure it might not be as shiny or you don't have as many options, but you're definitely housed and fed.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree but I wasn’t trying to address the overall issue. Certainly no more me than the people I responded to, who used the example of shitty junk food joints to claim the people of the Soviet Union didn’t look with envy on the choices offered to the western citizens.

In theory the communist system is fantastic, in the same way the society described in The Culture is. There just hasn’t been any implementation that got close to that ideal and certainly the median citizen seems better off in the west.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I guess the main thing they might have been talking about is how a lot of the "west culture" will only trumpet the "good" aspects of capitalism and downplay any/all negatives.

Like it's cool we have McDonalds and many other fast food places available, but so many of them are bottom of the barrel quality/health wise and therefore it's really not like it adds a ton of value to our lives over if we didn't have to worry about having healthy food provided to us, even if we don't have the choice.

Mostly splitting hairs at this point, I think we broadly agree :p

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Yes agreed 🤜🤛