No, instead of putting them to death, they worked them to death. If they survived, they might get their freedom... and be watched by the KGB for the rest of their lives.
Also, to be fair, you have to look at specific time periods in Soviet and Russian history. Under some leaders, it was a very harsh prison sentence. Under other leaders, it was much worse.
That's the problem with labels. They often mean different things to different people.
@mortemtyrannis It is pretty simple, really. Don't screw over other people.
So that means I am against big business, monopolies, unfair trade practices, surveillance capitalism, hoarding wealth, etc.
I am also against big government, corrupt officials, police brutality, law enforcement overreach, government surveillance, tyranny, and dictators.
I think we should have free speech, but at the same time, I don't think we should allow harassment, doxing, slander, libel, or intimidation.
I think that people should get paid fairly based on what they contribute. Contribute more, get paid more. I also think that there should be a safety net for people who are struggling.
I think that we should have health care reform, but I don't like the choices that are being presented. Option 1: big business and big health care. Option 2: a government monopoly on health care. There is a middle route where you get rid of both big government and big business in health care. It would require some fundamental changes on how we handle health care, however.
I think we need less big business and less big government, and more small cooperatives, small businesses, and small non-profits. Smaller entities means it is closer to the people and they can chose who they want to deal with. Regardless of whether it is private, non-profit, or government-run, if you only have 5 choices or less, you really don't have much of a choice at all. Because if you have less than 5 major players, they all start to collude to keep policies and practices in place that benefit them and not the consumers or taxpayers.
I can go on. I may be an independent and politically non-binary, but I do have principles.
I said moderates. This includes left-leaning centrists.
I find it interesting that some people are saying "the right is this" and "conservatives are that" and then saying horrible things most people would be opposed to. How would you know if you never talk to them and just assume what they think?
I think most people assume the extreme right is the entire right, just like most people assume the extreme left is the entire left. It's actually a spectrum. Or more accurately, a Nolan chart.
Most people I know are in the center, and they oppose racial segregation, oppose racism, oppose oppression, oppose monopolies, and oppose corrupt officials. But since they are not communists or socialists, some people on the left lump them in with the far right, which the center doesn't like either.
And if you attack the people in the center by falsely accusing them of being the right, all you are doing is alienating people who might agree with you on a lot of things.
I am an independent and politically nonbinary, but people like assuming, almost always incorrectly, what I am thinking. The people on the right think I am left, and the people on the left think I am right. Apparently it is all relative, and the attitude of "if you disagree with me, you must be evil" is way too prominent, both on the left and the right.
I like listening to a variety of viewpoints because I can learn something new about human nature, even if I disagree with their opinion. It allows me to spot patterns that others don't see.
It also allows me to better understand and respond to flawed thinking and dangerous ideas. For example, giving power to someone who is power-hungry is dangerous, no matter what propaganda they are spouting. And there are opportunists and snakes in the grass all over the political spectrum. Just because they say the right things does not mean they do the right things. People don't always like it when that is pointed out. They confuse the leader for the cause.
The problem with remaining in an information bubble surrounded by like-minded people is that you start assuming that everyone thinks like you, which is usually not true at all. Both the right and the left fall into this trap sometimes. And people who have not experienced other cultures also fall into this trap. It creates an unrealistic and inaccurate view of the world. It also results in a shock when they realize that people on the other side of the world or from a different background think completely differently than they do.
It is one of the reasons why the Democrats lost the election in the U.S. They assumed they were the majority because they surrounded themselves with people who agreed with them and they repeatedly blocked or canceled anyone who disagreed. As a result, they shifted further and further away from what the people wanted, abandoned the working class, embraced unpopular views, and then wondered why they lost the swing voters, thereby giving the election to their arch enemies.
Cultivating and remaining in an information bubble is like shooting yourself in the foot and blaming the other side. The more you isolate yourself, the less reach your ideas have, and the less influence you have over society.
To be frank, some people are actually hoping both the far left and the far right becomes increasingly isolationist. It would mean they disappear from the mainstream consciousness since they silence themselves by blocking anyone who disagrees with them. That way they talk to themselves instead of bothering the mainstream middle, who are the actual majority.
The fact is, you don't hear much from the people in the middle because they get attacked from both the right and the left, and most people don't like the drama. Instead, they just go to the ballot box and vote against the politicians they don't like.
In an idea world, we could talk about the issues and come up with some non-partisan solutions. But society has become so polarized, I am not sure that is even possible anymore.
I just thought of some good examples of crazy. (I don't call them crazy, but other people do.)
Stance 1: Anti-Immigration (don't let foreigners in).
Stance 2: Open Borders (let anyone in with no checks, including criminals)
Stance 3: Immigration Reform (allow immigration and make the process easier, but weed out the criminals)
Stance 4: Status Quo (allow immigration, but it is difficult and time consuming)
Many people think that stances 1 and 2 are "crazy." I just think that they are counterproductive and ineffective. And the anti-foreigner thing is racist.
Most people's grievances right now are the economy and inflation. And they want change. They want the elites to have less control over their lives.
Sure, the right has some crazy ideas. So does the left. But the middle decides elections because they are the swing voters, and the middle's main grievances are the economy and that they feel helpless in a world where the wealthy control everything.
Even if their thinking is based on false premises, as you claim, they have legitimate grievances. The Democrats will never get their votes if they don't address the grievances with a realistic alternative plan.
Capitalism may not be prefect, but I don't like any of the proposed alternatives to capitalism:
Corporatism - I don't like power and money being centralized into corporations. They get wealthy and everyone else gets poor.
Communism (with centrally controlled economy) - I don't like power and money being centralized by party leaders and politicians. They have too much power, which results in abuses. Meanwhile, the elites at the top (unofficially) live rich lifestyles at the expense of the workers at the bottom.
Crony Capitalism (our current sociopolitical economic system) - I don't like the government and corporations colluding against the people. Works like corporatism except the government is helping them.
Laissez-faire Capitalism - Unregulated capitalism leads to abuse, so there needs to be some sort of regulations.
Anarchy - I don't like the strong ruling over the weak. It results in abuses and arrogance.
Dictator, King, Emperor, Single Party Rule, etc. - I don't like any system that gives a single person or group of people nearly unlimited power over everyone else. Any political minority gets stepped on. It also means that you may have a benevolent ruler now, but the next ruler may be malicious.
I'd rather see the break up of big business AND big government, and I would love to see more small private voluntary cooperatives and small businesses and small non-profits. Give the power back to the people, not to big business and big government. People should have choices.
I am not sure if there is a name for that.