this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
535 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

1357 readers
33 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Comrade, we all know lead poisoning and the need for safety gear are capitalist propaganda! Now, get back in the mines! Production must increase 50% this year, and your state-appointed union representative says it can!

[–] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 60 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)
[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You know, it took until 2003 for Russia to remove leaded gasoline from stations. The Soviets never did it LMFAO

but nice try

[–] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Did chatgpt not include this or...?

https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gatech.edu/dist/a/1473/files/2020/09/sovenv.pdf

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union took effective action to protect the population from lead exposure; it banned lead-based (white lead) paint and it banned the sale of leaded gasoline in some cities and regions. While leaded gasoline was introduced in the 1920s in the United States, it was not until the 1940s that leaded gasoline was introduced in the Soviet Union (5). In the 1950s, the Soviet Un- ion became the first country to restrict the sale of leaded gaso- line; in 1956, its sale was banned in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Baku, Odessa, and tourist areas in the Caucasus and Crimea, as well as in at least one of the “closed cities” of the nuclear weap- ons complex (6, 7). The motivation for the bans on leaded gaso- line is not entirely clear, but factors may have included Soviet research on the effects of low-level lead exposure (8), or sup- port from Stalin himself (5). In any event, the bans on leaded gasoline in some areas prevented what could have been signifi- cant population lead exposure. In the United States and other OECD countries, leaded gasoline has been identified as one of the largest sources of lead exposure (9, 10). Lead-based paint is another potentially significant source of population lead exposure.

Bonus: a great example of capital at work,

Along with a number of other coun- tries, in the 1920s the Soviet Union adopted the White Lead Convention, banning the manufacture and sale of lead-based (white lead) paint (11). In the United States, however, the National Paint, Oil and Varnish Association successfully opposed the ban, and lead-based paint was not banned in the United States until 1971 (12).

Two generations of Americans.

[–] GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You say that like lead paint isn't in American buildings still.

[–] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Great point, and regulation is still being fought by the real estate industry.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

EDIT: based on another commenter, OP's claim isn't even factual.

And it took the US until 1996 (after fall of USSR)? Not to mention that it was capitalism (General Motors) that spread the hoax about leaded gasoline being safe, under the guise of scientific research in 1921.

This is not the gotcha you think it is.

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it was all an evil capitalist conspiracy, why did the communists go along with it? Hmm?

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was not uncovered until much later that this scientific research was in fact a hoax to promote General Motors' business.

This is very easily verified with a web search. I would be happy to guide you to specific sources and readings as well.

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, the Soviets couldn't do their own research. Got it

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You continue to dive deeper and deeper into this L. You sure you wanna do this?

Even the US, despite its heavy bias, admits how great scientific research in the USSR was.

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=powellspeeches

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Okay? And? The USSR was the center of a massive empire and exploited the hell out of that empire. They definitely had the resources to be the world's scientific runner up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TrousersMcPants@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right, America did bad thing, clearly this completely overrides the wrongs of other countries

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The first commenter is talking a hypothetical scenario of socialism being bad, so the second commenter (the one you responded to) responded with actual example of that same hypothetical scenario happening, but except by a capitalist power (the US). I don't think your response makes sense at all here.

[–] ThePenitentOne@discuss.online 1 points 1 year ago

I think the hexbears probably fucked OP irl or something. Guy is going full mental illness mode.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And your point is?

Please do share an example of industrialization that somehow doesn't include unforseen negative health effects.

Go on now, we'll wait.

[–] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My point is that capital has successfully fought to put lead into American's blood and lungs for over 100 years.

[–] Summzashi@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

Name a better duo then tankies and whatsboutism

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So in other words you are unwilling to answer the question.

Got it.

This is precisely why I say that you aren't intellectually serious people.

[–] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You have one question in your previous comment on the very first line, and it was answered.

Your statement on the 2nd line doesn't really make sense, as I don't think anyone blames people for unforseen negative health effects.

What people are upset about are the forseen, proven, endemic negative health effects being purposefully spread for over a century.

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

What a crock of shit!

Why would capital willingly poison its workforce as a deliberate policy? That makes zero sense.

I can see capital writing it off as a necessary side-cost of doing business, but I can't see it as a deliberate policy.

Again, it makes no sense. Capital wants a relatively healthy workforce, not one that's falling apart due to lead-caused neurological decrepitude.

load more comments (2 replies)