It's PROLETARIAT!

only if you share it

The "holding up two branches to be perfectly concealed" technique of Verniy deserves a tag!

PhoenixG said:

only if you share it

And isn't that really what it's all about

Krugger said:

And isn't that really what it's all about

So...sharing = communism?

sanitaeter said:

The "holding up two branches to be perfectly concealed" technique of Verniy deserves a tag!

This is so.

its proletariat as long as the authorities get a piece of the action ;)

ithekro said:

So...sharing = communism?

Sharing is caring, Comrade.

ithekro said:

So...sharing = communism?

If nobody has anything, everyone shares everything!

...it turned into Brand War

Saladofstones said:

If nobody has anything, everyone shares everything!

Post WWII Soviet citizens weren't in dire poverty deprived of all but potatoes, you know.

oracle135 said:

...it turned into Brand War

Because of Gangut holding a Super Cup, I tagged accordingly. (I don't know, why the supercup-tag is a copyright-tag while the haagen-dazs-tag isn't.)

Verniy can be scary sometimes.

Y'know, I never understood why Häagen-Dazs is considered fancy ice cream. To me, it tastes about the same as every other brand you find in a supermarket.
I'm actually not a big ice cream guy so my opinion isn't all that valid.

Then again, the only ice cream I can ever seem to finish - let alone stomach - is Ben & Jerry's, and at a small local ice cream joint that makes arguably the best birthday cake ice cream.

Claverhouse said:

Post WWII Soviet citizens weren't in dire poverty deprived of all but potatoes, you know.

I am aware, but I'm Belgian, and that applies there as well.

"Bourgeois" is already an adjective. Adding "-esque" to the end is unnecessary and misspelled.

isabel said:

"Bourgeois" is already an adjective. Adding "-esque" to the end is unnecessary and misspelled.

Grammatically incorrect isn't 'misspelt', but that's a different thing. (Also,　while -esque primarily attaches to nouns, it's not totally incorrect to apply it to adjectives (often with food-related things), unless you want to go full prescriptivist, and nobody should ever do that - and as bourgeois is also a noun, attaching -esque would make it an adjectival form of the noun, rather than being attached to the adjective - viz. 'Something that a bourgeois (person) would have', instead of 'being something that is bourgeois'.)

How would you propose to get the 的 through then, especially as Ido has just used bourgeois alone before? It's not saying that the Daaz is bourgeois in and of itself, it's more that it has the qualities of it. (In comparison to others.)

Soviet (and '90s Russian) ice-cream was indeed high-quality, so why should one have to downgrade just because it's cheaper?

I'm sorry, I just didn't feel it was completely necessary to preserve the 的 in such a specific manner when I was writing my script.

The comment about the misspelling was because "esque" was spelled without the U in the previous translation note. In retrospect, it was needlessly combative and I'm sorry for saying it.

ithekro said:

So...sharing = communism?

Actually, yes, that's pretty much the definition of Communism: That your property is communal property, and one shares with the community, at least with regards to certain classes of goods. Families, for example, are fundamentally communist, sharing nearly everything including their wealth collectively. One thing I remember really sticking out to me was how an author noted how communist the US military was on a fundamental level, even while "fighting communism": Their weapons and other equipment, their food, they're not treated as personal items, they're all the communal property of the United States itself, given freely between soldiers as public property. [Iowa's head explodes in the distance]

The problem a lot of people have is that they associate Soviet = communism, and that therefore, everything the Soviets did is inherently communist, when it often wasn't.