Collapse of the USSR, good thing?

[Mallard]

Oh yea, clearly in Cromwell's decision to send radical elements of the New Model Army to invade Ireland (and get killed) we see the foundation of a more recent long lasting war that affected the UK.

And I'm not arguing for the rightness of the outcome, just pointing out that the outcome is often different than either the roots of a conflict, or the intent of the protagonists.

Is that such a contentious thing to mull over?

Not at all. The inner pedant in me thinks that the Civil War was indeed about a rising merchantile class wanting their status reflected in political institutions and were not happy with a throwback monarch and institutions that didn't reflect the changes in society (similar in some ways I suppose to Russia 1905). After their victory they ruled to reflect their hegemony and persecuted dissenters and other religious groups more than Charles did.Hence the celebrations in many quarters when Charles II returned.

 

[poster342002]

I'm very happy that the iron curtain is gone and the transition of a dictatorship to a democracy is generally a good thing, I'd say.

Is Russia still a democracy, though?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Collapse would not be good for anyone and would bite us in the arse one way or another

An erosion of US power and influence would be a better, less painful exerise, and I think we may be on the cusp if that change.

As I mentioned in my last post ( above ), the momentum of latin American power is undervalued and not really noticed at the minute, but Chavez and his ilk are gradually breaking the US shackles by mutual cooperation and kicking the WB/IMF out of the equation.

It wouildnt be too far off the mark to say that the US has been the dominant regional power in C & South America for the past 50 years - that isnt the case any longer

so what about if defeat in Iraq and Palestine for American imperialism meant that the American people would not allow American troops to go abroad again, the Vietnam syndrome reprise?

 

[Mallard]

Is Russia still a democracy, though?

Clearly not

 

[TAE]

Is Russia still a democracy, though?

Good question, I don't know.

What I meant about the resulting chaos is that a strong democratic Russia would have been a good thing, both internally and internationally. Sadly that never happend.

 

[TremulousTetra]

the USSR was flawed and frankly pretty much evil.
for the hard of thinking
criticize the state labour camp
be an anarchist ice pick time
ability to feed itself not really had to import wheat from its arch rival
banned its citizens from going abroad or emigrating tried to shoot those that fled
economics basket case couldn't provide what people needed let alone what they wanted.
enslaved the rest of eastern europe who are now only beginning to recover from nearly 50 years of stagnation
a worker in this country had a better standard of living and more real political power than any worker in any socialist state.
it looked good on paper but that was all
ask the poles Lithuinains, Hungarians or Germans if they miss it
plus pointed nukes at us no longer does that so the wrold is infinitely safer

spoke like a member of Socialist worker!

 

[poster342002]

Clearly not

So what was it all for then, it must be asked?

They've lost an undemocratic regime that at least had some kind of welfare state with gauranteed employment and gained another undemocratic regime that doesn't even seem to have that going for it (correct me if I'm wrong). This doesn't strike me as a good or worthwhile exchange.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm very happy that the iron curtain is gone and the transition of a dictatorship to a democracy is generally a good thing, I'd say.

What was not so good was the resulting chaos inside Ru$$ia.

I agree entirely of course. the resulting chaos didn't HAVE TO BE the outcome, did it? There was other alternatives.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Not at all. The inner pedant in me thinks that the Civil War was indeed about a rising merchantile class wanting their status reflected in political institutions and were not happy with a throwback monarch and institutions that didn't reflect the changes in society (similar in some ways I suppose to Russia 1905). After their victory they ruled to reflect their hegemony and persecuted dissenters and other religious groups more than Charles did.Hence the celebrations in many quarters when Charles II returned.

you are being a pedant. His original point was a good one, however limited.

 

[rocketman]

What I meant about the resulting chaos is that a strong democratic Russia would have been a good thing, both internally and internationally. Sadly that never happend.

And the reason the chaos happened was because Western interests didn't step in to shore up the country immediately when the chance was there. Capitalism demands chaos, essentially, they got better deals by waiting several years for the existing system to fall apart. They make more money that way.

Essentially, the very interests spawned by our so-called democracy - the capitalist interests - are anti-democratic - they want free trade and access to a state's resources, but don't give a flying fuck about the morality of the governments they deal with.

Just consider the fate of the Ngomi tribes.

 

[TremulousTetra]

And the reason the chaos happened was because Western interests didn't step in to shore up the country immediately when the chance was there. Capitalism demands chaos, essentially, they got better deals by waiting several years for the existing system to fall apart. They make more money that way.

Essentially, the very interests spawned by our so-called democracy - the capitalist interests - are anti-democratic - they want free trade and access to a state's resources, but don't give a flying fuck about the morality of the governments they deal with.

Just consider the fate of the Ngomi tribes.

don't agree. The contradictions that cause the collapse of state capitalism, exist within free-market capitalism. The real solution was something quite different from capitalism.

 

[rocketman]

don't agree. The contradictions that cause the collapse of state capitalism, exist within free-market capitalism. The real solution was something quite different from capitalism.

Sorry. I don't understand this. Don't mean to be dense, just don't get the subtext of what you're saying, forgive me if I miss the point, but I think the subtext I don't 'get' actually is your argument?

Happy to learn.

 

[zoltan]

so what about if defeat in Iraq and Palestine for American imperialism meant that the American people would not allow American troops to go abroad again, the Vietnam syndrome reprise?

Its only one facet of US imperialism - 'Merica could easily revert to its Isolationist policy of the first half of the 20th century and still exter influcence - in the big scheme of things, a few US bodies on the streets of a foreign county is accepted - the same lot remain in power, the same proles sign up for a 5 years stretch for 3 squares and a regular wage and take the risk of getting killed - Hate to be brutal but although the US may lose people on the ground, its not likely to change policy,. just change the approach

 

[Mallard]

So what was it all for then, it must be asked?

They've lost an undemocratic regime that at least had some kind of welfare state with gauranteed employment and gained another undemocratic regime that doesn't even seem to have that going for it (correct me if I'm wrong). This doesn't strike me as a good or worthwhile exchange.

I agree entirely. Well put!

 

[Mallard]

Sorry. I don't understand this. Don't mean to be dense, just don't get the subtext of what you're saying, forgive me if I miss the point, but I think the subtext I don't 'get' actually is your argument?

Happy to learn.

Trot speak (State Capitalist). The Trots tend to argue that class divisions still existed in the USSR between the party/bureacracy and the 'workers'. Therefore there was always potential for a 'revolutionary situation' as they believe there is under capitalism.

 

[lewislewis]

It appears things have gotten alot worse in Russia (and the rest of the SU) since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but weighing it all up I wouldn't say things have turned out better or worse. At the end of the day i'm glad the Soviet Union has gone because it was pretty much a brutal tyranny. Unfortunately tyranny contines in Russia because the oligarchs got hold of everything. It is a tragic country.

The unfortunate thing about the Soviet Union though was that it encompassed a range of diverse nations that were yearning for self-determination (what Lenin would have called a 'prison house of the nations'). So although bad news for Russia, the demise of the Soviet Union should be welcomed because it liberated the Baltic states like Estonia, Lativa etc who now govern themselves without worrying about being put in a gulag or whatever.

 

[likesfish]

yes tough on russian's but good news for the rest of us
eastern europe and baltic states free and doing ok
no nukes pointed at us
it wasn't really western capitalists but the US cold warriors still locked in cold warmode did'nt grasp that there life long enemy had gone

 

[camouflage]

It was a bad thing. it unleashed the evil of the US as the world's only super-power; it created a new and powerful criminal class in the USSR, it caused global instability...

Course, it could have been a good thing, if Western governments and big business had moved in to invest in the region at the time, rather than waiting long enough for the place to fall apart. As it is they didn't, which meant several years of severe deprivation for people who live there.

Business in the USSR was once ever so easy, now it's extremely dangerous.

It was bad for world peace, bad for business and bad for the people who actually live there.

After Glasnost, we all thought it would be the end of the cold war and a chance to dump nukes. It wasn't. our war-crazed power-tripping vested interests want instability, they can profit from it.

Some of what you say seems to assume the West wasn't out to fuck over and rob the old adversary... isn't that what the oligarchs were all about? Isn't that why the western media gets so shrill about Putin crunching down on them and taking back Russias utilities?

But I agree with the rest of what you say. Personally I think the main good thing to come from the end of the Sovjet Union is a decline in the threat of world-wide nuclear war. Of course, now we live in a less stable world, there's probably a greater threat of regional or 'limited' nuclear war. OPlus the Americans are free to jizz all over the world now, apart from in Russia or China.

 

[zoltan]

It is a tragic country.

I was going to add earlier that Russia has always been a football , kicked about for someone with ambition

 

[poster342002]

the demise of the Soviet Union should be welcomed because it liberated the Baltic states like Estonia, Lativa etc who now govern themselves without worrying about being put in a gulag or whatever.

True - but some of the former soviet-states have ended up under truly awful regimes since independance.

 

[rocketman]

Trot speak (State Capitalist). The Trots tend to argue that class divisions still existed in the USSR between the party/bureacracy and the 'workers'. Therefore there was always potential for a 'revolutionary situation' as they believe there is under capitalism.

Well, specifically I guess the Trotskyists would be analysing Stalinism, then?

The funny thing about some left-wing analysts is that if a revolutionary situation develops that doesn't tally with their analysis of how such situations should evolve, they fight against it.

Yet many revolutions historically have evolved independently of any analysis, a population's pragmatic reaction to a situation they share and face.

Sure there was a clear class divide in the USSR, eventually. The state was restricted from growth and surrounded on all sides by nukes fielded by capitalist 'freedom-loving' nations. As such it was forced to invest in military technology, rather than technology to enhance the position of its population. It was an economic war based on military strength.

Quite ironic when you consider that it was the USSR that beat the Nazis. Some thanks they got.

 

[Mallard]

it liberated the Baltic states like Estonia, Lativa etc who now govern themselves without worrying about being put in a gulag or whatever.

The number of Soviet citizens imprisoned at the height of Stalin's rule was broadly similar (per head of population) to the US today. Estonian nationalists were responsible for horrendous war crimes during World War II and now recieve pensions for fighting for fascism and mounting pogroms. Pro-Soviet veterans do not.

 

[poster342002]

Personally I think the main good thing to come from the end of the Sovjet Union is a decline in the threat of world-wide nuclear war. Of course, now we live in a less stable world, there's probably a greater threat of regional or 'limited' nuclear war.

I think even a 'limited' nuclear war would rapidly get out of hand and becomema global one as the remaining superpowers and quasi-superpwers inevitably get dragged in. Sooner or later, you'd have China, India, Pakistan along with US/UK (plus a few others, I'd imagine) all firing nukes around the world - if not directly at each other.

 

[phildwyer]

After their victory they ruled to reflect their hegemony and persecuted dissenters and other religious groups more than Charles did.

No they didn't. The Independents, Cromwell's party, permitted all forms of Protestant observance.

 

[Mallard]

Well, specifically I guess the Trotskyists would be analysing Stalinism, then?

The funny thing about some left-wing analysts is that if a revolutionary situation develops that doesn't tally with their analysis of how such situations should evolve, they fight against it.

Yet many revolutions historically have evolved independently of any analysis, a population's pragmatic reaction to a situation they share and face.

Indeed. That's why many are baying for Hugo's blood at the moment despite achievements under his rule.

Sure there was a clear class divide in the USSR, eventually. The state was restricted from growth and surrounded on all sides by nukes fielded by capitalist 'freedom-loving' nations. As such it was forced to invest in military technology, rather than technology to enhance the position of its population. It was an economic war based on military strength.

Quite ironic when you consider that it was the USSR that beat the Nazis. Some thanks they got.

Exactly. State Socialism developed from the civil war period onwards and not in a vaccum. Constant revisionism and demonisation of everything the USSR achieved to advance a political agenda is laughable.

 

[Mallard]

No they didn't. The Independents, Cromwell's party, permitted all forms of Protestant observance.

I didn't say Protestants phil, I was thinking Catholics and political dissenters such as the diggers.

 

[phildwyer]

I didn't say Protestants phil, I was thinking Catholics and political dissenters such as the diggers.

Right, but Cromwell's government was far more tolerant than either Charles.

 

[Mallard]

Right, but Cromwell's government was far more tolerant than either Charles.

Not if you enjoyed Xmas, drinking and football (type games)!

 

[rocketman]

Not if you enjoyed Xmas, drinking and football (type games)!

Or religious architecture, or anyone with a habit.






(a monk's habit)

 

[Belushi]

No they didn't. The Independents, Cromwell's party, permitted all forms of Protestant observance.

And also allowed the Jews to re-enter Britain.