TTK12G3 on 27/8/2008 at 22:41

---

...and now we discuss which country is the most dirty and horrible in relation to the USSR.

Rogue Keeper on 28/8/2008 at 07:45

---

I lived under the greatest evil the world has ever known and I'm not even aware of it? Damn. :confused: Now I agree that much more can be seen from Liverpool.

I have feeling that somebody is trying to identify mere idea of Union of former Soviet Republics with Stalinist terror of Marxist-Leninist Bolshevism.

But d'Spair could elaborate why it's pity that Russia is a new country and USSR is no longer.

Rogue Keeper on 28/8/2008 at 13:04

---

And you did? He talked about “half of Europe”. Either we talk about conditions in USSR or Central/Eastern European countries. And then, what era are we talking about precisely? Nearly 80 years of Communist ideology's rule in Eurasia was so much more than just Stalinist terror of the early decades, these 80 years bear in themselves as much bolshevist terror as democratic Communist and Socialist reformation and resistance against this terror. Communists unadaptable to the official iron hand rule were political prisoners too. These renaissance movements and streams were extraordinarily visible in Central/Eastern European countries in 1960-1980s.

In the light of complexity of development of these regimes, saying “Yes, a great "pity" that half of Europe isn't still living under the greatest evil the world has ever known.” is just rhetorical McCarthyist red scare bullshit. BOO! Even our precious body fluids are contaminated by the very essence of EVIL! It's not even clear what it does exactly refer to - Communist theory and practice or Russian nationalism and imperialism and where is clear line between these, what is more original and genuine to human nature and desire? Hard fact is that Soviet military intervention abroad has been unevenly weaker as opposed to expansion of the USA. Just count how many interventions USSR had and how many USA had during the Cold War. That statement also omits the fact that people in the Eastern European countries have naively allowed local pro-USSR Bolsheviks access to power in the first place. Every nation has it's own share of guilt for what it did had. Basically we sold ourselves to Stalin. Again one complex geopolitical situation is being reduced to Big Bad Boy vs. Poor Little Boys perception of the world.

We had more comfort? It's true that Czechoslovakia used to be sometimes referred as “socialist showroom,” but that's far from “comfort” for most people. Few had real comfort reaching the level of luxury, most of them didn't. I know it was the same in USSR. And actually it's the same in 21st century Capitalism, so what.

We had more freedom? Restrictions of political and civic freedoms were generally the same or very similar at one given point of time in Central/Eastern European countries as well as in USSR - because European communist regimes followed the changes in policy of USSR Politbyro. And as the Stalinist practices have been condemned by Politbyro, so they have been elsewhere. When Gorbachev launched Glasnost and Perestroika, generally applied by central committees in other countries, but there WERE local differencies. Our freedoms and social moods reflected USSR freedoms and mood and still on national level there were people in power who perceived it differently. When such thing gained high popularity, it could happen that a joint operation of Warsaw pact armies ‘corrected' the situation (as it happened 40 years ago in case of Prague Spring). But did the Soviet tanks overrun us just at the order of Soviet Politbyro? No! Again it had to be our own local conservative Communist rulers who INVITED THEM to support their power from certain doom by stream of highly popular socialist reformists.

So I don't blame everything bad we had on the USSR. It may not seem to be so from far western point of view, but most of the shit we had is just our own national responsibility, responsibility of our people, responsibility of our separate, and in considerable measure even *independent-on-USSR* decisions.




Are you concerned about principal imperialism, when you already appreciate influence of the other imperialist power?

Well it's fairly clear that the era of American unipolar rule - a New World Order as George Bush Sr. called it during last days of Soviet Union in 1991 - is basically at the end. The West officially tolerated corrupted Yeltsin's practices in the 90s as long as he didn't stand in the way of US international policy. For the time being, mutual business was going well, the dirty rest was kept hush-hush. But why should such situation last forever?

But it's not just gap between the West and Russia. As Kishore Mahbubani, former Singapore's Ambassador to the UN noted, while most of the Western media are dusting off Cold War rhetorics...



Welcome back to healthy multipolar world. For mutual respect and control of the international law it's only a good thing, I can't imagine a rational observer of international relationships who wouldn't appreciate multipolarism, as long as strong nations are stubborn enough to push forward their conflicting interests. Because isn't MULTIPOLAR world the real impersonation of Friedman's ‘Freedom of Choice', which some preachers of US policies were so fanatically spreading in the world?

Rogue Keeper on 4/9/2008 at 07:57

---

Shame, yes.

Trance on 4/9/2008 at 20:18

---

Agreed. The real discussion ended on page -2.