The Soviet Union

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:32 pm

Mediev has posted the following, over in the Rogue States thread:

Though this is largely irrelevant and an attempt to force any discussion away from the real "evil empire", the USSR could hardly be considered a threat to the world, as it was a force of international stability and supported various progressive movements globally.

I thought this was an interesting and original line to take, and figured it should have its own thread. Feel free to discuss this at length, always respecting forum rules at the same time.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 10:56 pm

LMFAO

I will bite...

What "progressive movements" did the "friendly" USSR support?

And what is your meaning of "progressive movements"?

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:39 pm

I can think of one such occasion. The USSR did provide some suport for the anti-facist faction during the Spanish revolution. Though i've heard many complaints on how this support was given and under what conditions, it was still suport.

I certainly dont agree with Medievs statement so dont bite me that hard, but I think the differneces in USSR and USA Foreign policies have been very small.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 11:54 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
but I think the differences in USSR and USA Foreign policies have been very small.

This I can somewhat agree with.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 12:04 am

Originally posted by Weasel

This I can somewhat agree with.

Me too.

But it is beyond me what Mediev means with his statement. The USSR as the US were in a state of terror balance at the time of the cold war, so both could be said to contribute equally to international stability in this sense.

I'm curious to find out what progressive movements Mediev is referring to?

EDIT: It is also beyond me how to spell to "it is"

Ode to a Grasshopper · Wed Mar 27, 2002 12:58 am

For a greater understanding of this thread, it's well worth checking the "Rogue States" thread before getting into this one.

I'm with Weasel, Dottie and Beldin on this one.

Trym · Post by **Trym** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 3:36 am

In socialist terminology "progressive" means, of course" socialist, or at least something close to it.

The situation in international politics was probably more secure in the bipolar world-order of the cold war. But for what price? The continious supression of all East-European (and some Middle-European) nations by the USSR - not to mention other regions of the world. Berlin 1953, Budapest 1955, Prague 1968, Kabul 1979...

Praise the glorious Soviet Union, friend of all progressive humans, that secures peace all over the world. Learning from the Soviet Union means learning to prevail...

More than 50 years people all over the world were forced to praise the Soviet Union. Mediev is one of the few guys who do it
voluntarily.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 4:58 am

Originally posted by C Elegans

I'm curious to find out what progressive movements Mediev is referring to?

I Think Trym, got the idea. Is progrssive in contrast to USA reference, called by Mediev as "Evil Empire".

In the other topic I see someone say that both potences were in equality of power(I don't find anymore the reference). That is extremaly false in military facts. Never the red forces were equaly to the NATO. Of course they are able to destroy each other(especially in Cuba Missile case). USSR was in equaly to USA in philosofic-ideologic representance, but not military over the world. BTW IMO pholosofic-ideologic USSR were a little stronger. Because even in USA domains(Brazil, Peru, Argentina and even USA) lots of intelectuals and other civilians were converted by the Marxist propaganda and ideology(I know ideology is not a good term for it). In South America Cuba was one of the most important references.
Other Part of the problem can be explained better by a psicologist. The Comunist "child-eaters", "barbarians", "they will take everything from you" these are the antagonist of the order(the american way of life) in the modern age(at least the order proposed by USA), something created in atmosphere of fear to redifine the order itself. Something that happens in every statement of order(concept explained well in the film "With body well Closed"). From this we can demonstrate the wicth-hunter time. USSR were a reference because of the Western fear and strong ideology, in military terms they were not that strong.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:10 am

And what is your meaning of "progressive movements"?

A progressive movement, ie one that strives for the betterment of the political and economic conditions for the majority of the population; a relevant example to today's current events was the Russian support for the former Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, though far from communist (hence "progressive"), it implemented basic land reforms, women's rights, literacy, and a general attempt to destroy the backward feudal order and bring Afghanistan into the modern world, after a long history of being crushed between two imperial powers in the "great game".

The USSR did provide some suport for the anti-facist faction during the Spanish revolution.

The "support" from the USSR during the civil war was limited, and was more bent on seizing government control and crushing dissidents (the "phony left-groups" like trotskyists and anarchists) than fighting the war.

I certainly dont agree with Medievs statement so dont bite me that hard, but I think the differneces in USSR and USA Foreign policies have been very small.

This is true to the extent that the USA works to protect the interests of investors, while the USSR worked to protect the interests of the military-bureaucracy.

In socialist terminology "progressive" means, of course" socialist, or at least something close to it.

"Progressive" in "socialist terminology" means closer to "liberal" or "moderate".

The situation in international politics was probably more secure in the bipolar world-order of the cold war.

I'm glad you agree, though I think "bipolar" is sort of an overstatement.

But for what price? The continious supression of all East-European (and some Middle-European) nations by the USSR - not to mention other regions of the world. Berlin 1953, Budapest 1955, Prague 1968, Kabul 1979...

Just to clarify, Kabul was neither an invasion nor a "suppression"; as for the political revolution, (ie hungary 1956, the weaker prague spring, etc) the domination of the stalinist bureacraucy over working class interests is well documented, and is irrelevant as far as the Union acting as a force of stability. And point out to me where I "praise" the USSR.

I Think Trym, got the idea. Is progrssive in contrast to USA reference, called by Mediev as "Evil Empire".

Not neccessarily, just corresponding with the loose definition I gave above.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:46 am

Originally posted by mediev

A progressive movement, ie one that strives for the betterment of the political and economic conditions for the majority of the population

So, if I understand you correctly, Communism was a progressive movement, that allowed the Soviet people to live in great comfort with equal sharing of wealth?

Do you agree with this statement?

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 7:12 am

So, if I understand you correctly, Communism was a progressive movement, that allowed the Soviet people to live in great comfort with equal sharing of wealth?

Do you agree with this statement?

Obviously not; don't take this as an insult, but this looks more like a would-be justification for you to rant against communism than a legitimate question.

Jace · Post by **Jace** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 8:49 am

Is seems to me that holding the USSR up as an ideal communist/socialist/marxist state makes no more scense than holding the USA to be an ideal democratic one.

I do not remember Mediev stating more than that the USSR has done some good in the world, not that it was perfect.

On the point of 'Evil Empires', I do not think that any Country qualifies for this tag anymore. To quote Ferris Bueuler 'Stear clear of ism's'. They are the real problem.

Fundamentalism
Globalism
Nationalism

SYMism is not far behind.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 9:43 am

Ok, I agree I was a little harsh, the main problem I have with Communism is the fact that it has caused so many deaths in Russia and the surrounding countries of the Warsaw Pact. Is it fair to say that Communism, during Stalin's rule killed a lot more people than needed? I have problems accepting that an equal powerbase (as mentioned in Communistic doctrines) will ever be established, some people will always have more power (mafia's, criminals, even politicians who promised this free world had more money, better living and higher quality of life than the peasantry. I dislike that intensely...

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 10:06 am

Originally posted by Nippy
Ok, I agree I was a little harsh, the main problem I have with Communism is the fact that it has caused so many deaths in Russia and the surrounding countries of the Warsaw Pact. Is it fair to say that Communism, during Stalin's rule killed a lot more people than needed?

Oh, Stalin was a mass murderer on a level with Hitler; I've seen the documentation, I've met the survivors--I lost half my family in the Ukraine to Stalin's hatred of the nation he always regarded as "rebels," and the other half to Hitler, in fact. But was this, do you think, the fault of Communism, or a flaw in the Soviet system that allowed a person like Stalin to gather so much personal power? (As a side note, I seem to recall reading some notes to various party officials by Lenin, shortly before his death, in which he expressed his distrust of Stalin's sense of balance and understanding of the issues involved in coordinating so many different peoples.)

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 11:36 am

Originally posted by fable

Oh, Stalin was a mass murderer on a level with Hitler; I've seen the documentation, I've met the survivors--I lost half my family in the Ukraine to Stalin's hatred of the nation he always regarded as "rebels," and the other half to Hitler, in fact. But was this, do you think, the fault of Communism, or a flaw in the Soviet system that allowed a person like Stalin to gather so much personal power? (As a side note, I seem to recall reading some notes to various party officials by Lenin, shortly before his death, in which he expressed his distrust of Stalin's sense of balance and understanding of the issues involved in coordinating so many different peoples.)

It's difficult to say really. Can you blame a society for not wanting to believe what Stalin said would happen? My personal opinion is that they allowed him to gather power, however, Communism will never be truly successfully carried out because every political system has a major flaw that stops it from being truly effective.

Indeed, Lenin's last letters included his mistrust for Stalin, but Stalin stopped these from being released stopping a show of unfaithfulness and showing non-division in his power. (Similar to his use of doctoring photos...)

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 4:47 pm

@Lazarus, I would have thought that you were aware of the forum rules. Consider yourself warned. Flames, especially flames that gratuitously and repeatedly slam individual posters, won't be tolerated. Your post has been pulled.

That goes for everyone. Discuss something, or ignore it. Attacking another poster, though, is a ticket to getting banned.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 7:42 pm

Data insert

I'm not on one side or the other here. I'm on my own side

The former USSR had a whole division (Directorate) of the KGB dedicated to the support of 'various progressive movements globally'. So there was a good chance that your local greenpeace/anti-vietnam war/etc. organisation was being assisted and/or infiltrated by the KGB. In any of the major capitalist democracies it was seen (by the former USSR) as a way of steering public opinion, and sowing dischord. So I would have to whole heartly support Mediev's contention that this was the case (I can cite references if I really have too).

Why pick on Stalin?(@fable - I believe Stalin probably outdid Hitler in numerical terms, much of the evidence is only now coming to light), and/or use Lenin as a shining example, or solid judge of character. I am always amused by the footage of the 'closed' train when it left a station in Germany, surprising many of the Bolshoviks, because of the commentary which accompanied it 'revolutionaries running to catch up with the revolution'

. When Lenin seized power, he had been assisted (in southern Russia)by a large armed group who marched under the black flag and were 'revolutionary comrades and heros', unfortunately Lenin did not like the idea of a large bunch of armed anarchists marching around his lily white collective utopia so (while publically praising them) he had them all rounded up and executed. Go Lenin. - Curdis !

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 7:52 pm

How about Chairman Mao?

Personally, I always found the idea of a Cultural Revolution very seductive.

In my Revolution, I will decide which books everyone will read, and what films they make. All films will use real writers who know how to write a decent plot and good dialogue. All the computer games will be non-linear with good NPC interaction, etc., and my propaganda machine will tell every parent that CPRG's are good for kids, and essential. Free pizza for everyone! I have lots more ideas where these came from...

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 8:12 pm

Re: Data insert

Originally posted by Curdis
Why pick on Stalin?(@fable - I believe Stalin probably outdid Hitler in numerical terms, much of the evidence is only now coming to light), and/or use Lenin as a shining example, or solid judge of character. I am always amused by the footage of the 'closed' train when it left a station in Germany, surprising many of the Bolshoviks, because of the commentary which accompanied it 'revolutionaries running to catch up with the revolution' . When Lenin seized power, he had been assisted (in southern Russia)by a large armed group who marched under the black flag and were 'revolutionary comrades and heros', unfortunately Lenin did not like the idea of a large bunch of armed anarchists marching around his lily white collective utopia so (while publically praising them) he had them all rounded up and executed. Go Lenin. -

Lenin was an example of a revolutionary zealot. Stalin was a self-aggrandizing, paranoid despot after the worst traditions of feudal Russia. The Soviet state may have changed some of the rules of the game, but the same players and kinds of players were unfortunately still in charge--new names, new positions, but doing the same kinds of things that Ivan the Terrible and his ilk perpetrated, many years earlier.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 8:22 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
How about Chairman Mao?

VDali, as enchanting as your line of arguement is, unless I have been brainwashed by the forces of the evil USSR and/or the evil USA into believing only a subset of reality (we have real possibilities here) then Chairman Mao was not involved in 'The Soviet Union'. Had the topic been 'Thugs that have played a role in History', 'The vision - the reality', or 'Dictators we'd like to see on Springer' not a problem. - Curdis !