Syria Disintegrating: Part 2

[DGuller]

We'll probably never know whether Gorbachev was incompetent, Deng Xiaoping was a genius, or whether these two situations are incompatible.  Maybe Gorbachev had a hopeless hand, but he played it badly regardless.

[Barrister]

We'll probably never know whether Gorbachev was incompetent, Deng Xiaoping was a genius, or whether these two situations are incompatible.  Maybe Gorbachev had a hopeless hand, but he played it badly regardless.

The question wasn't "could the USSR have survived", but "could soviet communism have survived", and I think the answer is clearly no.

The PRC has survived because it has completely abandoned communism as a guiding ideal, and embraced state capitalism instead.

[DGuller]

We'll probably never know whether Gorbachev was incompetent, Deng Xiaoping was a genius, or whether these two situations are incompatible.  Maybe Gorbachev had a hopeless hand, but he played it badly regardless.

The question wasn't "could the USSR have survived", but "could soviet communism have survived", and I think the answer is clearly no.

The PRC has survived because it has completely abandoned communism as a guiding ideal, and embraced state capitalism instead.

Well, yes, I said as much.  Communism was clearly a dead end that had to be steered away from.  Whether USSR had to die and not become USCR, and whether it was a good thing or not, is what I thought we were discussing.

[DGuller]

And yes, I know that Gorbachev was trying to make communism better, not steer away from it, but had he or his successors gone on in that direction, they might have come to the proper realization eventually.

[Tamas]

 

Where to begin?

USSR WAS Russia plus its conquered territories. In practice.

There was NO WAY a member state of the USSR was allowed to leave without the whole thing being on the brink of collapse. Look at Hungary '56 and Czechslovakia '68, those were not even member states and the Russians went all in on keeping them in the fold.

[DGuller]

Yes, of course, theoretical rights and practical reality are two different things in authoritarian countries.  But the fact that republics could in theory leave the union without it automatically being an insurrection made a big difference.

[Tamas]

Yes, of course, theoretical rights and practical reality are two different things in authoritarian countries.  But the fact that republics could in theory leave the union without it automatically being an insurrection made a big difference.

Where did it make a big difference? That a collapsing inept SU didn't intervene when it could not had even if it wanted to? No.

the USSR was a dictatorship of thugs and gansters like pretty much all Russian regimes have been in history. Thinking its written law or pretentions amounted above the ultimate law of fist is naive in the extreme

[Razgovory]

We'll probably never know whether Gorbachev was incompetent, Deng Xiaoping was a genius, or whether these two situations are incompatible.  Maybe Gorbachev had a hopeless hand, but he played it badly regardless.

The question wasn't "could the USSR have survived", but "could soviet communism have survived", and I think the answer is clearly no.

The PRC has survived because it has completely abandoned communism as a guiding ideal, and embraced state capitalism instead.

This is simply not true.  The PRC hasn't "completely abandoned communism".  Most of the main industries are at least party state owned.  They have modified communism but have far from repudiated it.  The Soviet Union was pretty much "state capitalism" as well.  Certainly Soviet communism could have survived.  For one thing it meant different things at different times, it wasn't unchanging.  Second, North Korea still exists on the Stalinist model so it's easy to envision the Soviet Communism existing today, since it does just that in other countries.  Now, could the Soviet Union have reversed it's relative decline without an overhaul?  Probably not. Could have successfully reformed it's economy enough to preserve the Union?  Possibly, it's hard to tell.

[Tamas]

 

[Razgovory]

Where to begin?

USSR WAS Russia plus its conquered territories. In practice.

There was NO WAY a member state of the USSR was allowed to leave without the whole thing being on the brink of collapse. Look at Hungary '56 and Czechslovakia '68, those were not even member states and the Russians went all in on keeping them in the fold.

Clearly if a if Warpac nation left the alliance it would collapse the whole system.  Which is why Communism collapsed in the 1960's when Albania left the fold.

[alfred russel]

Oh, I don't at all think of the USSR as Russia plus some pissed off colonies. Indeed, I actually think that Communism was largely attempted in basically "good faith". An abject failure, maybe even so abject as to be unfair to the basic ideals of Communism in fact, but still I think the people who ran the USSR, within the normal bounds of human shittiness, did so with the idea that what they were doing was beneficial to those involved, including the SSRs.

I don't think the implementation of Communism qualifies as "good faith" at all. Bolsheviks were extremists who managed to gain power through force in very turbulent times. Once in power, the Bolsheviks established themselves through violence, terror, and propaganda. I guess you can argue Lenin was a genuine altruist who believed rough measures were justified to establish the greater good of communism. That is a far tougher argument for Stalin, who was also there from the start.

[Tamas]

[Razgovory]

Oh, I don't at all think of the USSR as Russia plus some pissed off colonies. Indeed, I actually think that Communism was largely attempted in basically "good faith". An abject failure, maybe even so abject as to be unfair to the basic ideals of Communism in fact, but still I think the people who ran the USSR, within the normal bounds of human shittiness, did so with the idea that what they were doing was beneficial to those involved, including the SSRs.

I don't think the implementation of Communism qualifies as "good faith" at all. Bolsheviks were extremists who managed to gain power through force in very turbulent times. Once in power, the Bolsheviks established themselves through violence, terror, and propaganda. I guess you can argue Lenin was a genuine altruist who believed rough measures were justified to establish the greater good of communism. That is a far tougher argument for Stalin, who was also there from the start.

This was all part of their ideology.  It seems to us difficult for us to believe that the Red Terror was for the good of the people, but communists actually believed that.  It was simply a bad ideology.  They were certainly the most ruthless, violent, and extreme form of Marxism, but that is probably why they ended up in power rather then the Socialist Revolutionaries.  They honestly believed that sacrifice now would pay dividends in the future.  This was true, but the cost was so high as to make us to recoil in revulsion.  Particularity since other countries got better results with much less brutality.  Keep in mind though, that other countries payed high costs (or more often made others pay the cost), for the benefits of Industrialization.  Slave labor provided raw materials for the early textile industry, conquest brought captive markets to imperial powers and famines that could have been prevented ravaged places in Europe, Asia and Africa due indifferent governments.

[alfred russel]

This was all part of their ideology.  It seems to us difficult for us to believe that the Red Terror was for the good of the people, but communists actually believed that.  It was simply a bad ideology.  They were certainly the most ruthless, violent, and extreme form of Marxism, but that is probably why they ended up in power rather then the Socialist Revolutionaries.  They honestly believed that sacrifice now would pay dividends in the future.  This was true, but the cost was so high as to make us to recoil in revulsion.  Particularity since other countries got better results with much less brutality.  Keep in mind though, that other countries payed high costs (or more often made others pay the cost), for the benefits of Industrialization.  Slave labor provided raw materials for the early textile industry, conquest brought captive markets to imperial powers and famines that could have been prevented ravaged places in Europe, Asia and Africa due indifferent governments.

You can make the same argument that the fascists of roughly the same era really believed their policies were best for the volk.

Both groups were made up of mean "losers" of society who were rather brutal in keeping themselves in power once they grabbed it.

[Malthus]

Oh, I don't at all think of the USSR as Russia plus some pissed off colonies. Indeed, I actually think that Communism was largely attempted in basically "good faith". An abject failure, maybe even so abject as to be unfair to the basic ideals of Communism in fact, but still I think the people who ran the USSR, within the normal bounds of human shittiness, did so with the idea that what they were doing was beneficial to those involved, including the SSRs.

I used to think that. The more I read about the actual history of the Soviet Union, the less I think that. What I think is that there were many within the system who believed at one point that Communism was the wave of the future, but that the actual leaders were, in large part, completely immoral autocrats who simply used this notion on the part of their followers as a useful means to achieve power, and no more believed in the human value of Communism than (say) the Borgias were sincrere committed Christians who committed their crimes in mistaken but good faith attempts to advance Christian morality. I think that situation occurred because the system the Bolsheviks created enabled such types to thrive at the expense of the idealists.

I recommend the book I was reading recently entitled Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar. The sheer corruption, venality, brutality and cyncism of the Soviet leaders portrayed was breathtaking.