Who regrets the fall of the Soviet Union?

[dolgoruky]

I do.

[bluestateguy]

1. I don't

The Soviet Union was a disgrace to the concept of socialism.

[dolgoruky]

4. Thank you for that knee-jerk answer.

Now, do you have a thought of your own?

[VermontDem2004]

2. Why?

[La_Serpiente]

3. Is it because there is no superpower to couterbalance the US

or because you cherished the USSR? or is there some other reason? Because I thought the ideals of the USSR were well-intentioned, but they had a totalitarian leadership.

[VermontDem2004]

7. That is a good point

Garofalo said things were better when we had the USSR simply because we had two superpowers to counterbalance each other. I agree with that point, however I don't know much about the USSR but from people who are from there who lived through that time period didn't like it very much.

[scisyhp]

82. Well, I am from there and lived through USSR late period

and I did like it. Very much. In fact, I liked it better than
I liked living in the United States. The only reason I left
after the country was destroyed is that I hated what repleced
it. If the USSR were to be restored to its original state
I would be going back there in a spilt second.

[dolgoruky]

11. I'll tell you why

Last night I was talking to my wife (who happens to be Russian)about Georgia (in the caucasus). She is no Communist- far from it- but she very movingly told me about her life in the Soviet Union, and how she spent many happy summers as a student in Georgia and Abkhazia. She would love to return there, but this once beautiful country has now been reduced to chaos and poverty. She travelled a lot in the Soviet Union, and despairs when she sees what has happened to the place where she once lived.

I lived in Russia for many years, and I have heard people talk in a similar way about the Soviet Union. Can anyone explain wny?

[La_Serpiente]

12. Are many of the young people in Russia now

a part of the Communist party? To my knowledge, there still is a Communist party. Do they have representation in the Duma?

[dolgoruky]

13. The Communist party

are as corrupt as evey other party I Russia. However, there has been a revival in interest by "young people" (god, I hate that term, it sounds so patronising) of what we might call "left" ideas. Demonsrations are well attended by young people, even October revolution day gets its fair share of under 30's.

[Kamika]

5. I do not

While I do think it would have been good to have a superpower to counterbalance the US I hate to sacrifice ppl for it. USSR was extremely oppressious and I'm happy they are free.

Hope this wasn't just a freeper post though

[Racenut20]

6. I would suspect

Some former officials of the Soviet Government would....

[JailBush]

8. Like two ships passing in the night...

When the Soviet Union "fell," there was great confusion because Russian citizens didn't have a clue about running a democracy. Sound familiar?

[La_Serpiente]

9. LOL

[La_Serpiente]

10. Were you infatuated with the dream of the USSR?

Because I was. It was the ideals that drew me to it. I liked the idea that discrimination was banned in the Constitution. I would think, although I haven't been there, that they would be more tolerant. Many African-Americas were drawn to the USSR, like W.E.B. DuBois, because they liked their social system there. However, they had a bad leadership throughout most of its history.

[Jonte_1979]

14. Oh come on!

The one thing I missed about the Soviet Union was the rousing national anthem and it has already been re-instated by the Russians.

So to answer your question: hell no!

[Kinkistyle]

15. Eh, the Berlin Wall needed to be torn down.

I think the fact that people who tried to climb the Berlin Wall were shot on sight was indicative of the fact that the Soviet Republic was a government that needed to be torn down.

[dolgoruky]

16. Hate to correct you...

But East Germany wasn't part of the Soviet Union.

[DoNotRefill]

32. It was a Soviet puppet state....

eom

[dolgoruky]

80. Wrong again

Where do you get your information? East Germany was NOT a Soviet state. Check the dictionary under GDR.

[DoNotRefill]

83. I didn't say it was a Soviet state...

rather a Soviet PUPPET state. While it wasn't a part of the Soviet Union proper, it WAS supported by the Soviet Union, and it ANSWERED to the Soviet Union. I suppose I imagined those Soviet bases in the Ost....

[DACT]

46. How are you doing Gerald Ford?

Don't trip over any red phones now!!!

[JVS]

17. I do. I have two reasons.

1. The people there are living much worse now than they used to.

2. Without the USSR as the bad cop of leftism, leftist parties in democratic countries are rendered impotent. Democratic party, SPD, Labour, you name it, they've all grown anemic. For Capitalism to regulate itself there must be a threat.

[moondust]

20. Or at least an alternative.

Smaller countries used to have more than one choice in terms of "sphere of influence." They could always "go elsewhere" if they didn't like somebody's offer. That alone probably prevented some of the tyranny that goes on today (a la Bush) with the current "one-sphere" system. One party, one sphere, what's the difference?

[DoNotRefill]

27. Like the Czechoslavakians did...

before the Red Army came strolling through Prague?

[moondust]

34. Woops!

You missed the point. The post was about an alternative that no longer exists which has created a new tyranny that may turn out to be as bad or worse than the old one.

Incidentally, I wouldn't mind seeing a big new European Union come along and serve as an alternative sphere of influence. A sane one.

[DoNotRefill]

94. And my point, which you missed...

was that many Soviet vassal states were not free to leave their master. Their Master's boot (in the form of the Red Army) was on their proverbial neck. Those that tried to leave ended up being rolled over, and the reformers "disappeared".

[DoNotRefill]

18. I miss the old KGB...

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

2 superpowers? Don't miss it at all. One down, one to go. What's to miss? The Sword of Damocles hangin over our heads?

[dolgoruky]

19. You are wrong

.

[Charlls]

21. look at this and tell me if it could

help out to counterbalance corporatism (what people sometimes confuses with capitalism) in democracies


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=25124

[DoNotRefill]

25. that sounds...

like a really stupid idea. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

[Charlls]

26. thats all you can argue?

"it looks like a really stupid idea"


wow, you really thought it thru... as you mentioned before; its VERY hard to have a debate based on such arguments

[DoNotRefill]

30. So....

we should all just go with the whim of the masses?

Likely results: After 9/11, concentration camps for Arabs in the US...because there certainly was a large groundswell of anti-arab sentiment in the US.

Our government isn't perfect. Yet as forms of government go, it's the best thing out there.

[Charlls]

33. so i imagine you prefer the whim of the emperor

saying that the anti-arab sentiment had a peak after 9/11, and saying that was enough to be a political driving majority are REALLY DIFFERENT THINGS

[DoNotRefill]

24. Come on....you've got to do better than that.

"you are wrong"....no reasons? It's hard to have a debate with answers like that.

[PVnRT]

56. Why is he wrong?

The existence of the Soviet Union was a boon to the right wing - a huge, powerful enemy to blame everything on, yet people knew that it would be suicide to fight. Those days were heaven for the neoconservatives.

[Blitz]

84. You know, for someone who demands substantive responses

As you did in post #4, you sure don't provide much substance of your own.

The Soviet Union was an abomination. That doesn't mean that Russians, Georgians, Ukrainians, etc. didn't have good times in their lives. It takes a whole lot to completely kill rich, centuries-old cultures, but the Soviets sure did give it a shot. Art suffered (everything, and I mean everything went through state censors)and there was corruption on a massive scale. If you were a Jew, your educational and professional opportunities were extremely limited (and forget about openly practicing ANY religion). Whole populations were slaughtered through state-engineered starvation (ask a Kulak - if you can find one - if he misses the Soviet Union). Legal due process was a foreign concept. People were, literally, guilty until proven innocent. Families spied on each other and paranoia was rampant.

The Soviets regularly listened in on any international telephone calls to make sure that their citizens weren't talking against the state. People who actually spoke out against the Soviet oligarchy suffered horribly (unless they were killed quickly). More than that. Their parents suffered, their children suffered, their siblings and cousins and aunts and uncles and spouses suffered. Their friends and co-workers suffered. People in their own homes hardly dared criticize the State, and then only in whispers. Someone who was known or thought to be on the wrong side of the Communists was a pariah for fear of being associated with that person in any way. Untold numbers of people disappeared and, to this day, their families don't know what happened to them.

Soviet schools, while excellent in math, science and the like were indoctrination centers and taught complete fiction when it came to history.

Soviets went around with a bags at all times. If they saw a line, they'd get in it and THEN ask what they were standing in line for. Whatever it was, they needed it since there was a perpetual shortage of, literally, everything. Standing in line for a couple of hours for a loaf of bread or a melon or toilet paper was not the least bit uncommon. My father stood in line, with scores of other people, overnight for a refrigerator. The one thing that was always plentiful was vodka, and that was entirely by design. Soviet state-supported alcoholism made any drug problem in this country look like a day in the park. One of the things that turned the Soviet public against Gorbachev was the fact that he actually tried to limit the vodka supply through rationing (I recall riding in a car past a giant line (the kind you'd see before a major movie premier in a big city) on a Tuesday afternoon in Leningrad in 1988. When I asked the driver of the car what the line was for, he laughed and said that, in just two hours, they'd start selling vodka).

You think that the Soviet Union was a good thing because your wife has cheerful childhood memories? Please. You have no idea. I am thankful every day that my family and I were able to escape that disgusting place. I am also thankful that it collapsed. As in all transitions, some people suffer and some do well. For the most part, subjects of the former Soviet Union are better off. I know that my family is MUCH better off now.

Bottom line? People who "miss" the Soviet Union generally never had to suffer there.

[scisyhp]

93. Bottom line? I don't think so, that's just your opinion,

and an uninformed one at that. Where did you get your info?
Ever been to USSR?

>People who "miss" the Soviet Union generally never had to suffer >there.

In that you may be right. I miss it, and I didn't have to suffer
there. Of course, I only lived there for 26 years, so I guess,
I didn't get enough time to appreciate all the "suffering".

[Blitz]

98. Hey, genius

Does it sound like I got my information out of a book? Did you miss the part of my post where I talked about being IN the Soviet Union?

I was born there and lived there (in Leningrad, specifically). I still have family there, who I visit when I can.

I work with Russians every day. Now, why don't you tell me what you miss about the Soviet Union.

[rogerashton]

22. Not regret, but --

some of the points made here have been valid, but the threat of nuclear war is substantially less (not absent) and that offsets a great deal. (Of course, unlike the Georgians, I don't have to pay the price in violence and social decay).

The idea that the residents of the former Soviet Union are now "free" is, well, confused at best!

It is logically possible to distinguish between the dissolution of the Soviet federation, which eliminated USSR as a "great power," and the replacement of the Soviet-type economy -- so-called socialism -- with a particularly nasty form of capitalism. There is a lot of evidence that, bad as it was, most people were better off with the Soviet-type system in place than they are now under Mafiapitalism.

[IrateCitizen]

77. Thanks for interjecting some sanity into this debate!

Of course, I agree with your assessment completely. It must be a Drexel thing. ;-)

I just recently finished reading Joe Stiglitz's book Globalization and its Discontents. He devotes a LOT of pages to the failure of Russian "shock therapy" and the rise of mafia capitalism (I like your term of "mafiapitalism" better!), and how it has been a complete failure for the majority of Russians. Of course, the IMF (and therefore the US Treasury) were big players in bringing this whole failure about.

One of the more interesting aspects is the "brain drain" that is going on. Anyone who is able to get an education looks to use that as a ticket OUT of Russia. The long-term effect of this, of course, will be utterly disastrous.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. no one in their right mind

:hi:

[Nobody]

28. I miss the space race

That was exciting. I was in grade school in the 70s and I loved beginning every film strip with the countdown. I think I learned to count backwards before I learned to count forward.

Since the Soviet Union is no longer around, we don't have an incentive to push people into space.

The country that gave us Yuri Gagarin (first man in space), Valentina Tereshkova (first woman in space), Sputnik (first human-made object in space), Mir (first space station).

Bush may have mentioned going to the moon again, but will it be a reality? I doubt it. These days, rockets are putting up communications satellites, but exploration? Hardly likely.

[DoNotRefill]

31. Space Race Part Deux is firing up...

with us versus the Chinese....

[Loonman]

29. Only commies regret it

Communism under a totalitarian regime is the worst way to run a country and a population.

This is the most asinine question I've ever heard asked here, and that's saying a lot.

[Silverhair]

35. I cheered when it fell, and I'm still happy about it.

Remember, the revolution that swept Eastern Europe in 89, and the old soviet Union in 91 was a true Peoples Revolution. But it was against the Communist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", so that makes it a bad revolution in the eyes of a communist.

If communism was so great, why did the mass of people rise up against it in 89 & 91?

In the USSR there was no freedom of press, religion, speech, assembly, etc. Trials were a sham. The economics were terrible with everything rationed and constant shortages.

Since the fall, we have had an actual REDUCTION in the number of nuclear warheads that each side has. And the remaining missiles have been retargeted to open ocean, so that an accidental launch won't start a war. We no longer live under MAD. I count that a huge plus.

[IrateCitizen]

64. I cheered when it fell, but I'm not still happy about it.

Remember, the revolution that swept Eastern Europe in 89, and the old soviet Union in 91 was a true Peoples Revolution. But it was against the Communist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", so that makes it a bad revolution in the eyes of a communist.

With regards to Eastern Europe, you're right. With regards to Russia, you're wrong. You honestly aren't going to try and present Boris Yeltsin as a "man of the people" are you? Yeltsin was a person whose only concern was advancing his own power and ambition. He was a primary reason for the bankrupting of Russia by giving away all of its assets in exchange for a cut of the action. Where Gorbachev may not have been perfect, he was much more interested in the well-being of the people as a whole than Yeltsin was -- as evidenced by the reforms he got going under glasnost and perestroika.

If communism was so great, why did the mass of people rise up against it in 89 & 91?

Communism as it was practiced under the USSR and its puppet governments throughout Eastern Europe was not a good thing. But this kind of simplistic statement does not address the very real attempts at reform that were taking place under Gorbachev before Yeltsin seized power for his own ends. If things had happened differently, we might have seen a different brand of socialism ushered in -- one that actually tried to push power DOWN rather than pull it up.

In the USSR there was no freedom of press, religion, speech, assembly, etc. Trials were a sham. The economics were terrible with everything rationed and constant shortages.

Things may actually be WORSE overall right now. The average lifespan in Russia fell from 67 years to 57 years in just one decade after the fall of the USSR. As for political freedoms under the current government, they are FAR from substantial.

Since the fall, we have had an actual REDUCTION in the number of nuclear warheads that each side has. And the remaining missiles have been retargeted to open ocean, so that an accidental launch won't start a war. We no longer live under MAD. I count that a huge plus.

Russia doesn't have the money to keep track of its warheads anymore, and the US isn't providing the funds to do so under the Bush Administration either. That's scarier than the situation before, IMHO. As for "targeting", do you not realize that it would take probably less than a minute for each side to actually retarget the weapons at each other? With regards to MAD, I'm not so certain that the loss of it was such a good thing. At least under MAD, neither side would "overreach" out of fear of starting a nuclear confrontation. Now, as evidenced by the US invasion of Iraq, the sole remaining superpower thinks that it can do whatever the hell it wants, the rest of the world be damned!

[dolgoruky]

78. revolution?

I think you'll find that the "revolution" that swept the east in 89 was considerably less popular than you think.

Remember, these changes came from within the Communist party itself. I've heard accounts from many Soviet citizens about what went on during this time, and what is most striking is how few people actually participated in any kind of anti-Soviet action.

The communist party bosses had it all sewn up way before a single demonstrator was able to even make a placard.

While the "people" were all demonstrating, the bosses were salting away THEIR property.

[3rdParty]

36. from Finland...

I met a local couple (around 30ish) 2 years ago while in Finland. While discussing politics I happen to mention that : back when Finland was 'Communist'...... They became instantly irate and emphatically stated that at NO time during those years that Finland was not free and that they still had their freedoms. That told me all I needed to know about what was really happening to the people right next door to them in Russia.

So I am glad that that the USSR is gone but unfortunatly democracy is not always an easy road but the rewards are definatly worth it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. I don't regret the fall of the USSR, but I miss the counterbalance

it provided against the US. In truth, in most of the struggles of the people of the small nations the USSR was on the right side, while the US was defending the oligarchs, dictators, and madmen under the rubric of "anti-communism".

We should also remember that without the Soviet Union we'd probably be speaking German today.

The light that failed.

[coda]

38. Nope.

The timing especially.

I doubt anyone could have ever imagined it would collapse with so little bloodshed.

There may have not been another window of time for it to have happened in the fashion that it did.

I'll always be grateful for that, considering the dozens of far more tragic scenerios that one can imagine.

[dolgoruky]

74. So little bloodshed!!!!!!!!!!

Have you been to Chechnya recently, or Georgia, or Armenia, or Azerbaijan?

What do you think is happening there? A tea party? These were once some of the richest, most prosperous countries in the Soviet Union. Now they are a cauldron of death and misery.

[coda]

92. Of course you know I'm talking about the event itself.

Aren't those troubles in part because some of the leftover old guard are trying to deal with things in the only manner they know i.e.: heavy-handedness and repression?

A paradigm change never happens w/o some painful re-adjustment and the fact is, the people wanted change and they wanted more freedom.


Do I wish it had happened and was happening differently i.e. more constructively? Yes, of course.

But the fact is (a very important fact), is that the old Regime was bad for many more than just the Soviet people. They were bad for Eastern Europe and many others outside their own borders. Like say, the pre-collapse USSR's invasion of Afghanistan.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. None of my Russian friends

To say you are upset at the fall of a totalitarian nation is a little sad, especially here.

[IrateCitizen]

40. That's funny -- I work with several Russians...

And many of them express how much WORSE things are over there right now. Under the Soviet system, while it was far from perfect, at least people didn't have to worry about such trivialities as having enough to eat, heating in their homes, health care, education, etc.

The "shock therapy" forced on Russia, along with the utter corruption of Yeltsin and his cronies (whom were supported vigorously by the United States) set things back in Russia at least 40-50 years. Just looking at the lifespan statistics -- dropping from an average of 67 to 57 in a decade's time -- shows a complete failure of the so-called "reforms".

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Lack of freedom, jailed for speaking their mind, Gulag

Ah, the good old days.

[IrateCitizen]

53. And you think they don't have many of those things now?

I'm simply trying to look at it objectively. I'm not even trying to present the point of view that it was a paradise of freedom, so don't put those words into my mouth.

And I work with one Russian woman in particular -- and she's more than old enough to remember the "good old days" of the 1960's and 1970's -- who does NOT like the way things are when she goes back to visit.

Why do you think that there is a resurgence in "nostalgia" for communism -- especially among the younger generations -- in Russia? It's because this idea of "freedom" for them has been a major disappointment -- one that has seen the standard of living fall dramatically for most people. Are you trying to tell me that a fall in average lifespan from 67 to 57 does NOT represent some kind of major problem going on?

How about trying to look at this issue in a little more than one dimension, presenting the standard knee-jerk responses that you've been conditioned to produce from your days as a member of American society? That's all I'm trying to do here.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Clearly, they have more freedom now than they did

Russia is in a state of flux and it will take time to build not just democratic institutions, but belief in those same institutions.

Russians are now free to travel, worship, start businesses, etc. Is it all perfect? Hell no, it never will be. No state is perefect, but give them time and they will get a lot better.

All I am trying to do here is point out that the only way I even know my Russian friends (who were not party operatives) is because of this freedom.

[IrateCitizen]

72. Yes, they do have more freedoms that before

That much I'm not arguing with. But chief among those freedoms now seems to be the freedom to starve, the freedom to not get medical care, the freedom to live out lives of hopeless desperation.

I am assuming that you work in a "white-collar" kind of field, if you work with a lot of other Russians. I am a civil engineer, and I work with a good many of them too. Want to know why there are now so many Russians in technical fields in the US?

The brain drain. For most people in Russia who are able to get an education, their number one goal is to LEAVE. EVERYTHING is leaving the country -- capital, technical knowledge, attractive women, etc. The ONLY thing that seems to be staying is alcoholism and hopelessness.

Russia is in a state of flux and it will take time to build not just democratic institutions, but belief in those same institutions.

This statement in itself exposes the fact that you aren't really up on what is really going on over there. Read Joseph Stiglitz's book on globalization. He discusses Russia in a great deal of depth, and exposes it for the complete failure that it has become.

And for the record, having read Emma Goldman's first-hand accounts of life in Russia immediately following Lenin's rise to power, I hold no illusions that it is some kind of "paradise".

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. They don't view it as a failure

So I am now cast in the role of speaking for my friends.

In fact, two of them are going back to Russia because they are starting a business. They left for a while for the fun of it. They now return with skills, contacts and cash.

[IrateCitizen]

85. In that case, I have a couple of questions re: your friends

1. When did they leave Russia and come to the US?

2. Have they lived in Russia for extended periods of time (i.e. long enough to depend on their livelihood there) since they left?

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. Can't answer for all of them

The two that are going back were just here for good chunks of two years. But even then, they have gone back for about a month at a time.

[IrateCitizen]

90. All I can say is that the two I work with everyday now...

... still go back for 3 weeks to a month each year, but neither is in any kind of rush to move back there permanently -- nor do they see their former homeland as a place expressing any kind of hope or optimism.

In fact, most of the Russians I have come across through work have expressed similar sentiments. But I guess there are exceptions to everything.

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. Glass half full or half empty

We can probably say the same for any nation. Hence immigration and emigration.

Oh well, good to see both sides of it for both of us.

[Loonman]

44. Communism and central planning, collective agriculture

Not the socialist paradise everyone thinks it is.

If I asked my Polish friend about Russians who think wistfully of the old USSR, he would say,"they were either too young to get the true gist of a repressive, totalitarian regime, or they had Party ties, so they got perks the average USSR citizen never got.

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/mgep/pdfs/Seleny.pdf



Not only that, the USSR's leading politicals(Party Members) were a glorified oligarchy that lived high on the hog at the expense of their own citizens.

[IrateCitizen]

57. Where did I ever say that it was a paradise?

All I am saying is that, for the vast majority of people in Russia, life is actually WORSE after the so-called "reforms" than it was under the old system. That isn't a defense of the former Soviet system -- it's an indictment of how bad things are over there in its aftermath.

The average lifespan in Russia fell from 67 to 57 in a scant ten years after the fall of the USSR. Such a statistical change does NOT occur in a vacuum. The fall of the USSR did not usher in some new reign of "freedom" -- but rather it was the catalyst for the stripping of anything of value from the old state-owned enterprises through the "privatization" that occured during the "shock therapy" meant to transform Russia to a market economy, along with the movement of all of the country's wealth outside of its borders.

The USSR was not a paradise. Russia today, for many of its citizens, rapidly became a place completely devoid of hope or optimism. I wouldn't call that a step in a positive direction.

[PVnRT]

58. The point IC is trying to make

is that things are no better now. If you think they are, you are sadly mistaken. Rather than transition to democracy and a market economy, they idiotically tried to do everything overnight. Now the mafia, corrupt government officials (many ex-communists, ironically enough), and ruthless business owners are the only ones who are well off.

[IrateCitizen]

67. Thank you! I'd also point you to the other post I made...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=886682&mesg_id=887181&page=

It's a little more substantive than the responses I gave to others' posts.

[Blitz]

95. Things are MUCH better now

If you think that they aren't you are sadly uninformed. I deal with hundreds of Russians. 98% of my clients are Russian or from the former Soviet Republics. These people are starting businesses in Russia. When they leave Russia, it's to be with family or for professional reasons. They are not escaping now with anything that they can carry. They own houses and apartments in Russia and the Soviet Republics without fear that they will be taken without notice.

In St. Petersburg and Moscow, stores are full. There is a thriving nightlife. You can actually get pizza delivered. There are decent restaurants and a person can go to an Irish pub for a Guinness. All of this would have been a fantasy just 20 years ago.

My 17 year old cousin, who, as a Jew, would have had zero opportunities in the Soviet Union, is studying at a University. She has also had an opportunity to study in Paris, has travelled throughout Europe and the United States (including Hawaii). Russians can now visit theor families throughout the world (people who they thought they'd never see again when they left the Soviet Union) and their families can freely visit them in Russia. If you ever go to Israel (or, actually, virtually any Western city), you'll see lots of Russian tour groups, filled with former Soviet subjects spending discretionary funds. The most remarkable thing? They go back to Russia without fear of retribution or that they may never leave again.

There's a TGI Friday's on Red Square and the top retailers on earth compete for that prime real estate. Tourism is way up. Burger joints fill downtown St. Petersburg and I can have a deep-dish Pizza Hut pizza if I want one. First run Hollywood movies don't have to be smuggled in (they're in the theatres) and people can read what they want (even Solzhenytsyn). The malls have everything from computers and stereos to fabrics and Italian shoes.

Not everybody is doing better but many, many people are and there is opportunity and hope now. Those floodgates won't close.

Anyone who thinks that things were better in the grey, hopeless, dead-end world of the Soviet Union simply has no clue.

[Kolesar]

41. The Arabs and the Moslems

"The right wing cannot do what they do without an enemy"--Gore Vidal

Ok, I am being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, but the gop was floundering without an enemy like the Soviets to channel their hatred and fear against. Americans shrugged and elected the best candidate for a change--Bill Clinton.

After 9/11, the gop have somebody new to hate, and that is not going to end soon.

[ACK]

43. The achilles heel of the far left

Its insistent need to continue its love fest for the repressive communist states while failing to truly embrace the socialist european agendas.

Far too much energy on the far left has been spent trying to defend places with governments that are very repressive toward personal rights and freedoms.

At the same time, they missed the opportunity in the late 60's and 70's to embrace the european socialist model and truly move rheoteric into possible action.

When corporatist ultra-national philosophy of fascism was discredited with Hitler during WWII did all right-wingers abandon all the core ideas of the fascist state? No. They did not. However, they did not expend massive amounts of energy trying to defend tolitarianism. They turned fascist ideas around and braced them into policies inside their own agendas and stopped using the tarnished word all together.

We should have done the same thing after Stalin.

Even today some leftists defend China and Cuba as if those states can do no wrong. What a waste of energy.

I will get back posts about how I am just a stooge of the corporatist BushCo trying to push a brand of economic fascism. Nope. Wrong again my friendly marxists.

Instead the far left, should have reached out to embrace more of the ideas of European socialism especially when many of these parties are polarized against the failed policies of their more strident communist party brethren.

BTW, this is coming from a civil libertarian/economic left person who believes more in a regulated capitalist system with a proper social safety net. So, keep the whole IMHO thing in mind please.

[DACT]

45. Let's play right into the hands of McCarthyism, why don't we?

What kind of stupid thread is this?

[Loonman]

47. Marxist baloney is what it is

Ask the guys who got tortured in the Lubyanka(KGB political prison) if they miss the old USSR.

Oh, that's right, once you went in there, you never came out.

[coda]

60. It's a "poll"...

..I think. :-)

[lapislzi]

48. I regret that the experiment failed

for many reasons, not the least of which being external pressures. U.S. policy was calculated to ensure its failure through bankrupting the Soviet Union.

I think socialists should learn from the failures. Maybe we can make it work next time, somewhere else.

[ACK]

50. A tolitarian state that lead to one of the world's worst dictators

Stalin.

How the f*ck can you defend the purges and the gulags and at the same time berate Guatanamo?

We have to be consistent.

God, can't we find a better European socialist model for all you far over leftist out there?

This is so frustrating to watch some Du'ers living up to the radical right's expectations of them.

[lapislzi]

59. I said it failed, didn't I?

I doubt that the framers of the Revolution envisioned dictatorship, purges, and gulags. These all were horrible, horrible mistakes that should never be repeated. But a "union" of "socialist republics?" What's wrong with that on paper? On the face of it, it was certainly better than the neo-feudal czarist police state they were overthrowing.

I'm not being flippant, but shit happens. It didn't play out the way it was supposed to, but that doesn't mean it should never be tried again.

[ACK]

63. Been tried a couple of different ways now

The only way socialism has worked at all was through socialist parties inside of democratic states.

Too much intellectual capital has been wasted on the left defending the dictatorships and tolitarian oligarchies that happen to have state centralized economic planning.

Too little energy has been directed toward looking at the European socialist model and how much of can be useful in the American model of representative democracy.

[lapislzi]

69. I absolutely agree with you there

You will never catch me defending the oligarchic totalitarian model of state capitalism masquerading as socialism. I don't mourn that, for sure.

I actually believe socialism works much more effectively on a smaller scale. One of the major problems with the USSR was that it was just too damn big. The bigger the organism, the more problematic.

There was an interesting discussion on WBAI the other night about the Swedish model. Wish I could remember the name of the guy they were interviewing.

[dolgoruky]

68. You Have Missed the Point

Nobody, as far as I know, has defended purges and gulags in this thread. I asked if anyone regrets the fall of the Soviet Union. And then you run to the moral high ground and start throwing around accusations which you have clearly drwan from the Richard Pipes school of Sovietology. I merely pointed out that more than a decade on, more and more ex-Soviet citizens are regretting what they have lost more deeply than celebrating what they have gained. As this is something which may seem contradictory, it is up to the more scientific minded members of the community to explain this, and not just write it off as nostalgia.

[lapislzi]

76. The poet Yevtushenko

is particularly eloquent on the ideals of the revolution. Granted, he was a state-supported poet, but he is a good poet, and I think he saw clearly what the revolution was *supposed* to stand for. I have not read anything by him lately, though, so I cannot speak for his current politics.

The poetic tradition of the Russian Revolution is quite rich. Digression, but interesting nonetheless.

[ACK]

88. No I have not missed the point

Read my earlier post the achilles heel of the far left.

To say that I do not miss an abusive Soviet style government is not to say that I embrace a capitalist system with no checks where capitalist are basically assumed by the people to be mafia.

I do not embrace the rise of a strong man dictatorship in Putin either.

If you are on that far left of the spectrum I am merely taking the contrarian position that is more morally pure to examine the European Socialist models than to examine the failed states mired in a tolitarian oligarchy with state controlled economics.

[Loonman]

51. If you think top party members in the USSR were socialists...

...you're sadly mistaken.

Socialistic ideals went out the window when Stalin purged the party.

His best pal Beria(Secret Police chief) had a penchant for raping 14 year old Russian farm girls too.


The Soviet upper party members lived just as excessively as the tsars did.

[lapislzi]

61. well, that's why it failed

...along with external pressures. It stopped being "socialist" very early on, and reverted to the easiest out, state capitalism.

[Charlls]

52. maybe

how about starting here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=25124

[Imajika]

70. Why would it work next time?

"I think socialists should learn from the failures. Maybe we can make it work next time, somewhere else."

No, you can't make it work anywhere.

Communism has failed every single place it has been tried. The entire utopian theory runs flat contrary to human nature in almost every way. It is an uncompetative, unresponsive, overly bureaucratic and an utterly innefficient form of governance. Communism strips most people of incentive and will simply never be able to compete with free market models. Additionally, it lends itself to totalitarianism if for no other reason than that communist governance hasn't even the slimmest hope of suceeding if the population periodically dumps the system and votes for capitalist, free market candidates who would unravel the entire thing.

Communism didn't work 70 years ago, it doesn't work anywhere today and it won't work anywhere tomorrow.

I don't believe real Democratic Socialism is a very good alternative either, but if a given population wishes to give it a try and elect Socialist candidates then more power to them. I have no quarrel with that.

Imajika

[IrateCitizen]

49. My primary regret is the WAY in which it dissolved

Nostalgia for the good-old-days of the former USSR is a bit misplaced. It's important to remember that this was a country in which free political thought was outlawed. As bad as censorship and forced patriotism are becoming here, it still doesn't compare to the USSR under Brezhnev or Kruschev, let alone under Stalin. :scared:

HOWEVER...

One thing I often wonder is what would have happened if Gorbachev had been able to carry out the reforms that he started. Personally, I think he recognized some very important things and was quite bold in moving to take action.

First, he recognized that the arms race with the US was senseless on two counts: it was bankrupting the USSR, and it was completely senseless to have so much weaponry that the countries could blow up the world twenty times over. Amazingly, his moves were to disarm -- even if it meant a UNILATERAL disarmament. It's important to remember that it was Gorbachev who floated the idea of eliminating ALL nuclear weapons that the two had pointed at each other, an idea that the US rebuffed.

Sceondly, he recognized that there was a serious lack of openness in the Soviet system, and that he needed to move to correct that. He also recognized that to completely undo several decades of an overbearing, totalitarian system in an instant would be disastrous. Institutions to handle the increasing degrees of openness (financial, civic, law-related) would have to be developed as the openness occurred.

Thirdly, I think that Gorbachev recognized the failure of the centrally-planned economy, but still saw hope for the socialist ideal. This kind of ties in with the second point, in that he hoped to revitalize the idea of a social economy through market reform, allowing much of the control to decentralize and actually get down to the level of allowing people most affected by policies to make the decisions.

Sadly, we will never know if any of these ideas would have come to reality, because Gorbachev was ousted and the incredibly corrupt and self-serving Boris Yeltsin took control. One of the books I just read is Globalization and its Discontents by Joseph Stiglitz, and it devotes a lot of time to the "shock therapy" administered to Russia by the IMF (led by the US). He paints it in no uncertain terms -- it was a disaster. And one of the big reasons is the lack of institutions to deal with the changes within Russia itself. Yeltsin didn't help either, because the "privatization" of state-owned assets amounted to little more than giveaways to allies of Yeltsin, stripping of assets within those enterprises, and the moving of Russian wealth out of the country. Then there was the rise in "mafia capitalism" and the relegation of Russia to the status of a third-world country, with all social indicators falling dramatically(including life span from 67 to 57 years on average).

That's my take on it, for what it's worth.

[PVnRT]

54. So do the neoconservatives

The USSR was a nice, convenient scapegoat and enemy that they could have everyone focus on. Without, they were left in the lurch, and now we get to have little wars all over the world, unopposed militarily, to satisfy their drive for power and fear-mongering.

[Good Fences]

55. No. Nor the fall of Nazi Germany or the Japanese Emperor

Russian people might miss order and bread. But that’s nothing compared to the enormous evil that was the USSR. Stalin killed millions of his own. There was a huge system of gulags.

Central planning = soul crushing. Plus its just dumb to begin with. It never worked. The only countries left who think a planned economy is a good idea are those poor african nations who barely have an economy anyway.

Walter Duranty, star reporter for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize winner and stooge of Joseph Stalin.

In the early 1930s, when he was head of the Times's Moscow Bureau, Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer for a series of 13 articles on the Soviet Union. In 1932, the great famine began. The horror and brutality of that episode can hardly be exaggerated. The famine was not simply a natural disaster: it was planned and prosecuted by Stalin and his goons. Millions died in lingering agony. The whole story is ably told in Robert Conquest's classic The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine.

With peasants dropping like flies everywhere around him, Duranty cheerfully cabled back to New York that although there were some occasional food shortages, there was "no actual starvation." That's good news, Walter! Just what we wanted to hear. Have a Pulitzer. We knew we could count on you to tell the people back home about the wonderful strides Joe Stalin is making--no need to exaggerate the dark side of things. Progress is hard work: idealists need all the help they can get!

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[bleedingheart]

62. My Lithuanian family was happy to see the Soviet Empire

fall apart because the countries of Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia finally got their freedom.

Personally the same system is in place its just that they don't feel an obligation to help the people anymore...the old system guaranteed people a job/education...now they use the blanket excuse of free markets to screw all the people over.

To be honest I feel sorry for Russia and its people...plagued by Czarist excess they jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

[Township75]

65. Evidently, the Russians do not...

after their recent election, the Communists lost so many voters that they are not represented in the government any longer.

Furthermore, most of their supporters are old in age, and support the party to protect their pensions. Those supporters are dying off, and the young people are not flocking to the party.

I see Communism as something that only works on paper, and will likely never work with humans, becuase of human nature. Apparently, those that have lived closely with it agree

[dolgoruky]

71. Not sure you're correct there

If you think the recent phoney elections in Russia reflect accurately what the people feel, the you are totally mistaken.

Ballot rigging and control of the media, mixed with a large dose of apathy ensured a good return for the Kremlin dictor.

[AG78]

73. Not an expert on these things or anything...

and don't know every detail the way some people seem to, but like has been said a few times, the idea of it, before Stalin and people like that came around and took total advantage of it, was good.

But on the other side, the idea of America is good as well, but it's well into the process of being perverted into something that wasn't supposed to be.

One killed it's own people in unbelievable numbers to stay in power, the other goes around killing the planet and exhausting any resource there is. Any system is corruptable.

Left to their own lives, regular people everywhere, in every country, simply just want to live free. But, in every country, you'll end up having certain people that will want power. And thus the seemingly eternal struggle between human beings continues. It's happened all throughout human history, at least when civilizations started to emerge.

It's the people of these countries that get screwed. The Russian people got killed, we get divided more and more everyday. In the short-term, the Russian people dying at the hands of brutal leaders was awful. We'll be hurt more in the long-term sense, because it's that old military saying, divide and conquer.

Maybe when our way of life fades into history because oil is running out, the people will learn from history and we'll be able to build a better society(in whatever society around the world you wish to pick out). Although I doubt it. But I'm hopeful.

[Minstrel Boy]

75. I regret the fall of the United States

from republic to evil empire.

It's been falling for 50 years, but the ground's that much closer now, isn't it?

"Empire's crumble,
this one will too.
So here's to the day,
that this one is through."
- David Rovics

[Ficus]

79. can't say I do

I think the world is a better place without the Soviet Union.

I miss the red stars and the sycle and hammer, and the CCCP and all that nostalgic Cold War stuff, but the atrocities, NO.

[DoNotRefill]

86. Hey...

if you want soviet souvanirs, they're available, CHEAP!!!

[Ficus]

91. my favorite of mine

is my Federov hockey jersey with the CCCP on it...

[DoNotRefill]

96. I like my bust of Lenin...

and my nice warm fur hat. Got a bunch of other knick-knacks, most sent to me by a buddy of mine in the Ukraine. He's also sent me a bunch of WWII German stuff, like bullet-riddled helmets.

[AntiCoup2K4]

87. Don't miss the Kremlin and the KGB, but....

...in some ways life made a Hell of a lot more sense when you could look at a map and say "there's the bad guys" and not depend on a corrupt cabal of global fascists to tell you about an alleged terrorist organization that seems to change definitions to whatever is convenient for them (PNAC) at the moment.

What I DON'T miss is billions of dollars wasted on nuclear missiles that now can do nothing but either poison the earth or end up in the wrong hands.

[Moderator]

99. locked

Please review the rules for starting a new thread in GD before starting a new thread in GD.

Thanks

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided.

3. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

4. If you wish to start a vanity thread (ie: a discussion thread in which the sole purpose is to share your personal opinion) you must state your opinion in a non-inflammatory manner which respects differences in opinion and facilitates actual discussion.

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.