"WHY RUSSIAN DEMOCRACY FAILED IN 1917" - azov's thread
Posted 29 January 2003 - 04:26 PM
azov posted 12-20
Having done much research on this subject, I offer this as convincing an hypothesis as any. Of course there may never be any definite answer - no such things exist in life - but I'll stack my insights up against anyone's. Here goes:
The Russian "Democrats" of WW I were overwhelmingly pro-Allied. While Nicholas II had gotten into the war for reasons of empire, he was by 1916 threatened with the collapse of his army, the rising tide of domestic democracy, and the loss of his Throne, a rerun of 1905-1906 but carried, this time, to full term. Thus he began to have second thoughts, together with his German-born wife, who wished peace at any price to save Nicky's throne and protect her original Fatherland from the Allies. Their unofficial go-between to Berlin was Rasputin.
For this reason Rasputin was despised and assassinated. The suspected peace sentiments of the Tzarina gave the Duma Democrats grist for their mill, allowing them to use the war to advance a liberal democratic platform and gain the sympathy of the Allied embassies. They were also able to propagate fear of the Tzar as "infected" by his wife's peace bug, and not without reason. The Russian Democrats at last saw an opportunity.
A conspiracy for an anti-Tzarist coup was gradually evolved by the Russian Democrats, military, and Allies. The war had to go on, and Nicholas and Alexandra had to go out. Removing them hit a couple of birds with the same rock: because the Eastern Front was collapsing under the German onslaught, it was imperative to get America into the war to save the Allied cause. A collapsed East meant the spectre of German troops marching through Paris, and the key to Paris lay through Petrograd, as German General Ludendorff acknowledged. Yet to get U.S. involvement meant catering to President Woodrow Wilson's democratic sensibilities. Wilson needed overwhelming proof that the war was being waged "to make the world safe for democracy," in his famous phrase, before he could put the case for joining it before the American public. He could not do this with the Tzar of Russia as an ally, for even then Russia was painted as the "prison of nations" and the Tzarist regime had no credibility in U.S. public opinion: "A Kaiser with a beard instead of a mustache."
Although the British were at first reluctant, they had to read the handwriting on the wall and finally acquiesced with the idea of a coup. Riots and strikes were instigated by democratic groups against the Tzar - likely funded, if not directly led, by the Western embassies. The deterioting domestic strife allowed the Allies, the Russian Democrats and Russian General Staff to proposition Nicholas with an offer he could hardly refuse: abdicate, or they would publish the German contacts made by his wife and Rasputin for a seperate peace. The revelation of this would have destroyed the Romanov family's last shred of credibility. Thus faced with a choice of "execution" or "suicide," the Tzar gracefully bowed to the latter. He was also "advised" to abdicate for his son. Grand-Duke Michael was also prevailed upon by the pro-war party to refuse the offered Crown. This put the Liberal faction of the Duma in charge of a so-called Provisional Government of Public Confidence.
With the pro-war Democrats in charge the ewar effort, at first, seemed to receive a new lease on life. Alexander Kerensky, co-founder and Vice-President of the Petrograd Soviet, was made Minister of War in a coalition government of both Duma and Soviet. The problem remained, however, of Russia's technical inability to fight a modern war against an industrial power like Germany. Many common folks were already going in an opposite direction of the pro-war Democrats, seeing in the overthrow of the Tzar a new beginning - the end of the Tzar's war and the beginning of a social revolution. The Soviet's Order Number One, for instance, countermanded the orders of the Army General Staff in favor of the Soviet's executive Committee - long before there was a Bolshevik majority in the Soviet. To arrest this development, Kerensky was finally appointed acting Head of State, in a vain effort to keep the public mood in the pro-war "defensist" camp.
The lack of serious commitment to domestic democracy in favor of the war effort turned the masses away from Kerensky. Kerensky in turn kept postponing the scheduled elections to the Constituent Assembly, stalling until "democracy won the war." This did not sit well with the peasants - some 70% of the population - whose idea of democracy was measured in land and bread, not demagogic phrases or words on paper. Workers wanted an end to wartime shortages, soldiers were tired of fighting, and the national minorities wanted some of this self-determination at home, advocated by the Allies. The Russian Democrats, who depended on liberal landowners, industrialists, the Russian military - all of whom had deep contacts with the Allied Powers - could not give in to this pressure from below without losing their usefulness to those above. They hoped a war victory would resolve the contradiction, but the rotten fence they attempted to straddle simply crumbled from beneath them.
By this time Lenin had come along with his slogan of "land, peace, bread and all power to the Soviets!" As things descended from bad to worse this call proved irresistable, because it was based on concrete solutions to problems and not mere idealistic platitudes. The Russian Democrats, in being so pro-Allied, had forgotten to be pro-Russian; and that democracy, like any other virtue, begins at home. The October Revolution followed. The Provisional Government fell, with no one to run to its rescue.
As a result of this sad story, the Russian Democrats of 1917 remain to this day a disgrace in Russian history. Virtually no one has tried to resurrect their memory in post-Soviet times, in contrast to the flowering interest in the Imperial Era.
As a postscipt, when the Soviet government under Lenin finally allowed the Constituent Assembly to be elected and convene - something the "democrat" Kerensky had refused to do - the dominant party of Social Revolutionaries emerged as victors. But not the Party's leaders; rather, the same discredited pro-war claque had gerrymandered the party's delegation against the will of their own SR Committee. These folks could not recognize that they had long ago blown whatever credibility they possessed in February of 1917. The Constituent Assembly, too, was folded without a fight.
The moral of the story? Thank St. Tatiana that Yeltsin's revamped Provisional Government took power in peacetime . . .
azov posted 01-03
fighterpilot posted 01-04
Are you refering to the Socialist Democratic Party? If so, I totally agree.The USA, is at the present time almost 50% just that.
european posted 01-04
Fighterpilot - this thread is supposed to be about revolutionary Russia.....is it really necessary to start on about the USA??? Can't you go to the politics forum to indulge your obsession?
Azov: in my last post before they all got deleted I asked if we were going to continue this thread with some thoughts about Stalin's collectivisation, industrialisation and 5 year plans.
azov posted 01-05
Well, european, we can . . .
Or we can stick to the topic.
I'd prefer the latter, as it's fairly new historical ground.
european posted 01-07
OK well I haven't got much time now, but one very interesting book I read which uses the new archival stuff coming out is by J Arch Getty 'The Road to Terror'. A lot of previous stuff centred on work by Conquest which is very easy to read because of its awfulness. But his figures of death by famine have largely been discredited in recent years.
azov posted 01-07
As they deserve to be! Using Conquest's figures, as I explained on another post, leaves not enough free adult Soviet males to do the work or sire the next generation. Conquest is also a patron of far-right Ukrainian nationalists, whose untruthfulness regarding the 1930's famine is legendary - because the British Establishment hoped to use these old UPA/Bandera people in cold war operations, they were special pets of MI6, which helped peddle their nonsense through academics like Conquest.
Of course, I don't want to belittle what really happened. It was bad enough, without being distorted for political agendas.
azov posted 01-09
Up and running!
More to follow!
Stay tuned, tovarishchi!
european posted 01-11
yeah will do - will write some stuff tomorrow. Be nice to have a conversation with a lucid person!
Boogiedog posted 01-11
I believe was Lenin who said that the power was just laying around to be picked up. That is to say that Kerensky had failed to get his act together and Lenin was the better politician.
Posted 29 January 2003 - 04:30 PM
azov posted 01-12
True, B-D, but it fails to explain why Lenin was the better politician: because he had a better grasp of the nation of Russia, its society and people, and what they wanted. He found a way of regurgitating back to them - whether sincerely or not is irrelevant - and made their ideas seem like his, and vice versa. The masses were "bolshevik" before October, and it was loss of faith in promise-making "democrats" like Kerensky that made them so.
What did said masses want to hear?
1.) Peasants, that the land they worked was theirs as promised.
2.) Soldiers, that the losing war would stop.
3.) Workers, that war shortages would cease and that would enjoy democracy on the job as part of their new civil liberties.
4.) Minorities, that they would be given self-government in a Russian Federation, or if desired, complete independence.
Add these four categories/classes, you get at minimum 85% of the population of 1917.
All wanted 5.) A truly popular government as close to the grass-roots ideal as possible, removed from the intrigues of high bureaucrats, ministers, the wealthy, landed, and titled - like the soviets.
What the "Democrats" offered in competition:
1.) The land question to be postponed until after victory, then solved in a manner "fair to all" - that is, involving purchasing land in the estate owner's favor, buying him out in a way that neither the state nor the peasant could truly afford.
2.) Continuing the war until complete victory, side-by-side with the Great Allies, so that Russia could take her seat among the European Powers with her list of war claims on the vanquished, like the Dardanelles and the city of Constantinople.
3.) No strikes or wage increases in war time, continuing of rationing, all power to be in the hands of a National economic Board in the hands of industrialists.
4.) "Russia, One and Indivisible." No pandering to secessionists, a united military power equal to the UK or France.
5.) An elected Constituent Assembly, to decide the Constitution of the Russian Republic, to be convened after the war was safely won and radical elements put in their place.
A program that appealed at most to 15% of the population.
A case of democrats forgetting to be democratic, of war-loving ultra-patriots putting the interests of their allies above their own people and their self-interest above their country.
Boogiedog posted 01-12
Azov: Your analysis seems to be essentially on target. For all I know I might have supported Lenin had I lived there at that time.
It is also a fact that Lenin was really quite blood thirsty. He is often made out to be a great benevolent thinker and not at all like Stalin who followed.
But history is what it is. If there is one thing I have learned it is to be skeptical of all politicians and their promises. That is why we have a consititution that severely limits the power of politicians. In point of fact, governance in the United States is deliberately inefficient and difficult. On the surface that would seem to be ridiculous but it is how our system works. The system is obviously not perfect but all-in-all I wouldn't live anywhere else.
Doug posted 01-15
Interesting thread. I have occasionally glimpsed, but not contributed.
I think one must view that phase of history in that land in the context of:
1. The average educational level of the peasants(and thus their ability to understand the principles of democracy)
2. The previous 1000 year history of the nation and culture which knew nothing else but monarchy.
3. The technological means(state of the art) of mass communication and media at the time.
azov posted 01-15
1.) This assumes emocracy is something that only literate people can grasp. I think this is a great oversimplification. The politics of folks like the Russian muzhik was/is comprised of practical matters: land, bread, peace, etc. The Provisional Government lost its mandate because it was too bogged down in legal formulations and did not care for fulfilling human needs, surely the bottom line of any real democracy.
2.) This is another myth. The Russian peasant had a good deal of experience in grass roots government through the village commune, which apportioned land use in the village.
3.) Revolution did follow the ralroads and telegraph lines, true enough, but its main protagonist in 1917 was the returning soldier-peasant, who had been called up from every corner of the Empire. Wherever he went, the uprisings followed.
european posted 01-15 12:54
Well actually Lenin had a poor view of the peasants' (and workers') abilities to grasp concepts of political awareness - hence 'What is to be Done' and the leadership of his vanguard party. But as Azov says, the peasants had a long history of democracy within their own villages etc. (notwithstanding the autocratic form of government). Also, the anarchists were very active in Russia. Contrary to what Lenin preached, they advocated revolution from below. ANd, as I pointed out earlier somewhere on this thread, Lenin's 'State and Revolution' used many anarchist concepts - this was to get them on the side of the Bolsheviks. One very interesting book is 'The Bolshevik Myth' by Alexander Berkman. He had been exiled as a political dissident, but went back to Russia during the revolutions. The book documents his dissilusionment with the Bolsheviks.
Azov - I have been away but will start new thread re Stalinism later tonight hopefully. It's very interesting stuff, as you know.
azov posted 01-16
Glad you're back, euro! Yes, I have an original edition copy of Berkman's book. But the reason I think he was not listened to was that many socialists in the West needed the comfort of "The Bolshevik Myth" and were afraid that if they admitted its errors capitalist propaganda would pull the rug out from under them. Sort of like what happened after 1989 anyway . . .
azov posted 01-18
Oh, no! Not so fast . . . Bump!
european posted 01-20
Ok - something about the Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921. One of the greatest ironies of the uprising was that it was motivated by revolt against the Bolshevik government, themselves helped to power in 1917 by the sailors on the base. At the time of the uprising, peasants comprised 50% of the Bolshevik Party members on the naval base, compared with 28% nationally. A high concentration of peasants in the ranks focused attention on rural conditions.
Lenin was initially silent over the affair: some (e.g. Maximoff) have argued that this inaction was motivated by his desire for one-party absolutism, which he saw as attainable through provoking the sailors into an open confrontation which they could not possibly win. Lenin was also influenced and motivated by his low regard for both the peasants and the workers.
Another point to consider is that at the end of the Civil War, the Russian economy was on the point of collapse: the national income was barely a third of what it had been in 1913, with industry producing less than a fifth of the goods manufactured pre-war. In an effort to alleviate the problems, Lenin proposed the implementation of the NEP, whereby the peasantry would gain the right to profit in the market place while leaving political power in the hands of the Bolsheviks.
azov posted 01-21
Hey euro, what's shakin?
Re: the Kronstadt Rebellion pf 1921, a good source on this is Paul Avrich's book, "Kronstadt, 1921" (appropriately enough.)
The sailors were responding in sympathy to a mass strike in Petrograd, where workers were protesting the continued shortages and corruption of War Communism, still in force after the civil war had supposedly ended. Because the sailors were armed, and had a leading reputation from 1917, their "mutiny" carried a lot of weight. The worried Soviet Government at first tried to placate them, but with revolts going on in the countryside Lenin knew he couldn't equivocate with divisions in the Soviet military.
Trotsky helped crush the revolt, while Zinoviev as Party boss of Petrograd egged the repression on with machine guns mounted on top of the Smolny Institute, the CP headquarters. This history helps explain why there was no mass outcry when these people were later purged. Stalin knew sacrificing them would make him popular and "rehabilitate" the Party's image with the masses.
[note to azov: i corrected petrograd there for you :]
azov posted 01-21
Read "Petrograd" (I WISH Pravda would invest in SPELL CHECK - H E L L O ! ?)
Anyway, you're right about the peasant proportion. And a lot of them were from the Ukraine, too.
Exadversum posted 01-21
Pretty inventive, azov. : ) Cheers for the thread, guys, it's interesting reading.
european posted 01-22
Yeah well we're on a mission to use this forum for useful discussion....
Azov - I have that book thanks. I did a lot of research into Makhno, Kronstadt etc a few years back. I also have books by Serge, Voline and Maximoff - fascinating reading which gives a different viewpoint to the usual history books.
Posted 29 January 2003 - 04:32 PM
Sorry, ex, Pravda just won't invest in spellcheck and my fumblefingers fly over the board too fast at times. Anyway . . .
euro, by Maximoff I guess you mean his "The Guillotine at Work," of which I have volume I. Avrich also wrote "Russian Anarchists," and "Russian Rebels," and of course no library on the Revolution is complete without Voline's huge book. Another good one, though hard to come by, is Steinberg's "In the Workshop of the revolution," written by the first Soviet (and non-Bolshevik) Minister of the Interior.
Arshinov's "History of the Makhnovist Movement" is also irreplaceable. "The Russian Revolution" by Sukhanov and "The Great Russian Revolution" by Chernov also give on-the-spot accounts that seem to be be consistently "missed" in Western histories.
Also Oliver Radkey's original research into the SRs makes interesting reading. Emma Goldman wrote a lot on her disappointment in Russia, and Berkman's "The Bolshevik Myth" is available now in paperback, believe it or not.
In other words - there's more than is dreamt of in the conventional regurgitations of Conquest, Pipes, et al.
european posted 01-22
Cheers for that Azov - I didn't know about the ones by Sukhanov and Chernov. I liked Radkey. At the moment I'm doing a lot of research into contemporary Russian politics etc, so my reading of revolutionary stuff has gone by the wayside....
azov posted 01-23
Good source for contemporary stuff on Russia is - appropriately enough - "Yeltsin's Russian," by Shevtsova.
azov posted 01-24 02:18
Added reflections on the original post:
Without exception, the "defensists" of the Provisional Government had contacts with the French Government, Embassy, and, doubtlessly, Surite. Boris Savinkov, Kerensky's War Minister, had in fact served as an officer in the French Army. The French Embassy is a prime location of our alleged coup against Nicholas II - which makes sense, since beleagured France stood to lose the most from a collapsed Eastern Front.
The United States would have come in a close second on the plot, as it was looking for a reason first of all to bolster up the Eastern Front so as not to have to get in the war, but needed a "democracy" in place to justify its Wilsonian values should intervention prove necessary. The British were likely the most reluctant to see Nicholas go, for sentimental monarchist reasons, but ice-cold realists that they are recognized the need for a change at the top to rescue the Russian war effort.
The full truth of this allegation may never come out, at least not until the files of the Surite or MI6 are made more public. But hints made by contemporary journalists, Western diplomats, and Russian politicians in their memoirs point a strong circumstantial finger to the conclusion of a bloodless coup against Nicholas II in February of 1917.
azov posted 01-26
Come back here!
stranger posted 01-26
Azov, I went lately through "Russian history" by Melvin Wren,(he was a professor of history in the University of Ohio.)
I liked the book very much.
Looking at developments of events in historical progression, I'd say that by 1917 no democracy in European sense could realistically be established in Russia. Any attempt to do so was too late and too little. I believe that the core of the problem has been (and always has been) the ownership of the land. The serfdom, the end of it in 1861 and release of millions of serfs without a piece of land or property - that what sets Russia apart from the rest of Europe. Any attempt to implement the badly needed agrarian reforms were undermined or abolished. Pietr Stolypin, who understood the biggest need of it, was assasinated.
In 1825 the better part of Russian aristocracy staged the revolt against Tzar - those were the first attempts to establish in a republic and to deal with the problems of serfdom. It failed, of course, and the question of Russian peasentry and land ownership has never been settled in a proper way. In the long run that was a main reason that brought Russia, the 70% agrarian country to a devastating conditions. Any attempt to establish "democracy" by 1917 was already too late and too little.
I would remind that the land ownership became a big issue again with Soviet authorities, who immedeately saw the need to take the land away from peasants, (which has been promised to them to begin with,) but I know you have started new thread already.
And just another food for a thought;
there is no coincidence, that post-soviet government again DID NOT implement the agrarian reform and DID NOT allowed the land in the private ownership by everage citizens, untill the oligarchy of former communist has been firmly established.
Hence - the question that has been hunting Russia from the very beginning has not been settled AGAIN.
Who were the tribes to whom the land belonged originally? Those, who tilled the land and became serfs were the rightfull owners. It has been taken away and their discendents STILL DIDN'T GET IT BACK!!!
azov posted 01-26
I hear you. I do believe the biggest impediment to a Western-style parliamentiary democracy in 1917 was the war itself, which ironically made the Tzar's overthrow possible in the first place.
If the removal of the Tzar had been possible without war from 1905-1917, and a Russian Republic created, it would have strongly resembled a South American style "republic." The land problem, as you say, would still have remained, and worse, land speculators would possibly have moved into dispossess the peasantry. I believe this is what the post-Communist government in Russia was afraid of, and in this the kolkhoz peasants and bureaucrats have a common concern.
jethrobiz posted 01-27
American businessmen needed war, no matter how they sold it. From Trotsky's PACIFISM AS THE SERVANT OF IMPERIALISM--
". . . . At the very moment when many pious people (even Kautsky) were hoping that the horrors of the butchery in Europe would fill the American bourgeoisie with horror of militarism , the real influence of the events in Europe was proceeding, not on psychological , but on materialistic lines, and was leading to the very opposite results. The exports of the USA, which in 1913 had totalled 2,466 millions of dollars, rose in 1916 to the crazy height of 5,481 milliards of dollars. Naturally the lion's share of this export trade was allotted to the munitions industry. Then came the sudden threat of a cessation in the export trade to the Entente countries, when unrestricted submarine warfare began. In 1915 the Entente had imported American goods up to thirty-five milliards, while Germany and Austria-Hungary had barely imported as much as fifteen millions. Thus, not only a diminution of the gigantic profits was indicated, but the whole of American industry, which had its basis in war industry, was now threatened with a severe crisis. It is to these figures that we must look for the key to the division of "sympathies" in America. And so the capitalists appealed to the State : "It is you who started this development of war-industry under the banner of pacifism, it is now up to you to find us a new market." If the State was not in a position to promise the "freedom of the seas" (in other words, freedom to squeeze capital out of human blood) then it must open a new market for the threatened war industries - in America itself. And so the requirements of the European slaughter produced a sudden, a catastrophic militarisation of the USA." http://www.marxists....17/pacifism.htm In other words, when American businessmen couldn't sell to both sides, they had to sell to the American people to stay in business. Iraq isn't as generous as was Germany in helping the sales pitch.
azov posted 01-27
I'd agree with all that, except to add it wasn't just about war industries, but the long-range economic domination of Europe and its trans-Atlantic trade and colonial empires.
Posted 16 February 2003 - 10:15 PM
This inevitably left the Bolsheviks with only one choice if they were to accomplish the modernisation of Russia; the rebirth of "War Communism"(Nationalisation) and a decalaration of War on the peasant class. Collectivization was, in essence, an attempt to return Russia to pre-1917 forms of industrial organisation and to hopefully transcend it further.
Institutionalised democracy, being essentially an alien construct to the peasant village, was thus doomed to fail in 1917. Even Soviet "democracy" was largely ignored by the Mir and considered an irrelevance. The peasants had their land and had no interest in the modern state or it's urban environments(population in Petrograd and Moscow declined by 70% and 50% respectively between 1917-1921). Look at the rates of desertion amongst Red Army forces in the Civil War (over 4.5 million deserted 1919-20) and you can see the sheer contempt that the peasant had for the state and it''s institutions, even when that state was supposedly defending it's interests.
The peasant had won. Only the sheer ruthlessness of perhaps only 2 million dedicated Party members could reverse this process of de-modernisation in the long term.
Politics in Russia had become virtually irrelevant. It had been drowned in a sea of peasant indifference.
I will also add that it is even doubtful whether the Bolshevik victory in the Civil War was accomplished through "popular will". The effective military forces on both sides were tiny. The Soviet Government's trump card was the retaining of 40,000 professional Latvian rifleman. It was they who singlehandedly defeated the Left-SR rising and intervened at crucial moments in the battles against the Whites. The mass peasant Red army was useless as was shown in the Polish campaign.
Posted 17 February 2003 - 02:55 PM
The thing that fascinates me is the fact that any form of effective centralised governement has existed at all on the Eurasian plain. A credit to Bolshevik organisation surely and the burning ambitions of a few lunatic Tsars.
But for the intervention and subsequent legacy of the British, one could also perhaps say the same for the Indian Sub-Continent as well.
The more I look at that region the more I am convinced that the strategic position of Japan more or less guarantees it continental dominance providing China is kept weak by competing powers in the region.
Islands are so damned important in history. I know because I live on one and look what we achieved... not bad at all for a bunch of poxy, miserable pirates!
Posted 17 February 2003 - 05:35 PM
while you are analyzing mistakes of the past,
did we agree on a new location for the next event?
So what's it going to be, US or UK?
Death to the whiteees...
(party member of Jewish conspiracy since 1905)
Posted 17 February 2003 - 06:33 PM
The USA has one advantage over us and that is space, which ultimately translates into time. Not so for our miserable little island. They are also a nation of immigrants so have no concept of territoriality like us.
You only have to walk the streets of the UK to get that uncanny "feeling" of ineluctable fate and impending conflict. It feels slightly how Yugoslavia felt in the mid-80s; that slight twinge of comic hysteria in people's voices followed by sudden introspective gloom(a very Un-British characteristic) that betokens a car wreck of massive proportions.
I will give the Uk about 5 years or possibly sooner if the "War on Terror" hots up. Everybody I talk to is emigrating.(mainly to Australia and the USA).
I read your post on the similarity of Russians and Afro-Americans and found it engrossing.
Posted 18 February 2003 - 02:08 AM
So you are giving it 5 years or possibly sooner if the "War on Terror" hots up? Somehow my prediction is about the same, out of all places I am talking about Britain too, although it's a country in Europe I know the least about. As I keep on repeating, if this war with Iraq will go ahead, it will all ultimately come to England making the choice, whether it will stick with US policies and the rest of nonsence, which US currently stands for.... Let me come up with my outlook here; if we are talking immigration and minorities issue in Europe, which irritates the **** out of you, then US is at the core of a problem, the way I see it.
Well, the way you put it, there is nothing wrong with minorities, and you are not a bigot, but Europe is running out of space - there are too many of them trying to settle there. I know precisely what you are talking about - when I visited Frankfurt, I could hardly hear German language on the streets. Same was in Austria. Not only Arabs and other people from the thirld world countries, but plenty of Poles and Yugoslavs, who, I would imagine, would have stayed home, if the situation there was different. So to me it looks like while the "old world" is mostly an ocean of poverty, there is an island there, with decent living conditions and established law, called "Western Europe" and a great number of people is trying to get on that island, thus leaving less and less space for its "aborigenes" - lol - Brits, Germans, French...
But you see, if the "new world " is to succed (and I am talking about the US, of course,) then it has to cut and chop the "old" one, to tailor its needs; the corrupted governments, which support US policies and keep the rest of their population in poverty, the whole scheme of science called "economy," and things like mmm....Turkey forced upon EU.
Because Europe, from US point of view, is something exotic and outdated. You, there, in Europe, still might think that it's a cradle of modern civilization, but not your average American Joe. As far as he is concerned, America is the locomotive of the world, and if the world is to live in "American century," then Europe at the end should be sacrificed. Here comes the interesting part - except for England, lol. It was British empire that ruled the world for how long? Well, you know who's colonies Australia, Canada, US are?
Particularly US - aren't you there in England are happy that you produced such an "offshoot?" Because, I can tell you with confidence, American culture is nothing else but a "modified" version of British one - "modified" in order to assimilate the whole bunch of the chopped "branches from the old tree" (that's how more or less bible refers to it.) And then to come up with the hyped pretences- "We did it! We managed to produce some great new nation, out of blacks, whites and whatever comes in-between. We are sipping the same neutral coca-cola, munch universal french fries, and ready to welcome you, Jesus into your last kingdom.
But if you, as Brit, happened to disagree and to say I want to keep my Britain (Germany, France) in its original form and culture, with its pudding, (bratwurst, brie, whatever,) then you are on your own, because of that's not the trend, that supports US future as the ultimate state of the world.
However, starting from Germany, which already understands that she is the first one in line to be "rolled over," things begin to change. The main reason for the beginning of chain reaction, as I see it, was the attempt to eliminate Russia, which through the history was the main counterbalance and one of the major cards in the game called "politics," well, to eliminate Russia from potential competition and to turn it back into colony once and for all.
Can't type any further, although I d'like to comment some more on Russia and things you, S.C., found "engrossing."
PS. BTW, words like "inelactable" ain't big help either, since my English dictionary, apparently, doesn't expect me to use them.
Posted 18 February 2003 - 01:17 PM
I wholly agree with you. America does consciously promote the ideology of "hybridisation", which in turn is a legacy of the British Empire. And you are also right, I am not a bigot. I believe in cultural and genetic diversity, something that the "Liberals" and "multi-culturalists" do not.
As a "Marxist", I would say that the free flow of capital predetermines the free flow of labour. One cannot therefore propose a return to "nativism" or the safeguarding of the rights of indigenous peoples to a native homeland without overthrowing the current economic order.
I do not offer a political-economic programme or solutions to this problem because I do not believe that, in the present cicumstances, there can be any solution. In truth, what needs to happen is the worldwide fiat money system to collapse(which it clearly is doing) and internal conflicts to break out all over the Western World. Although I oppose the current imperialist war on Iraq and "Islamic Terror" on moral grounds, I find myself supporting it as a necessary prelude to the breakdown of world order. I view it as Lenin viewed WW1 ie "the worse, the better".
I also sincerely believe that for a society like Britain to go more than 20 years without an external conflict is probably socially divisive and "un-natural". Our sense of nationhood has slowly declined since the Falklands War. A strong socially-cohesive state cannot survive without external or internal enemies. That was why the USSR collapsed. The minute is ceased to be an "armed camp", it could only but gradually be weakened by the slow, insidious process of capitalist infiltration. Stalin understood this perfectly. He told the Politburo, shortly before he died, that they were soft "like children" and the CapStrana would eventually overwhelm them.
I will leave you with a quote by Dostoyevsky that sums up my views on prosperous, "peaceful" societies.
"Magnanimity perishes during long periods of peace and, in it's stead, there develops cynicism, apathy, weariness, and, at most, spiteful raillery...Honour, humaneness, self-sacrifice are still being respected, valued, and rated highly immediately after war, but the longer peace lasts - the dimmer, the more withered, the more torpid all these beautiful magnanimous things grow, while wealth and the spirit of acquisition take possession of everything. At length, there is nothing lefy but hypocrisy - hypocrisy of honour, of self-sacrifice, of duty, so that these will still be respected, despite all the cynicism, but merely in boastful phrases and as a matter of form. There will be no genune honour, and nothing but formulas will be left. Formulas of honour mean the death of honour."
Sorry about the long words. Try www.dictionary.com.
"Ineluctable" means "Inevitable...Unstoppable etc" by the way.
Posted 22 February 2003 - 02:17 AM
Now let me give you a feedback of a pro here;
Let's go back right to the place where you mention during interrogation that "I know this Moldavian Jew who is smuggling in Penthouse from America..." Let's pause here for a moment.
Now what's happening next, according to your scenario?
Chekist; "Citizen Azov, we are discussing your behaviour here...."
What a self- serving, immature approach to the flow of a proccess.
That's how inexpirienced CIA agents get caught right on a spot.
Because any Soviet citizen knows, that once you've mentioned that you know someone with compromising material of "dig them hooters" we immediately must acknowledge that person's name. Russia doesn't like that Anglo-Saxon privacy kind of nonsense, you know... :mad:
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users