babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Intolerable Repression of Demonstrators

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Intolerable Repression of Demonstrators
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 April 2007 10:21 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:


The violence followed the arrest of nearly 200 people in Moscow on Saturday when an anti-government coalition led by former world chess champion Garry Kasparov was prevented from assembling on Pushkin Square in central Moscow. Kasparov was arrested but released late Saturday night after being fined by a Moscow court. He did not travel to St. Petersburg, according to a spokesman for the activist.

In St. Petersburg, police arrested one of the organizers of Sunday's march as she left her home to attend the rally. Olga Kurnosova, the head of Kasparov's organization in St. Petersburg, said she was detained before she could even get to the demonstration. Police said she was arrested for a traffic violation, the Russian news agency Interfax reported.

Some demonstrators were arrested for vocally denouncing President Vladimir Putin and his rule.

"Several participants in the rally have been arrested for chanting anti-constitutional and anti-government slogans and using foul language," a police spokesman told Interfax. "Leaflets and pamphlets urging readers to organize an unauthorized march were seized from several other demonstrators.


repression


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 15 April 2007 10:41 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does Vladimir Putin represent a new style Communist resurgence led by KGB apparatchiks for the benefit of KGB apparatchiks or is the old school Soviet era Communism led by KGB apparatichiks coming to the fore after a period of dormancy?

The Russian oligarchy,having served the purpose of lending legitimacy to dear Vladimir's claims of democratic intent,now finds itself redundant. Either jailed or on the run,the oligarchs' ill-gotten state assets are now not returned to the state but under the care and control of Vladimir and his pals,ostensibly for the betterment of the Russian people.

The fact that some Russian people dare question his benevolent intent has obviously forced Vladimir to show the degree of his committment to Russian freedom and democracy by having the protesters arrested.

Will Cold War II be next as Russia,under Vladimir and his pals,coerces former states of the Soviet Union to renew their servitude to Russia?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 April 2007 10:55 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why are you so quick to label this repression as a resurgence of "Communism"?

The communists, liberals, and nationalists are part of the "Other Russia" coalition that is behind these demonstrations.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 April 2007 11:37 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have no information as to who is "behind" the demonstrations. It doesn't matter.

When police make hundreds of arrests based on the "anti-constitutional" nature of the slogans, you can be sure there is little justification.

If they were all hailing Putin, they wouldn't be in jail.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 15 April 2007 12:16 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It does "matter" "who" "is" "behind" the protests.

Ever hear about the National Bolsheviks?


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 15 April 2007 12:32 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
It does "matter" "who" "is" "behind" the protests.

Ever hear about the National Bolsheviks?


No, but I love quizzes. Did you ever hear about Giacinto Scelsi?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 15 April 2007 01:44 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks to Jeff House for posting this.

quote:
Does Vladimir Putin represent a new style Communist resurgence led by KGB apparatchiks for the benefit of KGB apparatchiks or is the old school Soviet era Communism led by KGB apparatichiks coming to the fore after a period of dormancy?

Of course, these are the usual drip words repeating the bald-faced lies by right-wing corporate capitalist apologists, who share the same dishonesty as their Stalinist state capitalist counterparts.

First, on the whole slander of "communism:" the fact is the term ""Communism" comes from the word "commune," which defines the numerous cooperative democratically self-reliant townships throughout central Europe, and the Communist Manifesto was written to advocate this form of democratic economy and government on a global scale (i.e.; socialism).

Communes were set up largely by Christian Socialist groups, like the Quakers, Icarians, Phalanx movements, and the secular Home Colony and New Jerusalem movements, and also by many trade and craft guilds (pre-industrial style trade unions) and the Knights of Labor in the US, as well as anarchist farmer groups, like the Gleaners and the Diggers, throughout the Middle Ages and the Industrial Revolution.

The communes, which essentially have provided the basis for democratic municipal governments throughout the world (including here), were/are center-points for democratic development.

For example, it was the Quakers (Ben Franklin was one)—communists--who wrote most of the Bill of Rights for the US Constitution. If it had been left up to George Washington & Co., the US would like degenerated into a Napoleon-like regime, like what happened in France, after the corporate parties got control of the directorate.

Real communists and socialists see the existence of authoritarian regimes as direct products of capitalist economics and class society—as in the only way to keep the working class majority in line is to restrict people’s freedom and what they can say, do, etc.

The term was fraudulently divorced from its true historic meaning first in 1925 when the Russian Bolshevik Party changed its name to “Communist” as a selling gimmick for their state capitalist economic model; and again in 1947 when the US State Department, as part of its Cold War efforts, adopted the term to describe anything to do with Soviet foreign policy.

At no time prior to these events, was communism ever associated with state ownership or state capitalism.

Second, in terms of Vladimir Putin & Co, (including Yeltsin)they have always been a bunch of profiteering oppressive thugs going all the way back to when they were climbing up the corporate ladder in the old Soviet state capitalist set-up (much like the fraudulent Yushenko-Yakonovich dance in the Ukraine, who are both multi-millionaire bankers in the old Soviet banking system).

At no time has political repression in Russia been in a “state of dormancy.” Ironically, it appears the era of political freedom there actually peaked during the Glasnost/Perestroika era of Gorbachev, when there was far more of it than after the Soviet break-up and certainly today.

[ 15 April 2007: Message edited by: Steppenwolf Allende ]


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 April 2007 01:54 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
I have no information as to who is "behind" the demonstrations. It doesn't matter.
According to the link you provided to start this thread:
quote:
The rally was organized by an anti-Kremlin coalition known as the Other Russia, whose demonstrations have been violently suppressed in three Russian cities in recent weeks. Another march in St. Petersburg last month also led to violent scenes in the city center.

Other Russia, which contains liberals, nationalists and communists, is united by its disdain for Putin's rule, and activists have vowed to intensify street protests in advance of parliamentary and presidential elections over the next 12 months.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 15 April 2007 03:59 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Why are you so quick to label this repression as a resurgence of "Communism"?

The communists, liberals, and nationalists are part of the "Other Russia" coalition that is behind these demonstrations.


Hair splitting symantics aside, the former Soviet Union was refered to as a "communist" country and as a KGB spook, Vladimir Putin was a part of the "communist" regime.

Since the usual suspects have hijacked the state apparatus and are resorting to the usual modus operandi regarding dissent I believe it is a fair question to ask if these thugs are attempting a return to the Cold War status quo.

Putin intends to use Russia's new found petro wealth to fund a new arms race and to coerce former Soviet states back into the fold.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 April 2007 04:09 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whether the Putin government and the Russian state are communist or capitalist is hardly a matter of hair-splitting semantics!
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 15 April 2007 04:12 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course, these are the usual drip words repeating the bald-faced lies by right-wing corporate capitalist apologists, who share the same dishonesty as their Stalinist state capitalist counterparts

I'm sorry to have vexed you,Comrade. Your words sound like they came from the Stalinist handbook of standard denounciations.

To be honest, when writing the initial post, I mentioned communism as Soviet style communism and its possible resurgence,not the political philosophy itself.

Communism is not the issue here, the return of Russia and its sphere of influence to its totalitarian roots and the accomanying loss of freedoms is.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 15 April 2007 04:23 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Whether the Putin government and the Russian state are communist or capitalist is hardly a matter of hair-splitting semantics!

No. This particular rose will not smell any sweeter no matter what label they lurk behind. Putin et al will utilise either to their benefit.

No matter what label Putin uses,the world is a more dangerous place with him in it. Although he cannot remain in his position, Putin has orchestrated a succession whereby he pulls the strings from the background.

The former Soviet Union fell apart because the military refused to support the government. Do you suppose Vladimir has corrected this deficiency?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 April 2007 04:40 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
This particular rose will not smell any sweeter no matter what label they lurk behind.
Nor smell any more foul as a result of your unsubtle attempts to label them as communist restorationists.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 15 April 2007 05:52 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Nor smell any more foul as a result of your unsubtle attempts to label them as communist restorationists.

Given the fact that Vladimir and his henchmen are Soviet communist era apparatchiks,recent pronouncements by Vladimir suggest his desire to return to lost superpower status.

Is it likely his scheming will result in a return to Soviet communism, given that there is still a following for the good old days in Russia or will they invent a new cover for their totalitarianism? Pseudo democracy? New age communism?

I have nothing against communists. Although I consider the communist movement a grand attempt to shovel sand against the tide,they have the freedom to sway whomever they wish in this country. The same can't be said for Vladimir Putin's country.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 15 April 2007 08:07 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm sorry to have vexed you,Comrade. Your words sound like they came from the Stalinist handbook of standard denounciations.

Really? If you actually go back and read that post properly, you will clearly see that I criticized you for exactly that type of behaviour.

quote:
Communism is not the issue here, the return of Russia and its sphere of influence to its totalitarian roots and the accomanying loss of freedoms is.

Then if you are smart enough to realize that communism isn't the issue here, then why do you insist on using the term to falsely define the totalitarian-style rule in Russia, which, as I took the time to show you, has never had anything to do with communism/socialism (other than mostly a bunch of superficial meaningless rhetoric)?

And, no, this isn't hair-splitting. It's an important part of human history and development--mostly positive development, as I have shown-- that does not deserve to be slandered and nor do the people involved in these efforts.

Why is that so hard to respect?


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 April 2007 08:09 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Is it likely his scheming will result in a return to Soviet communism, given that there is still a following for the good old days in Russia or will they invent a new cover for their totalitarianism? Pseudo democracy? New age communism?
Why do you keep repeating this stupid canard that Putin might be trying to return to Soviet communism? There's absolutely no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that capitalist Russia can repress people without signalling a return to the Soviet system?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 15 April 2007 09:21 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Authoritarianism isn't limited to reds and crooked crosses.
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 April 2007 09:35 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Great Russia has a long history of authoritarianism, might be more accurate to say that Putin is making himself into another 'reformist' Czar.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 15 April 2007 10:24 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Putin looks at China and sees that global capital likes oppresive dictatorships which keep wages low. I think he wants to kill off what remains of Russian democracy, and then declare Russia open for business to foreign capital.
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 15 April 2007 10:47 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I don't know. I think most post-modern capitalists are perfectly ok with the outward trappings of democracy, its only when it gets in the way of profits by serving other needs that it gets them waving Orange flags again. Monopolizing the means of communication is more effective nowadays than one party rules.

[ 15 April 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 16 April 2007 03:09 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Why do you keep repeating this stupid canard that Putin might be trying to return to Soviet communism? There's absolutely no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that capitalist Russia can repress people without signalling a return to the Soviet system?


It isn't hard to accept at all given the fact that I am as cynical toward the machinations of capitalist totalitarianism as I am the communist variety.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that asking whether a resurgence of Soviet style communism under Putin is likely does not equate with promoting "this stupid canard".

Having former communists in Russia eagerly awaiting the new Russian superpower will make it easier for the Putin cabal to tighten its grasp on Russia.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 April 2007 05:11 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Putin would never return to "Soviet Communism", because it is discredited. However, he might well live quite nicely with a system in which he is the Chairman of a Board of Directors which decides all important issues without any input from the public.

That's basically what China does now, and still retains the title "Communist".

But in Russia, they'll call it something else.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 April 2007 06:44 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Putin would never return to "Soviet Communism", because it is discredited.

Putin rates high in Russian opinion polls. The Russian economy was experiencing technological stagnation in the late 70's-80's as we were. But the west was trading freely with two-thirds of the world then. The single largest contributing factor to Russia's deficit spending in 1986 occurred when Saudi Arabia began dumping oil on world markets. That and the trade embargo, the proxy war in Afghanistan, and the cold war arms race was affecting the economy. Gorbachev admits he made some mistakes. Putin believe dissolution of the Soviet Union was the biggest tragedy of all.

I think capitalism was discredited in Russia during the Perestroika years. Millions died, and life expectancy in Russia plummeted as a result of the halving of Russian GNP. Very many people have said they were better off under Soviet communism. Oil and gas prices are buoying the Russian economy today.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 16 April 2007 10:36 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, it seems that trying to find reason and fact in a discussion between Neo-Cons and Stalinists is truly a useless endeavour (I realized that long ago).

Once again, the fact is the term ""Communism" comes from the word "commune," which defines the numerous cooperative democratically self-reliant townships throughout central Europe, and the Communist Manifesto was written to advocate this form of democratic economy and government on a global scale (i.e.; socialism).

Communes were set up largely by Christian Socialist groups, like the Quakers, Icarians, Phalanx movements, and the secular Home Colony and New Jerusalem movements, and also by many trade and craft guilds (pre-industrial style trade unions) and the Knights of Labor in the US, as well as anarchist farmer groups, like the Gleaners and the Diggers, throughout the Middle Ages and the Industrial Revolution.

The communes, which essentially have provided the basis for democratic municipal governments throughout the world (including here), were/are center-points for democratic development.

And here are the facts about the development of the Soviet economy, which was and continues to be primarily capitalistic.

Lenin’s 1918 work, called The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government[1] and “Left-Wing” Childishness, called for a state capitalist economic model, based largely on the German Bismarck model of large-scale state-owned corporations and service agencies run largely by private sector-trained capitalists and bureaucrats. It even outlines how pre-Russian revolution capitalists were being awarded senior management positions to run the newly nationalized firms.

Lenin said that state capitalism was inevitable in post-1917 Russia, since the material conditions and the level of education and consciousness among people weren’t developed enough to set up a fully socialistic economy. These reformed capitalistic structures and plans were put into place as transitional measures in order to give people time to learn how to run local economies democratically (a key fundamental of socialism).

These, among other of Lenin’s plans for a state capitalist economy were later published in a collected work called Progress Publishers, Moscow; Lenin: State Capitalism During the Transition to Socialism (Index)

Sadly, that transition never went ahead, as many of those same capitalists and senior managers ended up supporting Stalin’s military coup in 1929, he made state capitalist economics a permanent feature of the Soviet economy—similar to the Maoist government’s program in China.

So, the fact is at no time did “communism” or “socialism” of any kind play any major role in the Soviet/Russian economy or political process (other than a scattered collection of workers’ councils, co-ops, union-sponsored ventures and independent collective farms during the early years of the Bolshevik era.

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Steppenwolf Allende ]


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
trippie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12090

posted 16 April 2007 11:12 PM      Profile for trippie        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why would you use the term Communist Russia....??

Who were the people that used it?

since it has been argued to death taht Russia at no time was coounist let alone socialist ,why would anyone here use that term.

It is a prapaganda bourgeois term... They have a special definition of Communist Russia...

They link the word 'communism' to the word 'Russia' in an attemp to discredit the idea of communism...


From: essex county | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 April 2007 12:25 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And there were some from the socialist international who later refused to acknowledge that the Soviet Union was the world's longest running experiment in centrally planned communist society and government. Soviet communism was not glitzy enough for some socialists, who after observing the excesses of capitalism in the west, came to the conclusion that Russian poverty, in their view, was not socialism. Soviet communism was not perfect by any stretch, but the system did not make pie in the sky claims for mansions and sports cars, and basically this system we have which scientists around the world are advising world leaders isn't compatible with nature. It's true, globalization of middle class capitalism based on oil consumption, as we've had drilled into our heads since the cold war began, is a colossal lie. It's not doable for the other 85 percent of humanity, and it's because we'd strip our resources bare and choke on the pollution in nothing flat. The Soviet system spent all its time and resources either emerging from the devastation of a world war and invasions by fascists or struggling with a mean spirited extra-territorial cold war embargo as Cuba and North Korea have for the last 50 years. Unlike the 30 year-long experiment in laissez-faire capitalism conducted under optimal conditions, neither the Soviets or Cubans or N Koreans enjoyed the same trade advantages as the west did with over two-thirds of the world.

There were no capitalists in Soviet Russia, not until Perestroika when Russia's nomenklatura were "hothoused" overnight to become instant capitalists. There were no dollar billionaires in Russia, only rouble millionaires. A million roubles was worth about $48K USDN. In order to make the privatizations of state assets appear legitimate to world financial markets, US dollars had to be paid for valuable oil, natural gas, vast timber reserves, manufacturing plants and so on. The only problem was, there was no one rich enough in Russia to pay the hundreds of billions of US dollars to make these transactions appear legit. Where did the money come from then ?. It came from Houston oil magnates, USAID and other western governmental agencies, Harvard economists with pull on Wall Street etc. Jeffrey Sachs was one of the architects of the criminal privatizations in 1990's Russia. And now, several of Russia's instant billionaire oligarchs are hiding in countries which have no extradition agreements with Russia.

Lenin pointed out that he was not using the term state capitalism "in the literal sense", and I think this is where some people go off the rails with what is a 1920's view of "state capitalism" which keeled over and died around the western world in 1929, about five years after Lenin's death, R.I.P.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 17 April 2007 12:34 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At-a-boy Fidel. Just keep making it all up as you go along, completely ignoring the facts and information out there, including from those leaders themselves.

The annoying fact that you keeping doing this is more than offset by the fact that you do it in such an entertaining way.

No capitalists until Perestroika!? Get real, will ya!


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 April 2007 12:44 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And there was one bank in Soviet Russia which paid the workers and funded state enterprises. There was no Wall Street in Moscow. There were no investment houses or "capital inflows" to the Russian economy. The Soviets bartered with COMICON block of nations. Finland, for example, sent manufactured goods to Russia in exchange for raw materials.

During the criminal privatizations in 1990's Russia, about a quarter of the world's nickel ore reserves was had for an absolutely ridiculous amount of money, a few hundred million dollars for what was worth hundreds of billions of dollars by western market value. Those were real capitalists who should have been lined up at dawn without a cigarette or blindfold.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 April 2007 12:56 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
At-a-boy Fidel. Just keep making it all up as you go along, completely ignoring the facts and information out there, including from those leaders themselves.

What facts?. You quote Lenin's view of state capitalism as he knew it before his death in 1924, and you're accepting what he said about it literally, and that's wrong, too. Laissez-faire capitalism died in 1929, five years after Lenin passed on. R.I.P.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 17 April 2007 01:04 AM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Really, Fidel.

You and I have been over this before several times, where I have taken the time to show you with documented facts, mostly from Russian sources themselves, as you have seen again here, about the capitalistic nature of the Soviet-era economy.

I supposed I could list a bunch of those again here, and explain it all again for the benefit of anyone else who's reading this. But it's late, and I don't think I will bother, since you will just ignore them and go on pretending that the factless term you use "Soviet communism" is a reality.

But the fact is there have always been capitalists in the Soviet economy, including the corporate bosses over the state-owned corporations and enterprises and banks, who lined their pockets with billions of US dollars worth of cash, not only in bloated salaries but in percentages of what they called "efficiency bonuses" that are in fact sheer capitalistic profit, which they invested in foreign investment houses and banks--a process that still goes on today.

They didn't need a Wall Street. The US one worked for them just fine.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 April 2007 01:16 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Very good. I know what you're saying, and it does makes sense to some socialists. I'm not one of those particular socialists though. There's the way it should have been, and then there is the way it actually happened, with all the internal and external forces shaping the end result.

If you want to know about economic experiments conducted in a vacuum, read how los Chicago boyz did Chile from 1973 to 1985 when the dictator himself fired them after sixteen years of state capitalism run amok.

quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
Really Fidel

You and I have been over this before several times, where I have taken the time to show you with documented facts, mostly from Russian sources themselves, as you have seen again here, about the capitalistic nature of the Soviet-era economy.


Really SteppenwolfAllende. If anyone overheard me describing American political economy today according to the way it was from William McKinley to Herbert Hoover's time in the sun, they would think I was crazy.

quote:
But the fact is there have always been capitalists in the Soviet economy, including the corporate bosses over the state-owned corporations and enterprises and banks, who lined their pockets with billions of US dollars worth of cash

Yes, it's called nationalisation.

And there was one bank in Soviet Russia, Gosbank from the 1930's to 1987.

I've explained to you in great detail how there were no dollar billionaires in Russia until the Perestroika years of criminal privatizations. Capitalism requires capitalists, and there were none in Russia until after 1989. The concentration of wealth in Russia was not comparable to the richest billionaire class of capitalists throughout the capitalist western world and Arabia during cold war years.

The Necessity of Gangster Capitalism: Primitive Accumulation in Russia and China

[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 17 April 2007 04:44 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Really SteppenwolfAllende. If anyone overheard me describing American political economy today according to the way it was from William McKinley to Herbert Hoover's time in the sun, they would think I was crazy.

They might. And, no, you don’t need to worry about me not recognizing the extensive huge social and economic reforms made to the capitalist system over the last century. I know it well (and I point to the policies of Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. being as much a part of this reformism as Keynesianism, mixed-economy, market reforms, etc.)

However, despite all these measures, if you were to still publicly say I thought the US economy is still predominantly capitalist, I doubt too many people would say you are crazy.

Just because huge structural and systemic reforms are made to an economic model doesn’t mean that its fundamental mode changes as well (at least not significantly). That’s what Lenin pointed out about the economic model he put forth in Russia after the revolution: state capitalism, as in state owned corporations and businesses run by profiteering capitalists with full power of trust and control over those businesses, yet operating in accordance with an overall corporate social plan.

Now, that’s definitely not Laizzeis Faire capitalism; nor is it regulated private monopoly capitalism; but it is still very much a form of capitalism.

quote:
Yes, it's called nationalisation.

And there was one bank in Soviet Russia, Gosbank from the 1930's to 1987.


Yes, and as I have shown you many times before, nationalization in itself leads to state capitalism, not an end to capitalism itself.

quote:
I've explained to you in great detail how there were no dollar billionaires in Russia until the Perestroika years of criminal privatizations. Capitalism requires capitalists, and there were none in Russia until after 1989.

I know, and I have shown that your explanations are baseless because the facts show that assertion is simply not correct.

Billionaires? Likely not, as there are still today relatively few of those around. But the facts show clearly there were plenty of US-dollar-equivalent multi-millionaires during the Soviet era, going all the way back to the Stalinist era.

Capitalists of various kinds have dominated, in various ways, the Soviet economy since Lenin's post-revolutionary transition policy of state capitalism.

That's always been one of the main causes for the problems in the Soviet-era economy and political system, in that these types were (and still are) using their dictatorial control and individual power over industry and economic enterprise to increase their power and influence by exploiting labour and pursuing an expansionist policy.

You, quite rightly, and I always agree, lament the insane levels of corruption and brutality involved in selling off assets and cutting sweetheart deals with various western capitalists that took place after the Soviet break-up (and still goes on today).

Well, who do you think spearheaded and dominated, and obviously profited, from that:

The Nomenclatura: the Soviet capitalistic ruling class. These are the same mother-fuckers who running around as "billionaire entrepreneurs."

An estimated 62 per cent of the millionaires in former Soviet Republics today were long-established (going back long before Perestroika) Soviet-era millionaires who found great ways to get richer.

quote:
The concentration of wealth in Russia was not comparable to the richest billionaire class of capitalists throughout the capitalist western world and Arabia during cold war years.

That, of course, is a subjective comment. It seems to me they were/are comparable enough. In addition, looking around the world today, there are few countries that compare very well against the degree of wealth accumulation in the West and Arabia. That fact doesn’t change the fact that their economies are predominantly capitalistic, like those you mention.

I doubt that a century ago, or even less, there were any billionaires. That doesn’t mean economies were any less capitalistic than today.

The fact is, whether feel comfortable with calling the Soviet or Chinese economy “capitalist” or not, doesn’t change the fact that they are clearly based on exponential expansion, monopolization and control over markets, exploitation of labour and denial of democratic input or control into wealth and industry and government management by working people. Those are all fundamental capitalistic traits, and so calling it “communism” (or socialism) makes no sense at all.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 April 2007 06:24 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
But the facts show clearly there were plenty of US-dollar-equivalent multi-millionaires during the Soviet era, going all the way back to the Stalinist era.

This is an abstract from an essay talking about the nomenklatura. Where does it talk about high net worth "rouble millionaires" in Soviet Russia ?. The rouble had no real value around the capitalist world then. The Russians bartered with the COMICON block of nations for many years. And they sometimes traded gold for grain with the west, especially in the 1980's when the economy began suffering cumulative effects of the extra-territorial cold war embargo. Sunkist and Cadbury's capitalists held a virtual monopoly on citrus and chocolate trading in the third world and Latin America then. Russians grumbled about there being a shortage of these things in shops. They blamed the communist government.

Millionaires are not "capitalists." Multi-millionaires can be capitalists. But a rouble millionaire in the 1980's wasn't worth $50 thousand dollars. And small millionaires don't have enough money to influence the value of the Mexican peso, for example. Real billionaire monopoly capitalists and multinational conglomerates have more annual revenues than most countries report annual GDP. As a rule, Europe has the highest concentration of high net worth millionaires while the U.S. owns the largest concentration of billionaire capitalists. Capitalists tend to be short-term investors ie. put in the least to extract the most. JD Rockefeller was America's first billionaire, and he died in 1937. His oil company would later invest in the buildup of Nazi Germany for the eventual fascist war of annihilation against communist Russia.

quote:
However, despite all these measures, if you were to still publicly say I thought the US economy is still predominantly capitalist, I doubt too many people would say you are crazy.

You'd be surprised. American capitalism has changed dramatically since the last dramatic swan dive of state capitalism around the western world in 1929. The Real American Model You don't think tax cuts for Bush's billionaire friends were responsible for pulling them out of recession, do you ?. Herbert Hoover and Vadimir Lenin lived around the same time and probably had similar views on what constituted state capitalism way, way back then. State capitalism lasted about 30 years. The wheels fell off unbridled Chilean capitalism after just 16 years with the help of the best and brightest Chicago School of Economics graduates.

The Soviet economy was centrally planned, there was no Wall Street or investment bankers, just GOSBANK paying workers wages and funding state enterprises.

from wiki:

quote:
Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately[1] owned and operated for profit, and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit).

The USSR was none of the above. Not even generally so. People were guaranteed jobs and roofs over their heads. A person I know visited Soviet Russia at the beginning of the 1980's and said she watched the same two or three people cleaning the same windows and sweeping the street the entire week she was in Moscow. They didn't experience any housing market or stock market bubbles in Russia, but homelessness was rare. Even since Perestroika laid waste to the Soviet economy, people still have homes and apartments. Poverty is high in Latvia. People are still freezing to death by way of Polish winter.

Have you read Holmstrom and Smith on primitive accumulation in post-communist Russia, and how Russia's new capitalists were "hot-housed" into existence overnight ?. Marx talked about primitive accumulation.

Extradite Berezovsky Russia urges UK Extreme ways are back again.

[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 17 April 2007 10:49 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, it says this, which in part I was referring to:

quote:
According to a 1995 study conducted by the Russian Academy of Sciences, more than 60 percent of Russia's wealthiest millionaires, and 75 percent of the new political elite, are former members of the communist nomenklatura , and 38 percent of Russia's businesspeople held economic positions in the CPSU. The wealth of the new capitalists, who constitute 1 to 2 percent of the population, derives from the ownership of private property, which was prohibited under the communist regime; from former black-market transactions that now are pursued legally; and from repatriation of funds that were secretly transferred abroad during the Soviet era.

So let's not keep saying there was no capitalistic exploitation of labour in the Soviet Era, because there clearly was, and it was a central part of the economy.

Here's more:

quote:
The social structure of the Soviet Union was characterized by self-perpetuation and limited mobility. Access to higher education, a prerequisite to political and social advancement, was steadily constrained in the postwar decades. The so-called period of stagnation that coincided with the long tenure of CPSU chief Leonid I. Brezhnev (in office 1964-82) had social as well as political connotations. Moreover, the sluggish economy of that period reduced opportunities for social mobility, thus accentuating differences among social groups and further widening the gap between the nomenklatura and the rest of society.

Members of the urban working class (proletariat), in whose name the party purported to rule, generally lived in cramped apartment complexes, spent hours each day standing in line to buy food and other necessities, and attended frequent obligatory sessions of political indoctrination. Similarly, the peasantry eked out a meager existence, with little opportunity for relief. Agricultural workers constituted the bottom layer of Soviet society, receiving the least pay, the least opportunity for social advancement, and the least representation in the nominally all-inclusive CPSU leadership.


That is a classic feature of a capitalistic economy and not at all, even remotely, socialistic. None. Nil.

quote:
Millionaires are not "capitalists." Multi-millionaires can be capitalists. But a rouble millionaire in the 1980's wasn't worth $50 thousand dollars.

Well, first, those studies and abstracts I posted referred to them in dollar figures. And second, even thought the Ruble, like the Peso, doesn't carry a lot of value on international markets now (BTW, the Ruble, when it was regulated, I remember it being worth 87 cent to a Canadian dollar in the 1970s), still does not mean the millionaires of those currencies are not wealthy by their own economic standards. As that report above shows, the wealth disparity between the Soviet-era ruling class and the working class was huge. That's another common feature of capitalistic economics.

quote:
And small millionaires don't have enough money to influence the value of the Mexican peso, for example.

Ah, but they certainly can ,Fidel--especially if they are in positions of corporate power over businesses and industry, like they were in the Soviet era and still are today.

You need not look further than our own Canadian public sector corporate structures to see the incredible influence these "small millionaires" exert, especially at the provincial level. Also, look at that horrid dictatorial black-mailing clique we got here named the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Most of its members are "small millionaires," yet they exert far too much influence due to their control over Canadian industry.

quote:
The Real American Model You don't think tax cuts for Bush's billionaire friends were responsible for pulling them out of recession, do you ?.

I don't know where you get idea I think that, because I sure as Hell know it ain't true (BTW, thanks for the link to the Galbraith article. Hate to sound sentimental, but sometimes I do miss that guy--and he didn't say anywhere that the US economy wasn't primarily capitalist--just different than the European ones, which is true).

quote:
American capitalism has changed dramatically since the last dramatic swan dive of state capitalism around the western world in 1929.

See, here, you’re flying someplace. Where do you get the idea that state capitalism, as in state ownership of the means of production, run by profiteering exploitative bureaucracies, has come to an end? State capitalism is a key feature in every modern economy I know of (including, my their own admission, Soviet Union, China, etc., just as it is here, Japan, etc.). Just look down when you get mail. That’s Canada Post.

And why do you think only state capitalism took a swan dive in 1929? All the historic accounts show the private sector took a much harder fall.

quote:
The Soviet economy was centrally planned, there was no Wall Street or investment bankers, just GOSBANK paying workers wages and funding state enterprises.

First, on central planning, we all know that it was a corporatist planning model, much like any major capitalist conglomerate, not anything to do with a democratic socialistic community plan or similar practices.

Elite commissions, made up of highly paid and very self-rewarding trade hacks and bosses would create plans based on the reporting of senior industry capitalistic bosses and bureaucrats—and that alone was a key problem, since the agendas of competing bureaucracies, seeking to accumulate more capital and influence for themselves, within the corporate monopoly structure would often lead to conflicting reports and misinformation that would screw things up.

In addition, many economists, including Marxist ones, have repeatedly shown that the supposed glorious “planning” of the Soviet economy was in fact over-ridden by screw-ups, as the plans had to constantly be changed and amended to suit changing market conditions.

As for the Gosbank, know it well. Again, while it was publicly touted as a charitable public service, in fact it was the defacto economic and financial determinant of the whole Soviet, Eastern European, and even, to a lesser extent, parts of Africa and Asia, and even played a role of influence in the World Bank.

That bank was exemplary of monopoly capitalist policy. It not only provided all the retail services to the public, but it also played the role of the central bank or treasury reserve of any major economy, as well as having a key say Soviet foreign investment and trade policy.

The bank would provide investment loans (hence showing that investment bankers were a part of the Soviet economy, in the form of loans bureaucrats only with a lot more power) to state enterprises, and the smaller private ones, as well as personal loans to individuals, based on both risk assessment and personal credibility standards set directly by the Politburo.

That made it probably the most powerful bank in the world, next to the IMF and WB itself. It gave the government the power to set directives for the economy and influence its growth and performance.

But how much different is that than, say, the key role the Bank of Canada plays, in conjunction with the five chartered private banks, or the federal reserve in the US (albeit more centralized)? Not much.

It seems that from Stalin to Gorbachev, that bank, and its senior bosses, sucked up a whole whack of money and invested it all over the globe, especially in Europe, which the Eastern Bloc depended on heavily for trade and investment.

When the bank was broken up into sectoral and republic-based banks, I remember reading how the fights to grab hold of the hundreds of billions of dollars in assets was going on among the banker hacks and the republic politicians (that's where the Ukrainian guys Yakonovich and Yushenko are from--investment banker hacks from the old Gosbank who pocketed millions when the Ukraine took it over).

BTW, the wiki definition of capitalism also adds:

quote:
The concept of capitalism has limited analytic value, given the great variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture. Some economists have specified a variety of different types of capitalism, depending on specifics of concentration of economic power and wealth, and methods of capital accumulation.[7] During the last century capitalism has been contrasted with centrally planned economies. Most developed countries are usually regarded as capitalist, but some are also often called mixed economies[11] due to government ownership and regulation of production, trade, commerce, taxation, money-supply, and physical infrastructure.

And much of this definitely did exist in the Soviet Union.

quote:
People were guaranteed jobs and roofs over their heads.

But Fidel, that is a socio-economic reform that doesn’t signify the end of capitalism—but rather to make living under it more bearable (or hopefully as a step toward creating a socialistic economy).

The fact is, Italy, Japan and numerous other economies have, or had, or do based on specific sectors, job protection and housing guarantees for workers. So what? That doesn’t mean their economies are not still predominantly capitalistic in nature.

So, still again, there is still no basis I can see for calling the Soviet and similar type economies “socialist” or “communist,” and whole piles of evidence that points to them being primarily capitalistic in nature.

Finally, to end the longest post I have ever made here:

quote:
JD Rockefeller was America's first billionaire, and he died in 1937. His oil company would later invest in the buildup of Nazi Germany...

Yep, true--and none of those Rockerbastards ever served a day in jail for it, either. It also shows, as an example, just how fundamentally capitalistic Nazi Germany was, while hiding behind a meaningless "National Socialist" facade.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 April 2007 02:32 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So let's not keep saying there was no capitalistic exploitation of labour in the Soviet Era, because there clearly was, and it was a central part of the economy.

Yes, there were manufacturing plants, bottle works, textiles and such which were privatized in 1990's Russia. Most of the money loaned to former Soviet citizens to buy those kinds of tertiary and specialty industries was borrowed money from short-term IMF loans, western aid and so forth. The huge sums of cash that was funelled into Russia for the criminal privatizations of state assets like oil, natural gas, timber, mining companies and vast mineral rights did not come from the nomenklatura's private stashes. Read the Monthly Review article by Holmstrom and Smith. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and other oligarchs were floated money by HIID through USAID(see Philip Agee's comments on the Cason affair in Havana wrt US Aid agencies and NGOs) and Texas billionaires who continue fighting legal battles for loss of their investments from that period. ExxonMobil is another whose 1993 contract for Sakhalin oil developement was annulled by the Russians in 2003. SA, there are people being bumped off under mysterious circumstances all over the world alately who had or have connections to the period of "primitive accumulation" in 1990s Russia.

The point I was trying to make was, there were hundreds of millions of US dollars floated into Russia for the criminal privatizations. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of raw materials were suddenly owned by a few oligarchs and their western backers. And in all instances, they still paid far less for the enormous state assets and mineral wealth than they were actually worth ... by western market standards. The new capitalists didn't pull this money out of thin air as you're claiming. I see what you're saying, but you haven't really proven the people at Monthly Review incorrect, is what I'm saying. The court cases concerning these same matters are ongoing and taking place from the U.S. to Russia. Israel and other countries are refusing to extradite the oligarchs to stand trial. It's the colder war, and Perestroika era capitalism gained ill repute. Gorbachev believed they were being sold Swedish-style market socialism.

quote:
Well, first, those studies and abstracts I posted referred to them in dollar figures. And second, even thought the Ruble, like the Peso, doesn't carry a lot of value on international markets now (BTW, the Ruble, when it was regulated, I remember it being worth 87 cent to a Canadian dollar in the 1970s), still does not mean the millionaires of those currencies are not wealthy by their own economic standards.

As far as I know, capitalism and speculation of black market commodities in Russia was illegal. There were a range of illegalities and varying penalties so that illegal markets were somewhat "multi-coloured" in terms of the criminal code.
And the ruble was nonconvertible. The exchange rate was set by state bureaucrats. Taxes compensated for fluctuations between export prices and domestic prices.

I believe the first western corporations to do business in Russia were bartering services for payment in Russian commodities, like vodka or anything that could be exported and sold for hard currency.

quote:
You need not look further than our own Canadian public sector corporate structures to see the incredible influence these "small millionaires" exert, especially at the provincial level. Also, look at that horrid dictatorial black-mailing clique we got here named the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Most of its members are "small millionaires," yet they exert far too much influence due to their control over Canadian industry.

Encana small ?. CIBC and ScotiaBank ?. These are some of the most influential capitalist corporations and banks in Canada. The CCCE is supposedly behind the funding of our illustrious right-wing Vancouver make believe think tank, the Fraser no less. These turkeys are running the show in Canada right now and have some excellent friends in the Senate and two old line parties.

quote:
And why do you think only state capitalism took a swan dive in 1929? All the historic accounts show the private sector took a much harder fall.

It was mostly all private sector in 1929. That was capitalism then. Ernest Manning promised to help struggling Alberta farmers and renegged once his party was elected. Montrealers were thrown out of their apartments. A meat packing company tossed beef in the St Lawrence sooner than offer it at reduced prices. Average wages in the States were a dollar a day, and farmers couldn't afford to upgrade farm equipment. People were hungry, and many were desperate in the land of plenty. Capitalism as a single driver of western economies had run its course. Capitalism then was said to be duller and greyer than Soviet communism.

Farm co-ops and government organized collectives sprouted up in the States to provide some work for the tens of thousands of unemployed wandering the country. Public sector enterprise increased dramatically around the western world after the last crisis of capitalism. Enter the public sector and state enterprise under democratic control of the people, or at least, that's the idea if you believe in the concept of democracy.

As an example of the last crisis in the U.S., not one net new manufacturing job was created in the U.S. for a 36 month stretch during the last recession on Dubya's watch. They relied a great deal on public spending, "soft budget constraints", which James Galbraith mentioned in his Real American Model piece. He says soft budgetary constraints are an economic phenomenon which former students of the science in Soviet Eastern Europe are familiar with. Cheers

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 18 April 2007 09:10 AM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the meantime, the US has entrusted its emissaries to monitor and report whether the governments of these countries fit American standards of "democracy" and human rights.
This article provides a Russian perspective on this. I know its from Pravda, but they have links and its more or less legible.Anyway, For ordinary Russians this is another case of naked US arrogance, and will just cause them to rally around the flag.

quote:
This plan will most likely cause an outburst of indignation worldwide, as it previously happened with the report of the US State Department about the support of human rights and democracy. Judging upon the document, Russia may not hope for any good news from the USA during the forthcoming five years. The United States intend to teach and supervise Russia making it fit the US standards of democracy.

The new strategic plan of the White House stipulates how exactly the US administration is going to cooperate with Moscow. The list particularly includes anti-terrorist activities and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The USA has committed too many follies in those areas, whereas Russia’s reputation and experience in the fields can make a positive contribution to the USA’s image in the Middle East.

There are certain areas, where the Bush’s administration accepts no form of cooperation with Russia. They include democracy, freedom of speech and the state control in the national economy.

US writer George Orwell used the notion of the “Ministry of Truth” in his novel 1984. Bush makes up new terms for his own departments and introduces such positions as democracy director or democracy orderly. These “messengers” will get their seats everywhere – NATO, the UN, the OSCE, the EU, the Organization of American States, the African Council and many other regional and international organizations.

USA’s current policies bear a striking resemblance to the era of the 1970s in the USSR, when quite a number of Soviet higher schools were producing “engineers of socialist competition.”



quote:
Russia has not released any official statement to respond to yet another action of ignorance from the USA. Europe did it first. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Rene van der Linden, said Monday that the USA had no right to teach lessons to any European countries, especially Russia in the field of human rights and democracy. “We do not need USA’s lesson at this point,” he said.

Europe and Russia infuriated with lessons of democracy from USA

From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 April 2007 10:25 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good article, Better Red. And I see Maude Barlowe in the news again. Our own oligarchs are feigning democracy. Democracy is not about closed door meetings. The WTO schedules its closed door meetings in ever more remote locations in ever farther away countries to avoid globalization protesters. They call it democracy when themselves are free. Capitalism-status quo-mask.

ETA: The oligarchs don't give a shit about human rights in any country and especially not their own. Putin decrees pipeline merger (Clik on skip this capitalist clap trap intro at top of page) Things like this are what the west is foaming at the mouth over, not human rights. "Human rights" are the standard CIA Trojan horse.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 April 2007 01:39 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Soviet Model and the economic cold war

quote:
The Washington Post cautioned:

“…don't look for parades in Moscow to celebrate the anniversary [of Gorbachev’s resignation on December 25th]. There will be no fireworks, no national commemoration of the epochal event of the last half of the 20th century. . . .

Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last president, had based his policies on the premise that the USSR’s economic difficulties – which he referred to as ‘stagnation’ – were caused by the Soviet Union’s socialist economic model: universal public ownership and the central planning of production. But as this system was dismantled and replaced by privatisation and the dominance of market forces, Russia and the other republics of the former USSR went into catastrophic industrial and social decline, which continued throughout the 1990s.

The failure of the capitalist reforms to deliver on the promises of economic dynamism and higher living standards (except for an elite minority) was not an experience confined to the former USSR and other ex-socialist states. The majority of South American countries, for example, underwent a process of de-industrialisation and mass impoverishment during the neo-liberal 1980s and 1990s, an experience which is fuelling the current movements on that continent for a turn towards socialism


This is a good article about the Soviet economy. Keep in mind that stagflation was also happening in the west in the 1970's-early 80's. And all industrialized economies are experiencing technological stagnation today with the global warming a serious issue as well as physical limits for power to electrify industrialism and the expansionist model based on consumerism in general.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 21 April 2007 09:55 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Putin would never return to "Soviet Communism", because it is discredited. However, he might well live quite nicely with a system in which he is the Chairman of a Board of Directors which decides all important issues without any input from the public.

That's basically what China does now, and still retains the title "Communist".

But in Russia, they'll call it something else.


Yes, I agree. Aside from communist apologists distancing their brand of communism from the Russian model,the fact is that Vladimir Putin has much support from former hardliners. I doubt these supporters will care what the state calls itself as long as Russian geopolitical influence is increased.

Thanks to Fidel for the insight.
I really don't have any interest in what musty old communist theorists had to say in the past or in the contortions of present day communists to both distance themselves from totalitarian regimes that were labeled communist and simultaniously claim their version is worthy of serious consideration.

My interest is in the present geopolitical uncertainty posed by a resurgent Russia's intentions to regain totalitarian control over former Soviet Socialist Republics. Using petro dollars for rebuilding the Russian military and economic coersion will increase world tensions.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 21 April 2007 09:58 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trippie:
Why would you use the term Communist Russia....??

Who were the people that used it?

since it has been argued to death taht Russia at no time was coounist let alone socialist ,why would anyone here use that term.

It is a prapaganda bourgeois term... They have a special definition of Communist Russia...

They link the word 'communism' to the word 'Russia' in an attemp to discredit the idea of communism...


Hmmm... Just what exactly does Union of Soviet Socialist Republics mean?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 April 2007 10:27 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
My interest is in the present geopolitical uncertainty posed by a resurgent Russia's intentions to regain totalitarian control over former Soviet Socialist Republics. Using petro dollars for rebuilding the Russian military and economic coersion will increase world tensions.

I'm afraid world tension is already at an all time high. It was expected that U.S. spending on Keynesian-militarism would drop significantly with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Instead, what we've witnessed is unprecedented U.S. military aggression around the world. There are still approximately 800 U.S. military bases around the world, and they are still in Europe supposedly to protect Europeans from a cold war threat that doesn't exist anymore. Russia isn't the only country arming itself today.

Gore Vidal once commented that the shadow government decided in the 1950's never to trust the Russians no matter the circumstances. And it's sad, because the Russians were willing to cooperate with the U.S. on natural resources needed by capitalist expansionism. But like the true imperialists they are, the corporate cabal prefer to fund proxy skirmishes and mercenary attacks to peck away at the former Republics as they've done in keeping Africa on its knees.

And it's sad, because the Pacific Rim of nations, with Japan and China are now the largest sources of capital wealth in the world and challenging the west for raw materials and economic dominance. The U.S. is still the world's largest military presence in the world but no longer the dominant economic superpower it was 20 years ago. Military aggression and corporate feeding frenzies have cost America in terms of economic competitiveness and social democracy at home. People around the world continue to struggle for social justice while imperialists continue to feign democracy.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 22 April 2007 08:21 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with you but just because tensions are at an all time high does not mean they cannot go higher.

The irrepairable damage the Bush administration has done to the US dollar gives some hope that US militarism can be challenged politically by the US need to focus on rebuilding their fiscal capacity,which will require massive cuts in spending.

A resurgent arms race with the Russians or even a geopolitical struggle for influence will give the neocon agenda the excuse needed to make the military exempt from these cuts.

Bush may be gone in a year and a half but he is a mere figurehead for a section of American culture that requires someone to be the enemy as a focal point for military expansionism.

I've read George Crile's book,Charlie Wilson's War recently. It is astounding that in this enlightened age, some Americans can be so narrow-minded and righteous that "killing communists" is considered the acme of ideals. There appear to be many Americans who subscribe to this agenda for fun and profit.

If Vlad the Injailer rallies similar sentiment in Russia with a nationalist resurgence to former glories, the world will become even more dangerous.

According to resident communist apologists,who appear to be very insecure,I am a neocon anti-communist scofflaw at best. That is not true. I consider keyboard communists such as Steppenwolf and Spector to be harmless revisionists,supporting their political beliefs while the Russian variety is anything but harmless.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 10:33 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Russia was never a threat militarily. They were always a developing country since the devastation of civil war and two world wars. Rand Corporation advised U.S. Congress in the 1980's that the Soviets were plowing as much as 50 percent of GNP toward the military. They've since admitted they were wrong, but the menacing news certainly worked in justifying big budget military in their own country.

The U.S. military, however, is a destabilizing force around the world with 800 military bases occupying more real estate than North Korea and expanding aggressively to every nook and cranny. The lion's share of taxpayer spending in the U.S. every year is always dedicated to the military industrial complex for manufacturing everything from weapons of mass destruction to pots and pans to food service contracts. And it's all worth hundreds of billions of dollars in Keynesian-militarism every year. It's almost as if any nation which spends a tenth as much on military is deemed a threat to U.S. national security and placed on the axes of evol list.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 April 2007 10:43 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"USSR peaceloving nation. America aggressor!"
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 11:05 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
"USSR peaceloving nation. America aggressor!"

Jeff, which country's army pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989 as their last act of aggression while the other stepped up aid and weapons shipments directly to the mujahideen and the most vicious warlords for the next two and a half years ?.

The "USSR" doesn't exist anymore, but almost 800 U.S. military bases around the world are still in existence. The USSR didn't carpet bomb Afghanistan in this decade, and it wasn't the USSR who led a ten year-long medieval siege against a desert nation leading up operation shock and awe. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - the bombing of Afghanistan - and the invasion of Iraq were terrifying acts of military aggression. UNICEF is saying that between 1.2 and 1.4 million Iraqi's died prematurely between 1991 and 2003. Half of them were children. It was medieval siege of a desert nation to soften them up for invasion no less. The U.S. military beckoned women and children to a banquet of death and destruction in the middle of the night.

The Russians, Koreans, Iranians, Venezuela etc all fully believed that they could be the next country slated for carpet bombing by a rogue superpower. What would any leader do under the circumstances besides invite marauding corporationists to Moscow and Caracas to discuss briberizing some oil and gas contracts ?.

Opinion polls in Russia say the people support state ownership of news media as well as the renationalisations that have taken place. They've had a large dose of "flexible labour markets" and privatization. Jeff, do they really need assholes like Lord Vader of Cross purposes dealing the news to them for a profit ?.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 22 April 2007 11:32 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
"USSR peaceloving nation. America aggressor!"

No, both were destabilising agressors using other nations as proxies. The nuclear threat made the use of proxies necessary. Now,one is a geopolitical agressor while the other exhibits a desire to return to its former role.

My concern is not with geopolitical posturing but with the totalitarian impulses exhibited by what I consider to be extemist elements in both countries.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 11:55 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:

No, both were destabilising agressors using other nations as proxies.


But that implies equal imperialist ambitions during the cold war. We have to remember that Eastern Europe was claimed by Nazism during the war of annihilation against communism in Russia. The Russians knew the west was pouring investment into Hitler's Germany for western aggression against the revolution part two.

The U.S. propped up and backed 36 of the most brutal right-wing dictatorships around the world last century besides aimimg missiles at Moscow from Turkey and roving Naval missile launch sites.

quote:
The nuclear threat made the use of proxies necessary.

The Soviets didn't roll into Afghanistan in support of the PDPA government until CIA proxies began launching terrorist attacks on Kabul and Jalalabad. The Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan during the 1980's was an act of aggression by the CIA and Saudi Princes. Millions of refugees are still living in surrounding countries.

The U.S certainly did accuse the Russians of supplying weapons to the FMNL and Sandinistas. There was never any evidence for it though. The Soviets never considered proxy war on America's back doorstep. Allende, Arbenz, Bishop, Chavez and Aristide were all democratically-elected leaders in this hemisphere. The Soviet-backed PDPA government was probably more legit than Karzai today, especially if just a minority of naitons recognized Pakistan's illegitimate militia government of the 1980's.

And Patrice Lumumba, Like Fidel Castro, approached western leaders for recognition. Patrice certainly talked about accepting aid from the Soviet Union after the west rejected him. Lumumba was the first black man to speak at the UN and was becoming increasingly popular among Africans. Millions of people were looking forward to a united Africa. Lumumba was the first and last democratically-elected Prime Minister of the Congo. The CIA-Belgian imperialists gave the order that Lumumba and Che be tortured to death. And the list of leftists assassinated over the years is a long one. Of twelve major wars in Africa, the CIA has been involved in eleven of them. Democracy is the right's most hated institution.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 22 April 2007 12:22 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Skookums to Fidel for offering that link to the piece on some of the details of the Soviet-era economy. I had read much of this info before. But this one is well-organized and easy to follow. Economics and business buffts should take a look at it.

quote:
Aside from communist apologists distancing their brand of communism from the Russian model,the fact is that Vladimir Putin has much support from former hardliners.

These types like Jester just to don’t get, or don’t want to. Who are these “communist apologists?” I spent three posts here on this thread outlining the facts—as in FACTS—about what terms like “communism” or “socialism” mean vs. the primarily state-capitalist-oriented economies that developed in post-revolutionary Russia and China.

There’s nothing to apologize for. These are history. If you look at any of my posts on this site, you will see that I don’t offer servile excuses for anything. If it’s not what it claims to be, then it isn’t legitimate. Period.

quote:
I really don't have any interest in what musty old communist theorists had to say in the past or in the contortions of present day communists to both distance themselves from totalitarian regimes that were labeled communist and simultaniously claim their version is worthy of serious consideration.

It’s clear you don’t, because if you did, you might try looking at things in a broader perspective, instead of just knee-jerking around. What “theorists” are you talking about. I have repeatedly shown here numerous examples of practical socialistic regional and sectoral developments, both present-day and throughout history—not in theory, but in actual practice, as in people doing things for real in a very successful way. Why do you see this as such a bad thing?

quote:
According to resident communist apologists,who appear to be very insecure,I am a neocon anti-communist scofflaw at best. That is not true. I consider keyboard communists such as Steppenwolf and Spector to be harmless revisionists,supporting their political beliefs while the Russian variety is anything but harmless.

This is a laugh. I don’t think I have ever been called that before. You might consider me less harmless (to corporate capitalism, that is) if you knew about the work I do in socialistic business development, such as labour-sponsored ventures, cooperatives, community economic development, credit unions, etc.

Rather, you seem to make the mistake of confusing insecurity with honesty—obviously something you’re not used to. (And BTW, it seems rather insecure and ignorant of you to lump me and Spector in the same sack, since, if you actually read our respective posts, you would see that he and I differ on a great deal).

And, finally, if you insist we’re not a neo-con, then quit acting like one, and start appreciating facts, rather than putting a slanderous defamatory spin on everything and everyone.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 22 April 2007 12:22 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fair enough,Fidel but it makes no difference to the dangers facing the world today.

In the context of this thread,Russian intolerance for dissent will only make challenging US military adventurism more difficult as the purveyors of this policy find new reasons for suspicion of an old adversary.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 22 April 2007 12:23 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now that Jester’s baloney is out of the way, let’s look at some of this in perspective:

quote:
Hmmm... Just what exactly does Union of Soviet Socialist Republics mean?

In short, it describes a term used as a false selling gimmick, since such a place, in the true practical economic sense, has never really existed.

quote:
My interest is in the present geopolitical uncertainty posed by a resurgent Russia's intentions to regain totalitarian control over former Soviet Socialist Republics. Using petro dollars for rebuilding the Russian military and economic coersion will increase world tensions.

First, if you look at the info on this, you will see that Russia didn’t just start being resurgent recently. Rather, it’s been working on this since 1992. Despite the Soviet break-up, it seems fairly clear that the Russian state/elite still has a great deal of influence over the other former republics, especially in the oil and natural resource development and trade, international transportation and banking sectors. That’s partly what the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent Stateswas about. The predominantly state capitalist, but increasingly privatized, economic elite there is still very much intact and in control of things, albeit not to the same degree as during the Soviet era.

It’s also why some of the more independent-minded republics are looking more to the US and European Union for direct trade and investment, and even military presence.

Second, the big difference between now and during the Cold War era is that the Russian ruling class is expanding its influence and market share by playing the role of a sort of antagonistic partner with US imperialistic efforts, instead of a counter-weight opponent.

For example, in Afghanistan, it’s clear Putin wants the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline and many of the resources now as much as Brezhnev did in 1979 (and that the US has since then).

The difference is back then the Russian elite ordered the military invasion and take-over of the country, after its client state was threatened with collapse. That prompted the US elite, at that time represented by the horrific Reagan Administration, to revive the Islamic extremist movement, by setting up both Al Qaeda and the Taliban , to fight them.

Now the Russian state has a huge, albeit fairly quiet, presence in Afghanistan after it helped the US invade the country in 2001 by again sending in troops to occupy the northern part.

So if Putin is ready to share the power in the control of that new pipeline and resource extraction with the US & co., he’ll likely get it.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 22 April 2007 01:11 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well then,on that note,I'll spare you any additional baloney and leave you to your prognostications except to say that I'm fairly positive that the good folks down at the Jump For Jesus Trampoline Center do not share your sentiments.

I'm sure that whether or not Lenin put his pants on left leg first in 1923 has great significance to his devotees but matters not at all to those who are not swayed by communist arguments.

While I have reiterated that my inclusion of communism is entirely within the context of this thread,you constantly insist on going off-topic and are presently combing Afghanistan for relevance for your impassioned defense of the indefensible.

Good luck and best wishes with that quest.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 02:23 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
The difference is back then the Russian elite ordered the military invasion and take-over of the country, after its client state was threatened with collapse. That prompted the US elite, at that time represented by the horrific Reagan Administration, to revive the Islamic extremist movement, by setting up both Al Qaeda and the Taliban , to fight them.

I think the truth is, that militant Islam was already "revived" with Gulebeddin Hekmatyar and other extremists already assassinating Marxist leaders and attacking Afghan cities in the 1970's leading up to 1979. The U.S. has since admitted to CIA hirelings and proxies being active in Afghanistan leading up to 1979. The Soviet military didn't "invade" in one fell swoop but were called upon over several months for backup by the existing PDPA government to respond to the increasing and concerted attacks by extremists who were using increasingly sophisticated weapons. Imagine that the Sandinstas and FMNL had more than just pitchforks and old Kalashnikovs to deal with contras armed to the eye teeth.

This is another interesting bit from the NZ article:

quote:
And what happened was they fought the Soviets in a long, brutal 10-year war, and then in 1989 when the Soviet Union withdrew, the United States government just forgot about the Afghan people. In the period between 1992 to 1996, the worst period in the history of Aghanistan was when these Mujahideen groups predictably turned upon themselves to fight one another in a bid for power over the country.

The CIA did not forget about Afghanistan. Proxy fighters and militias were made to feel welcome in Pakistan which was mostly entirely lawless at the time and ruled by an illegitimate militia government under General Zia. After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the CIA began bypassing General Zia ul Haq's militia government and Pakistani ISI altogether

The Soviet-backed PDPA government and volunteer women's brigades stood alone against the U.S.-backed mujihadeen and the fundamentalists for over two years from 1989 to 1992. The PDPA army and volunteers held off the western-trained and heavily armed mujahideen as Kabul was laid siege to and even defeated the extremists at Jalalabad.

After 1992, the CIA then began funding the most ruthless warlords who then proceeded to destroy the country, murdered 50 thousand Afghani's and caused millions more to flee Afghanistan, as the article points out correctly.

The U.S. ambassador at the time suggested to Ahmed Shah Massoud "the Lion of Pansjir", that he simply surrender to the Taliban. Massoud's CIA funding was cut off in 1992 after he declared war on the Taliban.

quote:
This was the worst period of Afghan history and it was least covered in western media. . . . There's nothing left to bomb in Kabul any more, it's just rubble. Forty-five thousand people were killed in the crossfire and we never heard about it. At the same time, when people were dying in Sarajevo in Bosnia, we heard about it -- there was a huge deal made about it -- international attention was focused on it, but Afghanistan was forgotten

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 02:40 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Fair enough,Fidel but it makes no difference to the dangers facing the world today.

In the context of this thread,Russian intolerance for dissent will only make challenging US military adventurism more difficult as the purveyors of this policy find new reasons for suspicion of an old adversary.


I've actually given up trying to convince people that as far as the shadow government and MIC complex are concerned, they can create "reasons" out of thin air. They've been very creative, from "Nurse Nayirah" in 1991 to Iraqi "WMD" leading up to shock and appall. The complex has proven that they don't need the Soviets as an excuse for Keynesian-militarism anymore. It's the nature of the "New Deal" for a rogue superpower.

The U.S. became a national security state in the 1950's I believe. They don't need the old Soviet Union to justify ginormous spending on military, and now they've been able to justify turning the national security state inward in spying on their own people and cracking down on dissent in the largest gulag nation in the world, the USSA.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 April 2007 02:43 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The U.S certainly did accuse the Russians of supplying weapons to the FMNL and Sandinistas. There was never any evidence for it though.

Sure there was. For example, the Sandinista Army had Soviet helicopters. I myself have seen them on the tarmac at Sandino International Airport.

As for the FMLN, I recall that trucks full of Soviet arms were stopped at the Honduran border on at least one occasion. I have seen the photos.

Also, speedboats from the tip of Cuba also brought substantial numbers of small-arms to the Nicaraguan Atlantic coast. A friend of mine actually was involved in off-loading these.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the Soviet Union arming Nicaragua when it was facing a U.S. supplied contra resistance. But claiming it didn't do it is just silly.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 03:47 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh sure, it was a real battle of Britain over Nicaraguan skies with Apache helicopters raining automatic cannon fire down on villages and destroying schools and hospitals and anything alive inside them. How many natives were slaughtered with U.S.-made helicopter gunships by death squad governments in Guatemala ?.

Jeff, if the Soviets were delivering helicopters to Nicaragua in the 1980's, why were the NVA defenceless in the air from U.S. carpet bombing on villages and rice paddies ?.

Contra mercenaries were armed to the eye teeth, Jeff. Ronald Reagan, Oliver North, the Ayatollah, and WACL in Taiwan made sure of it.

Farabundo Marti's in El Salvador, Jeff. What were the Soviets supplying them with besides nothing ?.
Warshington was scared shitless of a domino falling right there in their own backyard. It almost did fall until the hawks waged dirty war on a nation of six million peasants.

It was a dirty war in El Salvador and it's a dirty war in Iraq. They even recruited Negroponte to set up the right-wing death squads - Blackwater contract killers including a few old Contra mercenaries, torture gulags at Abu etc. Just like old times.

quote:
Also, speedboats from the tip of Cuba also brought substantial numbers of small-arms to the Nicaraguan Atlantic coast. A friend of mine actually was involved in off-loading these.

Was your friend also involved in building the schools and hospitals, roads, a sugar mill etc in Nicaragua just before contra mercenaries bombed them, Jeff ?. Was he one of the 1500 Cuban doctors sent to Nicaragua to give free consultations and treatments to the peasantry ? Was he part of the vocational aid from Cuba to Nicaragua during that time to train Nicaraguan workers in using the new machinery and industrial equipment brought in to Nicaragua ?. Let's see now, how can we re-work this into an argument for U.S.-managed elections in Cuba?.

Jeff, I met one of the contra bastards on a small Dutch Island in the 1980s. When he wasn't a chickenshit, he would go to Costa Rica, or Honduras, and run around the bush as a paid killer for money. He said he was paid $2000 USDN a month back then. He never mentioned anything about being worried by the Soviet airforce.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 22 April 2007 06:39 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think there was anything wrong with the Soviet Union arming Nicaragua when it was facing a U.S. supplied contra resistance. But claiming it didn't do it is just silly.



Yes, and you' must surely know how easy it was for the US to allege a SOviet buildup anywhere in the Caribbean.
The real pretext for the 1983 invasion of Grenada by Reagan was his claim that the SOviets and the Cubans were building an military airport.
(The medical stuents were probably quite safe,thankyou - more of a sappy pretext).

Reagan alleged that the Soviets wanted a full-size airport on Grenada, capable of landing large transport planes. And that - on a small island?

I read the archives for 1983: the British company that built that airfield said that theres no way the tarmac could be used for military planes.

There were no Cuban soldiers either, just lightly armed construction workers, and maybe a few military advisors.

The US dirty war against Nicaragua was a also a criminal affair from start to finish.
They called the Contras "freedom fighteres". After the entire people was united in ousting that dirtbag Somoza.


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 22 April 2007 08:17 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you want to see who has been behind the latest anti-Putin protests, checkout this article:

quote:
For seven years the oligarch has stewed in golden exile in Britain. The British government gave him refugee status, judging he would not get a fair trial in Putin's Russia. Berezovsky gathered unhappy dissidents around him, including former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko, whom he put on his payroll.

In January 2006, Berezovsky gave an interview in which he suggested he was in favour of the violent overthrow of the Putin regime. The British foreign secretary rebuked him in the House of Commons, saying: "Advocating the violent overthrow of a sovereign state is unacceptable and we condemn these words unreservedly."

In November 2006, Alexander Litvinenko died a slow, agonizing death in London. He had been poisoned with polonium 210. The trail led back to Moscow, where suspicion quickly fell on the Russian security services.

Detectives from Scotland Yard travelled to Moscow to interview witnesses and suspects. The Russian state prosecutor made it clear no one would be extradited from Russia even if charged.

In early April, Litvinenko's widow, accompanied by Berezovsky, unveiled the Alexander Litvinenko Justice Foundation. The goal was to keep pressure on the British authorities to pursue the killers. Berezovsky told reporters he was convinced that Putin himself ordered the killing or knew of the order.

But that didn't attract enough media attention. And so, once again, Berezovsky began talking of fomenting revolution. Predictably, the Kremlin howled.

The quiet billionaire
Russia's state prosecutor said "Berezovsky has created a criminal group with the aim of overthrowing by force the lawful powers of the Russian federation." He demanded, once again, Berezovsky's extradition.

Then the Russian ambassador in Britain weighed in. "A speedy resolution would help to improve, to develop our relations even further," Yury Fedotov said. "But absence of reaction would have some impact on bilateral relations and create a new situation."

Those remarks had an ominous ring in a country that imports Russian gas and intends to import much more in the future and whose companies have large investments in Russia.

British police were ordered to look into Berezovsky's comments to see whether there were grounds to revoke his refugee status, although that would be most unlikely. Graphic proof that the dice are loaded in Russia against opponents of the regime came a day after Berezovsky incendiary interview: 9,000 Russian riot police descended on 2,000 peaceful protesters in Moscow, beating up many, hauling off dozens and arresting one of the demonstration's leaders, ex-chess champion Garry Kasparov, as he emerged from a taxi to join the march.



Link

What the article doesnt say is that Kasparov is also on Berezovsky's payroll.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: BetterRed ]


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 April 2007 09:52 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

As for the FMLN, I recall that trucks full of Soviet arms were stopped at the Honduran border on at least one occasion. I have seen the photos.


Bullshit!

Distorted Reports of the El Salvador Crisis

quote:
Another media myth is that Cuban- or Russian-inspired guerrillas were the cause of El Salvador's social upheaval rather than the country's real enemy-a century of economic and social injustice.

There was also much media-generated paranoia regarding Cuban or Russian arms shipments to the "leftist guerrillas," obscuring the reality of an alarming U.S. military buildup in El Salvador. According to the Institute for Policy Studies, U.S. security assistance to El Salvador between 1950 and 1979 totaled $16.72 million; in 1980 alone, more than $5.7 million in U.S. military aid was sent to El Salvador and U.S. military advisers were stationed there.



quote:
I don't think there was anything wrong with the Soviet Union arming Nicaragua when it was facing a U.S. supplied contra resistance. But claiming it didn't do it is just silly.

Another load of load of crap!. Some of the "Contra's" leaders were former Samoza National Guard members who were hated by most Nicaraguans. Edgar Chamorro was a former leader of Samoza's hated National Guard who joined the "U.S.-backed" Contras after the revolution. The Contras weren't the Nicaraguan "resistance", Jeff. They were an extension of U.S. foreign policy against left-wing populist movements in Central America. In fact, the Contras had no backing among ordinary Nicaraguans and were so unpopular they had to launch their terrorist attacks from Honduras and Costa Rica.

Edgar Chamorro's testimony at the World Court:

quote:
"We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to use the tactics the agency [the CIA] attributed to Communist insurgencies elsewhere: kill, kidnap, rob, and torture.... Many civilians were killed in cold blood. Many others were tortured, mutilated, raped, robbed, or otherwise abused.... When I agreed to join ... I had hoped that it would be an organization of Nicaraguans.... [It] turned out to be an instrument of the U.S. government..."

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 April 2007 09:14 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:

The US dirty war against Nicaragua was a also a criminal affair from start to finish.
They called the Contras "freedom fighteres". After the entire people was united in ousting that dirtbag Somoza.


"Freedom fighters", the Nicaraguan "resistance" as Jeff refers to them, what's the diff ?.

CIA support of right wing death squads in El Salvador and beyond

36 of the most brutal right-wing dictatorships aided and abetted by the CIA and Warshington

#37: Salvador option in Iraq

#38: CIA Torture "on the Fly" in Eastern Europe(Or, how not to win friends and influence cold war enemies)

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 30 April 2007 10:40 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whatever else English-speaking people may know about the career of President Putin, they should realize that he is a judo master. His judo-based senses of discipline, honor, and service to humankind as president of Russia tower over any of the more menial roles assigned to him in the former Soviet Union. Insofar as judo is at his core, he brings a warrior's presence to the international stage. Judo may not be the answer to the economic woes of Russia, but it does have a broad impact on the philosophy of those who practice it.

History shows that the bully who relies on brute force and overwhelming firepower always falls to another empire mightier still. The maturity and poise born of judo practice is an unfailing guide in such matters. A judoka is always in the position to identify his opponent's weakness and bring about a "gentle" victory. The principles of judo thus suggest a world in which global cooperation and exchange among nations can take the place of reliance on weaponry and threats.

If President Putin makes good on his idea to do a judo demonstration at Madison Square Garden, this would be the real thing--politician as martial artist, martial artist as politician. No doubt, he would put some professional wrestlers to shame, but then he would graciously allow himself to be thrown by a precocious American high school judoka. In a judo-oriented realm of politics, the true inner creativity and capacity of the human species may be realized.



--From the preface to Judo: History, Theory, Practice (2004) by Vladmir Putin and others. Preface by George Russell Jr. Reprinted in Harper's Magazine

From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 April 2007 05:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It sounds repressive. And it's intolerable this Judoka. The west will have to organize a extra-territorial trade embargo. Later they'll say the system collapsed all on its own. Dirty wars will be waged on desperately poor people, and arms dealers will make a fortune in the name of freedom. And some day, this world will finally be safe for hypocrisy. But we can't let our guard down now, oh no. The red menace is behind every tree, waiting to pounce on us and contaminate our bodily fluids with their commie doctrine.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca