Bachmann is concerned about the rise of the SOVIET UNION

[ParkCungHee]

Race is a particular sociological construction which was of only very limited relevance when discussing the ethnic diversity of the USSR.

Also, good luck agreeing what "Race" Inuits, Cossacks, Tartars, Krymchaks, etc. etc. are.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Because of cultural differences;
America has a wider range of "races" because of its past with regards to slavery and such, and to a certain degree immigration, whereas the USSR was much more heterogenous without this background.

But you can't just change what you're comparing because it will ruin your argument. If you were putting forward that the USSR was more culturally diverse than the U.S., you can't say the U.S. isn't very racially diverse while the USSR is very ethnically, you're comparing apples to oranges. Stick to one metric then compare.

 

[nonconformist]

But you can't just change what you're comparing because it will ruin your argument. If you were putting forward that the USSR was more culturally diverse than the U.S., you can't say the U.S. isn't very racially diverse while the USSR is very ethnically, you're comparing apples to oranges. Stick to one metric then compare.

You *cant* by the very nature of either nation; the USSR ha dwhole enclaves, if not nations of "Tartars" or "Cetniks" or "Mogols". If I were to try and compare the two, then the argument I'd get is "the USSR can't be compared to the USA"

 

[Joecoolyo]

You *cant* by the very nature of either nation; the USSR ha dwhole enclaves, if not nations of "Tartars" or "Cetniks" or "Mogols". If I were to try and compare the two, then the argument I'd get is "the USSR can't be compared to the USA"

Well, if you can't, then why did you? Or did I just misread your post?

And, if I may rebuttal, the U.S. also has entire enclaves/nations within it

 

[Tani Coyote]

Calling the USSR "Russian" is a cognitive disassociation by the west, especially Americans, who seek to draw a clear line throughout the history of the Russias, and direct attention away from the fact that the USSR was both a Republic and a Confederacy, since it might have too much in common with the US, despite being much more ethnically and culturally diverse.

Oh, a Republic, of course. Anybody can be a Republic, so the term is meaningless really...

...Confederacy? That implies heavy decentralisation.

I was under the impression the Soviets weren't exactly big on local rule! You know... dictatorship and whatnot? Were they more tolerant of say, Ukraine seceding from Moscow's grip, than Czechoslovakia or other Warsaw Pact members doing so?

Stalin becoming leader was not "liberal", it was a foundation of the USSR, where, as a dictatorship of the proletariat, ethnicity and nationality are moot within the concept of the Soviets.

Okay, so the USSR gets one progressive point; I wouldn't have wanted to live there though.

The Leninist/Trotskyite ideal of Exporting the Revolution is a key example of this.

Pity those died out very early.

Although at this point you hit a number of speed-bumps as the internationalism of Marx and Lenin collides head-first with the Russian chauvinism of Stalin, with his successors settling for a heavily-Russified "Soviet" nationalism. The early internationalism of the Bolsheviks didn't really outlast the 1920s.

Indeed. Lenin, as I recall, was a champion of many liberal ideas; the USSR had extensive gay rights under his stewardship if I remember. Then Stalin came along and pretty much destroyed almost everything appealing about the new system.

 

[Ajidica]

...Confederacy? That implies heavy decentralisation.

I was under the impression the Soviets weren't exactly big on local rule! You know... dictatorship and whatnot?

It can be decentralized on different levels. While the RSFSR was the de facto leader of the USSR due to its size and tradition, it did not have absolute control. Remember, the RSFSR had its own president that co-existed with the Premier.

Even calling the SSRs a 'dictatorship' isn't always the most accurate, but I'll leave TF or Cheezy for that one because I'm not the best in that area and I would likely get something wrong in the explanation.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I just assume such because they happily crushed any other country that tried to throw off Communism. So why stop there? Why not do it at home too?

 

[amadeus]

Even calling the SSRs a 'dictatorship' isn't always the most accurate,

I think it is so long as we understand that a dictatorship does not in itself imply rule by the whim of one person.

 

[Ajidica]

I just assume such because they happily crushed any other country that tried to throw off Communism.

Examples? The closest I can think of is Czechslovakia and Hungary, neither of which were 'throwing of Communism'. It was more a result of Kruschev and Brezhnev overreacting to a neighbor doing things we didn't like. Less then half a century earlier we were doing the same thing in Mexico and even then we were kicking out people we didn't like and replacing them with others. Remember Mossadeq?

 

[Traitorfish]

Even calling the SSRs a 'dictatorship' isn't always the most accurate, but I'll leave TF or Cheezy for that one because I'm not the best in that area and I would likely get something wrong in the explanation.

Yeah, after Stalin, it's better looked at as a one-party state rather than as a dictatorship in the proper sense. The state and Communist Party bureaucracy were institutionally fused, and the actual distribution of power was often variable within that- Stalin's "Red Tsarism" being an exception rather than the rule, even if Brezhnev did attempt a rather feeble return to the days of the personality cult- so it's hard to generalise beyond saying that the party-state bureaucratic elite, the nomeklatura, held collective political power. You could arguably describe that as a "party dictatorship", although I think that this would tend to imply an autocracy which wasn't for the most part available, with even the nomenklatura finding themselves frequently constrained by their own regulations. (I mean, even Stalin had to get the order for Trotsky's assination signed off by a number off different government agencies, and while in his case this was merely a formality, it's not had to imagine that a less individually powerful politician would find these to be genuine obstacles.)

 

[Tee Kay]

Yeah, a personality cult around this guy is never going to be very successful.

 

[Ajidica]

That guy is Kruschev right? If yes, I remember reading about that picture.

 

[aelf]

Brezhnev.

 

[carmen510]

That guy is Kruschev right? If yes, I remember reading about that picture.

That's Brezhnev. Khrushchev is the bald one. How do you get the two mixed up?

 

[Ajidica]

That's Brezhnev. How do you get the two mixed up?

Overweight balding Soviet bureaucrats from the side are hard to tell apart.

Anyhow, I remember Robert Service writing about a picture taken of Kruschev and Mao at one of their visits, but Mao insisted it be in a pool because he could swim and Kruschev couldn't. As a result, the picture showed Mao swimming and Kruschev in floaties.

 

[aelf]

Overweight balding Soviet bureaucrats from the side are hard to tell apart.

Eh, Kruschev wasn't that fat, was he?

 

[Ajidica]

He doesn't look thin in most pictures I've seen of him.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Examples? The closest I can think of is Czechslovakia and Hungary, neither of which were 'throwing of Communism'. It was more a result of Kruschev and Brezhnev overreacting to a neighbor doing things we didn't like.

Well really, those are the ones I meant.

But, as you point out next, America kind of has suppressed movements itself. Though, it would seem for most of our history, despite the occassional "Red Scare" or whatnot, Americans had more in the way of (political) rights.

Less then half a century earlier we were doing the same thing in Mexico and even then we were kicking out people we didn't like and replacing them with others. Remember Mossadeq?

America seems to operate on a "democracy within, autocracy without" policy, however. I don't think the Soviet citizenry enjoyed anywhere near as much political freedom as we do, even if they were more socially progressive at one point.

Yeah, after Stalin, it's better looked at as a one-party state rather than as a dictatorship in the proper sense. The state and Communist Party bureaucracy were institutionally fused, and the actual distribution of power was often variable within that- Stalin's "Red Tsarism" being an exception rather than the rule, even if Brezhnev did attempt a rather feeble return to the days of the personality cult- so it's hard to generalise beyond saying that the party-state bureaucratic elite, the nomeklatura, held collective political power. You could arguably describe that as a "party dictatorship", although I think that this would tend to imply an autocracy which wasn't for the most part available, with even the nomenklatura finding themselves frequently constrained by their own regulations. (I mean, even Stalin had to get the order for Trotsky's assination signed off by a number off different government agencies, and while in his case this was merely a formality, it's not had to imagine that a less individually powerful politician would find these to be genuine obstacles.)

Yes, the USSR was more accurately an oligarchy than a dictatorship. Only reason Stalin couldn't be removed - I think - was probably because he kept killing his "friends" so that they could never challenge him.

From time to time, I find a Stalinist-era bureaucrat who survived, and am amazed!

Either way, politically, the USSR, it would seem, was definitely less free than the United States or other Western nations. At least we keep our financial and political oligarchs separate!

Yeah, a personality cult around this guy is never going to be very successful.

 

[aelf]

He doesn't look thin in most pictures I've seen of him.

He doesn't seem as fat as Brezhnev to me.

 

[Quackers]

That guy is Kruschev right? If yes, I remember reading about that picture.

You got to check those eyebrows. Those big bushy eyebrows of Soviet Stagnation