68 years ago today, the largest war in history began

[MishaK]

Isn't this just speculation on your part? There are a bunch of theories about Gamsakhurdia's death, including suicide; none have been proven.

Speculation, admittedly, though quite credible, IMHO.

Also, he died in a village in Georgia, not in Chechnya as your blogpost states (though he was buried in Chechnya).

You are correct. My mistake.

All so very true.  What appalls me as a Canadian observer of the U.S. situation, is the inability of American voters and polititians to perceive and acknowledge these things.  The fact is that Europe, in general, has been a lot more successful at mitigating the nastier market realities in the interest of the majority of citizens than has the U.S.

How many time during and since the Presidential campaign have I heard some conservative politician there say in effect, "we don't want that do we? It would be copying the Europeans and therefore Un-American"; (with respect to the current healthcare issue there, for example).  Americans, of course, will point out that theirs is the most successful, (not to mention them most free & just, blah-yada), country in the world.  To which I respond the most successul so far, but you are loosing momentum very fast.

Well, that view is understandable, though distorted. The US political system is a very bad representation of its present population. It is an ancient constitution that hasn't been substantively reformed since the Civil War at least. It gives disproportionate representation to underpopulated rural states, and even within more populous urban states, the rural areas are overrepresented. The reasons for this are manifold, but the result is that it is still easy for moneyed interests to sponsor politicians through donations who then spout age old appeals to American Western myth and prevent an effective discussion of the actual issues. On the substantive issues, US public opinion generally is not nearly as divergent from Canada or Europe as the stereotypes would make it seem. There is a very deep dichotomy between rural America and urban America, and population-wise urban America is outgrowing rural America rapidly. Sooner or later this will require some significant structural adjustments to be made to the constitutional order of the country. I don't think there is another democracy in operation today that has not substantively overhauled its constitution in so long of a time.

the caveats about regulation and government intervention is that people often fall into a fallacy that government is a disinterested player who can act impartially, when in fact government policies are the result of politicians and bureaucrats acting in their own self interest which may or may not coincide with the interests of the majority of citizens.  The greater the power of government to regulate and micromanage the economy, the greater the rewards to unions and corporate interests to sway the process to get regulations written in a way to benefit themselves.  The funds spent on lobbying and swaying legislators contribute nothing to the national wealth.  The sugar and ethanol industry in the US is the poster child for this.  In the private sector, bad business models do not survive.  However the pork-barrel economics of concentrated benefits vs. diffuse costs are extremely difficult to get around. For example, everyone in the US pays a few dollars more per year for sugar than they would without the tariff, and a few sugar farmers in Florida make millions from it.  The average citizen has no incentive to lobby to change the policy but the beneficiaries of the policy will hire lobbyists, contribute to campaigns, offer lucrative consulting jobs to former gov officials all to preserve their handouts.  Europe and Japan have a corporatist economies, not a socialist ones. 

I don't really agree with that. The problem in the US is the two party system and the campaign finance system. Eliminate those (and they don't exist in this form anywhere else) and you don't have nearly as corrupt a system. If political campaigns are publicly funded, or funded only by natural individuals up to a cap, then it becomes nearly impossible to exact the level of influence over politics that corporations do (and unions used to but no longer really do in any meaningful way) in the US. And if you have multiple parties, then you can no longer afford to do this sort of ruinous politics where each side, when in the minority, seeks to ensure that the other side's projects fail in order to win the next election. Multiparty systems have a way of engendering more long term thinking and cooperation because you never know who your next coalition partner may have to be, so you can't afford to completely torpedo their efforts all the time, the way Republicans have been doing to Democrats at least since 1994. Japan with its zaibatsus and LDP hegemony over politics is a unique case. Western Europe with its powerful unions and semi-state-owned or state-sponsored companies used to be very corporatist until about twenty years ago or so, but today the model has been very much watered down. The main left-of center and right-of center popular parties all over Western Europe are struggling in the polls precisely because their old support structure no longer exists the way it did from the 50s to the 80s.

well the bad business models got weeded out didn't they?

think about the politics of doing something in, say, 2005 to prevent the panic of 2007-2008.  The remedy would have caused 1) dramatic decline in residential construction, throwing people out of work, 2) the tightening of access to credit for low income home buyers and 3) a falloff in underwriting profits for the banking industry (which had huge influence and lobbying efforts with both the democratic and republican congress).  Can anyone really believe that any government official would take the political fallout from 1-3 over what at that point was only a concern that things were getting out of hand?

and why was a housing bubble across Europe?

Adding to Feanor's comments, I don't think the political fallout would have been as problematic if this had been done a little earlier. The main thing to do would have been to raise interest rates maybe some time in 2003 or 2004 when the economy seemed to have recovered from the 2001-2002 recession.* That would have curbed the bubble greatly in and of itself, in addition to giving the Fed some actual ability to respond better in 2008 had the market still declined in some form. Secondly, there really needs to be some shift away from the mythology of home ownership. Americans move so frequently on average that for many people home ownership is simply not an economically sensible choice, even with all the built-in government support through tax subsidies for developers and tax deductions for home buyers. There are also no excuses for the various regulatory oversights that enabled the bubble.

*Of course, the real problem with my suggestion is that in 2003 nobody wanted to admit that the majority of the growth at the time came from the multiplier effect from increased security expenditures post-9-11 and that the economy wasn't really out of its first Dubya-recession yet.

PS: I love it how the topic of these threads just meanders gently.

[Sarastro]

If you really believe that the economics of USSR was the same as that of Sweden and Brezhnev was a kind of Olof Palme

Actually, I don't. Re-read my post carefully:

Many people (like you) instantly connect socialism to Stalinism, which was neither communism nor socialism, but rather a total abuse of power and the desire to spread his rule over neighboring regions. It only bore the name of "socialism," whereas it was not.

Besides, you keep extolling Sweden

I mentioned Sweden only once as an example.

and lambasting US

I like the US, but certainly there are things that could be better. And as you may see many people from the US are quite critical of the government. That is normal.

Rather strange...

Rather strange is your remark. I was brought here when I was underage. Apparently, I could not decide where to go. And even if I could, I would choose California for its weather.

As for my "bias" against anything that has to do with "communism" or "socialism" or whatever you'd like to call the system that ruled East of the Iron Curtain from 1945 to 1989, I never disguised it --- I just call it by the real name: common-sense.

You are missing the point. You are confusing the terms, and I am trying to point this out. Once again: stalinism is no socialism (nor is it communism). Your bias certainly manifests itself in the wording.

[MishaK]

You are missing the point. You are confusing the terms, and I am trying to point this out. Once again: stalinism is no socialism (nor is it communism). Your bias certainly manifests itself in the wording.

Well, to be fair, I think Florestan has a point. See my extended response to you on the inevitability of moral disaster inherent in communist revolution. You can't really have communism without it leading to the kind of Leninsm/Maoism/Titoism etc. that we have seen in each instance where such ideology was attempted to be applied to a nation-state. It's perfectly fair to call the historic manifestation of communism that existed from 1918 to 1989 'communism' for lack of a better word. I'll grant you that Stalinism is quite a different animal, not necessarily one borne from the socio-political trajectory of the October revolution, but a phenomenon unique to his person and the Russian situation at the time. That being said, it is indeed patently wrong to call European social-democracy 'socialism' in the sense that this word was used behind the Iron curtain. It never was that and never sought to achieve that.

[Sarastro]

the inevitability of moral disaster inherent in communist revolution

But my point isn't about that! My whole point is that Florestan calls stalinism socialism/communism. The former is not an economic system but a political doctrine.

[Sarastro]

I'd like to see the proof for this assertion, please.

Oops, sorry, I confused you with Bunny. Just looked in the "Russian attacks over Georgia" thread. 

But still, I think we should distinguish socialism as the economic system and the governments that evolved from it, which used this word as to disguise their intents. I am anyway no fan of socialism or communism per se, though there are some good points in socialism. People are different: some of them like entrepreneurship and competitive market, others are fine with just holding a position, walking to work and back and care less, so an economy should be balanced for them all. You can't change the human nature (yet). And again I am not defending the Soviet system but rather point out how it distorted the original theory that had something positive in it.

[Florestan]

O Mensch

Well, to be fair, I think Florestan has a point.

Thanks.

See my extended response to you on the inevitability of moral disaster inherent in communist revolution. You can't really have communism without it leading to the kind of Leninsm/Maoism/Titoism etc. that we have seen in each instance where such ideology was attempted to be applied to a nation-state. It's perfectly fair to call the historic manifestation of communism that existed from 1918 to 1989 'communism' for lack of a better word.

Precisely. Not only for lack of a better word, but also for what they called themselves.

I'll grant you that Stalinism is quite a different animal, not necessarily one borne from the socio-political trajectory of the October revolution, but a phenomenon unique to his person and the Russian situation at the time. That being said, it is indeed patently wrong to call European social-democracy 'socialism' in the sense that this word was used behind the Iron curtain. It never was that and never sought to achieve that.

Agreed on all points, but especially on the highlight. Politics aside, equating the economic "socialism" (or "whatever it is called") practiced east of iron curtain with the economic "socialism" (or "whatever it is called" --- I think "social-democracy" is indeed the more apt term) practiced west of it is plain wrong. That is my whole point and you understand it correctly (not that I expected otherwise).

Sarastro

Oops, sorry, I confused you with Bunny. Just looked in the "Russian attacks over Georgia" thread. 

I expected something like that... 

But still, I think we should distinguish socialism as the economic system and the governments that evolved from it, which used this word as to disguise their intents.

What we should distuinguish, and I apologize for repeating it, is the "socialism/whatever" east of iron curtain from the "socialism/social-democracy/whatever" west of iron curtain. Two totally different systems, with totally different goals and totally different policies to achieve them. (Incidentally, it was a social-democrat government that crushed the communist uprisings in Germany in the aftermath of WWI). Can we agree on this point?

I am anyway no fan of socialism or communism per se,

I hope so.  0:)

People are different: some of them like entrepreneurship and competitive market, others are fine with just holding a position, walking to work and back and care less, so an economy should be balanced for them all.

I certainly agree on that, but again: such a balance was sought for and maybe achieved in western-style social-democracy and purely on pragmatic grounds, as O Mensch aptly noticed; eastern-style socialism completely eliminated one side on purely ideological grounds.

You can't change the human nature (yet).

You'll never be able to change human nature, period.

And again I am not defending the Soviet system but rather point out how it distorted the original theory that had something positive in it.

This distortion was not an accident: it was the very nature of the Communist political system to do so. Re-read the excellent analysis of O Mensch regarding the inevitability of the communist disaster.

Once again: Sweden was no Socialist Republic of Romania and France was no USSR.

[Sarastro]

That is my whole point and you understand it correctly.

That was my point, which you did not get before. You called the Soviet government "socialist" and "communist" because you lived under the regime and thought it was socialism and communism, but never knew what real socialism was about. The philosophy of those systems is quite a different topic, though, and again it has nothing to do with my point -- explaining what socialism is, i.e. the socialism used in the West.

I certainly agree on that, but again: such a balance was sought for and maybe achieved in western-style social-democracy and purely on pragmatic grounds, as O Mensch aptly noticed; eastern-style socialism completely eliminated one side on purely ideological grounds.

Again: what was in the east, was not socialism, although they called it that way.

You'll never be able to change human nature, period.

Who knows . . . . . evolution continues.

Re-read the excellent analysis of O Mensch regarding the inevitability of the communist disaster.

I was not talking about the nature of communism, rather about what socialism really means. But either you are trying to distort my post in your favor, or don't read carefully, or I have troubles expressing my point of view.

[Florestan]

That was my point, which you did not get before. You called the Soviet government "socialist" and "communist" because you lived under the regime and thought it was socialism and communism, but never knew what real socialism was about. The philosophy of those systems is quite a different topic, though, and again it has nothing to do with my point -- explaining what socialism is, i.e. the socialism used in the West.

It looks like the only issue we have is a terminological one.

Let's not stumble on words. I ask you once again: do you agree that the economical system practiced in Western Europe under the banner of "socialism" was completely different and yielded completely different results than the economical system practiced in Eastern Europe under the banner of "socialism"?

If yes, do you agree, furthermore, that this difference follows from the difference in the political philosophies of, say, the German Social-Democrat Party and the Communist Party of USSR?

If yes again then we are in agreement. But I will still use "communism" for what happened in Eastern Euriope and Russia 1918-1989: that's what most ruling parties called themselves and that was the official ideology. Why it is so hard for you to accept that is beyond me. Be it as it may, this is going to be my final post on the issue. I made my points as clear as I could.

[Sarastro]

I ask you once again: do you agree that the economical system practiced in Western Europe under the banner of "socialism" was completely different and yielded completely different results than the economical system practiced in Eastern Europe under the banner of "socialism"?

I wrote about this in my first post.

It looks like the only issue we have is a terminological one.

And I wrote about this, too. Many times.

If our points are the same, why are you arguing and restating posts over and over again?

[Maciek]

I don't want you guys to backtrack to when this was said (especially since it doesn't matter for the discussion at hand) but I just wanted to point out that comparing Hitler's and Stalin's regimes makes more sense (or at least is more valid) if you're talking about similar situations. Eg. peacetime Nazi Germany with peacetime Soviet Russia. Or: living in a country occupied by the Soviets in the period 1939-1941 to living in a country occupied by the Nazis in same period. Poland is actually a very good case to study, simply because it was occupied by both the Soviet and German forces. If you look at it in those terms, the only striking difference is the approach towards Jews. But that doesn't mean Jews were "safe" on the other side of the line. In the Eastern terrains they weren't singled out for persecution and extermination but did that make them safe? While Jews weren't singled out, the Red Army did employ ethnic cleansing and incited ethnic hatred (leading, for example, to mass killings of Poles in the Ukraine - all this while Ukrainian and Belorussian national leaders were being arrested too). Life under Soviet occupation was terrifying. Mass executions (of both soldiers and civilians) and deportations (to camps or sites of mass execution). Everything and anything of lasting value was stolen and transported deep into Soviet territory (entire factories, machinery, trains, cars, livestock, museums, libraries, private art collections etc.). Churches were closed down and changed into storehouses, cinemas etc. And how could there have been significant differences? The NKVD and the Gestapo were close collaborators! Their actions were actually coordinated (cf. the simultaneous realization of the AB-Aktion and the Katyn-Kharkiv-Tver massacre). In fact, they held several (at least four) conferences together - these were devoted to improving methods of extermination! According to the minutes of one of these conferences, the plan was to completely eliminate, through joint effort, the Polish nation from the face of the earth by 1975. That sort of makes the whole exercise of comparing the two regimes rather pointless...

So, if you asked me where I'd rather be living in 1939-1941, I wouldn't find the choice all that obvious. Or, actually, I would. America!

[Florestan]

I don't want you guys to backtrack etc.

Excellent post, Maciek!

[Florestan]

If our points are the same, why are you arguing and restating posts over and over again?

For you to finally understand and not take me to issues every time I write about Communism (not that I shall respond anymore ).

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

In fact, they held several (at least four) conferences together - these were devoted to improving methods of extermination! According to the minutes of one of these conferences, the plan was to completely eliminate, through joint effort, the Polish nation from the face of the earth by 1975.

Am curious - do you have an informative link or article about this? I've tried to find some info, but I keep getting basically the same Wikipedia page in different forms (and the Russian-language page appears to be exactly the same as the English one). Even if your source is in Polish, I would be glad to see it.

[Fëanor]

I don't want you guys to backtrack to when this was said (especially since it doesn't matter for the discussion at hand) but I just wanted to point out that comparing Hitler's and Stalin's regimes makes more sense (or at least is more valid) if you're talking about similar situations. Eg. peacetime Nazi Germany with peacetime Soviet Russia. ...

Maciek, you hint at an interesting topic.  Comparatively for the average, non-political citizen, which place was the preferable place to live while peace persisted: Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR?  Doubtless Germany.

[Maciek]

Am curious - do you have an informative link or article about this? I've tried to find some info, but I keep getting basically the same Wikipedia page in different forms (and the Russian-language page appears to be exactly the same as the English one). Even if your source is in Polish, I would be glad to see it.

Well, the Wikipedia articles have footnotes with outside links (some of them to Polish articles, which seem to be the most informative material on the matter available on-line).

Two examples from google books:
Radio London and resistance in occupied Europe by Michael Stenton
Stalin: breaker of nations by Robert Conquest
You can also go here (someone's masters thesis, so perhaps not a reliable source in the strict sense) and search for Zakopane (where the 3rd conference was held).

(The easiest way to get more information about this is to go to google books and search for nkvd gestapo zakopane)

In case someone got me wrong: My point was not to say that one of the sides was worse or better than the other. I just felt that the atrocities committed by Soviet forces in the years 1939-41 were being a bit downplayed. I don't think seriously comparing these crimes (how? by comparing body-counts? brutality?) would be appropriate (how can you say that one serial killer is "better" than another?). They are unimaginable, that's all I would say.

[Sarastro]

I just felt that the atrocities committed by Soviet forces in the years 1939-41 were being a bit downplayed.

It is true, but I think that is so due to the passing of time. During the Spanish Conquista, around 25 million of Amerindians were killed, died from the diseases the Spaniards brought and civil strife. But do you care? Even my generation does not know much about WWII, and certainly does not go deep into details. But "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Comparatively for the average, non-political citizen, which place was the preferable place to live while peace persisted: Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR?  Doubtless Germany.

Actually, kind of a hard question to answer. First of all, the period of "peacetime" in Stalin's USSR lasted a lot longer than in Nazi Germany (about 22 years as opposed to only 6), and there were various twists and turns in Soviet policy during that time. Hardcore Stalinism (i.e. the state's attempt at total control) didn't really get consolidated until the mid-1930s.

Also, in terms of execution, Nazi policy seemed a lot more concise, efficient, and concentrated, whereas Soviet policy was often sloppy and ineffective.

Richard Overy's book The Dictators (a fairly recent comparative study) points out that in both countries, if you weren't a member of a targeted group (e.g. Jews, kulaks), life could seem fairly normal for long stretches of time. There were occasional reminders of totalitarian policy - your Jewish neighbor might suddenly not be there one day, or you might see a work-gang of slave laborers repairing a local road - but otherwise, if you kept to yourself, things didn't seem so bad.

[Florestan]

It is true, but I think that is so due to the passing of time.

Absolutely untrue, sorry. The same time has passed for Nazis as for Soviets yet the crimes of the former are still exposed and the perpetrators are still hunt while the latter benefit from a strange amnesia. The West might have won the cold war economically, but communism won it ideologically.

[MishaK]

Richard Overy's book The Dictators (a fairly recent comparative study) points out that in both countries, if you weren't a member of a targeted group (e.g. Jews, kulaks), life could seem fairly normal for long stretches of time. There were occasional reminders of totalitarian policy - your Jewish neighbor might suddenly not be there one day, or you might see a work-gang of slave laborers repairing a local road - but otherwise, if you kept to yourself, things didn't seem so bad.

Can't really agree with that, unless you have very loose definitions of 'normal', 'occasional' and 'totalitarian'. With the institution of Gleichschaltung in Germany in 1933/34, totalitarian Nazism became a cradle-to-grave way of life. From nursery to old people's homes it was nonstop totalitarian indoctrination and service to the Reich. That does not necessarily mean being in plain view of atrocities being committed or some such thing. BUt 'normal' it is not in any way.

[MishaK]

Precisely. Not only for lack of a better word, but also for what they called themselves.

Yes, but that is rarely a good enough reason in and of itself. E.g. East Germany was the German Democratic Republic, but we would hardly accuse them of being 'democrats' (lower case 'd' for the avoidance of doubt among US readers).