History Podcasts

How far should I go back in Russian History in order to understand Communist Russia?

How far should I go back in Russian History in order to understand Communist Russia?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I'm writing a story and need information on the Russian communist rule because I'm writing a book about a government much like that of communist Russia, specifically focused on a police state government like USSR. My question is in order to understand USSR police state and the steps to get their, like Naomi Wolf's book "The E,nd of America", where should I start to understand communism time wise? Someone said 1850 right before the Russian revolution. Is early Russian and Slavic heritage history needed to understand communist rule under Stalin and Lenin?


No, it is not needed. I think you better should read the history of Marxism and about the Great French Revolution. If you want to deepen in history, you can start from the Commune of Rome (1144).


For me at least, this question may be re-phrased thus: To what extent were the contours of the Communist regime in Russia determined by Russian national peculiarities?

Scholars like Richard Pipes hold that the Soviet regime was a development of some sort of immanent Russian matrix. Here is a wiki summary:

Pipes is known for arguing that the origins of the Soviet Union can be traced to the separate path taken by 15th century Muscovy, in a Russian version of the Sonderweg thesis. In Pipes' opinion, Muscovy differed from every state in Europe in that it had no concept of private property, and that everything was regarded as the property of the Grand Duke/Tsar. In Pipes' view, this separate path undertaken by Russia (possibly under Mongol influence) ensured that Russia would be an autocratic state with values fundamentally dissimilar from those of Western civilization. Pipes has argued that this "patrimonialism" of Imperial Russia started to break down when Russian leaders attempted to modernize in the 19th century, without seeking to change the basic "patrimonial" structure of Russian society.

There are also more nuanced versions of this argument. However, it is far from universally accepted and I personally am not quite convinced by it for this reason: other Communist regimes like in China or Cambodia have acted similarly, without the "immanent Russian matrix" so there must be more (or less!) to it. In fact, just by reading 1984 you can learn most of what you need about how any police state works (of course, 1984 is what in science one would call an "ideal case" - a model that real states only approximate to some degree, and thank God for that!).


There is a strain of historical thought that some of the features of Russian/Soviet state are strongly influenced by Mongol conquest and rule by the Horde.

So if you agree with that line of thought, you need to go back to 13th century.


I would say that Russian Communism can be explained by the autocracy of the later Czars, Peter the Great, or even Ivan the Terrible. That is, with regard to the idea of centralized authority and the "command and control" methods of these rulers.

The Okrana, or Russian secret police goes back to the Tsarist rulers of the 19th century. Ivan the Terrible created the streltsy, or "Guards" arm, that doubled as police.


Marxism-Leninism (Communism) Your Family and Your Country

Do Communists advocate riots, violent revolution, socialism, and annihilation of opponents? Can Communist teaching be harmonized with Christianity and the Bible?

Introduction:

If we had lived before WWII, what should Christians have done about Nazism?

Suppose we were aware of the basic teachings of Nazism.

Should we have kept quiet because:

* It involved political and economic issues, but we are concerned only about religion?

* It controlled governments, but Christians should not criticize rulers?

* Speaking out might lead to persecution?

* It was mainly a problem elsewhere, not here (we didn&rsquot know many Nazis)?

Or, should we have spoken out to express opposition because:

* It was based on fundamental religious errors (evolution, racism, atheism)?

* It rejected Christianity and denied Jesus?

* It sought world domination by war and military conquest (subjugating millions by war)?

* It used violence and force to eliminate unwanted citizens (millions in the holocaust)?

2 Timothy 4:2-4 Ephesians 5:11 Revelation 3:19 &ndash God&rsquos word instructs us to oppose the forces of evil. Surely we ought to have reproved a belief based on religious error that forcibly subjugated millions of people and murdered millions more.

What should we do today about the growing menace of Islam?

Should we keep quiet because:

* It involves political and economic issues, but we are concerned only about religion?

* It controls governments, but Christians should not criticize rulers?

* Speaking out might lead to persecution?

* It is mainly a problem elsewhere (we don&rsquot know many Muslims)?

Or, should we speak out to express opposition because:

* It is based on fundamental religious errors (Muhammed, Quran)?

* It rejects Christianity and denies Jesus as the Son of God and Savior?

* It seeks world domination by war and military conquest (controlling millions worldwide)?

* It uses violence and force to make converts?

2 Timothy 4:2-4 Ephesians 5:11 Revelation 3:19 &ndash Surely we all agree that, when God instructs us to oppose the forces of evil, we ought to reprove this system based on religious error that has forcibly subjugated millions of people.

Now what we should do about the problem of Marxism and Communism?

Should we keep quiet because:

* It involves political and economic issues, but we are concerned only about religion?

* It controls governments, but Christians should not criticize rulers?

* Speaking out might lead to persecution?

* We think it is mainly a problem elsewhere, (we don&rsquot know many Communists)?

Or, should we speak out to express opposition because:

* It is based on fundamental religious errors (atheism, evolution, immorality)?

* It rejects Christianity and Jesus?

* It seeks world domination by war and military conquest? (Communism controls over a billion people, nearly all of whom were subjugated through violent revolution. Open Communists admit they are enemies of the USA.)

* It uses violence and murder to eliminate unwanted citizens? (In every Communist nation, millions of people like you and me have been murdered by Communist leaders.)

Yet little is said by Christians about Communism. In fact, many members know little about it, yet it is at least as dangerous as Nazism and Islam.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 Ephesians 5:11 Revelation 3:19 &ndash Again, God instructs us to oppose the forces of evil. Should we not speak against this system, based on religious error, that has forcibly subjugated millions of people and murdered millions more, like we should Nazism and Islam?

Is Communism a problem today?

Many people think Communism is no longer an issue because Russia renounced it. But the World Atlas (7/2020) listed the following countries as openly controlled by Marxist regimes:

China &ndash population 1.4 billion
Vietnam &ndash 96 million
North Korea &ndash 26 million
Cuba &ndash 11 million (90 miles from our shore)
Laos &ndash 7 million

(Population statistics from Wikipedia as of July, 2019)

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Many other nations struggle with Communist subversion and internal turmoil. As we proceed we will observe examples of Communist influence in the world today.

The purpose of this study is to inform people about the real views of Communism, and how it differs from the gospel of Jesus.

Marxism-Leninism is not just about politics and economics. It is a total philosophy that affects every area of life, including many areas fundamental to Bible teaching. Marxism is a conspiracy that works by deceit, concealing its real goals until a nation is ready for a violent revolution. Meanwhile, many people have unknowingly been influenced by Marxist ideas.

What should a Christian do about this philosophy that forcibly dominates 1½ billion people and deceitfully influences the thinking of millions more? Should we not teach against it while we have the opportunity to do so openly? To begin with, we must learn to understand it.

(Note: See the bibliography at the end of this study for the sources we cite. Source notes in the text consist of a two- or three-digit code followed by a page number.)


Long Black Train — Sex, Death & Revolution

I hung around St. Petersburg

When I saw it was time for a change

Killed the Tsar and his ministers

Anastasia screamed in vain…

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name

But what’s puzzling you

Is the nature of my game

— “Sympathy For The Devil,” Jagger/Richards

Revolutionary Russia, 1918 — a time of civil war….

It starts with rough sex on an armored train.

Russian journalist and poet Larisa Reisner is the Seductress, the Angel of … what? Death? Revolution? Revolutionary Death? Her long fingers dig into the black leather-clad back of Lev Bronstein, nom de guerre Leon Trotsky, leader of the Bolshevik Red Army she leaps upon him like a succubus, demanding to be taken. And Trotsky does, as Reisner declaims her revolutionary poetry in a voiceover that rises to a crescendo over her cries of sexual ecstasy:

Where darkness of unruly power is gurgling grumbling and screaming, the darkness of an unrestrained power, the Archangel’s wing is hovering over. Inumerable roads make way to Rome that lies in ruins. But if the February Rome falls and howls with a crowd’s shout, the Angel, show benevolence. The Demon, show them all no mercy.

Trotsky pounds into her, his hand around her throat — just as it clenched around the throat of Revolutionary Russia.

Trotsky (2017) is weird like that.

It’s safe to say that without Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. Counter-revolutionary “White” forces had the upper hand in the civil war that erupted in 1918, and appeared poised to crush the Red Army between pincers moving from east, south and west. A powerful orator and a ferociously capable organizer, Trotsky whipped the Red Army into shape in the face of disaster and won the Russian Civil War. He was not gentle about it.

But when the game of thrones began after the death of Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, Trotsky, the charismatic revolutionary, was outmaneuvered by Stalin the bureaucratic thug. He was forced into exile in 1929, and was assassinated in Mexico in August 1940, by a Stalinist agent.

The eight-episode Russian miniseries recently dropped on Netflix. It’s a fascinating fable of Revolution — historically suspect, but a compelling drama and a window into the current Russian state’s ambiguous relationship with the Bolshevik Revolution 100 years after the events. For Trotsky was the state TV centerpiece of Russia’s rather muted acknowledgement of the centenary and while it’s an oversimplification to say it’s a propaganda piece, it certainly conveys certain messages that serve the Putin regime.

Putin’s Russian cannot but have a fraught relationship with the Revolution. On the one hand, it gave birth to the Soviet State, which gave birth to Putin. On the other hand, it destroyed the old Romanov regime and smothered the Orthodox Church, both of which are enjoying a revival of esteem under Putin’s neo-Tsarist hand. Putin and his cronies cannot and will not endorse the kind of revolutionary action that might readily be turned on them. But the sacred Power of the State — that they cherish.

In an insightful piece in The New Yorker, Joshua Yaffa recalls Putin’s take on the Bolsheviks:

“ Someone decided to shake Russia from inside, and rocked things so much that the Russian state crumbled. A complete betrayal of national interests! We have such people today as well.”

Trotsky makes much of the long-standing early 20th Century covert German support for Russian radicalism, aimed at weakening the Russian state. Putin sees any protest against his regime as generated in exactly this way — as outside “interference,” not as authentic dissatisfaction with his rule. And a scene in the very first episode of Trotsky serves up a dark philosophy that seems to both counter any idea of revolutionary idealism and to justify rule with an iron fist: In 1898, Trotsky languishes in prison due to his radical activities. His jailer tells him over a game of chess that “every order is based on fear.” It is a lesson that Comrade Trotsky would learn well.

Trotsky has been criticized for playing fast and loose with history — which is fair enough, though I think the point is moot in a tale that also features ghosts (or hallucinations ). Trotsky is historical in the way that Shakespeare’s tragedies were historical — mining a historic tale for its drama while using it to legitimize the contemporary powers that be.

The series is a mythic and sometimes deliberately surreal take on events that were uncoupled from any factual reality even as they were happening. The Bolshevik “Revolution” is itself a myth, since it was actually a coup d’e’tat by a small, militant minority that hijacked a revolution they did not make. The Soviet Union was founded on a lie, built upon lies with a mortar of bloody corpses, and collapsed when the lie could no longer sustain itself. Another persistent myth is that the “good” revolution was derailed by Stalin that if Trotsky had prevailed in the power struggle things might have been different. But Leon Trotsky was no less a murderer than Joseph Stalin. In Trotsky, the exiled communist defends himself as a monster made by force of circumstance, revolutionary necessity, while Stalin was a monster because he liked being a monster. A distinction lost upon their dead.

It is instructive and entertaining to engage the Trotsky myth, and at the same time to analyze its construction. It’s especially worthwhile, since the totalitarian myths of the 20th century have proven harder to kill than we might have expected. There’s some alluring power even yet to the great secular faiths of Communism and National Socialism that plunged the world into darkness and a storm of blood unprecedented in human history.

Jim Cornelius

Born in the suburbs of Los Angeles, Jim Cornelius grew up dreaming of distant frontiers, of mountain men, long hunters, African explorers. His older brother gave him a tattered copy of Allan W. Eckert’s The Frontiersmen, a biography of Simon Kenton, and the twig was bent. Graduated from.

Comments

Great post on a very interesting subject-

Interesting to read Putin’s take on the Russian Revolution esp since he himself is a Chekist and served the Communist state.

Communists are masters of deception and false myth making, Che was a good guy etc etc et al.

Its also a myth that Lenin was some kind of a misunderstood good guy and that he was adverse to mass murder, torture and murder.

Nothing could be further from the truth… He started the Cheka and unleashed Dzerzhinsky, Lenin constantly called for more hangings of class enemies and mass murder, “find harder people kill more” etc

A good place to look a starting place- if you are interested in the real history of the Russian Revolution and the prime movers- is the book

“ The Secret Police In Lenin’s Russia” by Lennard Gerson- 1976, the SS and the Gestapo learned their murderous trade at the feet of the Russian Communist Cheka. The Gerson book is easy to find and not to dear. Its quite good.

I will look for that Trotsky series,

The Red Terror was baked in. People forget that at their peril.

I still remember the short scene in TNT’s “Stalin” (or was it HBO?) showing Trotsky getting an icepick in the head. I cheered every time I saw it.

Russia. What a tortured country.

“ Russia. What a tortured country.”

Yes the Bolsheviks turned a relatively well off country Russia under the Czar- into a hell on earth. Unleashed world Communist rule movements all over the world and killed tens of millions.

The Nazis are long gone but the Communist tyranny is still extent and even gaining power. Look at the 1984 type lock down the Chicoms are setting up all over China and its ruled territories. They will export it.

If you want to understand something you have to go to the origin- if you want to understand Communist mind set you have to go back and study the original movement.

From 1926 another NSFW place to start.

They are masters of deception , propaganda and message control, failed states, slavery and murder though out history that we can plainly see- yet the lure of the insect religion remains strong.

Some people simply will not accept that humans aren’t blank slates and that there is such a thing as basic human nature. Therefore, they embrace an all-encompassing ideology which is founded upon utterly false premises. Eventually, that ideology always leads to futile attempts to establish an earthly utopia–which is always just ONE more dead wrongthinker away. Always.

This is why I gravitate toward people with a tragic view of life and humanity. (I don’t mean morose, as you know). They’re far more accepting of people as people and not built to sacrifice people for “The People” and other abstractions.

“ Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under the omnipotent moral busybodies.” — CS Lewis

Nobody feels better about putting a bullet into the back of a wrongthinker’s head than Commissar Busybody. After all, he’s just laying one more pavement stone on the road to the Rainbow Utopia. “You can’t make omelettes without breaking a few eggs!” as the Man From Ossetia wisely said.

There are moral busybodies everywhere. Best not to empower them.

Wow, good timing just finished watching this series in a single evening with my father after having spotted it and noticing the state sponsorship jokingly pointed a friend who studies Russia (particularly her history.) Surprisingly he responded back that it was decent and so we ended up watching it and were impressed enough by the quality to finish the show in one evening.

Likening the series to Shakespeare’s historic plays is definitely a good line to follow. “Richard III” is often respected as a great work in spite of a mustache twirling villain in the form of Richard III in an ahistorical depiction of the man (in fact Richard’s gleeful evil and monologueing probably raises the profile of the play.) Richard was more than likely cast as such an unabashed villain to line up with the visions of the Tudors who ruled in Shakespeare’s time and had rose to power after toppling Richard. Yet propaganda aside it’s a great play, Trotsky is in a similar vein albeit its villain is the whole of the Bolshevik rise to power. Trotsky is cast as something more complex than a consummate villain having dignity and humanity that usually manifests divorced or in ignorance of the “Revolution’s” principles. He’s a terrible father but the story seems to lean into framing him as of the overworked and never present one rather than an ogre and his saving the college professors from being executed is framed as a rare genuinely good thing. It’s also worth noting that the show seems to use the ghosts as its way to point out that it’s Trotsky’s blind quest for Revolution that makes him a monster rather than him simply being a
monster which is what you usually expect in a propaganda production.

Another thing that made me feel like this was more than a propaganda piece is its depiction of Stalin who is usually framed as a hero and much loved by the general Russian populace. In this work Stalin (or Koba as was his nickname before he took on his “man of steel” sobriquet) is depicted as more of a malevolent looming threat somewhat like the Judge. He starts out as something of an incidental figure to the story yet as Trotsky advances further in the story like “the boy” he is shadowed by his version of the Judge and both are ultimately unable to resist their hunter’s inevitability. Stalin is always one step ahead of Trotsky and always seems to have a menacing sneer on his face specifically reserved for Trotsky in every meeting they have after their first during the story. A real surprise is the story also seems to explicitly connect Stalin to Lenin’s incapacitation and death which is also a hazy attribution and a decidedly negative one (even if the show’s version of Lenin is more a conniving politician fit more for a park bench plaque than a legendary portfolio of monuments.)

In the end I won’t lie that I partially liked the show due to my own lack of sympathy to blind heroic revolutionary dreaming. The historical inaccuracies even for someone who has completed a limited historical survey of the October Revolution are many (one that stuck in my craw is a minor moment in a meeting where Stalin blames Trotsky for issuing the order that triggered the uprising of the legendary Czech Legion, Stalin was the one who actually penned the order), yet the framing device for the story of the interplay between Trotsky and his “Canadian” judge in his Mexican exile and his haunting by “ghosts” from his past all help to make it seem like a bit more than just shallow propaganda. Trotsky is a good tale I think and rises past just being the simple soup of regime protecting propaganda and anti-semitism that many of the pieces published on it seem to frame it as (the latter accusation seems a bit unsure when you watch the show as it’s hard to say if things are a product of period casual racism especially in light of a scene where Trotsky’s father and children are mistreated that is completely unsympathetic.) However, maybe I’m just buying into some really high brow propaganda that just seems really interesting because as the show’s director has said Trotsky was a rock star and his story is just that engrossing no matter who tells it.

P.S: I find it very unfortunate that every piece critiquing the history in the show seems to be written either by Trotskyists or at least those who strongly believe in the legacy of the “October Revolution” as I found amongst English and Russian language pieces I exchanged with my Russian studying friend.

Welcome to the campfire Jean. Looks like you and I see this virtually exactly the same.

One of my mentors a Chinese man now near 90 years old lived through the Chicom ’ ”liberation” of China

His family was wealthy and was purged ruthlessly his father had a collection of Ming and Ching dynasty astrology books- the Communist burned them as one of the “4 olds” the rest was much, much worse.

He told me the difference from the KMT and the Chicom’s was the KMT wanted ” your money and allegiance.””

The Chicom’s “wanted your soul.” They destroyed China. Russia fell, but they the Chinese Communists survived they are very smart and survived morphed into another Communist type of ‘creature’.

Allowing them to gain money and military power was long game a very serious mistake for the west. They will prove that soon.

If you want to know the truth- study the Russian Revolution, it is a amazing story and then you will know and understand how they operate and will not be able to be fooled.

Look at Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe South Africa and China today- and see if you want to live in a place like that.

The new American left are all for it. The Russian term for it is “Useful Idiot”

“ The new American left are all for it. The Russian term for it is “Useful Idiot””

I think the tendency on the American left is to believe that we in the U.S. can implement some variation of benign social democracy. There seems to be some sense that if that were to be done that all of the strange pathologies of our vast, sprawling and culturally fractured society would magically disappear. When you and I hear socialism, we see Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe South Africa and China. They see Denmark.

Denmark is, effectively–in any sense that could be possibly be implemented in the US–a monocultural ethnostate. Basically all of the “benign social democracies” that have “prospered”–at least in the short term sense of “prospered since WWII”–have been monocultural ethnostates. They’re the only places where social trust is high enough to even attempt to keep the wheels on the socialist train. I guess all of these social democrats want monocultural ethnostates. Who knew?

We talked about this last spring in The Circle of Trust.
You are right to identify social trust as the key factor — and the USA manifestly lacks it (on the macro scale plenty of trust in friends and neighbors).

We just can’t get there from here.

Frankly, I don’t think the left sees the real Denmark, but an idealized version.

Some truth to that, I think, but I’ve known enough people who have lived in Scandinavian countries to be confident that the happiness quotient is a real thing. But, for reasons lined out in The Circle of Trust (you can’t have Denmark without the Danes), I’m very skeptical that it is replicable on a giant scale in a diverse empire the greater likelihood is the Russian road, which I do not want any part of.

You are right that is what they think. And eventually they will get Socialist rule here in America.

There are to many of them, they are too brain dead to history and they want free stuff- think they are entitled to free education, free medical care, free basic monthly income etc etc et al.

Starting in 2019 they will begin further to beat down the gates of the Constitution to get it. Later- we will see more of such things as unconstitutional false flag “Obama Care” fiasco, and the “Fast And Furious” Obama Holder guns for Narco Cartels anti 2nd operation- and the turning of the FBI and CIA into a type of neo- Bolshevik American Cheka political police only worse,

And eventually they will win. And America will go down route of “Democratic Socialist” rule.

Good thing is like in Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa and Zimbabwe- the useful idiots will have to live in the destroyed reduced nanny state they created. The people in Caracas who worked for Chavez did not think they would be down to eating zoo animals and pets and crossing the border to sell themselves for medicine. The people in Russia 1917 did not think they would be starved to death by the millions.The people in Cambodia did not think they would end up in the killing fields.

The bad thing is- people who see Socialist/Communist rule for what it is and resist it- will also have to live in it.


1.1. Scholarship on communism and Cold War biases2

  • 2 Useful discussions of the historiography of West European communist parties can be found in Aga-Ro (. )

3 The literature on (West European) communism has often been ideologically inspired. Not surprisingly, this is particularly the case with respect to the issue of internationalism and the political, ideological, material and symbolic ties which West European communist parties maintained with the Soviet Union and other socialist states. A central question that runs through all of the literature on West European communism, either explicitly or implicitly, regards the tension between national belonging and internationalism. Somewhat simplifying, it can be assessed that the works on West European communism written during the Cold War have either understood internationalism as necessarily antagonistic to “national interests,” or have, inversely, minimized the importance of internationalism in an attempt to highlight the truly national character of these parties. Politically or ideologically inspired positions correspond to these different approaches. While, generally, scholars hostile to Soviet-aligned communism held an antagonistic view on internationalism and domestic interests, those who wished to downplay internationalism and loyalty to the Soviet Union were most often sympathetic to (Soviet) communism. The first type of approach was concerned with denouncing the dependence of these parties on the Soviet Union. It has, therefore, failed to perceive a dynamic interaction between national belonging and belonging to an international movement, and has often been unwilling to problematize the notion of national interest. The second type of approach, concerned with downplaying Soviet influences on the politics of these parties, has often failed to grasp the absolute centrality of internationalism to the identities, motivations and strategies of communist party leaders and militants. It should be emphasized, however, that the attempt here is by no means to seek a non-ideological or post-ideological position. The point of departure is, rather, that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of Soviet-aligned internationalism shifts the perspective of the historian into one that needs neither to justify Soviet-aligned internationalism nor to denounce it for immediate political reasons, but which can start comprehending the phenomenon by fully contextualizing it.

4 Before the mid-1960s, the literature on West European communism consisted roughly of two types. Firstly, an Anglo-American school of communist studies emerged in the 1950s its point of departure was US foreign policy interests and its agenda was to “understand the enemy.” With regard to internationalism, the grand narrative was relatively simple: West European communist parties were purely “imported” from the Soviet Union, they were completely dependent on the latter, and served its superpower and ideological interests. In a more recent variation of this literature there is a tendency to essentialize the importance of internationalism and, with it, the more static and monolithic elements of communist ideology in the overall identity of West European communism. Internationalism is viewed as the main reason why these parties were supposedly fundamentally different from other political groups in Europe3. Such an approach has tended to overlook the important variations between cases and the contingency of communist ideology and identity.

  • 4 For an example of “internal criticism” see Spriano, Storia del Partito comunista italiano. A more (. )
  • 5 Aga-Rossi, Quagliariello, “Il comunismo in Italia e in Francia,” pp. 17–19.

5 Next to this, research on West European communism in Western Europe was, up to the mid-1960s, carried out to an important extent by communists themselves or by their sympathizers. These authors always attempted to convince the reader of the autonomy of West European communist parties vis-à-vis the communist world and the Soviet Union. Issues such as the financial dependency of these parties on the Soviet Union were not dealt with. The analytical status of the Cold War is, in these accounts, not merely that of a relevant context. Rather, the Cold War is the prime and often sole explanatory prism through which to understand communist party behavior. Reproducing the analysis of the “international balance of forces” made by these parties themselves, the alliance with the Soviet Union and the communist world was justified on behalf of the dependence of Western Europe on the United States in the bipolar world constellation. It should be noted, however, that the situation was rather different in France compared to Italy. In France, the communist party in the 1950s and 1960s strictly controlled the writing of an official party history, which was highly apologetic. In Italy, a more open intellectual climate inside the party led to a situation in which party leaders and intellectuals wrote somewhat critical party histories4. A “semi-critical” strand of literature was created, which developed an internal critique of the party, that is to say, it criticized the party within the framework of the basic premises of its overall strategy5.

  • 6 In France, these included A. Kriegel and later P. Robrieux and F. Hincker. In Italy S. Bertelli an (. )
  • 7 Two well-known examples for France are Hincker, Le Parti communiste au carrefour Robrieux, Histoi(. )
  • 8 The breakthrough work was Kriegel, Les communistes français. Essai d’ethnographie politique. For a (. )

6 From the mid-1960s onwards, in the spirit of détente, an increasing number of scholars who were neither communist nor anti-communist started to show an interest in communism. These were often either people adhering to the various strands of the new Left, or former party members who had left the communist parties after the crisis of 19566. In terms of factual information, these writers, often former members, were very well informed on issues couched in secrecy, such as Soviet funding7. Many of these works are still highly useful, also for reasons of interpretation: despite a certain bitterness which characterizes some of these accounts, these authors often display a refined understanding of the inner workings and the identities of the parties. In France, the 1960s marked the start of the study of communism as an academic topic, and the development of specific conceptual and methodological tools, notably in the works of A. Kriegel. In a sociological-anthropological approach, Kriegel conceptualized French communism as a counter-culture and a counter-society8. The approach focused on the domestic implant of the party but by no means avoided the question of internationalism, instead attempting to understand it in a more critical way. The classic “party historiography” in France was hereby fundamentally challenged, in a way the Italian literature never was during the Cold War.

  • 9 Especially to be noted here are the works of D. Blackmer, S. Tarrow, G. R. Urban, J. Barth Urban, (. )
  • 10 Blackmer, “Continuity and Change in Post-war Italian Communism,” pp. 21–24. On the basis of the sa (. )
  • 11 This is the case, for example, in Boggs, Plotke, The Politics of Eurocommunism.
  • 12 For example, in Lange, Vannicelli, The Communist Parties of Italy, France, Spain.
  • 13 The positive effects of détente on West European communism have been emphasised, for example, in B (. )

7 The (massive) literature produced on Eurocommunism during the 1970s and 1980s, mostly by British and American political scientists and historians, brought the old question of national and international belonging to the centre of attention again9. The first propositions for a complex understanding of the interaction between national and international belonging were introduced here, notably by D. Blackmer. Blackmer has conceived of communist party strategy as conditioned by three “permanent interests,” none of which, in his view, and at least in the case of the PCI, has had structural priority over the others: the development of the party and its influence over other organizations the search for political and social alliances and the preservation of a close link with the Soviet Union and the world communist movement10. There was, however, in a context in which the larger West European communist parties seemed close to government participation, a tendency to downplay the impact of internationalism. Many of these works emphasized the autonomy of the West European communist parties, and of the PCI in particular, with regard to the communist world11. However, at times a simplistic picture of the contrast between the “democratic” Italian and Spanish communist parties and the “Stalinist” French Communist Party impeded a more subtle analysis of contexts and factors12. Furthermore, these works drew attention back to the Cold War and détente as a context. However, the problem here was that the overall interpretation of the impact of the Cold War and the shift to détente was reductive: détente was nearly always understood as having only positive effects on the domestic and strategic position of the communist parties of Western Europe13. The present study critically engages with this widespread, and so far virtually unchallenged, thesis.

  • 14 See, for example, Aga-Rossi, Zaslavsky, Togliatti e Stalin.
  • 15 This issue has provoked heated discussions particularly following the publication of Courtois, Wer (. )

8 The fall of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe, which led to the release of sizeable archive funds in the early 1990s, especially in Moscow, once more brought internationalism to the centre of attention in communist party history. Mirroring the sympathetic research that had been carried out solely on the basis of the archives of the West European communist parties, a strand of literature now emerged, based exclusively on archives from Moscow and the East European capitals. This led to disruptions especially in Italy, where the more or less hegemonic position of the “critical-sympathetic” literature was now, for the first time, seriously challenged. Political and historiographic myths were being deconstructed at a rapid rate. In the midst of a political situation that was undergoing historical changes, not least the break-up of the PCI itself, a Historikerstreit developed on such issues as Stalin’s involvement in the strategy of the “Italian road to socialism” at the outcome of the Second World War14. Both in Italy and France some of the older controversies, such as the question of totalitarianism, emerged once more15.

  • 16 Courtois, Lazar, Le Communisme, introduction. De Felice made an important contribution by introduc (. )

9 New ways of understanding the interaction between domestic and international belonging were proposed in the 1990s, notably in the concepts developed by S. Courtois and M. Lazar in France. Courtois and Lazar introduced a distinction between the “societal dimension” and the “teleological dimension” in communist identity. The teleological dimension refers to Marxist-Leninist ideology in its Soviet definition, and those elements that were considered necessary for the development of the ultimate goal––world socialism. These were the concepts of the vanguard communist party and democratic centralism, the development of “orthodox” prescribed strategies and tactics, proletarian internationalism, and being part of a global strategy in which the USSR played the major role. The societal dimension includes those characteristics of the communist party by which it was part of a national context: implant in society in terms of adherents and voters implant in organizations such as trade unions intellectual influence the culture and sociology of the working class, the peasants and intellectuals its relations with other political forces its being part of the ideological traditions of the Left its being embedded in national political culture, national consciousness and national history16.

  • 17 See, for example, Pons, L’impossibile egemonia.
  • 18 For some important exceptions from the recent literature in Italy see Pons, “L’URSS e il PCI nel s (. )
  • 19 See for example: Suri, Power and protest.

10 The new approaches to Cold War history that are emerging in the international literature today combine evidence from newly released archive collections with conceptual and theoretical innovations. These approaches make it possible to respond to some of the earlier shortcomings of communist party historiography. The Italian literature dealing with the PCI in the 1940s and 1950s has made ample use of new Cold War scholarship––the French literature less so17. However, for the period of the 1960s and 1970s, communist party historiography has so far failed fully to draw on and engage with the new interpretations in Cold War history, with the exception of a number of recent Italian publications on the PCI18. One such new interpretation regards the nature of détente and its global, European and domestic implications: a recent strand of “new détente history” can be identified, which understands détente as a contradictory process involving domestic, regional and international political, economic and cultural actors, with very different and sometimes contrasting motivations, rather than a process simply leading to the relaxation of East–West tension.19 The present study aims to bring West European communism into close connection with the new détente history, and to demonstrate that the nature of (European) détente in the 1960s and 1970s can be clarified by studying the position of West European communism within it.


Town and country, mental and manual labor

OÜ: So, how did your experiences in Maoist China shape your opinions about the relationship between intellectual labor and manual labor?

FE: There’s a lot to talk about, but actually, I’m more influenced by my parents [Erwin Engst and Joan Hinton], who were also influenced by their parents. My grandmother [Carmelita Hinton], who founded the Putney School, laid so much stress on hands-on learning. They had a farm at the school, students had to milk the cows and feed them they also had to do sports, go to the wilderness and survive there, and so on. This was very much the “hands-on” approach and my mother also received this kind of education. My father was a dairy farmer and he was also very much into using hands.

But people have very elitist views in China. Intellectuals feel superior and workers feels inferior. Workers always come to heel before people who have more education, more knowledge, more authority… When my parents came to China, they looked down very much on those nose-in-the-air intellectuals here. I’m influenced by that a lot. So, I can say that it is a combination of my upbringing in Mao’s China and my parents’ influence that I have this kind of views today.

OÜ: Today, not only in the West but also in Chinese academia educated youth who were placed in political campaigns and sent to the countryside or factories in the Maoist era are often called the “lost generation,” the people who sacrificed their lives solely because of a power struggle at the top that actually had nothing to do with themselves. What do you think about this opinion?

FE: Well, apparently, I do not agree with that. First of all, it was not only about a power struggle. Rather, it was about how to build socialism as I mentioned before. “Power struggles” may take place between the rulers, the oppressors. And of course, at that time, there were a lot of power struggles among the capitalist roaders in China as well. So, what took place during Mao’s period was a combination of the power struggles among those people who wanted to take the capitalist road, and the real struggle between the working class and the capitalist class about which road was to be taken.

As regards to your question about the “sent-down” youth, actually, I can say it is very controversial. What I find is people who condemn the decision to send the youth to the countryside routinely ignore a basic fact of Chinese society, which is that the majority of the population are peasants. In fact, sent-down youth were somewhat privileged youth in the cities at that time. What I mean by the term “privileged” is that people in cities enjoyed much more than the people in the countryside. And this was an inevitable outcome of the necessary process of industrialization—necessary in the sense that China was a very backward, poor country. The question was: how do you industrialize? You needed to have some kind of primitive capital accumulation. China could not achieve this the way the British had previously, by enclosing the farmland and kicking out the farmers. Or it could not simply exploit other countries to accumulate capital. So, how was China going to generate enough capital to start the process of industrialization when the great majority of population were peasants? By early 1950s, more than 80 percent of Chinese population was still rural.

All China could do was either tax the farmers, because they constituted the majority of the population, or go through a process of “unequal exchange” of industrial products for agricultural products. Taxation would be very expensive and hard to maintain. So the state decided to rely on the exchange between the industrial products whose price is higher than its real cost and the agricultural products whose price is lower than its actual cost as a mechanism through which it could accumulate capital for industrialization. For that to be successful, and to prevent merchant from filling their pockets by exploiting the “scissors gap” between the prices of industrial products and agricultural products, China instituted a monopoly of agricultural products. This grain buying monopoly, at the same time, also required a residence permit system. Urban residents would get their supply of grain at low cost and this would enable industrial workers to survive at lower wages. The grain would be bought from the peasants at a low price, and industrial products (including clothes or light industries like thermos bottles, flashlights, washbasins etc.) would be sold to farmers at high price. So, in this system the initial industrialization necessarily required this kind of unequal exchange.

This enabled, for example, the product of one year’s labor by a textile worker to be exchanged with the product of one years’ labor by dozen or even a hundred farmers in China. The reason for that was simple: to industrialize, you need to have mines, steel, production machinery, buildings and so on. Farmers do not need any of these things. To mine the coal, to mine the iron ore, to smelt it into iron, to make machinery, to build a sewing machine or textile machine to make clothes, etc. A very long chain of industrial build-up must occur—and the workers filling those jobs need to eat. Where does the food comes from? The peasants! So, this is how the unequal exchange started the industrial process this was the main reason.

Actually, this was also in the long-term interest of peasants. Because future peasants would not need to stay in small farms. Industrialization would break them free from all that heavy, back-breaking labor. They would instead use tractors. But to use tractors, you need to have steel. To have steel, you need to have iron ore and coal. These are not things that peasants, farmers can buy initially. But collectivization enabled peasants to buy machines. And it also made supplying grain to the city easier. So this was the backbone of the “hùkǒu” or residence permit system.

But we should keep the unity of opposites in mind. Everything has two sides. Chinese has a great word for what I want to say: “Wúnài” (无奈), which literally means “the best of the worst possible situation” or “the best option in absence of a better alternative.” Yes, unequal exchange was the best alternative for China to accumulate capital at that time. But it also had a side-effect: Because of this system, people in the cities felt that their labor was worth more than the labor of peasants. Of course, that was not true “unequal exchange” was just an outcome of the monopolization of grain by the state. But consequently, people in the cities started to feel that they were superior. They had guaranteed food they had guaranteed clothing at cheap prices, etc. And peasants could not arbitrarily move to the city because of the grain rationing. When you came to city, you’d have no grain, you could not live. Grain was only guaranteed to the urban population of the city. If you decided to move to the city, you had to bring your own grain from the countryside. Capitalist liberals say, this is a restriction on people’s freedom of movement. Actually, you can see how that “freedom” works in all the slums in Latin America, India and other economically underdeveloped countries! People are free to move there!

The negative aspect of this system was that the city had more advanced educational facilities and medical facilities, and much greater access to art, literature, etc. The life of city people was improving much faster than the life of the people in the countryside. This division was a feature of old capitalist society and it was maintained in socialist society. The rift between the countryside and the city was not only enormous but also widening. What could be done about that?

So sending the youth to the countryside was meaningful. Why? First, it enabled the people in the city to somewhat pay back to peasants. They brought their knowledge, their expertise to the countryside. And making urban youth see the countryside also gave them a clear message: “Don’t think the privilege you have in the city is your natural right. You have to think about how the peasants, the majority of people live in this country!” That was the backbone of China. Well, you may say it was not the most efficient way, but it doesn’t really matter. In any case, it was a way for city people to pay back to peasants for what they gained from their privileged position.

At the beginning, most of the youths also supported that policy. They knew the hardships they all went through it. They felt that it was their duty to help in the countryside. Unfortunately, many things happened at the same time. The scissors gap, in fact, was able to be narrowed substantially by the 1960s, after “three difficult years” [1959–61]. (And for the rest of the ‘60s with the exception of 1966–67, the first years of the Cultural Revolution.) The industrial price should be lowered and the agricultural price should be raised. But the country was in a deadlock. There was a struggle about the future of China. Many things were not able to be taken care of. So, they should have, on the one hand, sent the youth to the countryside, and on the other hand narrowed the scissors gap. But there were so many things to worry about at the same time and they chose to grasp the main contradiction.

When Deng came to power, he destroyed the policy of sending youth to the countryside. Today, what people say is Deng cancelled the policy because the youth rebelled. But the reason why the youth rebelled is a topic that very few people actually study to my knowledge. During Mao’s period the youth had not rebelled against this policy. They rebelled in 1977, after Deng created the examination system. All the elite people left the countryside to go to the colleges. Just imagine the youths in the countryside working together with farmers. They all of a sudden started to feel like: “Oh, I see! I’m supposed to stay in the countryside all my life, but you can leave!” That was what broke the will and consensus of the youth what destroyed the core motivation behind the policy.

OÜ: This fact is not mentioned in “scar literature,” either…

FE: Yes, that’s my point! I totally with the perspective of the youth. When everyone was together, everything was fine. But when it became apparent that some were “more equal than others,” understandably they rebelled.

OÜ: So many former sent-down youths have written about their experience in the countryside in memoirs. Yet they rarely criticize this policy change that took place after Mao passed away. They choose to target Mao-era policies and especially the Down to the Countryside campaign as a whole.

FE: Yes. However, I do not see any documentation about a youth rebellion against this policy prior to Deng’s coming to power. Well, of course, there were some hardships there were some difficulties. There was a backdoor movement in 1975, and it was a kind of predecessor to the movement against Down to the Countryside policy in 1977. When I met with people from Shanghai condemning this policy of sending the youth to the countryside, I just asked them simple questions: “Why do you think you have the security of hùkǒu in Shanghai? What are you doing for majority of peasants in the countryside that make it possible?” They just said: “That’s not my problem!” On an individual basis, these youths felt they were being mistreated. However, most people, even those who condemn the Down to the Countryside policy, have an unforgettable experience with that life. They had a hard time staying in the countryside, but they still feel nostalgia for those days. Most of them say: “We want to go back to our youth we want to go back to that life.” Yet, I don’t see any literature glorifying those kinds of experiences of people who went to the factory to work in a capitalist society. For example, in American literature, you cannot see young workers talking about how great of a time they have in the factory. I also worked in a U.S. factory for a dozen years the experience nothing like what I had in Mao’s China.

So the key these people miss is the reason why they reminisce about the experience even though they are against the policy: commonality. The feeling of being equal, of being together in solidarity. The shared experience of being oppressed in a factory is not something most people want to relive. But no matter how hard you work, a shared experience of working together to build something, to build a “new China” deserves to be remembered. In America, you can only see this kind of glorification of the past among the U.S. Army. When the people in Marines, Green Berets leave, they usually have fun memories about their past experience. Because you have a kind of band in the Army you do something together. Of course, in this case, it is for imperialism. However, from psychological point of view, service in the Army gives you the sense of togetherness. That is something you don’t see while working in a factory in capitalist society.


Why are former eastern bloc countries generally more socially conservative today, despite being formerly socialist?

It’s a bit of a strange occurrence. Generally, countries part of the former eastern bloc are now more homophobic, more religious, and statistically less racially inclusive. Why is that?

If anything, I would’ve thought the opposite since socialism is very socially progressive.

Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.

Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.

Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space.

This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.

Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.

If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.

Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.

Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.)

Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Some of the countries were taken over by former royals/leaders who used to own property/power before/during World War 2. When the Soviet Union was overthrown, many of the rich families bought and took their lands back by force. You have to understand that US and NATO basically propped up any fascist leader in that region as long as they serve capital for the ruling imperialists. So basically the fascists that were there before WW2 came back to their respective countries and molded socially conservative cultures. Read Black Shirts and Reds by Michael Parenti if you want to know more.

This didn't happen in Russia and the country is still reactionary as fuck.

This will be long and without specific citations but there's a great deal of historical context to unpack.

Firstly, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union specifically had been holding down deeply-entrenched right-wing nationalist and religious elements for decades. These elements never went away - the Orthodox Church in particular had its hegemonic political power broken, but was still allowed to exist the particularist/nationalist/separatist groups were driven underground, especially after many of them openly collaborated with the Nazi invaders. The situation was different in the Warsaw Pact countries - in Poland, particularly, the political influence of the Catholic Church was so powerful, and the potential international and domestic backlash to suppressing its influence in the same way that of the Orthodox Church had been eradicated in the Soviet Union so bad, that it was effectively allowed to continue operating freely in parallel to the Communist Party. This open sore was a particularly bad ulcer that was exploited by the Western bloc against the Soviet bloc for decades, and was instrumental in its downfall.

Throughout the Soviet Union from the revisionist Khruschev era onward an underground intelligentsia of liberal dissidents developed. Khrushchev's "secret speech" in 1956 is in hindsight an extraordinarily important event in the history of the socialist project. It laid the foundations for three major Cold War phenomena: the Sino-Soviet split, the near-complete discrediting of Marxist-Leninist parties in Western capitalist countries, and a founding trauma for that dissident intelligentsia. Many formerly ardent communists in the 1930s generation of the Soviet Union were so shocked by Khruschev's claims of Stalin's crimes that they turned against their beliefs in varying degrees. Khruschev's rule represented a thaw in the repression of dissidents in the USSR. He destroyed Stalin's posthumous reputation for the benefit of his own political career. The newly-disaffected dissidents of the 1930s generation saw their first developments of their new beliefs during this period, as this was during their formative years in their 20s. But Khrushchev's position was always an unstable one, and after a series of very public Cold War PR defeats at the hands of the US it had weakened enough that he was removed by a cabal of insiders led by Leonid Brezhnev.

Brezhnev was a moderate and not a hardliner but still took steps to rehabilitate Stalin once again and crack down on the new dissident intelligentsia to a limited degree. In 1968 Brezhnev cracked down on the reform efforts in Czechoslovakia, and established the Brezhnev Doctrine - the line that the Soviet Union would intervene militarily to prevent any Warsaw Pact member from potentially breaking off. Brezhnev also presided over a fundamental policy change in the CPSU bureaucracy. He coined the "trust in cadres" slogan, a policy which kept entrenched bureaucrats and party leaders in their positions for years on end. This was instrumental for Brezhnev maintaining power for so long and presiding over an era of great stability and detente - he was the second-longest tenured Soviet leader because he effectively acted as the ultimate sugar daddy patron for the party elite. Previously, especially under Stalin, there had been active efforts to keep a high turnover in party appointments (indeed, the 1937-1938 terror was an active campaign against entrenched bureaucratization). Now the career bureaucrats were kept in place as deliberate policy, and this greatly intensified an already existing culture of corruption within the CPSU. This ultimately developed into what was known as the "gerotocracy" - a party leadership that was increasingly dominated by a feeble and elderly class of ever-aging cadres.

There's a great deal of other context here regarding the Brezhnev era that ultimately were major contributions to the Soviet collapse, but I'm skipping them to get to Gorbachev.

Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the dissident generation. He was less an outright liberal counter-revolutionary, but he was a true believer in the principles of the revolution - an idealist. He believed he could "reform" the Soviet into what was called "socialism with a human face". In the 1980s an unavoidable generational change occurred in the leadership of the Soviet Union. In the late 1970s Brezhnev suffered a severe stroke that effectively rendered him mostly incapacitated. He was kept in place by his cabal of allies as a figurehead both for the reasons above and as a means of keeping the peace between factional cliques. Brezhnev finally died in 1982. Yuri Andropov, former head of the KGB, ultimately succeeded in the struggle for supremacy. He was more of a hardliner than Brezhnev and engaged in some significant but token reform efforts. But he developed a terminal illness and wasted away throughout 1983. He was replaced by Konstantin Chernenko, another geriatric Brezhnevite. He died quickly as well in 1985. Gorbachev had been Andropov's protege, and with such a rapid turnover in high leadership in such a short time, the Brezhnevites could no longer stall Gorbachev's leadership. He had relative youth, ability, and the immediate upper hand, and he cemented his authority as the new leader over his rival Grishin with ease.

Gorbachev soon engaged in his sweeping efforts at reforming the Soviet system. He was an extremely able politician. He first consolidated power by making overtures to the United States and loosening press restrictions. The long-underground liberal intelligentsia then used the new press freedoms to launch attacks against the Communist Party and communist system. Gorbachev actively encouraged this, using the liberal press as a weapon against his enemies within the Party. Between 1988-1991, Gorbachev's reform agenda began in earnest with glasnost and perestroika (EDIT: to clarify these did not "begin" here, glasnost in particular had existed for years, for example in bringing the news of the Chernobyl disaster to the public was a major turning point in public opinion but in 1988 the economic liberalization had begun to make its effects felt in earnest). Glasnost actively sabotaged political unity in the country by bringing past suppressions of dissent to light and exposing disparity of conditions of consumer goods between the USSR and the West. Perestroika introduced limited private enterprise and cooperatives. But these reforms destroyed the fragile planned economy of the Soviet Union. By re-introducing commodity trading for private profit, it directly undermined the state-owned industries that sold those economies to state-owned stores with strict price controls - speculators and profiteers decided it was more profitable to export goods rather than sell them to the state at low fixed prices. This directly undermined state revenues that were largely derived from the surplus shaved off this trade imbalance - the infamous food shortages and rampant queues were not a permanent feature of the Soviet economy but largely derive from this era where reforms destroyed the economy and stable circulation of consumer goods (you will notice in AskReddit threads on former residents of the Soviet Union that they will always talk about these things being rampant in their childhood memories from this era of Soviet history).

Back to the political scene, Gorbachev's reforms emboldened the liberal dissidents (and now nationalist counter-revolutionaries as well). They intensified their attacks on the CPSU with the encouragement of Gorbachev and his allies. Furthermore, Gorbachev explicitly revoked the Brezhnev doctrine, which directly led to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the communist governments of those countries.

Perhaps you are seeing a trend here. Gorbachev promised a "more humane" and "reformed" socialist system. This was also happening in certain Warsaw Pact countries - most notably Poland. In 1988, the Solidarity labor union - driven underground in a 1980 crackdown - was allowed to resurface. They won big in the free elections that soon followed, promising similar reforms to the socialist system - most notably a cooperative-based economy and pluralistic socialist democracy. Poland had long been a major ulcer for the Soviet Union - sanctions placed on it by the US and its allies after the 1980 crackdown had been bleeding the Soviet Union of badly-needed money (sent instead to subsidize the crippled Polish economy) year after year. Now the Solidarity-led moderate socialist government sought assistance in their budget and reform efforts from the capitalist world. IMF and US economists swooped in and demanded a neoliberal "shock therapy" program. This program was so devastating to the Polish economy that it completely discredited Solidarity. With the communists hated and the moderate socialists completely discredited, liberal elements routed them in the 1991 elections, continuing the liberal reform package. With the left's reputation destroyed, conservative elements - helped greatly by the stable and hegemonic influence of the Catholic Church - surged into the gap.

In many ex-Warsaw Pact countries, the 1990s were a devastating time. Their economies were destroyed and pillaged by foreign private interests, and their politics enslaved by overwhelming debt to the IMF. This trend has continued to the present day, but with conservative political groups dominating. Today, extreme right-wing elements are rising to power in places like Poland, Hungary, and Ukraine because they are revolting against neoliberalism, the collapse of the center/center-right, and the actual left is in no real position to contest this.

I'll continue this with the collapse of the Soviet Union itself in the next post.


The Four Basic Rules of Metaphysics 9!

Four Basic Rules of Metaphysics to understand True Reality:

  1. The universe does simultaneously operate as if there is no God. How that works is, you can create your life as if under the Second Pillar Door of Abyssarianism. But this Second Pillar Door (Second Metaphysical Level) of Abyssarianism is not the universe’s default position. The default position (First Metaphysical Level) is Etheral I’s rules, opinions, ideas, goals, plans come first in priority in operating in the universes!

  • Ask Etheral I to help you with all the Metaphysics activities you do.
  • Work all the time to get better at what you do.
  • Do not get dependent on Metaphysics depend on Everlasting I.
  • Birthdate Metaphysics.

A person born 11/13/1968 would do better acting on days/months/years of either 4 (1+3) = 4 or (1+1+1+3+1+9+6+8) = 30 or 3.

Let’s explore the Metaphysics of #4.

Month. Days (4/13/22/31). any year.

Week: 4/13/22/31/ or any 4 (sum) weeks of the year (40 th week, for example).

Hours: 4/13/22 hours of any day.

April, the fourth month of any year.

You can go back into your life and test this theory. You can go forward in your life and test this theory, but remember, it is best to act when Enlightened I want you to act! If the day to work falls on a 3 or 4, so be it. If not, then you did it on the best day possible because Enlightened I rules all things.

  • Ethereal I helps all people to a certain degree, and upon the situation and circumstances, because Etheral I put you all into this metaphysical state of affairs called Earth, First Metaphysics, and Second Metaphysics.
  • Five Tiers of Abyssarianism.
  • Beginner (acquisitions) Just putting knowledge in. Gathering good knowledge, wisdom, processes, and theories.
  • Questions (cataloging) Asking good questions or just questions until you understand something from a self-awareness or other-awareness point of view.
  • Writing (circulation and affirmations) Using affirmations and seeing how writing enables you to circulate the acquisitions into higher forms of wisdom.
  • Intermediate (Principles) Applying the principles consciously and unconsciously. Being keenly aware, you make choices and decide your life.
    • This means integrating your information at a higher evolved level. Knowledge comes like a wave. See the diagram under the Five Levels of Abyssarianism Awareness above.
      • Rise of water circle is Acquisition,
      • The peak of the wave circle is asking Questions,
      • The downward slope of the wave circle is writing, using the knowledge in some way, to help yourself or others understand something.
      • The low in the wave circle before the next wave circle rise is Intermediate further Integrations of Abyssarianism Principles,
      • And the next wave circle rise is the Advanced Wisdom you gain as the cycle starts all over again.

      So, as the waves go out into the wider ocean of life, you, too, should become wiser and wiser and more harmonious with Enjoining I and in Abyssarianism.

      • Advance (Wisdom) Consciously apply meritorious behavior in your life on a daily basis.
      • Every Religion manifest and holds a tone, mood, energy, and expression. This tone, mood, energy, and expression overtakes the person who joins the religion another way to say it is, this TMEE transforms the individual to a certain extent once they join under the umbrella of that religion.
        • Christians, for example, tone, mood, energy, and expression, is one of happy enthusiasm. Christians died afraid but happy in Roman fires, boiling oils, and before lions. Christian happiness pervaded their expansion as they converted the older religions of Europe and subdued them. Christians put down women’s power in the inquisitions with a happy implementation of beyond-Roman ways of torture. Over in the New World, the happy expansionist Christians killed off the Native Americans with smallpox-infected blankets, lies, and stacked killed-Buffalo heads five-stories high. Cortez happily expressed the good news while conquering the Central American Natives’ people while destroying all their historical writings. Right now, in the West, exuberant-happy Christians live their lives in blissful comfort while the LGBT+ is trying to finish putting the final nail in the coffin of human heterosexuality! Christians are happy and laughing joyfully at the water cooler while their impending death in this EQUALITY ACT waits around the corner.

        It will usher in an age where all children are given puberty blockers and are reengineered to desire, if possible, the same biological sex they were born with! Now you know why God ordered the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra! These twisted LGBQT+ people are not satisfied living their own lives they want heterosexuals to live the lives of LGBQT+ people too! Right down to being LGBQT+. That is the only equality the LGBQT+ see as possible, and deluded neolesbians (female heterosexual feminist) are the 5 th Column (51%) used to bring about this nightmare dystopia.

        • Jewish TMEE effect is one of passionate stubborn selfishness and revenge against their God. Christ had no effect on the Jews. Christ did not change the nature of a lion, so it does not want to consume the lamb. Thus, Judaism is still an eye-for-an-eye religion. Only the Jews take it to the far extreme of rebelling against their God! When their God warned them of impending doom, the Righteous Jews (in their own mind) continued faulty actions. Their Solomonic brilliance and stubborn selfishness brought destruction by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Germans, and others to which the Jews then played the victim card. The Jews are God’s chosen people, after all. Jews can never be wrong. Therefore, those people their God used to punish the Jews must be wrong! Simple Common-Sense logic!
          • Jews are like women in this respect: never wrong, always the victim, always the victim while trying to dominate and abuse others at the same time!
          • Should always be treated as special without any responsibility for whatever they do wrong.
          • The world cannot exist without women the world cannot exist without the chosen Jewish people!
          • Everything the Jews create, at its core, is a secret war against God’s rule: Communism, Marxism, The Frankfort School, Critical Race Theory, Feminism, Black Lives Matter, Freudism, and every other Jewish Science created.
          • Buddhists wrap themselves in the TMEE of detached observation, almost as if watching a past event on film. If the world is sick, suffering, and in need of a doctor, that doctor should act like one, right? Buddhists dispassionately watch as Arabs slowly take over their countries and countries where they formerly dominated and blowup Buddhist statues. Only by stepping on the Buddhist, as Enhancing I has, can Buddhism be saved and shown sometimes you must passionately fight for your way of life.
            • Hindus TMEE resembles a serene, powerful lord without a care in the world and that all is well and always will be well. No need for urgency pervades Hinduism. After all, they have hundreds of lifetimes to get on with learning and growing up. Let the Arabs, with their incoherent, false mismatched, made-up religion, destroy the coherent, true vast religious expression of Hinduism. Even though Hinduism lacks the full correct expression of true religion like Abyssarianism, once again, Enriching I, had to step on Hindus, to make them protect Hinduism from the Arabs.
            • Native American TMEE is experimental, abstract, and lofty lack of time pervades their religion. A naivete exists because the Native Americans can see so far into the future that they do not do anything about things in the present. They live on Earth as if in Heaven, but this is a backward world where people, given a chance, will become tyrants.
            • Shintoism TMEE manifests as a deep quietness, a reference for the connecting events in objects and places. Etheral I stepped on the Kami to control Japan and prevent Buddhism from dominating Japan!
            • All Arab religions (and over thirty different expressions exist) TMEE resembles an angry, passionate, petulant child, perpetually angry about the rules of life they are always the victim as all Abrahamic religions. All the other expressions of Islam, no matter how serene they try to appear, have this angry, passionate, petulant child, perpetual anger at their core. World, do not be confused. Islam should be banned worldwide. It is the most destructive religion, false religion, in the world. Once again, as an Abrahamic wannabe religion, Arabs play the victim of their God, putting them in a particularly difficult position in the world. They created a false, mismatched religion that, upon reading, does not stand up to decent human or Godlike behavior. God loves all people. God has not immediately decided those outside of Islam are dirty, filthy creatures whom God cannot save except by killing, raping, and threatening in order to convert them. Cannot God explain why he has one rule or another? Did God, if Allah, who prays to ______? create people in vain? How can a world be frozen like amber resin in the seventh century, including pedophilia, perpetual war, and destruction, lies, and deception, and slavery? If God cannot control people except by killing them, how can he eventually bring about world peace? For Allah, did not the human heart, which looks remarkedly like a pig’s heart, hint at this Truth? In Heaven, Allah will have a rebellious mess on his hands if Allah cannot control humans without killing them off first or threatening humans with death and hellfire.

            Taking Responsibility 7.

            10 Ways women do not take responsibility

            WANTING TWO OPPOSITE THINGS MEANS YOU HAVE TWO OPPOSITE VALUES, WHICH MEANS YOU DO NOT WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE BETTER OF THE TWO VALUES!

            Women, taking responsibility is like walking on a road and coming to a fork in the road. Further up along each route is a table standing with a piece of cake. It is impossible to go at the same time to two places and eat your cake! YOU MUST CHOOSE. ON CHOOSING, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR CHOSEN PATH.

            Interpersonal Victimhood Tendency

            Neolesbians (female heterosexual feminist)

            Women, watch this video before you do the exercise or reading this week.:

            1. Find an art book or an old book with a pretty picture in it. Buy a used art book or magazine, if necessary.

            3. Rip the art page into many pieces.

            4. Then look at the destroyed art and say out loud, “I am responsible for this.”

            5. Look at the torn-up piece of art and again, repeat, “I am responsible for this result.”

            6. Then you can read Esther Vilar’s book.


            Thread: Was Stalin a sociopath or just a good communist?

            Banned Join Date Dec 2011 Location Обединени социалистически щати на Америка Posts 27,391
            • View Profile
            • View Forum Posts
            • Private Message
            • View Started Threads
            Legendary! Join Date Sep 2011 Posts 6,707
            • View Profile
            • View Forum Posts
            • Private Message
            • View Started Threads
            The Undying Join Date Apr 2014 Location Nevada Posts 33,543

            Killing all the generals in a paranoid purge, including 3 of the 4 Marshalls?

            Getting surprised attacked by Hitler? The Soviet army so unprepared that 100s of thousands of troops were captured or killed?

            One thing I'll say about Stalin is he learned from his mistakes, but he made mistakes. Mistakes that killed millions.

            I can't help but think it wouldn't have been that hard to find a better leader for the Soviets.

            "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

            • View Profile
            • View Forum Posts
            • Private Message
            • View Started Threads
            Void Lord Join Date Jun 2010 Location the other Posts 58,334
            • View Profile
            • View Forum Posts
            • Private Message
            • View Started Threads
            The Insane Join Date Jan 2011 Posts 15,079

            Stalin and his comrades had plenty of real enemies - they just fought bloody civil war in which pretty much every Western nation was helping opposing side.

            It was quite far from "all the generals" also, plenty of those generals and marshalls were only there because of their previous experience with Civil War (where some of them fared pretty badly) rather then particular military genius, so it isn't obvious that them staying would not make things worse - or not different.

            Yes, not getting day of Hitlers attack right is his fault. Springing back from it is testament to system he built though.

            There were plenty of preparations, but there are physical constraints on what can be done and how much material and troops can be moved in time.

            He obviously was mistaken sometimes, but wasn't the only one making them, and he wasn't making all of them single-handedly either - a lot of it was work of committees that he simply approved.

            Obviously later Khruschev loved to pin blame solely on Stalin and absolve himself and his cronies of any faults.

            • View Profile
            • View Forum Posts
            • Private Message
            • View Started Threads
            High Overlord Join Date Aug 2013 Posts 150
            • View Profile
            • View Forum Posts
            • Private Message
            • View Started Threads
            I Don't Work Here Join Date Feb 2010 Location Ottawa, ON Posts 67,513

            The core, central distinction between the left and right political branches is their stance on hierarchical systems. The left seeks to ameliorate or reduce hierarchical divisions in society, and create a more-egalitarian system. The right wing sees hierarchies as either desirable ("let's give the right people more power/influence/money") or a natural and unavoidable outcome that fighting against is a waste of time.

            Totalitarianism and authoritarianism, by their inherent nature, require a hierarchical system if nothing else, the government needs to be stronger and more powerful than the citizenry, to maintain power and control.

            Focusing solely on money is a distraction. That's not what left and right is about it's about the supporting framework for either existing hierarchies, or new hierarchies. Those may be established through money, with wealth inequality creating social classes, but they can be established through essentially any form of social power and control. Money's just a means, not the defining central concept.

            A lot of dictators use left-wing ideological appeal to seize power they offer a promise of a more-egalitarian future. But that future almost never comes to pass, because once they're in power, maintaining that power becomes more important than the left-wing promises that got them in place. They shift, hard, to the right.

            Even on economics, it's hard to call Stalin a left-winger there was still private ownership of the means of production in the USSR, there were still wealthy people and poor people, he just shook up the existing systems and introduced a new class system, based on the Party.

            It isn't as simple as "private property or collective". Feudal Europe was largely run as collectives feudal lords owned their lands, their peasants were basically part of that, the peasantry ran itself as a collective and also worked lands for their Lord's upkeep, he provided them with security and protection. It wasn't remotely left-wing in concept. The question is what your purpose of that economic system is is it to reduce or even eliminate hierarchies? Or to encourage or allow them to prosper?


            Zamax says:

            My opinion is that however communism has already subtly forever undermined the foundations of Chinese society, since communism, although perverse, It is a fruit of Christian civilization. After the victory of Christ on the cross and the rise of Christian civilization, that does not identify with Christianity, but with the field where live, the wheat and the tares in which somehow the Christian "authentic" will always be persecuted, since even the best Christian civilization will always be the "world" in the evangelical sense of the word (which some traditionalists in their millenarianism the contrary, ie face to the past, They never get to understand or to accept, culpably) after the victory of Christ, I said, evil is, as it were, forced to act through anticristiche demonstrations, dissimulatrici, false similarity or perverse imitation of the Christian.

            Saint John, the "recapitulates" for excellence essence of Christian truth, He says that this is "the last hour", that is the time that separates us from the return of Christ the judge after he said on the cross: "It is finished" but this is also the time of Antichrists, according to St John, because only after Christ the Antichrist becomes conceivable to its fullest, at least in the history.

            Now, Christianity has taken away forever the man to "totalitarianism" family, clanistico, ethnic, national, without abolishing or annihilate neither family, born he clan, born the ethnic group, or the nation (as do the Jacobins scimmiottatori Christian universalism worshipers State) because with Christ a person becomes fully before all that really is: son of God.

            In the second century AD, and then the beauty of around 1850 years ago, Justin Martyr (100-165 d.C.) addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius Apologia for Christians in which he writes, The Other Brother, with stunning clarity: "We strive to pay anywhere, before all others, taxes and tolls to your charge, as we have learned from him. During that time, He approached some who wondered if we should pay taxes to Caesar. And He answered: "Ditemi, this coin who depicts?”. Those, in turn, They responded: “Cesare”. His E, yet, turned to them: “Date, therefore, to Caesar what is Caesar, and to God what is God's ". So we worship God alone, but for everything else you obey willingly, recognizing as legitimate emperors and kings men, and praying that into you, along with the imperial power, you also can find the right reason ".

            The recognized sonship of God, and then ontological uniqueness of each person, It is the basis of Christian universalism that unites us all. The Enlightenment revolutions and those communistic, which they are modern forms of millenarian heresies, They have borrowed many aspects of Christian universalism (think of the pseudo-religion of human rights or the pseudo-religious character of Republican ésprit) But putting the state in the place of God, abolishing the fruits of Christian secularism (the only really conceivable in the long term, What the traditionalists above, frightened by modern anti-Christian secularism, They have not wanted neither understand nor accept) that distinguishes it is the century of what is of God because of the different purposes, though not conflicting, at a different level hierarchical, state and religion, for "separate" and so was ethical and create more refined forms of totalitarianism old. It should be noted that typically only in reaction to them were born totalitarianisms statalistici on reduced and national scale that flirted openly with neopaganism.

            So communism anti-Christian, historically speaking, He has indirectly represented, for the non-Christian world, a brutal and perverse form of Christian secularism. The fact that ancient civilizations and cultures have miserably collapsed under his blows it can not only be explained by the ruthless and cynical realism of its interpreters, but also with the fact that it was the bearer of truth conveyed Christian universalism and they spoke to the hearts irresistibly. It 'the same pattern that gave a mysterious force early centuries of Islam: barbaric but crudely and imperfectly universal leveler, and then affratellante.

            As different, today (speaking epochal sense) the reality of Islam and China are in mid-stream, knowing in their hearts that ending (it is absolutely inevitable in the long term) in Christian secularization they will end up in Christian civilization, on the other hand he has never annihilated languages ​​and cultures, and indeed he has often re-vivified freeing them from what was a transient dehumanizing in them. The Catholic Church today does not seem to be clear, nor the face of the world's convulsions or culturally non-Christian secularism in front of the decaying current anti-Christian West, so instead of bright stand as peaceful lighthouse, He prefers to "peacefully" confused and come to terms with both.

            carlone says:

            Perhaps communism is more the result of 'Judaism . Only the people with the people and for the people will achieve the sun of



Comments:

  1. Ferghus

    Question is, excellent communication

  2. Tall

    I don't read further

  3. Ahura Mazda

    not bad!!!

  4. Kuckunniwi

    You are wrong. We will consider.

  5. Melanthius

    Accept bad turnover.

  6. Alphonso

    Yes, you are talented

  7. Brydger

    It seems to me that this has already been discussed.



Write a message