were any of you dissapointed when european communism collapsed?

[egb_hibs]

interested in opinions on this. i'd have thought some would at least have mixed feelings. anybody prepared to admit to that or even outright dismay? if so what was your reasoning?

[superbam]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

interested in opinions on this. i'd have thought some would at least have mixed feelings. anybody prepared to admit to that or even outright dismay? if so what was your reasoning?

I was too young to have any sort of opinion on it but I cant imagine many folk shedding a tear for the demise of those regimes. I suppose some may have felt saddened if they believed it was likely to spell the end for any search for an alternative system.

[Green Sleeves]

Not really. Glad to see it go. It was an anti-human system.

I was just disappointed that European capitalism didnt collapse at the same time.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

interested in opinions on this. i'd have thought some would at least have mixed feelings. anybody prepared to admit to that or even outright dismay? if so what was your reasoning?

Mixed ones for me. I was under no illusions that life in these countries was great for most of the citizens, and some of the governments were utterly appalling (Romania in particular it has to be said). But....

A complete collapse of any alternative system of government to capitalism in Europe depressed the feck out of me. Despite their many failings there was huge progress for people in most of these countries under communism from their respective starting points. But economic progress just stalled completely by the time the late 60s and early 70s came around. The atrocities of Stalins period were not a regular feature after his death but the totalitarian reactions to the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were still absolutely disgusting. The lack of a similar response to the success of Solidarity in Poland looked to be an encouraging sign of increased tolerance of dissenting political opinion. The invasion of Afghanistan was none too endearing either. But the economies were completely mismanaged and fecked by incompetent corrupt governments which is what caused the collapse. Added to that was completely insane spending on weaponry in an arms race which was pretty much impossible to win.

The transition to market economies has been predictably chaotic and huge swathes of people in those countries are now much worse off than they were under communism. Of course, many have also made fortunes and are now amongst the richest people in the world but that's really not the way I measure success when you add in the first part.

Put it this way, in Russia today, Gorbachev is a more despised historical figure than Stalin according to something I was reading a couple of months ago about polling. That's probably not the case in the countries which were satellite states of the USSR, and the states other than Russia which constituted the USSR itself, I would imagine, but interesting nonetheless.

[Green Sleeves]

Originally Posted by wee 162

Put it this way, in Russia today, Gorbachev is a more despised historical figure than Stalin according to something I was reading a couple of months ago about polling. That's probably not the case in the countries which were satellite states of the USSR, and the states other than Russia which constituted the USSR itself, I would imagine, but interesting nonetheless.

People must have have short memories.

The state-owned and state-planned economies of the communist countries were able to house, clothe, feed and generally look after the poorest among their populations better than the west, and far, far better than capitalist countries in Latin America, Africa and South-East Asia.

But the price for that was corrupt one party dictatorships, low productivity, and big brother style oppression of the people. I know I'd rather live in relative poverty than live under a totalitarian dictatorship. Any Russians who would like Josef Stalin back in power have surely lost their sanity as well as their memory.

[hixxy220]

Quite simply ...... NUT!

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by Green Sleeves

People must have have short memories.

The state-owned and state-planned economies of the communist countries were able to house, clothe, feed and generally look after the poorest among their populations better than the west, and far, far better than capitalist countries in Latin America, Africa and South-East Asia.

But the price for that was corrupt one party dictatorships, low productivity, and big brother style oppression of the people. I know I'd rather live in relative poverty than live under a totalitarian dictatorship. Any Russians who would like Josef Stalin back in power have surely lost their sanity as well as their memory.

A while ago I watched a programme where an intern of a Siberian gulag recounted his experiences. He said that amid the terrible hardship, starvation and brutality many of the inmates prayed - and it's almost not too strong a word - for Stalin to come and save them. They thought that far from being the architect of their misery the Dear Leader was simply ignorant of what was going on. They'd been fed so much tripe about what a wonderful, munificent guy he was that they simply assumed that they were in the salt mines because some other awful branch of government had managed to sneak them in there without kindly Uncle Joe knowing about it.

Likewise I've heard of Chinese people suggesting that Mao may have gone a bit over the top, but ultimately he did what he had to do and was a force for progress.

While this is obviously bollocks, and rather sad with it, I think that it's part of the reason (in addition to basic misguided nostalgia) why some might find a return to those times, if not activey desirable, at least not completely unthinkable: there was never much internal critique of those leaders' regimes and crimes, so a residue of the (false) optimism of the times remains.

[Louis Prima]

Tito

Yugoslavia

The aftermath

nuff said

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162

Mixed ones for me. I was under no illusions that life in these countries was great for most of the citizens, and some of the governments were utterly appalling (Romania in particular it has to be said). But....

A complete collapse of any alternative system of government to capitalism in Europe depressed the feck out of me. Despite their many failings there was huge progress for people in most of these countries under communism from their respective starting points. But economic progress just stalled completely by the time the late 60s and early 70s came around. The atrocities of Stalins period were not a regular feature after his death but the totalitarian reactions to the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were still absolutely disgusting. The lack of a similar response to the success of Solidarity in Poland looked to be an encouraging sign of increased tolerance of dissenting political opinion. The invasion of Afghanistan was none too endearing either. But the economies were completely mismanaged and fecked by incompetent corrupt governments which is what caused the collapse. Added to that was completely insane spending on weaponry in an arms race which was pretty much impossible to win.

The transition to market economies has been predictably chaotic and huge swathes of people in those countries are now much worse off than they were under communism. Of course, many have also made fortunes and are now amongst the richest people in the world but that's really not the way I measure success when you add in the first part.

Put it this way, in Russia today, Gorbachev is a more despised historical figure than Stalin according to something I was reading a couple of months ago about polling. That's probably not the case in the countries which were satellite states of the USSR, and the states other than Russia which constituted the USSR itself, I would imagine, but interesting nonetheless.

Al, I'll need to check the details when I get home, but i read a book whilst on hols in which economic data was presented which not only countered the impression that soviet programmes increased technological progress and economic wealth (and the distribution of that wealth) but actually caused it to shrink in relative terms compared with the trajectory the tsarist economy was on, plus comparisons with other industrialisation from a primitive starting position.

I'll get you some more info later, as well as pick up on some of your other points.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Louis Prima

Tito

Yugoslavia

The aftermath

nuff said

perhaps; but a bit too terse for me i'm afraid. wotcher mean?

[Hampden_Hibby]

It did mean an end to cool traditional football tops with no fancy trimmings and sponsors' names. And an end to seeing a couple of hundred soldiers sitting in the stand watching some Soviet mob playing a Scottish club in the UEFA cup.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162

Mixed ones for me. I was under no illusions that life in these countries was great for most of the citizens, and some of the governments were utterly appalling (Romania in particular it has to be said). But....

A complete collapse of any alternative system of government to capitalism in Europe depressed the feck out of me.

right Al, i'm going to try not to goad you here, i'm caveating that straight away, because you might see the next sentence as just that, but it's a point that genuinely intrigues me. if you can say what you've just said about the communist countries, would that apply also to francosit spain. if not, why not. what are the qualitive differences that would distinguish between the two? it can't be economic progress or humanitarian issues as spain was no worse and in fact miles better than some or all of the warsaw pact countries, bar possibly yugoslavia.

Despite their many failings there was huge progress for people in most of these countries under communism from their respective starting points.

i'm not at all convinced. first off i think it's worth making some distinctions between the ussr and others. i think that it's very difficult to imagine that the likes of poland, czechoslovakia, hungary etc, would have done worse if communism hadn't been in place. i also think albania is a good indicator of what might have happened had communism succeeded in southern europe, eg if the repulicans had won in spain. russia itself has and huge problems that the more 'western' countries did not. looking at relative post communist prosperity is a good indicator of this, specifics in each place notwithstanding.

further, in robert conquest's 'the dragons of expectation' - the book i mentioned - it describes how the yield of soviet industrialisation was miniscule; ie production barely delivered more at the peak of the soviet age, than in the tsarist period, and the share of wealth of ordinary people actually declined. if i wade through the book later i'll get you some quotes. obviously this is but one account, but it at least illustrates that this area is debatable.

But economic progress just stalled completely by the time the late 60s and early 70s came around. The atrocities of Stalins period were not a regular feature after his death but the totalitarian reactions to the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were still absolutely disgusting. The lack of a similar response to the success of Solidarity in Poland looked to be an encouraging sign of increased tolerance of dissenting political opinion. The invasion of Afghanistan was none too endearing either. But the economies were completely mismanaged and fecked by incompetent corrupt governments which is what caused the collapse. Added to that was completely insane spending on weaponry in an arms race which was pretty much impossible to win.

The transition to market economies has been predictably chaotic and huge swathes of people in those countries are now much worse off than they were under communism. Of course, many have also made fortunes and are now amongst the richest people in the world but that's really not the way I measure success when you add in the first part.

agree re the oligarchs, but dear old cursed russia is always a different case to others. that said, what we lament is largely the product of the country trying to claw it's way back from the state it has been left in, which is of course the legacy of communism.

Put it this way, in Russia today, Gorbachev is a more despised historical figure than Stalin according to something I was reading a couple of months ago about polling. That's probably not the case in the countries which were satellite states of the USSR, and the states other than Russia which constituted the USSR itself, I would imagine, but interesting nonetheless.

henry makes some good points on this, to which i would add the observation that russia has never had a democratic tradition, and more than that has traditionally venerated hard man leaders.


overall, I applaud your candour here Al. you'll have known upfront that i'd be appalled by your callousness, but there you go. i personally find it remarkable that, especially given the human cost, one can lament the failure of an 'alternative to capitalism' rather than being glad that it was the 'alternative to communism' that won out. but again, you know this. i would add though, that the stuff about afghanistan in your previous post is a touch orwellian. there isn't much to admire in teaching people to read then controlling what they can read. it's arguably a worse state of affairs than illiteracy. it's certainly more effective for mind control.
and why is there some redeeming quality in intervening against religious maniacs, when you normally advocate the rights of the latter to choose that course over horrible old liberal democracy? not to mention the fact that they created the current situation every bit as much, if not more, than the yanks which you like to kick for it.

[egb_hibs]

as an aside, the 'clash of civilisations' thesis on post communism seems to be bearing up reasonably well.

in short, the prognosis was that the countries of historic western christendom would quickly get themselves straightened out, while the orthodox ones and muslim albania would trail behind. not studied it very closely tbh, but it seems reasonably close to what superficially seems to be the case.

[psychocandy]

Originally Posted by Hampden_Hibby

It did mean an end to cool traditional football tops with no fancy trimmings and sponsors' names. And an end to seeing a couple of hundred soldiers sitting in the stand watching some Soviet mob playing a Scottish club in the UEFA cup.

....all i want for christmas is a dukla prague away kit

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by jacktaylor

....all i want for christmas is a dukla prague away kit

Now sadly defunct.

[Colr]

I have been disappointed that some of the Soviet Unions great architectural experiments from the early 20th Century have now been lost or are falling to bits.

[glasgowian]

Originally Posted by HenryLB

Now sadly defunct.

Untrue. A Dukla team has been plowing a lonely furrow in the lower reaches of the Czech leagues these past few years and indeed bought another club's licence in the summer and played their first game in the Czech 2nd Division last weekend. Whether this new incarnation will be as loathed as it's predecessors is open to debate.

[O'Driscoll]

I was gutted!

[HenryLB]

Originally Posted by glasgowian

Untrue. A Dukla team has been plowing a lonely furrow in the lower reaches of the Czech leagues these past few years and indeed bought another club's licence in the summer and played their first game in the Czech 2nd Division last weekend. Whether this new incarnation will be as loathed as it's predecessors is open to debate.

Aren't they called something else though? And I believe - although I'm sure you know more about it than me - that they don't actually play in Prague any more?

[FTJT]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

further, in robert conquest's 'the dragons of expectation' - the book i mentioned - it describes how the yield of soviet industrialisation was miniscule; ie production barely delivered more at the peak of the soviet age, than in the tsarist period, and the share of wealth of ordinary people actually declined. if i wade through the book later i'll get you some quotes. obviously this is but one account, but it at least illustrates that this area is debatable.

Conquest (at least by the time he wrote The Dragons of Expectation) was far from a balanced source, in any sense of the word: can you recall, without trawling for figures and quotes, if and how he took into account the loss of resources and industry in the 1917 peace settlement, or from the civil war, or when the figures were actually culled from? The reason I comment is because if it was before 1941, the country was decimated by loss of resources from the above, if it was before about 1960 it was decimated by WWII, and after that it was pretty much embroiled in the Cold War and there ceases to be any meaningful comparison to be made....