Erhhh… I guess we got confused in here again. What a surprise!
You said: “Personally, I love my country and its political system ( with all of its flaws) far too much to consider living anywhere else in the world, under any other form of government.”
So I ment asking if you think that the reason that you love the “political system (with all of its flaws)” is due to the fact that you were born there. You know when I go to those places where I remember my self running arround as bare assed little boy my heart also crunches in the sweet recallections. If per say you were born in China or Russia for that matter you might have had similar (sort of warm) feelings towards what you find close to you.
That is what I ment. Are you sure it is purely you concious choise (read objective) or is it just a matter of habit (adoptation to the reality you were born and raised in).
I hope it is clear now what I wanted to ask.
I imagine that you feel that the society in which you were raised and educated was worth them going up to their knees in blood, it usually is when its someone elses blood.
No I do not consider them being worse any blod at all. Unless it is a blood spilled by the defenders of the country, like during the WW2 for example.
I think there are 2 things that always get mixed. I would call it “moral assessment” and “understanding of the reality”. In a nutshell I from “moral assesment” find what we had in USSR very dramatic and tragic and deadly to many. But on the other hand the world UNFORTUNATELY is not driven by maral. The politics are the best example. Some goverments are worse and more brutal than others but the essense is very similar.
So from the “understanding of reality” point of view Communism also played a positive role. For example I honestly beleive that the Hitler was defeated mainly due to Communistic ideology. Well tragicly so. Because no one else would be ready to pay the same price for the victory (Remember the nukes were out of the equation then).
So I try to be balanced and not to judge too boldly when I look back. I am not defending the Communism regim at all. I ma just trying to show you (not specificly you, but all others) that the Communism (or rather the society in USSR) was much more complex and vibrant than just one thing called Communism.
Well Egorka if we had an award for trying to stay objective I would nominate you for it.
I cant totally agree with the statement: Personally, I love my country and its political system ( with all of its flaws) far too much to consider living anywhere else in the world, under any other form of government."
I do love my country and what it idealistically stands for. Lot of great things about it. However the level of decadence in the US scares me. If I had to make my own country from places ive been the majority of the ideas would come from the US. I can also say that I dont hate capitalism but im not a big fan of it either. Ive seen other countries play the capitalist game quite well without aquiring alot of the problems that come with it.
In any form of government I think you must change with the times to be successful. This IMO is what China is doing and is becoming much stronger as a result. To me it all kinda like writing a paper when your young. If you keep going back to that paper every couple of years and rewriting it. You will find its quite different from when you started. Things change quickly and so ppl and governments need to try to change with them.
I was about to say no, it isn’t because I was born here. However, that would be ridiculous, it has to be, in part, because I was born here. Having said that, I live quite a way from where I was born and raised and have no desire to go back there.
I have travelled widely, and when I compare the political systems of the countries I have visited with my own, I prefer my own country’s system(I didn’t always feel that way). It has an unwritten constitution which allows it to adapt and improve over time. Unlike other codified constitutions, which are, practically, carved in stone. There is much I could discuss on these issues, but I wouldn’t want to bore you.
that is what I ment. Are you sure it is purely you concious choise (read objective) or is it just a matter of habit (adoptation to the reality you were born and raised in).
I hope it is clear now what I wanted to ask.
I think I might understand, its just that I can be rather slow on the uptake, so I thank you for your patience and understanding of my condition.
Questioning, as opposed to merely accepting, practically defines who I am.
No I do not consider them being worse any blod at all. Unless it is a blood spilled by the defenders of the country, like during the WW2 for example.
Well, that’s a relief. When we defend our country and our people we make sacrifices. However, I’m never wholly impressed by those who would send others to make the sacrifice. If they are not willing to make the sacrifice themselves, then thy ought to be prudent with the lives of their people.
Yes I understand necessity.
I think there are 2 things that always get mixed. I would call it “moral assessment” and “understanding of the reality”. In a nutshell I from “moral assesment” find what we had in USSR very dramatic and tragic and deadly to many. But on the other hand the world UNFORTUNATELY is not driven by maral. The politics are the best example. Some goverments are worse and more brutal than others but the essense is very similar.
So from the “understanding of reality” point of view Communism also played a positive role. For example I honestly beleive that the Hitler was defeated mainly due to Communistic ideology. Well tragicly so. Because no one else would be ready to pay the same price for the victory (Remember the nukes were out of the equation then).
I can appreciate some of that, but not in total. What I was driving at in my earlier comments, was not the shedding of blood to defeat Nazism, but the shedding of the blood of one’s own people in order to gain and hold onto power. Power being the goal ‘instead’ of the good of the people. That was why I did not only refer to Stalinsim.
One can be objective and consider morals together. In such situations it is about choosing the lesser of the evils.
So I try to be balanced and not to judge too boldly when I look back. I am not defending the Communism regim at all. I ma just trying to show you (not specificly you, but all others) that the Communism (or rather the society in USSR) was much more complex and vibrant than just one thing called Communism.
I think I was aware of that, and in a way, was a part of my point. The society in the USSR was not Communism as we would describe it, in as much as the system in, say, the US is not Democracy either (did I say that? ).
Even I know that the USSR was a vast place, and with vast countries comprising various states it can be difficult to keep them united. I just don’t happen to believe that state terror is the way. At which point does a leader, such as Stalin (for example), cross the line from caring about the state and terrorising the state for his own ends?
Is, or, is not, Communism about equality?
[i]"The fundamental principal of democratic or popular government, the essential resort which sustains it and makes it move, is virtue - the love of country and its laws.
Since the essence of the Republic or democracy is equality, the love of country necessarily embraces the love of equality. It, therefore, presupposes or produces all virtues since all are simply expressions of the force of that soul which enables a person to prefer the public interest to all particular interests.
Not only is virtue the soul of democracy, it can only exist inside this form of government.
All citizens, no matter who they are, have the right to aspire to every degree of representation."[/i]
As I mentioned in my reply to Egorka, the British constitution is not codified. Thus, it allows for modification and continuous improvement.
I have debated this with many American friends and family, who are active in politics in the states. They find it strange to understand as the American constitution is caste in iron.
What I have difficulty with, with the American system that is, is that the head of govenmernt is also the head of state, and the Commander-in -Chief of the military. I would suggest a conflict of interests. It seems as if the President is practically a ruling monarch - untouchable.
But, hey, I have had this argument a thousand times with some very able people - if it makes you happy, what the heck.
Maybe the British constitution is a bit more versatile but I dont understand the remark that the American constitution is caste in Iron. While the main document and the 1st 10 amendments (aka the bill of rights) are pretty set the amendments are not. Now the bill of rights is problematic coz they were written in the original document. Which is the whole problem with gun control (2nd amendment). People went nuts when they messed with the original coke formula…what do you think the will do if they mess with the Bill of Rights? The whole point of the amendments were to allow for changes. 17 amendments have been added since its introduction. Classic example of the ability to change is the 18th and its “repealment” by the 21st amendment. Now unless im mistaken there is nothing that would prevent one from repealing an amendment in the bill of rights.
So to sum up…I dont understand what they mean when they say the US Constitution is caste iron! Might also add that the amendments can be pretty versatile as well…Dubya wanted the 28th to be the banning of Gay marriage.
Okay, correct me where I am wrong as I am no expert on the American Constituion. However, my understanding is thta changes within the Constitution have to be agreed by all fifty states? If so, then it would require some serious persuasion to get thta to happen. If I am wrong, then please inform.
A recent occurrence which I found rather illuminating, was the way in which John Bolton became Ambasador to the UN. The President, knowing he could not get Bolton, through Congress, waited until ‘Washington’ had buggered-off for their Hols. and then passed Bolton himself. He was able to do this because it is written within the Constitution that the president has this power when Congress is stood down, so to speak. However, this was written some two hundred years ago when Washington (D.C. that is ) was a rather swampy and humid place and everyone vacated for the summer ( still do). Now, in this day and age, i.e. the age of telecommunications; fax, e-mail, tele-conferencing, that ought not be a problem. The President took advantage of a loophole in the Constitution, which is set in stone - is it not?
I am not attempting to say that your Constitution is no good, but I happen to believe the British way is better for me - but then that could be habit.
By the way, I always thought the U.S. Government set-up resembled that of Imperial Rome as opposed to Britain.
As I recall, the last time a British monarch refused to give assent to a law, was when Queen Victoria was presented with the Bill which made homo-sexual relationships illegal.
It went something like this:
Disrali presents the Bill for the Queen to sign.
After reading it, she says she cannot possibly sign it… it is ludicrous, how can women have home-sexual relationships?
Disraeli insists - the Queen refuses.
Disraeli takes aside one of the Queen’s Ladies-in-waiting and says…look here, go and explain the ways and wotnots to the Queen.
Lady-in-waiting toddles-off and explains. Disraeli returns with the Bill for signature.
Disraeli presents the Bill to the Queen, the Queen remarks…We are not convinced!
Disraeli toodles-off, back to Parliament, amends the Bill (homo-sexual relationships between men, not women, illegal), the Queen signs the Bill.
The Bill becomes law.
The comminist China indeed was a ful scale copy of USSR in the 1960-70 Gen.
We both had the Communist party as ONLY power that ruled by the state.
But in the midium of 1980 our way has dispersed - the USSR’s comparty was desintegrated but the China’s communists still strong.
And Mao will not “role over in his grave” in contrast i/m he would wonder of the political flexibility of the Comparty of China - this is a great success indeed - after downfall of communism in the world the China only single state that has appeared in better situation then all of communist former states. The power economical and military rise. What could be more importaint for Mao;)
Though “human right” is still far from a good ,but the progress since the 1985 is a great.
It’s all related. This thread is based on a question of perception. Therefore, in order to understand where we are coming from in our discussions, it is important to understand one and others’ points of view, and from where we draw them i.e. our models, benchmarks and experiences - otherwise we will be accusing each other of regurgitating Cold-war propaganda.
Gen. Sandworm,
yes, I think it would be an intersting thread, but I suspect that it would ony be the two of us participating - perhaps we should take a vote on it? … the aye’s to the right…
So getting back from homo-sexual (it is when people have sex at home, right?) to the topic “World without Communism”, I can say again being bad Communism has played a paramout role in the 20th century. Both ugly and good roles!
Coming from the same constitutional heritage that Bravo32 comes from, but living in a nation which has a constitution modelled in part on the US constitution while preserving the British system of government and constitutional monarchy (whether or not I agree with it!), I think the point might have been that those of us in other countries are astounded by the rights guaranteed by the US constitution and the vigour with which the US courts can support them.
A simple example is the right of free speech. We don’t have one here (although our High Court - = US Supreme Court - found a very limited one in political discourse some years ago).
The defamation laws in America are circumscribed by the constitutional free speech guarantee.
Here, the defamation laws inhibit free speech when it comes to vigorous public debate about, say, politicians because they routinely get injunctions stopping the press from exposing their misconduct.
Perhaps the “cast in iron” comment was meant to refer to the certainties which are lacking in countries which don’t have such a clearly written constitution?
Paramount means it was more important than anything else.
Significant might be more apposite.
Communism on its own didn’t mean much. It got its power when combined with nationalist and or national liberation movements. There was never a purely communist government.
There was no standard form of communism. Maoists had no real common ground with Stalinists, and neither of them with Cuba, etc. Pol Pot had his own curious form of murderous communism, which outdid Stalin and Mao (and Hitler, who it is often forgotten was another national socialist) at their best. Or worst.
In the West we had the Moscow-aligned and Peking-aligned communist parties, and sundry others.
The essential problem was that the dominant Western governments tended to view ‘communism’ as the same everywhere and responded accordingly, which ensured that they rarely responded in a way which might be effective in achieving their aims because they never bothered to understand what they were dealing with.
The one outstanding exception is the British in Malaya, who treated it as essentially a security or large policing problem. This ensured that the enemy was accurately identified, targeted and dealt with.
Contrast this with the meaningless, counter-productive, and ultimately idiotic global ‘war on terrorism’ launched by Bush Jnr after 9/11 when it should have been treated as an internal security issue requiring forceful but carefully targeted action inside and outside the US to avoid generating exactly the potentially catastrohic alignments it has actually achieved. And worse ones it might achieve, such as an already nuclear armed Pakistan falling to the substantial radical Islamic forces in its civilian and military sectors.
I am quite sure that if you count number of people in communist countries in 20th centruty you will see that more than half of theworld population was affected (China really helps me with this argument out there). And the other 20% were strugling against it - also affected.
Communism on its own didn’t mean much. It got its power when combined with nationalist and or national liberation movements. There was never a purely communist government.
There was no standard form of communism. Maoists had no real common ground with Stalinists, and neither of them with Cuba, etc. Pol Pot had his own curious form of murderous communism, which outdid Stalin and Mao (and Hitler, who it is often forgotten was another national socialist) at their best. Or worst.
Ok, the idea of Communism combined with national specifics. Yes the human life in the east has lowere value compare to the West. And it is not necessary bad thing! Though I am risking to be misunderstood here!
I think Marx(Karl, not Groucho) would have been the one to roll over in his grave at what Marxism/Communism had become. Whether you agree with Communism or not, Marx’s philosphy was founded on humanist principles. He clearly wanted a better world for the average person.
Egorka summed it up fairly well when talking about his childhood. Sure he and Chevan lived under an ‘enemy’ regime, but they both have fond memories of their youth. The thing is, it does not matter what country you live in, what regime you live under, the average person just wants to get on with their lives.
It’s the politicians and leaders who screw things up.
).