1
   

CELEBRATIONS OF THE DEATH OF COMMUNISM CHRISTMAS EVE

 
 
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 02:34 pm

We r fast coming upon the 2Oth Anniversary of the Death of Communism.

Christmas Eve will the 2Oth Anniversay of the death of communism, the wonderful death of the USSR.
On Christmas Day of 1991, Russia was free of communism
and the world was free of the threat of communist slavery.

There should be huge, JOYFUL, ultra-ECSTATIC celebrations of FREEDOM.

I have heard of nothing of this nature.


Any ideas from lovers of personal freedom will be welcome.





David
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,481 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 02:46 pm

I got on a plane coming back to NY from Las Vegas on Christmas Eve of 1991
and when I got off the plane on Christmas Day, the USSR no longer existed. That was GOOD.

I remember living with the idea that because of the weakness of liberal leadership
( or of tacitly sly affection for the socialist enemy )
I 'd have to take a gun and shoot my mother in the head
as communist tanks rolled down my street,
and then, as thay used to say in the movies: "the last round is for YOU"
but my mother passed on from natural causes c.40 years ago.
The death of communism is worth cheering about.

Minimally, the leaders of the communist movement
shud be hanged in effigy and befouled in the most ignoble manner.





David
High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 02:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
There's a lot of coverage in the European press. This from the online edition of the Financial Times:
http://im.media.ft.com/content/images/ec062196-2c00-11e1-b194-00144feabdc0.img
December 21, 2011 8:22 pm
The myths of Russia old and new

By Rodric Braithwaite
Quote:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c91770d6-2a7f-11e1-8f04-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1hCjR3pRM

On Christmas Day 1991 we were still wearing our funny hats and eating our mince pies when Mikhail Gorbachev came on television to tell the world that he had resigned as President of the Soviet Union. We looked out at the Kremlin on the other side of the Moscow River. The Red Flag was fluttering down for the last time.

So many hopes have been dashed since then. But that is no reason to abandon hope itself. Much of what is going on in Russia today is deeply unattractive. But contrary to what you might gather from the western press, Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is comparatively open and prosperous. Russians travel abroad in their hundreds of thousands. There are more Russians than Germans on the internet. And now the Russians who voted so enthusiastically for change in 1989 have begun to reclaim their right to be heard. Mr Putin’s decision to run again for the presidency may turn out to be his biggest political mistake as he begins to slither down the other side of the bell curve.

Historians will never settle on why the USSR collapsed: they still don’t agree about why the Roman Empire fell. But they may strip away some of the myths: that the event was foreseen by no one, for example, or that a more competent politician than Mr Gorbachev could have managed the transition better.

From the 1960s onwards there were clear signs that the Soviet system was in serious decay: the lack of consumer goods, the primitive living conditions, the decrepit factories, the dysfunctional agriculture, the lopsided emphasis on heavy industry and defence, the growth rates approaching zero. The USSR was already failing in its competition with its cold war rival. Khrushchev saw that, tried to reform the system, and was overthrown.

For the next 15 years the Union floated on a sea of high priced oil. Even so, the dissident Andrei Sakharov openly predicted that without genuine political reform the economy would stagnate. The head of the state planning body was equally gloomy in private. In 1985, desperate to find someone who could put things right, the old men in the Politburo elected Mr Gorbachev: imaginative, energetic and – they hoped – orthodox.

But he believed that the system could not be revived without radical change. His speech to the UN in December 1988 marked the first step in the withdrawal from empire. In March 1989 he organised the first serious elections in a communist country since the war. But he ran into a familiar problem: the attempt to reform a failing system can simply destabilise it further. At the beginning of 1990 – two years before the collapse – I wrote to London that a messy, but steady, disintegration of Russia’s empire was on the cards. I was not alone in that judgment.

So why did US intelligence analysts conclude, as late as April 1989, that the Soviet Union would remain the west’s main adversary for the foreseeable future? The answer is political, even sociological. During the cold war both sides saw things in black and white. Officials stuck to worst case analysis, because it was safer. Soldiers talked up the threat to get bigger budgets and more sophisticated weapons. In 1988 a CIA analyst told Congress that he and his colleagues never really looked at the factors that could have led to the end of the Soviet Union because “we would have been told we were crazy”. Other advisers on both sides of the divide were also telling their bosses what they wanted to hear.

In the west, Mr Gorbachev is criticised for foolishly setting out to reform the system rather than to abolish it. He too was a prisoner of his environment. But during his years of power, he moved a long way from communism to something like social democracy: a reasonable path for an honourable man to take.

He can be criticised for failing to tackle the economic problem. But he feared the disruption that a radical free market solution would bring. Yeltsin’s helter-skelter reforms did indeed bring runaway inflation and years of impoverishment to many Russians: the unavoidable price, perhaps, of necessary change.

The least convincing criticism is that Mr Gorbachev failed to manage the genie of nationalism. By 1989 that genie was right out of the bottle. He could have sent in the tanks. He chose instead to try to create a genuine and voluntary federation of the Soviet republics: a solution most western leaders far preferred to the nightmare alternative of “Yugoslavia with nukes”– the bloody disintegration of a nuclear superpower. His attempt was stymied by the August 1991 putsch against him, and by Yeltsin’s determination to seize all power for himself.

So Russia was reborn in that cold mid-winter – hungry, poverty-stricken, humiliated and deeply resentful of its loss of status. Even Russians who had welcomed the end of communism and the freedoms that Mr Gorbachev had brought them blamed him for the destruction of their great country.

Though Russians do not now believe it, there was a genuine upsurge of goodwill in the west, and a desire to help. In some quarters there was an unpleasant note of triumphalism, a feeling we could now bend the Russians to our will. Some called this realism, but it was not the language of statesmanship.

Western policy reflected both strands. We lectured the Russians on their corrupt politics and their violations of human rights. We gave them expensive and often irrelevant economic advice. We insisted they adopt western foreign policy aims, but ignored what they thought were their legitimate interests. We enlarged Nato despite our oral assurances to the contrary. We bombed their ally Serbia. We interfered in their neighbourhood. Our advice was discredited as Russians came to believe that we were untrue to our own principles and unable even to run our much vaunted liberal economy properly.

In parallel, though not necessarily in consequence, Russia’s politics became increasingly grubby. High oil riches again combined with political inertia to cripple any further attempts at fundamental reform.

Five months after that flag came fluttering down, I wrote it would take Russia decades, perhaps generations, to overcome its economic, imperial and other difficulties. But it was not, I told London, mindless optimism to think Russia might eventually develop its own, no doubt imperfect, democracy.

That was not a prediction. But it still seems a tenable proposition.


The writer was British ambassador in Moscow from 1988 to 1992
neko nomad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 04:04 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
When did communism die in China- like, is Red China no longer red?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 04:30 pm
@neko nomad,
... or Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea?
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 05:07 pm
@High Seas,
Thank u, High Seas !





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 05:11 pm
@neko nomad,
neko nomad wrote:
When did communism die in China- like, is Red China no longer red?
It is very capitalist, which comes naturally to the Chinese.

It has a military dictatorship whose purpose is to serve the dictators
(the same as the commie dictatorship did).





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 05:13 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
... or Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea?
Thay r unworthy of notice
and, unlike the USSR, thay r not now trying to enslave the world.
Of course, North Korea 'd love to enslave South Korea.





David
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 05:37 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
... or Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea?
Thay r unworthy of notice
and, unlike the USSR, thay r not now trying to enslave the world.
Of course, North Korea 'd love to enslave South Korea.





David


I'm sure the Vets would love to hear your opinion on this matter.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 05:46 pm
@Questioner,
Questioner wrote:


I'm sure the Vets would love to hear your opinion on this matter.

You don't know whom you're addressing so allow me to give you a hint: most of the vets the OP here and I know (and most of the others out there) think that the Vietnam war was a terrifying waste of blood and treasure. Perhaps you're of another opinion? Let's hear it.
0 Replies
 
neko nomad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 05:51 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Your thread title didn't make distinctions. I thought you were celebrating the demise of communism worldwide.

Uh, when did the capitalists take over mainland China? Man, am I behind on this stuff.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 05:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Welcome - always good to see you. There's a very interesting collection of essays by authors of the last couple of centuries, in the new Foreign Affairs
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/files/images/01_Cover_JF2012_Sub_162.jpg
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/news-and-events/januaryfebruary-2012-issue-now-online#
Some you (and others here) will have read already, others are new, and the whole series is fascinating. Btw, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 06:18 pm
@High Seas,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to u, High Seas!





David
0 Replies
 
neko nomad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 10:23 pm
Why is this man smiling?


http://www.liuzhou.co.uk/china/Chinese%20Currency/images/money.13.jpg
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 10:58 pm
@neko nomad,
neko nomad wrote:
Why is this man smiling?
Because he enslaved and exploited millions of Chinamen.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 11:08 pm

I am pleased at the remnants of communism in China,
in that thay serve to retard its competition with America.





David
neko nomad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 11:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
This little piece is worth a read: it says differently.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2011 11:41 pm
@neko nomad,
That "little piece" is really shockingly selective in the facts it presents. How it's possible to relate the 20th Century history of China without a single mention of the iron-fisted totalitarian rule of Chiang Kai-Shek, the American puppet whose dictatorial excesses paved the way for Mao's successful revolution, is hard to fathom. There are other omissions of fact here as well.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2011 01:20 am
@Lustig Andrei,
It comes as a surprize that Chiang Kai-Shek was totalitarian.





David
0 Replies
 
neko nomad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2011 08:07 am
@Lustig Andrei,
These days there seems to be
mixed emotions regarding Chiang in Taipei.
Hhe's almost disappeared from Taiwan's currency. Just one denomination,
from what I saw online.
Back around 1959 I saw him in just
about every public place that had space for a statue or bust.

China's communism, for sure, has been modified, but it's still alive,flaws and all.
 

Related Topics

What is freedom to YOU? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
what is freedom? - Discussion by hamilton
No Freedom in Iran - Discussion by Brandon9000
Truth or Conspiracy? - Discussion by McGentrix
Sexuality IS fluid yet distinct - Discussion by Dillonjm94
A Day Without Immigrants - Question by Sturgis
Juneteenth is the 19th - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CELEBRATIONS OF THE DEATH OF COMMUNISM CHRISTMAS EVE
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2021 at 09:19:42