Prime Time: Why has communism failed to shine in India?
We speak to a group of students and teachers from Banaras Hindu University to get their opinion on why communism failed to garner public support in India. So...
By: NDTV India
Read this article:
Prime Time: Why has communism failed to shine in India? - Video
Communism Muscle Cars Gameplay (PC HD)
Info Communism Muscle Cars is a racing game that was released in 2009 as a retail product but now is available for free. We could say that "in Russia, cars drive you", but that would be...
By: ToshDeluxe
Imagine that the collapse of Soviet communism more than two decades ago had taken a different form than it did. It might have done so, if the dramatic and fast-moving events of 1991 and key people who participated in them had taken a few different turns.
Today we associate the collapse with the dissolution of the USSR and its replacement by 15 independent republics. But the break-up of that union did not need to be part of the failure and demise of the Leninist method of organizing politics, economics and society that we came to know as Soviet communism.
It is true that separatist sentiment had become by early 1991 a significant part of the growing political crisis in the Soviet Union, with the Baltic republics and Georgia making declarations of independence. Even then, however, the break-up of the union was by no means certain. The center was using military force to try to bring the Lithuanians back in line and Mikhail Gorbachev was supporting the adoption of a new charter, to replace one from 1922, aimed at mollifying sentiment in the non-Russian republics while preserving some sort of union.
The career track of Boris Yeltsin had as much as anything else to do with the political shape events in the Soviet Union would take later in 1991. Yeltsin had risen to senior posts in the union power structure before having a falling out with Gorbachev and others in the Soviet regime. He happened to make his political comeback in the government of the Russian republic, and was elected president of that republic in mid-1991.
Thus Yeltsin was in that position when he climbed atop a tank to face down the Soviet hardliners who attempted a coup in August while Gorbachev was vacationing at his dacha in Crimea. This meant that once the coup was defeated and Gorbachevs power waned as Yeltsins waxed, power went from the union government to the Russian republic. Yeltsin scooped up union ministries and made them Russian ones, and when Gorbachev resigned as the last Soviet president later in the year there was barely a shell of a union government left.
It is plausible to imagine a different scenario in which the government structures that emerged from the wreckage of the USSR would have looked substantially different. Suppose Yeltsin had taken his defiant, tank-climbing action not as president of the Russian republic but as a reformist party chief of the Moscow region a job he had once held, along with sitting on the politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Perhaps this would have meant significant power remaining at the level of a reconstituted union.
Such speculation does not say anything about the relative likelihood of the scenario being posited, although the scenario can be the basis for a useful thought experiment if it is at least plausible. Nationalist sentiment in the constituent republics would always have been a significant factor to be reckoned with.
Probably what is most implausible about any continued post-Soviet union would be inclusion of the Baltic republics. They alone among the republics of the USSR had a history as independent states as recently as 1940. The United States and the West never recognized their annexation by Moscow, and the Baltics westward orientation has always been strong.
The relevant thought experiment worth doing is to ask: if some sort of union (even without the Baltic states) had endured, how would we in the United States have assessed the events back in the 1990s, and how would we see our interests in that part of the world today?
There still would have been sufficient basis on which to say that the Cold War was over and that our side had won it. Moscow had already lost its Eastern European empire, and the Warsaw Pact was gone. Although there would not have been as distinctive a dissolution of the USSR as in fact happened with the creation of 14 independent states plus the successor state of Russia, the collapse of Soviet communism and the Leninist system would still have been readily apparent.
Read the original post:
Paul R. Pillar
UBUNTU vs Communism
The Ubuntu Party has promised South Africa a People #39;s Bank to free us all from debt slavery. They assure us that free energy is a reality and organic food gardens around the country will ensure...
By: UBUNTU Party
Go here to read the rest:
UBUNTU vs Communism - Video
A letter in which iconic poet Allen Ginsberg admits "communism just doesn't work" is to go up for auction later this month (Apr14).
The note was penned by Ginsberg during a trip around Europe in 1981, and he tells a pal how he has spent months travelling around Eastern Bloc nations he dubbed the 'Red Lands'.
He writes that Hungary was beset by "dreary bureaucracy" and confesses that he preferred "Socialist Austria" because it was "free & independent minded".
In the letter to fellow poet Diane di Prima, he wrote, "Hungary-Austria-Switzerland-Germany - made little money but saw a lot - Red Lands not good, Hungary pretty dreary bureaucracy - I guess communism just doesn't work. Socialist Austria seems pretty free & independent minded. Lots of yakking & snow & ice & cold & Poetry & movies... Love Allen.''
The note will be auctioned online via Nate D. Sanders on 29 April (14), with bidding starting at $250 (156).
Visit link:
Allen Ginsberg's 'Communism Doesn't Work' Letter Goes On Sale