A Berezovsky Love Note...

[Mange]

Damn, I screw up the quote tags.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, the MAZ turned out successful (and MAN had quite an extensive cooperation with MAZ if I don't remember incorrectly), but isn't it true that the Belarus economy is almost completely dependent on Russia?

If you mean "dependent" as in "Belorussian goods dominate several niches in the Russian market" then yes, it is. If you mean, Belarus is dependent on oil superprofits, no it isn't. That's all in the World Bank report. The problem which Belarus faces is diversification of markets (moving out to Eastern Europe, etc) with it's goods and maintaining a technological edge over Russian industries since otherwise it's products can be "squeezed out". Both are good motivators for economic and technological development.

There are degrees to which that would happen. And there are degrees to which neighbours would be willing to maintain good relations depending on the connotations of the reunification, if it occours.

Duh. The re-unification is done for economic purposes. Whatever connotations it will have however, no doubt there will be cries about "Russain expansionism!" "Soviet Return!" or some other shit. My take is that if it happens, we should not pay attention to such things but rather strengthen economic ties between ourselves and with our strategic partners.

And if it happens that Eastern Europe is not our strategic partner, or they take this too hostile - so be it. It's not as if our trade turnover with, say, the Baltics is of any major importance to our economy.

And all the guy with the nukes has to do is say

There'll be several of them. With nukes. Nuclear silos are present in many places. Moscow, Siberia, etc. But whatever. I don't think it's plausible as of today.

But I disagree that states should not take an active interest in such things.

As I said, hypocritically criticising cherry-picked states for some reasons (russophobia? islamophobia? chinaphobia?) and not others only makes it worse. It creates (among the citizens of the criticized countries) a perception of dishonesty.

[Lord Zentei]

There are degrees to which that would happen. And there are degrees to which neighbours would be willing to maintain good relations depending on the connotations of the reunification, if it occours.

Duh. The re-unification is done for economic purposes. Whatever connotations it will have however, no doubt there will be cries about "Russain expansionism!" "Soviet Return!" or some other shit. My take is that if it happens, we should not pay attention to such things but rather strengthen economic ties between ourselves and with our strategic partners.

No doubt. Though the point remains: even if all you care about is realpolitik, diplomacy, and perception abroad is crucial. Some will cry "waah, Soviet return", but that can be reduced very much indeed to the benefit of both said union and its neighbours.

And if it happens that Eastern Europe is not our strategic partner, or they take this too hostile - so be it. It's not as if our trade turnover with, say, the Baltics is of any major importance to our economy.

Well, the Baltics are now in the EU, so they are important in that regard, at least.

And all the guy with the nukes has to do is say

There'll be several of them. With nukes. Nuclear silos are present in many places. Moscow, Siberia, etc. But whatever. I don't think it's plausible as of today.

Any or all of them could have said that, and it would only take one for China and the West to be hands off the whole region -- unless one of them got stupid and started actually using said nukes.

But I disagree that states should not take an active interest in such things.

As I said, hypocritically criticising cherry-picked states for some reasons (russophobia? islamophobia? chinaphobia?) and not others only makes it worse. It creates (among the citizens of the criticized countries) a perception of dishonesty.

Though I can see why that would be so, I'd rather see more equity in such criticism by widening it rather than eliminating it.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, you did: unless you deem that one-party elections are democratic.

Missed that. One-party election to councils, including the supreme council, has been already abolished in 1988. Pluralist elections without communist party obligations were run in 1990. You're kinda off-date with this. Gorbachov reformed the Constitution. He became President who was also to be elected.

[Mange]

If you mean "dependent" as in "Belorussian goods dominate several niches in the Russian market" then yes, it is. If you mean, Belarus is dependent on oil superprofits, no it isn't. That's all in the World Bank report. The problem which Belarus faces is diversification of markets (moving out to Eastern Europe, etc) with it's goods and maintaining a technological edge over Russian industries since otherwise it's products can be "squeezed out". Both are good motivators for economic and technological development.

No, I was referring to the trade of goods produced in Belarus (even though I believe that the export to EU countries have been increasing substantially in the last few years).

[K. A. Pital]

No doubt. Though the point remains: even if all you care about is realpolitik, diplomacy, and perception abroad is crucial. Some will cry "waah, Soviet return", but that can be reduced very much indeed to the benefit of both said union and its neighbours.

Economic and political strength mean much more than the willingness to listen to criticism. I mean, China did not listen to criticism. It still doesn't. It's an economic powerhouse and states cooperate with it no matter what it's just too powerful and large to ignore. What is China's perception today? "Kommieh Menace!!?". No. Even as it doesn't change it's political structures.

I'd rather see more equity in such criticism by widening it rather than eliminating it.

And that will never happen for pragmatic reasons of course. This is obvious. If you need a bad guy's oil, you won't be bending over the top to criticise him. US has been criticizing Saudi Arabia lately? Nop? Well duh.

[Lord Zentei]

No doubt. Though the point remains: even if all you care about is realpolitik, diplomacy, and perception abroad is crucial. Some will cry "waah, Soviet return", but that can be reduced very much indeed to the benefit of both said union and its neighbours.

Economic and political strength mean much more than the willingness to listen to criticism. I mean, China did not listen to criticism. It still doesn't. It's an economic powerhouse and states cooperate with it no matter what it's just too powerful and large to ignore. What is China's perception today? "Kommieh Menace!!?". No. Even as it doesn't change it's political structures.

It rather helps that they are behind an ocean.

Anyway, you were also pointing out the willingness of eastern European countries to enter NATO and how this went down badly in Russia -- can't you see how this argument might be turned on its head?

I'd rather see more equity in such criticism by widening it rather than eliminating it.

And that will never happen for pragmatic reasons of course. This is obvious. If you need a bad guy's oil, you won't be bending over the top to criticise him. US has been criticizing Saudi Arabia lately? Nop? Well duh.

And they are justifiably criticized for that by their own residents. No it's not realistic to expect perfect equity in this (there is only so much that is practically possible), though for countries to be ignoring such issues is not acceptable.

[Lord Zentei]

Yes, you did: unless you deem that one-party elections are democratic.

Missed that. One-party election to councils, including the supreme council, has been already abolished in 1988. Pluralist elections without communist party obligations were run in 1990. You're kinda off-date with this. Gorbachov reformed the Constitution. He became President who was also to be elected.

I was unaware of the Communist party obligations not being required in the '90s elections. Thanks for the headsup.

In that case, the Soviet system was in fact abolished by Gorbachev.

[K. A. Pital]

Anyway, you were also pointing out the willingness of eastern European countries to enter NATO and how this went down badly in Russia -- can't you see how this argument might be turned on its head?

Yep. In fact, I am ready for such a turn of events. I think Eastern Europe will trade with us even more after the unification even if they will have political qualms.

And they are justifiably criticized for that by their own residents.

That's not heard over diplomatic channels. It doesn't make international policy. However, official statements do. That's the difference. Who knows about someone out there saying "well, you should criticize this place too"? But everyone knows if say Cheney says "Hey, Russia EVUL!!"

And I'm not saying that these issues should be "ignored", but for Christ's sake, there are commitees in NGOs and UN branches which are dedicated to monitoring such things specifically and levelling criticism in all cases (at which they do a FAR better job than the governments which will be influenced anyway by political and economic considerations). I'm just proposing to leave the Caesar's to the caesar.

In that case, the Soviet system was in fact abolished by Gorbachev.

There was little to dismantle in the "Soviet system" in the first place, the main feature was the monopoly of the communist party, the electoral laws just needed a bit of tweaking, and the Soviets became democratic organs (actually "Soviet" is council and was originally a democratic body, so Gorbachov merely restored the Soviets real functions). Without the monopoly of the CPSU, the Political Bureau and Central Commitee of the CPSU lost power as governing bodies and that was it. So the Soviet Union remained, and it even remained Soviet (with Soviets becoming democratic bodies again).

[Lord Zentei]

Anyway, you were also pointing out the willingness of eastern European countries to enter NATO and how this went down badly in Russia -- can't you see how this argument might be turned on its head?

Yep. In fact, I am ready for such a turn of events. I think Eastern Europe will trade with us even more after the unification even if they will have political qualms.

You think that? Well; I disagree that unification will increase trade in and of itself, especially if it is done in such a way as to stoke bad memories -- economic revival is another criterion.

They will, in any case, be wanting even more NATO weapons, in such a case.

And they are justifiably criticized for that by their own residents.

That's not heard over diplomatic channels. It doesn't make international policy. However, official statements do. That's the difference. Who knows about someone out there saying "well, you should criticize this place too"? But everyone knows if say Cheney says "Hey, Russia EVUL!!"

And I'm not saying that these issues should be "ignored", but for Christ's sake, there are commitees in NGOs and UN branches which are dedicated to monitoring such things specifically and levelling criticism in all cases (at which they do a FAR better job than the governments which will be influenced anyway by political and economic considerations). I'm just proposing to leave the Caesar's to the caesar.

The UN is only as effective as its constituent states: it's really no more than a glorified forum.

In that case, the Soviet system was in fact abolished by Gorbachev.

There was little to dismantle in the "Soviet system" in the first place, the main feature was the monopoly of the communist party, the electoral laws just needed a bit of tweaking, and the Soviets became democratic organs (actually "Soviet" is council and was originally a democratic body, so Gorbachov merely restored the Soviets real functions). Without the monopoly of the CPSU, the Political Bureau and Central Commitee of the CPSU lost power as governing bodies and that was it. So the Soviet Union remained, and it even remained Soviet (with Soviets becoming democratic bodies again).

While the idea of the Soviet Union was for it to become a democratic ideal, the fact remains that it was made to be one party from the get go. The party, the administration and the soviets were to be tightly intergrated -- that was the Communist ideal, after all: utopia was acheived trough the autocracy of the proletariat, and these were to be represented through their party.

Unfortunately, that was not the road to democracy after all. So I'll agree that the changes were required to make the Soviets democratic, I take issue with the "again".

And yes, I know it means "council". Though it was my understanding that each of the soviets were appointed in turn by lower ranking soviets in a long heirachy, correct? Rule by a string of committees, yes?

[K. A. Pital]

While the idea of the Soviet Union was for it to become a democratic ideal, the fact remains that it was made to be one party from the get go.

The idea was that other democratic mechanisms instead of Parties will arise and the Party itself would lose meaning and dissolve after it had fulfilled it's task. The Party was the "vanguard" (as the more politically motivated part of the workers) but after it took power it didn't really want to dissolve itself - that actually boggled Lenin and he thought of putting constraints on various Soviet authority organs before his untimely death. So long, the Party never vanished but instead extended it's rule over the Soviets making them subservient. But basic idea behind the Soviets was that representative party democracy is not the only type of democracy there can be. And yes, Soviets were appointed from lowest to highest. I personally find this system superior to the idea of electing a ruling body on a nationwide scale where deputees want to get elected by all means, not to present useful policies. Especially since the general voter is so uninformed. But I guess we've been over that before.

The UN is only as effective as its constituent states: it's really no more than a glorified forum.

Someone funds the commitee personnel of the UN. And if constituent states want to criticize someone, doing so through the UN would be a good idea. In fact, the UN has always been a platform for diplomatic messages. Why not use it?

I disagree that unification will increase trade in and of itself, especially if it is done in such a way as to stoke bad memories -- economic revival is another criterion

Usually a stronger (economically) country can dictate trade terms more effectively. That's why I think the unification would be beneficial in international trade also.

[K. A. Pital]

P.S. Also, about the Soviets. Initially they were multiparty (in the R.S.F.S.R). The Civil War made them more and more subservient to the 1-party structure and effectively Stalin abolished the democratism in the Soviets.

[Lord Zentei]

The idea was that other democratic mechanisms instead of Parties will arise and the Party itself would lose meaning and dissolve after it had fulfilled it's task. The Party was the "vanguard" (as the more politically motivated part of the workers) but after it took power it didn't really want to dissolve itself - that actually boggled Lenin and he thought of putting constraints on various Soviet authority organs before his untimely death. So long, the Party never vanished but instead extended it's rule over the Soviets making them subservient. But basic idea behind the Soviets was that representative party democracy is not the only type of democracy there can be.

Quite so. Marx himself didn't outline how this transition from Socialism to the Communist utopia was to take place -- I guess neither he nor Lenin could conceive of the idea that while it is possible to be subjected to authoritarianism by kings, popes and generals, the guy next door can do the job just as nicely, given the opportunity. It's a very human capacity.

And yes, Soviets were appointed from lowest to highest. I personally find this system superior to the idea of electing a ruling body on a nationwide scale where deputees want to get elected by all means, not to present useful policies. Especially since the general voter is so uninformed. But I guess we've been over that before.

Indeed: my position remains that this is too much inertia, and that it is therefore not truly democratic. Six degrees of seperation exist between any two people on the planet, after all.

The UN is only as effective as its constituent states: it's really no more than a glorified forum.

Someone funds the commitee personnel of the UN. And if constituent states want to criticize someone, doing so through the UN would be a good idea. In fact, the UN has always been a platform for diplomatic messages. Why not use it?

I disagree that unification will increase trade in and of itself, especially if it is done in such a way as to stoke bad memories -- economic revival is another criterion

Usually a stronger (economically) country can dictate trade terms more effectively. That's why I think the unification would be beneficial in international trade also. [/quote]

Perhaps; I'd think that this increase in power might very well not be sufficient to prevent a new era of "containment" policies resulting in increased suspicion -- and now the Red Army isn't in Eastern Europe.

Anyway, it would be prudent to optimise favourable relations for any given level of intergration as I'm sure you'll agree -- and if invoking the USSR isn't needed for people in the 4 republics in question to see the benefit of such a union, why increase fears abroad?

P.S. Also, about the Soviets. Initially they were multiparty (in the R.S.F.S.R). The Civil War made them more and more subservient to the 1-party structure and effectively Stalin abolished the democratism in the Soviets.

You refer to the Civil War in 1917-1921? As in, when the Whites were defeated? In which Lenin forcibly abolished the Constituent Assembly? That Civil War? I thought that the Soviet Union was formally established in 1922 after this war was over.

[K. A. Pital]

You refer to the Civil War in 1917-1921? As in, when the Whites were defeated? In which Lenin forcibly abolished the Constituent Assembly? That Civil War? I thought that the Soviet Union was formally established in 1922 after this war was over.

Yeah, that Civil War. And "Lenin forcibly abolished" the Assembly? More like the Assembly lost legitimacy because a large part of the deputees refused to continue it's action which happened 5 Jan 1918, when the declaration on giving power to the Soviets was proposed by the bolsheviks. After the presiding deputees of the Assembly refused to discuss this Declaration, eser, bolsheviks and sevreal national leaders left the Assembly, which lost the quorum and thus any pretense at legitimacy. Lenin did not "forcibly" disband it, the session (already without quorum) ended and the deputees went away - without the quorum that day they "approved" of laws which abolished Soviet power and the results of the IInd Congress of Soviets. Next day the VTSIK abolished the Assembly. The Soviets were already established before that, and the whole war was between the Soviets as councils of the workers and those who favoured the Assembly which has acted against Soviets. So the Soviets existed well before the USSR did - in fact the USSR is nothing but a Union of Soviet Republics, most of them have formed on their own and the Soviets, too.

Perhaps; I'd think that this increase in power might very well not be sufficient to prevent a new era of "containment" policies resulting in increased suspicion -- and now the Red Army isn't in Eastern Europe.

Russians and to some extent the government see today's policies in Europe as "containment" already.

I guess neither he nor Lenin could conceive of the idea that while it is possible to be subjected to authoritarianism by kings, popes and generals, the guy next door can do the job just as nicely, given the opportunity

More like Marx just didn't have a clue (after all he was just proposing what could possibly happen in a crisis of capitalism and thought it would arise naturally just like capitalism overturned feudalism and feudalism overturned prior formation, etc). Lenin thought that the democratic checks within the Party (factions, centralism) and the Soviet's supreme ability to legislate should be enough to balance out, but apparently he was building the system with what was given (soviets, party, add state to the mix ) and went as it goes. He corrected it by experience. So when he died, he hardly could somehow influence the system's ultimate slide into authoritarianism - after all this was proceeding in new conditions which he probably had not even anticipated (he thought NEP would exist for a very long time before real socialism can be implemented).

[Lord Zentei]

You refer to the Civil War in 1917-1921? As in, when the Whites were defeated? In which Lenin forcibly abolished the Constituent Assembly? That Civil War? I thought that the Soviet Union was formally established in 1922 after this war was over.

Yeah, that Civil War. And "Lenin forcibly abolished" the Assembly? More like the Assembly lost legitimacy because a large part of the deputees refused to continue it's action which happened 5 Jan 1918, when the declaration on giving power to the Soviets was proposed by the bolsheviks. After the presiding deputees of the Assembly refused to discuss this Declaration, eser, bolsheviks and sevreal national leaders left the Assembly, which lost the quorum and thus any pretense at legitimacy. Lenin did not "forcibly" disband it, the session (already without quorum) ended and the deputees went away - without the quorum that day they "approved" of laws which abolished Soviet power and the results of the IInd Congress of Soviets. Next day the VTSIK abolished the Assembly.

So boycotting the assembly when it didn't do what they wanted, rendering it powerless and then having the VTSIK abolishing it is not forcible? Well.

The Soviets were already established before that, and the whole war was between the Soviets as councils of the workers and those who favoured the Assembly which has acted against Soviets. So the Soviets existed well before the USSR did - in fact the USSR is nothing but a Union of Soviet Republics, most of them have formed on their own and the Soviets, too.

You spoke of the R.S.F.S.R -- that didn't exist prior to the USSR, did it?

Anyway, regarding your point that the soviets were originally multiparty, and that the Civil War strengthened the one party system: that hardly absolves the Soviet Union -- which was what I specified, not councils in general.

Perhaps; I'd think that this increase in power might very well not be sufficient to prevent a new era of "containment" policies resulting in increased suspicion -- and now the Red Army isn't in Eastern Europe.

Russians and to some extent the government see today's policies in Europe as "containment" already.

That's nuts. At any rate I doubt that increasing suspicion would make things better, so I'm not sure where you are going with this... that you'll be "contained" anyway, so what is there to lose? Is that it?

I guess neither he nor Lenin could conceive of the idea that while it is possible to be subjected to authoritarianism by kings, popes and generals, the guy next door can do the job just as nicely, given the opportunity

More like Marx just didn't have a clue (after all he was just proposing what could possibly happen in a crisis of capitalism and thought it would arise naturally just like capitalism overturned feudalism and feudalism overturned prior formation, etc). Lenin thought that the democratic checks within the Party (factions, centralism) and the Soviet's supreme ability to legislate should be enough to balance out, but apparently he was building the system with what was given (soviets, party, add state to the mix ) and went as it goes. He corrected it by experience. So when he died, he hardly could somehow influence the system's ultimate slide into authoritarianism - after all this was proceeding in new conditions which he probably had not even anticipated (he thought NEP would exist for a very long time before real socialism can be implemented).

I would wonder at a man capable of creating something like the USSR who doesn't realize that a one party system cannot balance itself with only administrative organs to set against it, but I guess that would be redundant.


And I screwed this snippet up earlier:

The UN is only as effective as its constituent states: it's really no more than a glorified forum.

Someone funds the commitee personnel of the UN. And if constituent states want to criticize someone, doing so through the UN would be a good idea. In fact, the UN has always been a platform for diplomatic messages. Why not use it?

You do that too, as far as is possible. However, the UN is only so effective. Certainly its credibility tends to be strained when countries like Zimbabwe can be elected there to head committees on sustainable economic development.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6645715.stm

[K. A. Pital]

You spoke of the R.S.F.S.R -- that didn't exist prior to the USSR, did it?

Of course it did. The R.S.F.S.R. was formed on 7th November 1917. And the Soviets existed well prior to that - as grassroots commitees of workers, they sprung all around the Empire from 1905 to 1917 and then post-revolution.

So boycotting the assembly when it didn't do what they wanted, rendering it powerless and then having the VTSIK abolishing it is not forcible?

The Bolsheviks and Eser represented the Soviets and their power, the whole October Revolution of 1917 was done with the support of the Soviets and for "all power to the Soviets". The assembly on the other hand wanted to reject and destroy the Soviet power - no wonder that Bolsheviks and Eser who at that time answered to the Soviets, could not take part in such political debacle. If anything, this was a power crisis.

I'm not sure where you are going with this... that you'll be "contained" anyway, so what is there to lose? Is that it?

I'm just explaining why our government would hardly be bothered. Today "containment" or anything like that, any hostile act whatsoever, even a hostile speech, rallies the people behind the government. This allows the government to enjoy popular support - sometimes even when their economic successes are rather modest. No, I don't think this is a good situation either.

I would wonder at a man capable of creating something like the USSR who doesn't realize that a one party system cannot balance itself with only administrative organs to set against it, but I guess that would be redundant.

The core idea was that the Party is not the legislature, the Soviets are. In the Soviets (technically!), there could be independent deputees and a small fraction of partisans. This gives independent legislative power. More than that, the Supreme Soviet appoints the executives (SNK). The Soviets were really supposed to have all power, but the CPSU - even while it remained legal on paper - gradually made it so that only CPSU appoinees could be elected into the Soviets. This was an extra-legal action really, so I don't know if there could not have been balance if the Soviets retained their ability to act independently. The fact was that the SNK and CPSU grabbed power over the other branch (Soviets). This was all in a time of political uncertainty and turmoil - something like that happens in parialimentary or president republics also, one branch of power can take over the rest and make them subservient, there's plenty historical examples of that.

You do that too, as far as is possible. However, the UN is only so effective. Certainly its credibility tends to be strained when countries like Zimbabwe can be elected there to head committees on sustainable economic development.

That's pathetic. But it only happened in the first place because some other shithole nations voted for Zimbabwe. And I think the decision has been criticized inside the U.N. by those who opposed it.

[Lord Zentei]

You spoke of the R.S.F.S.R -- that didn't exist prior to the USSR, did it?

Of course it did. The R.S.F.S.R. was formed on 7th November 1917. And the Soviets existed well prior to that - as grassroots commitees of workers, they sprung all around the Empire from 1905 to 1917 and then post-revolution.

<facepalm> Apologies, I suffered a brainfart. Yes, of course it did. And I was just reading about this history shortly prior to our exchange. Shows you shouldn't post at 2:00 AM.

So boycotting the assembly when it didn't do what they wanted, rendering it powerless and then having the VTSIK abolishing it is not forcible?

The Bolsheviks and Eser represented the Soviets and their power, the whole October Revolution of 1917 was done with the support of the Soviets and for "all power to the Soviets". The assembly on the other hand wanted to reject and destroy the Soviet power - no wonder that Bolsheviks and Eser who at that time answered to the Soviets, could not take part in such political debacle. If anything, this was a power crisis.

Quite so -- though it is still pretty much a forcible abolishment, whatever the reasons for the crisis, IMHO.

I'm not sure where you are going with this... that you'll be "contained" anyway, so what is there to lose? Is that it?

I'm just explaining why our government would hardly be bothered. Today "containment" or anything like that, any hostile act whatsoever, even a hostile speech, rallies the people behind the government. This allows the government to enjoy popular support - sometimes even when their economic successes are rather modest. No, I don't think this is a good situation either.

Yes, I see. A result of the absence of an effective opposition.

I would wonder at a man capable of creating something like the USSR who doesn't realize that a one party system cannot balance itself with only administrative organs to set against it, but I guess that would be redundant.

The core idea was that the Party is not the legislature, the Soviets are. In the Soviets (technically!), there could be independent deputees and a small fraction of partisans. This gives independent legislative power. More than that, the Supreme Soviet appoints the executives (SNK). The Soviets were really supposed to have all power, but the CPSU - even while it remained legal on paper - gradually made it so that only CPSU appoinees could be elected into the Soviets. This was an extra-legal action really, so I don't know if there could not have been balance if the Soviets retained their ability to act independently. The fact was that the SNK and CPSU grabbed power over the other branch (Soviets). This was all in a time of political uncertainty and turmoil - something like that happens in parialimentary or president republics also, one branch of power can take over the rest and make them subservient, there's plenty historical examples of that.

Unfortunately there are.

But regardless, the point stands: the soviets were administrative organs; the Party was the only organized national entity that was ideologically driven which additionally supplies candidates to the soviets. You can't really have balance of power that way: the non-party members of the soviets could not act in concert. You need other parties for that.

You do that too, as far as is possible. However, the UN is only so effective. Certainly its credibility tends to be strained when countries like Zimbabwe can be elected there to head committees on sustainable economic development.

That's pathetic. But it only happened in the first place because some other shithole nations voted for Zimbabwe. And I think the decision has been criticized inside the U.N. by those who opposed it.

Yes, naturally it has. But it shows that a sufficient number of shithole nations can undermine the effectiveness of the body. And even here, criticisms in the UN can be dismissed as "hypocricy by the West" as anywhere else. And if the UN cannot do its job, countries must (as the UN derives its authority from the countries, rather than the reverse).

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, I see. A result of the absence of an effective opposition.

Quite. The only effective opposition that existed - the CPRF - after 1998 has fallen into malaise and lost votes in a deliberate Kremlin campaign of fracturing it. Today it's no longer in opposition, since aligning with the radicals like "Other Russia" can mean political suicide. The radical opposition ("Other Russia") is completely marginal and unappealing to the general public, I might even say repugnant. Myself being a part of the opposition, I can say that most of the problems stem from the apathy of the people and the inability of the opposition to appeal to the masses, detachement from the general opinions of the population.

But regardless, the point stands: the soviets were administrative organs; the Party was the only organized national entity that was ideologically driven which additionally supplies candidates to the soviets. You can't really have balance of power that way: the non-party members of the soviets could not act in concert.

The party itself wasn't united, and there were other parties in the Soviets initially. If not for the Civil War and the ban on fractions, IMHO the Soviets could well remain to be not only independent, but multi-party and multi-fraction. Only the authoritarian strenghening under Stalin placed all under control of the SNK, the executives. So technically Gorbachov only reversed those effects, the effects of Civil War and Stalin's supression of Soviet's independence. That was my point. He returned the Soviets to their 1917 situation when they were multiparty, multi-fraction and independent. I can also describe the Civil War and the later subversion of Soviets as unfortunate. After all, I think that Russia's Soviet experiment is not over (neither will it remain the only one) and probably there will be other attempts to implement the soviets as an administrative organ. I can see some of that being tried out in various countries.

P.S. I agree about the UN. The fact that nations have diverse interests and political alignments limits the UN's effectiveness and I don't think this will change any time soon.

[Lord Zentei]

The party itself wasn't united, and there were other parties in the Soviets initially. If not for the Civil War and the ban on fractions, IMHO the Soviets could well remain to be not only independent, but multi-party and multi-fraction. Only the authoritarian strenghening under Stalin placed all under control of the SNK, the executives.

Yes... the Mensheviks, part of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. I did mean, however, the Party was the only united apparatus following the formation of the USSR, as devised by Lenin. The other factions were booted out at that point.

Anyway, Stalin cannot be blamed for the factionalism being banned during the Civil War, so it was not only his authoritarianism that was to blame. The problem was, that given the Civil War was a result of the Soviets resisting curbs on their power by the Assembly (i.e. seperation of powers), and the ban on factionalism was a result of the Civil War, the consolidation of power seems to stem pretty clearly from the idea of "all power to the Soviets", no? Once the factions have been put down, could the powers within the Party who held most influence be reasonably be expected to reinstate them?

So technically Gorbachov only reversed those effects, the effects of Civil War and Stalin's supression of Soviet's independence. That was my point. He returned the Soviets to their 1917 situation when they were multiparty, multi-fraction and independent. I can also describe the Civil War and the later subversion of Soviets as unfortunate.

Stalin's supression -- and Lenin's consolidation too, to be fair, if you're going back to 1917.

After all, I think that Russia's Soviet experiment is not over (neither will it remain the only one) and probably there will be other attempts to implement the soviets as an administrative organ. I can see some of that being tried out in various countries.

Then we are back to the impasse of whether the soviets themselves are a good idea.

[Lord Zentei]

As for the referenda held in the various republics, and your assertion that the breakup was against the will of the majority... this Wiki seems to disagree, with regards to the Ukraine at least. Not that I place much stock in Wiki in general, of course, but...

[K. A. Pital]

The problem was, that given the Civil War was a result of the Soviets resisting curbs on their power by the Assembly (i.e. seperation of powers), and the ban on factionalism was a result of the Civil War, the consolidation of power seems to stem pretty clearly from the idea of "all power to the Soviets", no?

Certainly. That's just historical consequentialism, of course. If there were no assembly for example there'd be nothing which would resist the Soviet power in the first place, so there'd be no need for consolidation. The Assembly sought to eliminate Soviet power at all, while the Soviets thought to legitimize their power through the Assembly. These positions were mutually exclusive - hence, civil war. And Stalin can in fact be blamed for not restoring factionalism, since Lenin meant for the ban to be temporary. And yes, going back to 1917, the Soviets were still multi-party and the socialist and communist parties had factions. However, the Civil War changed that.

As for the referenda, I was talking about today's opinion polls (check the linko I gave to Mange), not the 1991 referendas (which were also extensively dicussed in the Yeltsin thread)

I personally think soviets are a good idea since they give lots of leverage to the common worker, though I must give other democratic mechanisms, like direct elections to higher bodies, due credit too - that is, if they are not dependent on money, i.e. public and equal funding and coverage for all candidates.

[Lord Zentei]

The problem was, that given the Civil War was a result of the Soviets resisting curbs on their power by the Assembly (i.e. seperation of powers), and the ban on factionalism was a result of the Civil War, the consolidation of power seems to stem pretty clearly from the idea of "all power to the Soviets", no?

Certainly. That's just historical consequentialism, of course. If there were no assembly for example there'd be nothing which would resist the Soviet power in the first place, so there'd be no need for consolidation. The Assembly sought to eliminate Soviet power at all, while the Soviets thought to legitimize their power through the Assembly. These positions were mutually exclusive - hence, civil war. And Stalin can in fact be blamed for not restoring factionalism, since Lenin meant for the ban to be temporary. And yes, going back to 1917, the Soviets were still multi-party and the socialist and communist parties had factions. However, the Civil War changed that.

It seems a bit disingenious to me to state that the precence of the Assemby was somehow to blame for the consolidation of power, since it represented a balance of power.

I personally think soviets are a good idea since they give lots of leverage to the common worker, though I must give other democratic mechanisms, like direct elections to higher bodies, due credit too - that is, if they are not dependent on money, i.e. public and equal funding and coverage for all candidates.

Given the multitude of layers their influence has to filter through, I rather doubt it. Moreover, there is the risk of economic ineficiency, since this way there is less chance of unproductive operations being scrapped, much in the way of systems with overstrong labour unions, except these would have administrative control also.

[K. A. Pital]

It seems a bit disingenious to me to state that the precence of the Assemby was somehow to blame for the consolidation of power, since it represented a balance of power.

That's simple. It was because the Assembly did not give power to Soviets - which were at that time multi party and multi faction. So if there was no civil conflict, most likely the factionalized Soviets would run the country. The same works the other way. If there were no Soviets, there would not be any other power sans the assembly.

Moreover, there is the risk of economic ineficiency, since this way there is less chance of unproductive operations being scrapped

The workers are also the consumers of produce so technically they should not produce something for which there is no demand; however, some think that the system of soviets can be improved by having consumer councils counterbalancing worker councils. As for the layers of influence, you can make the system 3 or 4 tier and have one of the members of the local (say, regional) council to serve at the supreme council. That way if he doesn't satisfy his local electorate he gets booted out.

[Lord Zentei]

It seems a bit disingenious to me to state that the precence of the Assemby was somehow to blame for the consolidation of power, since it represented a balance of power.

That's simple. It was because the Assembly did not give power to Soviets - which were at that time multi party and multi faction. So if there was no civil conflict, most likely the factionalized Soviets would run the country. The same works the other way. If there were no Soviets, there would not be any other power sans the assembly.

Not a given, since each of the soviets represented very specific groups. You deem that the consolidation of power would have been impossible without the Civil War, what with Lenin's radical course and rejection of any overtures to the Mensheviks and most of the Socialist Revolutionaries, insisting on a Communist revolition? Doesn't sound to me that he was very keen on pluralism.

And why should the Assembly hand over all power to the soviets? They represented their constituents. Seriously, the war started because the Bolsheviks wanted more power for the soviets (where the Bolsheviks held more influence) than the other factions were willing to give. Therefore, to describe the Civil War as a power grab by the Bolsheviks with the specific intent of instituting a Communist revolution is perfectly accurate.

Moreover, there is the risk of economic ineficiency, since this way there is less chance of unproductive operations being scrapped

The workers are also the consumers of produce so technically they should not produce something for which there is no demand; however, some think that the system of soviets can be improved by having consumer councils counterbalancing worker councils. As for the layers of influence, you can make the system 3 or 4 tier and have one of the members of the local (say, regional) council to serve at the supreme council. That way if he doesn't satisfy his local electorate he gets booted out.

Adding more complication to balance an unneccesary complication, that wouldn't be as effective as simply elimintating the initial complication.

[K. A. Pital]

You deem that the consolidation of power would have been impossible without the Civil War, what with Lenin's radical course and rejection of any overtures to the Mensheviks and most of the Socialist Revolutionaries, insisting on a Communist revolition?

The socialist revolution has already happened. Note that the Soviets themselves were pretty much divided.

And why should the Assembly hand over all power to the soviets? They represented their constituents.

The Assembly tried to ban Soviet power and it's representation (congress of Soviets) alltogether.

Seriously, the war started because the Bolsheviks wanted more power for the soviets (where the Bolsheviks held more influence) than the other factions were willing to give.

The October revolution was done with the idea of Soviet power. The other factions were willing to ban Soviet power which was unacceptable (to both Bolsheviks and left Eser). The Soviet power was much more potent and had a wider population appeal anyway, which is why the supporters of the constituent assembly lost - both the political struggle and the Civil War. The Whites were not even a solid group of Assembly supporters - more like a rag-tag band of anarchists, monarchists, Assembly supporters, military coupists acting against the Soviet power each for their own reasons and goals. The Bolsheviks managed to get a revolutionary army of 5,000,000 and the support of Soviets in densely-populated regions, while the Whites never managed to get more than several hundred thousand and relied on foreign intervents for supplies. The war was effectively a war between Soviets and their enemies. The Soviets won the Civil War, and there was not a shred of alternative actually since the Whites were weak, disunified and pursued various goals from the get-go.

The Soviets which initially could include any individual elected by locals, no matter Bolshevik or not, after the opposition from those favouring the Constituent Assembly as a power base (and thus seeking to undo the goal of the October Revolution), became thus increasingly less inclusive. Still a good measure of independence remained in their actions in the Lenin days and through the NEP.

Adding more complication to balance an unneccesary complication, that wouldn't be as effective as simply elimintating the initial complication.

That's downright silly, didn't expect that. The idea would be circumventing lobbyism and monetary influence on power, giving the commoner more leverage over power structures. What good is "eliminating the initial complication" if we don't achieve the needed goal? Hell, you could argue that democracy itself is an "unnecessary complication" if you don't take the goals for which the system was made into account.