He was definitely a divisive leader. On one hand, he introduced great reforms that relaxed the tools of subjugation that the Soviet Union wielded against its people, worked to substantially reduce...
He was definitely a divisive leader. On one hand, he introduced great reforms that relaxed the tools of subjugation that the Soviet Union wielded against its people, worked to substantially reduce the number nuclear weapons in the world, ended the cold cold war, and by most accounts genuinely wanted the best for his people. On the other hand, he consolidated power within the politburo, violently suppressed peaceful protests within the Soviet world, and allowed the collapse of the Soviet empire, ushering in a decade of strife for millions. Even after his time in power, he embraced the annexation of Crimea despite his reservations about Putin's imperialist proclivities.
Broken record here, but part of it is just me reminding myself about the bias in my US-based early 90s education.... We tend to hear this as we are taught as youth that the Soviets (and insert any...
violently suppressed peaceful protests within the Soviet world
Broken record here, but part of it is just me reminding myself about the bias in my US-based early 90s education....
We tend to hear this as we are taught as youth that the Soviets (and insert any not-USA-friendly country) violently suppress protests/media, and thus should treat them as the 'bad guy other'.
When the reality is that the USA has its own sordid history (and present) of violent suppression of peaceful protests and unwanted speech. Those tend to be more concealed from teachings, if taught at all. Read up on "The Business Plot." Or how Philadelphia police bombed a city block in the 80's. Though the modern American speech suppression is mostly handled through propaganda, surviellance, and distraction.
The US state doesn't need to suppress socialist media because the broader populace has been indoctrinated to reject it immediately and ostracize those who don't. The internet has changed that somewhat.
Some food for thought: Are Putins actions in Ukraine really any significantly different than the US's actions towards Iran, Iraq, or Palestine over the last 20 years?
The answer is yes.. but there are also more similarities than the American public at large is willing to admit to themselves....thus making it worthwhile to inveatigate and ponder.
I thought for a bit about how to respond and whether to respond at all, because for the most part, I agree with you. It's just that I don't see how saying "America did bad too" is particularly...
I thought for a bit about how to respond and whether to respond at all, because for the most part, I agree with you.
It's just that I don't see how saying "America did bad too" is particularly relevant or useful in assessing the legacy of a Soviet statesman. In a lot of ways, I think it's incredibly hard to draw comparisons considering just how centralized the Soviet system was in comparison to the American one.
When I mentioned that he violently suppressed peaceful protests, I was referring to when he sent in Soviet troops and rolled in tanks against an unarmed populace in Riga and Vilnius in 1991. I was referring to how an estimated 200 people lost their lives in Kazakhstan during a mass protest 1986. This wasn't just a bad thing he did, this was the norm for the Soviet Union. While far more common than it should be, violence against protestors isn't policy in the United States, and is certainly not directed by the federal government.
The MOVE bombings, as horrific as they are, occurred during a firefight, and city had to pay damages for committing such an atrocity. I'm not saying that there was justice in the end, far from it, but it's a lot closer than the former Soviet republics will ever get from Russia. They're debating whether or not Gorbachev is worthy of a state funeral or a monument.
The Soviet Union was not the backwards dystopian nightmare that American Cold War propaganda likes to paint it as (except perhaps under Stalin). I know it's anecdotal, but my wife's grandfather retired early due to injury, collects a pension he can live on, and was given an apartment in Moscow because he was one of the construction workers who helped build them. His healthcare is free and his public transport is subsidized heavily. These are all things he received under the Soviet system that's carried over to today. It would be unheard of in the United States.
But that isn't to say that the US and Soviet systems were equivalent. Freedoms were heavily restricted in the Soviet Union. Corruption was rampant, even at the lower levels. The police could beat you to death for not paying a bribe to get out of a crime you didn't commit, and your family would have zero real recourse. We talk about police brutality in America as a rampant issue, especially for minorities, because it's a very real, very terrible thing. People agitate and march in the streets to what can feel like deaf ears. But in Soviet times, you couldn't even talk about it, except in whispers between neighbors.
As a side note, I know Americans like to tie every issue and world event back to themselves, but I think we need to be careful about creating any semblance of equivalence between authoritarian regimes and the free world. Russian and Chinese propaganda thrive when they can get the people to draw comparisons create equivalences.
I'm not saying we shouldn't interrogate our own systems or expose and pick apart our own injustices and flaws, but I do believe we should be mindful of the contexts in which we do them. If we're assessing the wrongdoing of any system or actor, it can be a detrimental distraction to draw attention towards different issues in a different place, if that makes sense.
I do want to say that despite all that, I'm grateful that you took the time to share your views and added citations. I think it definitely adds value to the community to have voices like yours around.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is to miss the funeral of the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, denying the man who failed to prevent the collapse of the Soviet empire the full state honours granted to Boris Yeltsin.
Gorbachev, idolised in the West for allowing eastern Europe to escape Soviet communist control but unloved at home for the chaos that his "perestroika" reforms unleashed, will be buried on Saturday after a public ceremony in Moscow's Hall of Columns.
The grand hall, within sight of the Kremlin, hosted the funerals of Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and Leonid Brezhnev. Gorbachev will be given a military guard of honour - but his funeral will not be a state one.
State television on Thursday showed Putin solemnly placing red roses beside Gorbachev's coffin - left open as is traditional in Russia - in Moscow's Central Clinical Hospital, where he died on Tuesday aged 91.
Putin made a sign of the cross in Russian Orthodox fashion before briefly touching the edge of the coffin.
"Unfortunately, the president's work schedule will not allow him to do this on Sept. 3, so he decided to do it today," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
He said Gorbachev's ceremony would have "elements" of a state funeral, and that the state was helping to organise it.
Nevertheless, it will be a marked contrast to the funeral of Yeltsin, who was instrumental in sidelining Gorbachev as the Soviet Union fell apart and hand-picked Putin, a career KGB intelligence officer, as the man most suited to succeed him.
When Yeltsin died in 2007, Putin declared a national day of mourning and, alongside world leaders, attended a grand state funeral in Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.
Smithsonian Magazine released a short but information dense summary of Gorbechev's life and legacy, that also serves as a good jumping-off point for further reading due to all the related...
Smithsonian Magazine released a short but information dense summary of Gorbechev's life and legacy, that also serves as a good jumping-off point for further reading due to all the related citations and hyperlinks scattered throughout, if anyone is interested in that.
He was definitely a divisive leader. On one hand, he introduced great reforms that relaxed the tools of subjugation that the Soviet Union wielded against its people, worked to substantially reduce the number nuclear weapons in the world, ended the cold cold war, and by most accounts genuinely wanted the best for his people. On the other hand, he consolidated power within the politburo, violently suppressed peaceful protests within the Soviet world, and allowed the collapse of the Soviet empire, ushering in a decade of strife for millions. Even after his time in power, he embraced the annexation of Crimea despite his reservations about Putin's imperialist proclivities.
he was a complex dude
Broken record here, but part of it is just me reminding myself about the bias in my US-based early 90s education....
We tend to hear this as we are taught as youth that the Soviets (and insert any not-USA-friendly country) violently suppress protests/media, and thus should treat them as the 'bad guy other'.
When the reality is that the USA has its own sordid history (and present) of violent suppression of peaceful protests and unwanted speech. Those tend to be more concealed from teachings, if taught at all. Read up on "The Business Plot." Or how Philadelphia police bombed a city block in the 80's. Though the modern American speech suppression is mostly handled through propaganda, surviellance, and distraction.
The US state doesn't need to suppress socialist media because the broader populace has been indoctrinated to reject it immediately and ostracize those who don't. The internet has changed that somewhat.
Some food for thought: Are Putins actions in Ukraine really any significantly different than the US's actions towards Iran, Iraq, or Palestine over the last 20 years?
The answer is yes.. but there are also more similarities than the American public at large is willing to admit to themselves....thus making it worthwhile to inveatigate and ponder.
I thought for a bit about how to respond and whether to respond at all, because for the most part, I agree with you.
It's just that I don't see how saying "America did bad too" is particularly relevant or useful in assessing the legacy of a Soviet statesman. In a lot of ways, I think it's incredibly hard to draw comparisons considering just how centralized the Soviet system was in comparison to the American one.
When I mentioned that he violently suppressed peaceful protests, I was referring to when he sent in Soviet troops and rolled in tanks against an unarmed populace in Riga and Vilnius in 1991. I was referring to how an estimated 200 people lost their lives in Kazakhstan during a mass protest 1986. This wasn't just a bad thing he did, this was the norm for the Soviet Union. While far more common than it should be, violence against protestors isn't policy in the United States, and is certainly not directed by the federal government.
The MOVE bombings, as horrific as they are, occurred during a firefight, and city had to pay damages for committing such an atrocity. I'm not saying that there was justice in the end, far from it, but it's a lot closer than the former Soviet republics will ever get from Russia. They're debating whether or not Gorbachev is worthy of a state funeral or a monument.
The Soviet Union was not the backwards dystopian nightmare that American Cold War propaganda likes to paint it as (except perhaps under Stalin). I know it's anecdotal, but my wife's grandfather retired early due to injury, collects a pension he can live on, and was given an apartment in Moscow because he was one of the construction workers who helped build them. His healthcare is free and his public transport is subsidized heavily. These are all things he received under the Soviet system that's carried over to today. It would be unheard of in the United States.
But that isn't to say that the US and Soviet systems were equivalent. Freedoms were heavily restricted in the Soviet Union. Corruption was rampant, even at the lower levels. The police could beat you to death for not paying a bribe to get out of a crime you didn't commit, and your family would have zero real recourse. We talk about police brutality in America as a rampant issue, especially for minorities, because it's a very real, very terrible thing. People agitate and march in the streets to what can feel like deaf ears. But in Soviet times, you couldn't even talk about it, except in whispers between neighbors.
As a side note, I know Americans like to tie every issue and world event back to themselves, but I think we need to be careful about creating any semblance of equivalence between authoritarian regimes and the free world. Russian and Chinese propaganda thrive when they can get the people to draw comparisons create equivalences.
I'm not saying we shouldn't interrogate our own systems or expose and pick apart our own injustices and flaws, but I do believe we should be mindful of the contexts in which we do them. If we're assessing the wrongdoing of any system or actor, it can be a detrimental distraction to draw attention towards different issues in a different place, if that makes sense.
I do want to say that despite all that, I'm grateful that you took the time to share your views and added citations. I think it definitely adds value to the community to have voices like yours around.
Putin denies Gorbachev a state funeral and will stay away (Reuters)
Smithsonian Magazine released a short but information dense summary of Gorbechev's life and legacy, that also serves as a good jumping-off point for further reading due to all the related citations and hyperlinks scattered throughout, if anyone is interested in that.
The Contradictory Legacy of Mikhail Gorbachev