Resurrecting National Pride
On a theoretical level it would make sense. Take ants, for example, or bees, both of which species appear to have somehow created their own little societies where all its creatures work together in a concert of co-operation for the furtherance and preservation of their species. The social order being that of the collective; personal attainment and entitlement is absent. The sacrifice of self for the betterment of the entire society is programmed and highly successful.If ants and bees, supposedly lesser creatures in intelligence and aspiration than humans, could create such co-operation, why not humans? Perhaps because we are too intelligent and too aspiring, too invested in our own success for anything remotely socialist to be successful. We are not, in the aggregate, given to tamping down our own ambition for the greater good of the community. We are capable of achieving what we will, individually, and then extending ourselves toward the community.
Under Communism the collective was thought to be the way in which a higher social order of equality and social progress could be attained. Unfortunately, while this line of reasoning was fed to the working class - the intelligentsia and the bourgeoisie having been eliminated because of their propensity to ask too many inconvenient questions about legitimacy and human nature denied - the political rulers felt themselves exempt from personal sacrifice.
To them would come all the perquisites and entitlements of superior beings who administered the affairs of the great unwashed. Still, the thought was good. If only human beings were not psychically programmed by nature otherwise, in a manner diametrically opposed to what was being proposed. Collectivization simply did not work; agriculture workers, factory workers, had nothing to show for their personal effort, and decided therefore to withhold that effort.
While the Russian overseer of the U.S.S.R. availed itself of the resources of its allies under its protective umbrella, somehow leaving its satellites short of necessities to ensure it had sufficient itself unto the day. And the state subsidized the fundamental necessities for its people in good times. Vladimir Putin has long mused about what a tragedy it was that Nikita Khruschev led the way in denouncing Josef Stalin, after his death, as a murderous monster and a totalitarian dictator.
Feeling that rehabilitation of the reputation of one of Russia's greatest legislators was in order, he undertook personally to restore confidence in the history of Russia, and its great experiment in Communism and the Soviet Socialist Republic. Russia's collaboration with Nazi Germany is glossed over as a necessity, under dire circumstances. Russia's occupation of its neighbours in a broad hegemonic move for greater sovereignty was another valuable lesson in history.
There were, of course, some unfortunate things that occurred; the party purges, mass starvation, the gulags, but all countries make mistakes, and some make even more grievous errors in judgement than did Russia and its benevolent dictator, Stalin. It's kind of hard to argue with Mr. Putin's statement: "But other countries have also known their bleak and terrible moments.
"In any event, we have never used nuclear weapons against civilians, and we have never dumped chemicals on thousands of kilometres of land or dropped more bombs on a tiny country than were dropped during the Second world War, as was the case in Vietnam". So pick your poison. Possession of nuclear armaments, but persuaded by 'mutually assured destruction' that discretion is the better part of valour.
One supposes the real difference between the then-two-superpowers was that Soviet Russia wrought human rights abuses internally, upon its own people, upon its satellites, and in the process millions upon millions died. With the United States, the damage that was done was largely to other countries, for the United States has never been invaded, always fought wars outside its geographical boundaries.
The United States portrays itself as a defender of liberty, of freedom of expression, of equality and democracy and the right to practise economic capitalism. It has a kind of strength of character, of a fundamental acknowledgement of right triumphing over wrong, of moral rectitude that escapes the Russian establishment, even if America has often, all too often, forgotten its moral compass and caused limitless suffering elsewhere in the world.
And Mr. Khruschev had it right. As has his great-granddaughter, who wrote "At bottom, our people and our leaders share a belief that only authoritarian rule can protect the country from anarchy and disintegration. Russians look back fondly on their great victories and parades and, eventually, after short periods of thaw or perestroika, find themselves wanting their 'strong' rulers back."
Labels: Human Rights, Political Realities, Russia
posted by Pieface @ Monday, September 07, 2009
<< Home