[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
Is it always a good thing for a hegemonic power to break down? When the USSR broke up a lot of people were expecting good things to come from it. Instead Russia's more or less returned to dictatorship, most of the smaller former SSRs are dictatorships and/or mired in ethnic conflict, and there's the issue of what happens with the Russians the Soviet government had the desire to colonize non-Russian lands with it. Yet the USSR and its Romanov predecessor were hardly the most benevolent governments that have ever existed. Then there's Habsburg Austria and Austria-Hungary, which did a damn sight better ruling even the Austrians than its successor states have done. There's also the Ottoman Empire, which provided about 6 centuries of peace in the Middle East prior to its dismemberment. The USA, Canada, and Mexico establishing three imperial states has pretty much stifled feuding here on the Continent.

Yet what I don't understand is that some people at least appear to be enthusiastic about national self-determination, which is the root of the ills of places like Yugoslavia and the root of things like the Azeri Genocide and the Rwandan Genocide. So....which is better? A functional but somewhat-repressive multiethnic state or a nation-state democracy that gets that way after it ruthlessly exterminates all minorities it can and expels the ones it can't?
Page 1 of 3 << [1] [2] [3] >>

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 00:25 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] evildamsel.livejournal.com
Your use of the term "functional but somewhat repressive multi-ethnic state" lets USSR right out of this discussion.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 00:31 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
So....which is better? A functional but somewhat-repressive multiethnic state or a nation-state democracy that gets that way after it ruthlessly exterminates all minorities it can and expels the ones it can't?

Yes.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 00:36 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] debergerac.livejournal.com
define "better"

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 00:41 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] debergerac.livejournal.com
gunmetal grey would be more appropriate.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 00:51 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com
I have a Bulgarian friend who would not agree with you.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 00:52 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] evildamsel.livejournal.com
Uhm. Being MORE functional than a wreck doesn't mean it's functional. When your economy begins to heavily rely on barter, functional isn't the word I'd use.

And that somewhat repressive part? Yeah not so much.

Part of the reason the USSR collapsed was because it was trying to become less repressive and all the problems came tumbling out.

Now out of curiosity, why exactly do you feel like the only options are the repressive multi-ethnic state and the cleansed nation-state? There is room for middle ground. The problem we're running into with that area is that none of the changes are organic.

I have this theory if the tsarist Russia was allowed to slowly evolve, maybe it'd be nowhere near the state of the UK (I'd imagine it's be a constitutional monarchy type) but the structure for people's rights and other values we find important would be much more stable. (Not to mention they would have gotten to skip the joy of Stalin.) Course the communists preferred to make a big crazy fuss and destroy that particular path to freedom and democracy. I'm not sure at this point we can do anything but attempt to keep human rights violations on check, mind Russia's hungry maw and wait patiently for all those countries to find their way.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 01:04 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reflaxion.livejournal.com
I'd say any comparison depends on the situations you're looking at. I don't like dealing in absolutes.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 01:10 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] debergerac.livejournal.com
choices choices. the hitler in me would opt for the neat, clean efficiency of a pure nation state while the stalin in me wants the variety provided by a smorgasbord of ethnically diverse subservients.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 01:12 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] evildamsel.livejournal.com
Well we can't really know what would have happened if the communists hadn't gone psycho so I suppose we'd better stick to the reality we have. (Although I find building AUs kinda interesting.)

I see what you mean now but the USSR is not remotely an example of minor repression. The population movement was HEAVILY restricted. Never mind trying to move to a different place (and by that I mean moving from one city to another inside the USSR), citizens couldn't even leave the country on vacation. Choice of career was also limited, especially if you were Jewish - heavy university quotas. Access to goods and services? Better hope you know someone real important. Free press? Not at all. It was a totalitarian nightmare state. And I say that as someone who actually had a slightly better deal there because my grandparents were somewhat well placed so we had access to cheese, cold cuts and imported clothing.

I wouldn't wish the return of the USSR on anyone. (Especially not Putin but that's cause he'd enjoy it too much.)

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 01:12 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] evildamsel.livejournal.com
Now I'm having a bizarre vision of a Stalin/Hitler baby. Very odd mustache. Very odd.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 01:15 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com
Bulgaria was a puppet state controlled by the Soviet Union. My friend was in the military and took part in Warsaw Pact exercises. He said the Russian troops treated Bulgarians like crap; he and everyone in his unit despised the Russians. His father was murdered for holding moderate nationalist views in the Communist Party.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 01:18 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] debergerac.livejournal.com
hmmm, a hitler/stalin love child. curious mental image there.

anatomical difficulties notwithstanding, i'm sure it wouldn't have been hard to get them to fuck each other.

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 01:31 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] evildamsel.livejournal.com
But what would Eva think?

(no subject)

Date: 18/9/09 01:36 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] evildamsel.livejournal.com
That's probably my fault. I'm a little woozy so my reading comp may be off.

And certainly the Tsars weren't particularly benevolent. Part of the problem was that pretty much all the Romanovs were insane.

In any case, I don't think your question really has an answer. Actually I'm not sure I agree with your formulation. There are nations that are multi-ethnic and democratic, nations that are multi-ethnic and repressive, nations that are single-ethnic and democratic and nations that are single-ethnic and cleanse-obsessed. I don't think it matters whether the nation has multiple ethnicities. It matters how the nation treads the road to democracy - education, social evolution, etc. Some nations have handled it and others went crazy.
Page 1 of 3 << [1] [2] [3] >>

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."

July 2025

M T W T F S S
  123 456
78910 111213
1415 1617 181920
21222324252627
28293031