# Forum About Russia Politics  "Cold" War: Who was the winner?

## Inna

Dear All, 
This topic is to find out international public opinion. Cold war' winner is always a matter of opinion. 
I should be obliged to have you detached view.

----------


## Victor

There is no answer to it I guess. But just ad notum the USSR has collapsed. Maybe this is the consequence of that COld War. If we had tried to keep going on arming it would've been even worse because things had been reaching the crisis. It's all over I think.

----------


## garmonistka

I don't believe there are any winners re. the cold war   ::  , except of course for the fatcats on both sides, who did well and continue to do well at the expense of others... I suppose US strategists got what they wanted: unlimited and practically unconditional access to the USSR's underbelly of strategically crucial republics. The US en EU arms companies rub their hands in glee, because the new standard in these republics is western gear. It is dead easy for any "western" "humanitarian" organisations to get substantial grants to work in these areas.  
Countries and people refusing to play the ball game are demonised consistently by mainstream "pro-market/democratic" mass media. Just look at Belarus.  
I think people from many various countries are responsible for this state of affairs. No country is perfect, and most people with wealth like improving on it at the expense of others, whatever country they are in.  
Sorry, I seem to have started ranting   ::

----------


## Koba

Мы Русские, проиграли эту войну. А победителей в ней и быть не могло.  ::  Слабый горбачёв начал развал, который до сих пор не остановить.
Мир стал однополярным, США больше никто не сдерживает. 
Хотя, убив дракона, победитель сам становится драконом.  ::

----------


## Scorpio

Absolutely agree with garmonistka. I doubt there's a winners in the cold war. There's an obvious loser: the world. In the cold war times it seemed to be more stable and predictable place, than now. Anyway, "Cold war" is always better than hot wars. 
To Koba: Не-а, они всегда драконами и были. Но я надеюсь, что на каждого дракона найдется свой Ланселот.   ::

----------


## N

> Мы Русские, проиграли эту войну.

 Agree.   

> А победителей в ней и быть не могло.

 Disagree. Где логика? У Вас получается "мы проиграли, но никто не выиграл". Запад победил, зачем розовые очки надевать.   

> Мир стал однополярным, США больше никто не сдерживает.

 Это не надолго. Свято место пусто не бывает.    

> Хотя, убив дракона, победитель сам становится драконом.

 Это мы что-ли были драконом? Совсем дисагри.

----------


## Koba

Представте, что обе стороны применили ядерное оружие. Холодная война переросла в ядерную. 
Пусть оправдались все прогнозы,относительно ядерной зимы.
Пусть СССР исчез, вместе с Европой. Над остальным миром наступила ядерная зима.
Кто будет побидителем?

----------


## N

В том то вся и соль, что война была "холодной". В горячей победителей бы не было, но они сумели победить и без обычного или ядерного оружия, потому, что это была совсем другая война - психологическая, информационно-пропагандистская. И они сумели ее выиграть.  Противник (то есть мы) был полностью деморализован, верхи разложились и предали, так что бомбы и не понадобились.

----------


## mike

You crazy kids probably don't remember, but the older folk probably do: there used to be a term used back in the Cold War called "balance of power."  Politicians used to say it was good (publicly, anyway) that there were two superpowers because this "balance of power" was maintained at all times, and in the absence of this there would be a vacuum that would lead to a horrible increase in authority for the other with nothing to check its power.  Whether or not this has happened you can be the judge of.  This polarization of power was both stable and instable depending on how you look at it.  On one hand the threat of nuclear annihilation of the planet by someone who could simply hit a few buttons, or perhaps a malfunctioning computer, loomed over everyone for half a century.  On the other hand, people were so afraid of this happening that the conventional wars of the 19th century were all but avoided (and replaced by containment programs and illegal funding of foreign guerrilla/paramilitary groups)--although of course the creation of the UN also played a hefty role in this leaping progress of civilization that should not be understated.  So are things better now or then?  This and the question of who are the "winners" is hard to say, and subjective to the individual rather than the whole.  Perhaps a more relevant question to ask is whether or not the Cold War is really over, or has just changed its name to "The Open-Ended Global War on Terrorism."  Cold War spending/organization certainly never ended after 1991, nor did the Cointelpro BS that has simply shifted jurisdiction from the FBI to local JTTF/OHS branches.

----------


## Линдзи

I think the James Bond franchise was the real winner in the Cold War.

----------


## mike

Were those movies popular in Russia at the time?  I mean, I know they must've had them because Visotskiy wrote a song about James Bond, but were they liked?

----------


## Zeus

> Were those movies popular in Russia at the time?  I mean, I know they must've had them because Visotskiy wrote a song about James Bond, but were they liked?

 Do you know the song?  ::  All this song is about that nobody knew James Bond  ::

----------


## Inna

You are partially right. It was communism collapse. But I think this war seems to be endless (Dallas plan implementation, for examp., or Iraq war – SHOW and so on). As for arms race, Russia and most of former-soviet countries have no capacity  for military-industrial complex development. Most of them must just listen and carry out what US and EU say to do. They have no choice. The most interesting they do nothing to change the situation. Russia keeps silence. Mr Putin says : Nothing wrong, everything is ok, Russia  & US = friendship forever. Tell me what does it mean? Or maybe Russia in hibernation? Is it so funny politic game?
Belarus Republic looks like a crazy, strongly blind drunk bear. Sometimes when I see Mr Lukashenko it seems to me there is a crazy house.
As for “fat cats”, they all will play by humans lifes because of money. From time to time I ask myself: “If it is war, I have much money, being fat cat, will I plan the same games as the play. It is awful but I say “yes”. 
As for now, I could say that US is the winner and the whole world is the loser.

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by mike  Were those movies popular in Russia at the time?  I mean, I know they must've had them because Visotskiy wrote a song about James Bond, but were they liked?   Do you know the song?  All this song is about that nobody knew James Bond

 I know it, but I don't really understand it...

----------


## Zeus

> I know it, but I don't really understand it...

 Подумаешь, агентишко какой-то!
У нас в девятом - принц из Сомали!   ::  Hey, Pravit, are you still there?  ::

----------


## joysof

does anybody else mourn the Cold War, in a way? 
The fall of the Iron Curtain sounded a death knell not just for totalitarian government in Europe (hurrah), but also for Western (and perhaps Eastern?) ideology. This, I think, was not such a positive side-effect. The mess were in now is a mess made of global plutocracy. 
Hey, at least we knew who the enemy was. And so did they. 
And it must have given people such a *frisson* to cross from one side to another. I've had many a Guy Burgess fantasy (not *that* sort of Guy Burgess fantasy!). 
Just a thought. 
As for the winner: sub-saharan Africa. The CCCP did wonders for literacy in those parts.  ::

----------


## Pravit

> Originally Posted by mike  I know it, but I don't really understand it...   Подумаешь, агентишко какой-то!
> У нас в девятом - принц из Сомали!   Hey, Pravit, are you still there?

 агентишко какой-то...  ::   ::   
Конечно вам стоит помнить, что вас удостаивает присутствия сам принц из Сомали. Однако, ему пришлось переехать в Киргизстан чтобы жениться на киргизстанской принцессе. Теперь можете его звать Великий принц чудесного рога Африки и бесподобной драгоценности Центральной Азии, который правит с твердой, но благожелательная, рукой, защитник всех Сомалцов и честный союзник Киргизстана, и т.д., и т.д., или по-краткому Принц Сомали и Киргизстана.  
Кстати, принцу Сомали интересно знать, что имеешь в виду с "у нас в девятом"....  ::   ::   ::   
Что касается заявления господина joysof, принц Сомали благодарен добрым господинам из СССР которые ему учили читать и писать и говорить по-русски,  и которые ему подарили чудесное количество оружий того умного конструктора автоматов, господин-товарищ Калашников, и прекрасный подарок весьма удобных реактивных противотанковых гранометов. Большое спасибо из самого принца Сомали.

----------


## joysof

But, then again, at least they can *spell* Kalashnikov these days. 
I'm not sure I hold with this notion that it's the guns which kill people.

----------


## mike

> As for the winner: sub-saharan Africa. The CCCP did wonders for literacy in those parts.

 It also introduced the radical new concept of not treating women like shit.   

> I'm not sure I hold with this notion that it's the guns which kill people.

 Good.  You two can battle it out in private messages all the live long day.  Anything unrelated to *Russian* politics will be deleted.

----------


## Zeus

> Кстати, принцу Сомали интересно знать, что имеешь в виду с "у нас в девятом"....

 Это не я. Это из той самой песни Выс.цкого. Имеется в виду, в девятом номере гостиницы. Спрашивай, если что в словах не понятно. В другом топике. Песня несложная и хорошая  ::  
Маленькие исправления (не все). Думаю, это в любом топике можно  ::  
>защитник всех Сомалцов 
Сомалийцев 
>господинам из СССР которые ему учили читать 
господам из СССР, которые [на]учили его читать 
>подарили чудесное количество оружий 
...оружия. Оружие - слово только единственного числа. Примерно как aircraft. 
>того умного конструктора автоматов, господин-товарищ Калашников 
В этом случае надо склонять (родительный падеж) ВСЕ слова: 
того... конструктора автоматов, господина-товарища Калашникова. 
Кстати, я с Калашниковым лично встречался :P Он в Ижевске живет. Это Удмуртия, предуралье, 1000 км на восток от Москвы. 
>Большое спасибо из самого принца Сомали. 
...от самого...

----------


## Ger

> You are partially right. It was communism collapse. But I think this war seems to be endless (Dallas plan implementation, for examp., or Iraq war – SHOW and so on). As for arms race, Russia and most of former-soviet countries have no capacity  for military-industrial complex development. Most of them must just listen and carry out what US and EU say to do. They have no choice. The most interesting they do nothing to change the situation. Russia keeps silence. Mr Putin says : Nothing wrong, everything is ok, Russia  & US = friendship forever. Tell me what does it mean? Or maybe Russia in hibernation? Is it so funny politic game?
> Belarus Republic looks like a crazy, strongly blind drunk bear. Sometimes when I see Mr Lukashenko it seems to me there is a crazy house.
> As for “fat cats”, they all will play by humans lifes because of money. From time to time I ask myself: “If it is war, I have much money, being fat cat, will I plan the same games as the play. It is awful but I say “yes”. 
> As for now, I could say that US is the winner and the whole world is the loser.

 Война не проиграна. Война продолжается!
Иначе бы вокруг России не выстраивалась цепь военных баз, до сих пор.
И нового мирового порядка не будет.
Посмотрим на Францию с Германией. Брыкаются, пинаются с США, отступают и чуть момент улучшился снова начинают. Это все таки показатель. Не то что раньше - сидели и дадакали действиям США.
Насчет Путина. Слова они все стерпят. По действиям судите, по действиям. А действия то они уж не такие дружелюбные.

----------


## Scorpio

> Were those movies popular in Russia at the time?  I mean, I know they must've had them because Visotskiy wrote a song about James Bond, but were they liked?

 Not so much popular. That's just the point of VV's song about Sean Connery visiting Moscow (if it's the one you mention): he expected the crowds of fans, and was quite shocked discovering he was almost unknown in USSR. (True story, AFAIK).

----------


## emka71aln

How about the idea of the European Union winning the Cold War?  After the collapse of the USSR, there was very little challenge to the US's world-wide "influence" until the European Union started trying to assert it's muscle in world affairs.  They're growing so fast now, that they have as much a chance as anyone to prosper and, if they can ever agree on something, act as a world super-power.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

I don't see that happening any time soon and, if it weren't for the need to balance the US out a bit, I can't say I mind... We don't need soldiers dying in far away deserts or jungles. I'm pretty happy as it is, thank you very much. So we don't have the power and/or will to support dubious rebel groups, kick out evil dictators _that don't see it our way_ and tell other nations they should comply with our wishes or get trashed. I can live with that.

----------


## emka71aln

How about as an economic power, though?  If someone could overtake the US economically, these silly wars would be much harder for her to afford, and they would eventually have to either get international support (which they likely wouldn't) or stop.  Seems that the EU could have the ability to provide as much economic threat to the US as the USSR posed a military threat.  I'm not much of a politician, though, so I could be way off an never know it if nobody told me.

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

Economically the EU already forms a strong bloc against the US. There have been numerous trade wars between the two sides already. But these wars never get out of hand for the same reason as the Cold War never went out of hand: such a "total war" would destroy us all! With globalism, our economies are so strongly connected that any actions against the other side would hurt the one imposing the sanctions almost just as hard.

----------


## Jasper May

And we are so interdependent of each other, that we would never start a war. And of course our systems of government are the same.

----------


## mike

You're slowly veering away from the topic, guys.  Just a reminder.

----------


## emka71aln

Well, this might not steer us back, but while we're on the subject.... Is Russia likely to ever join the EU, and if it does, how fast will it become a dominating power in it?

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

Not in the near future. I think Russia will form her own sphere of economic cooperation in which most of the former Soviet republics will be integrated. If Russia were to join the EU one day, I'd say she'd be one of the leading nations.

----------


## Jasper May

Russia'll only be one of the leading nations because of their nuclear weapons... For example the purchasing power parity of Russia is only 3 times as many as Holland's, while Russia has some 10 times as many inhabitants. And, even more alarming, Holland's budget is *twice* as large as Russia's. (source: www.cia.gov)

----------


## Gollandski Yozh

Well, I _assume_ Russia will evolve and the Russian economy will grow. Russia has more potential for growth than the West. They won't catch up in the next 25 years or so, but given their population, they, economically speaking, will sure be a force to be reckoned with in the near future.

----------


## DrRick

One other point. The US had the official policy during the Cold War of Mutually Assured Destruction ("M.A.D." -- no joke, I once met the man who created the doctrine, and talked with him about it at length). "If both sides can completely destroy the other, peace will continue." This is part of that dark cloud that hung over all of us during the "Cold War." 
The race to maintain balance in nukes nearly bankrupted the USSR; hence the decline of infrastructure which continues today. 
Today both sides are destroying nukes, and in light of Iraq, the US is also busy destroying its chemical weapons. 
The world is more unstable, but the total destruction of the planet through MAD is a thing of the past. Слава Богу.

----------


## bad manners

> The race to maintain balance in nukes nearly bankrupted the USSR; hence the decline of infrastructure which continues today.

 That is not quite correct. It was the conventional arms race that destroyed the USSR. The tanks, the aircraft, the spacecraft, the ships and submarines. Under the same MAD doctrine none of that was necessary -- well, except the strike submarines perhaps -- but the USSR went on. That and the "industrial" race, remember that the USSR had or wanted to produce everything.

----------


## Dynamo

The U.S.S.R. is a prime example of why Communism doesn't work. It denies the people the very thing that makes industry and economy flourish--creativity. People living under Communism are not allowed to be creative. Their ideas are stifled. All they do is what they are told to do, so they become robots, slaves of the state. There is no democracy, there is no freedom, no creativity. So while in the short term Communist societies may flourish, in the long term there is no improvement in the economy. In a Democracy the people are always coming out with new ideas and new products that are embraced by the public and the government. People don't like being trapped in a shell, only doing what they are told to do for fear of the consequences if they don't. That is why a Democracy can outdo a Communist society.

----------


## JJ

> The U.S.S.R. is a prime example of why Communism doesn't work.

 Yeah, sure and the second example is P.R.C. where communism doesn't work too.  ::   The GDP is growing there for 8% per year.   

> People living under Communism are not allowed to be creative. Their ideas are stifled.

  But why the best movies and books were created in the USSR, and there is nothing to create right now instead of advertising, soap operas and advertising again?   

> All they do is what they are told to do, so they become robots, slaves of the state. There is no democracy, there is no freedom, no creativity. So while in the short term Communist societies may flourish, in the long term there is no improvement in the economy.

 This is a demagogy. Just look at P.R.C.   

> ... People don't like being trapped in a shell, only doing what they are told to do for fear of the consequences if they don't. That is why a Democracy can outdo a Communist society.

 So what about PRC? 1 200 000 000 population, GDP - $5.989 trillion, GDP growth rate 8%, 51% of GDP is industry and construction. USA - GDP $10.45 trillion, GDP growth rate is 2.4% and 80% of GDP is services. In 5-10 years the biggest economy in the world will be China.

----------


## joysof

> Just look at P.R.C.

 http://www.hrw.org/asia/china.php  
Just *look* at the People's Republic of China, JJ.

----------


## JJ

> http://www.hrw.org/asia/china.php
> Just *look* at the People's Republic of China, JJ.

 So what? What are you wating from human's right watch? Don't you think that "democratic" organization tells the truth to you about opposite social system? I lived in the USSR and I know more about human's rights in Communism  than you and I bet the Chinees reality is not much worse. Now I live in "democracy" and I see that a lot of things changed for the worse. The HRW are liars.

----------


## bad manners

> The U.S.S.R. is a prime example of why Communism doesn't work. It denies the people the very thing that makes industry and economy flourish--creativity. People living under Communism are not allowed to be creative.

 What you are saying is but idiocy. How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?   

> Their ideas are stifled. All they do is what they are told to do, so they become robots, slaves of the state.

 Right. So the party says, for example, "this man must orbit the Earth", and the designers, having no creativity whatsoever, just do it somehow, correct? They don't invent anything, they just do as they are told.

----------


## TronDD

> How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?

 It's not that it is disallowed, it is stiffled. 
If everyone recieves equal share of the nation's resources, there is no motivation to try hard.  You work you ass off everyday only to earn the same as lazy slacker next to you?  Doesn't take long to kill the morale of the hard worker. 
The fantasy of Communism is that people will work hard for the good of the community but that just doesn't happen. 
And, BTW, Democracy is not the opposite of Communism.  Laise-faire Capitalim is. 
Tim.

----------


## joysof

> The HRW are liars.

 I'll take their word over your 'experience', if you don't mind.   

> I bet the Chinees reality is not much worse.

 Oh, you 'bet', do you? Smacks of speculation to me. Do your research.

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by bad manners  How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?   It's not that it is disallowed, it is stiffled. 
> If everyone recieves equal share of the nation's resources, there is no motivation to try hard.

 Why am I trying hard here to help you and the others to learn Russian? 
Or do you think that Sakharov chose to be a physicist because he expected enormous material gains?   

> The fantasy of Communism is that people will work hard for the good of the community but that just doesn't happen.

 Of course it does not, when the most powerful country in the world and her satellites spend fifty years doing everything to counter that.   

> And, BTW, Democracy is not the opposite of Communism.  Laise-faire Capitalim is.

 You should have told that to Dynamo.

----------


## bad manners

> The HRW are liars.
> 			
> 		  I'll take their word over your 'experience', if you don't mind.

 Why, if you don't mind? Because the name of that organization is more democratic? Or because the speculations of that organization fit your perception of China? Which are formed by the speculations of the equally democratic media?

----------


## joysof

> Or do you think that Sakharov chose to be a physicist because he expected enormous material gains?

 No, of course he didn't. He did, however, find himself in Gorky/Nizhny Novgorod against his will.  
Does that not constitute suppression?   

> How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?

 Mandelstam paid for a poem with his life; Tsvetaeva was forbidden to publish; Bulgakov had most of his plays suppressed and his best work wasn't published until long after his death. If you want more examples, I'll provide them: there are hundreds, after all. 
Taken together, all of these things would seem to serve as a disincentive to unorthodoxy, and, tangentially, creativity.

----------


## joysof

> Why, if you don't mind? Because the name of that organization is more democratic?

 Simple: because, as far as I can tell, Human Rights Watch has no ideological axe to grind. This sets it apart from JJ, who seems hell-bent on assuming the mantle of apologist for Soviet Communism.

----------


## bad manners

> Or do you think that Sakharov chose to be a physicist because he expected enormous material gains?
> 			
> 		  No, of course he didn't. He did, however, find himself in Gorky/Nizhny Novgorod against his will.  
> Does that not constitute suppression?

 Did I ever ask anything about suppression? In this thread anyway? The question was about "communism does not motivate" and you failed to answer that question.   

> [quote:3b6tafj8]How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?

 Mandelstam paid for a poem with his life;[/quote:3b6tafj8] 
If I remember correctly, his poem was highly anti-Soviet (using the terminology of that time), and that was explicitly forbidden. The criminal code had an article dealing with just that. Dura lex sed lex.   

> Tsvetaeva was forbidden to publish

 Hello? She left the USSR in 1925 and returned in 1939, and committed suicide in 1941. If she was not published during the two years (and what years!) she spent there, that hardly means anything.   

> Bulgakov had most of his plays suppressed and his best work wasn't published until long after his death.

 Which plays were suppressed? His best work, which you apparently think was M&M, was never published -- but it was never finished either. He died editing it. Of the finished works, I personally prefer "The White Guards", and it was published, moreover, he made a play after it, and it was a success. Stalin himself liked it, could it be more successful than that in the thirties?   

> If you want more examples, I'll provide them: there are hundreds, after all.

 Yeah, go ahead.   

> Taken together, all of these things would seem to serve as a disincentive to unorthodoxy, and, tangentially, creativity.

 Granted. Unorthodoxy was not welcome (is it anywhere?). However, you're going off the tangent yourself. I responded to the message that linked creativity to economy, and that could not possibly mean creativity in poetry.

----------


## bad manners

> Simple: because, as far as I can tell, Human Rights Watch has no ideological axe to grind.

 You made me laugh so hard I almost choked. No really! The very doctrine of "Human Rights" is ideology and nothing but ideology.

----------


## joysof

> Did I ever ask anything about suppression?

 You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. As far as I can see, the 'disallowing' of creativity is suppression.   

> However, you're going off the tangent yourself.I responded to the message that linked creativity to economy, and that could not possibly mean creativity in poetry.

 You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. It seemed, generally speaking, such a stupid question that I thought I would deal with it by reference to a sphere of creativity about which I have some knowledge. Economics isn't my strong point.   

> Which plays were suppressed?

 'Moliere', 'Flight' and 'Adam and Eve' were kept off the stage during the 30s, and were not _published_ until after M.B's death.   

> His best work, which you apparently think was M&M, was never published -- but it was never finished either.

 Never published? I have two copies on my bookshelf. 
As far as I remember, his longer prose works - including M&M - were published in the Soviet Union in the 60s. My favourite, perverse as I am, is his Theatrical Novel.   

> If I remember correctly, his poem was highly anti-Soviet (using the terminology of that time), and that was explicitly forbidden.

 Something about cockroaches and mountaineers, I think   ::  . Of course it was anti-Soviet, but if critical words are 'explicitly forbidden', isn't creativity being disallowed?    

> Dura lex sed lex.

 More like lex iniusta.   

> Hello? She left the USSR in 1925 and returned in 1939, and committed suicide in 1941.

 Hi. She actually left in 1922. A minor detail. More important: why should someone as brilliant as Tsvetaeva have felt unable to practise her craft in the Soviet Union?   

> You made me laugh so hard I almost choked. No really! The very doctrine of "Human Rights" is ideology and nothing but ideology.

 You're going to have to explain that one to me. Sounds a little...partisan.

----------


## Dynamo

Take, for example, hockey in the U.S.S.R. and now Russia. In the U.S.S.R., all the talented hockey players were taken by CSKA, the Red Army Team, and, to a lesser degree, Dynamo Moscow, but mainly CSKA. There players were taught hockey skills and were severely punished, sometimes even killed, if they did not perform well enough for the coach, Victor Tikhonov. The players were conscripted into the Soviet military as a way of controlling them, and few of the players ever got any military training at all. Once the players were soldiers of the U.S.S.R., the government could control every aspect of their lives, and did so regularly. Now, after the fall of the Soviet Union, things are supposed to be different. But the more things change, the more they stay the same. Just recently, a hockey player named Nikolai Zherdev left Russia for the USA to play in the best hockey league in the world, the NHL. He had a contract with an NHL team, the Columbus Blue Jackets, which he had signed just shortly after he was drafted into the NHL. But the Russian hockey authorities claim that he is a soldier on the Russian military. They claim to have papers proving this, including a military ID card. Zherdev says that he has never recieved any military traing, has never worn a uniform, and has never taken the oath of duty. Zherdev was also not even a Russian, he was born in Ukraine. After he left Russia, Zherdev's former coach, Victor Tikhonov--yes, the same guy again--claimed that Zherdev had deserted his country, his team, and his military duty, which is compulsory in Russia. If zherdev was indeed in the Russian military, he was placed there so keep him in Russia and under the control of Russian authorities. The dirty little secret of all this is the payoffs that NHL teams have to give Russian teams to buy the players out of military duty. So, then, this whole thing is about money and control. NHL teams have to pay many times more than the agreed on fee to even get the players over  to the U.S. The players are only in the military for control. And the "compulsory" military duty is not even emposed uniformly, only in selected cases the Russians think they can get away with. Another Russian player, Ilya Kovalchuk, who is now playing in the NHL, certainly had nothing to do with the Russian military. there are about 100 other Russian players playing in North America and Canada that were never in the military. 
     Things are obviously not altogether fixed yet in Russia. Russia clearly is not yet a "normal" country. Another example would be the recent Presidential election in Russia.

----------


## bad manners

> Did I ever ask anything about suppression?
> 			
> 		  You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. As far as I can see, the 'disallowing' of creativity is suppression.

 You were replying to my message that mentioned Sakharov. In that message, I was dealing with the naive materialism of another poster.   

> [quote:1ydtvu1p]However, you're going off the tangent yourself.I responded to the message that linked creativity to economy, and that could not possibly mean creativity in poetry.

 You asked: 'How was creativity disallowed in the USSR?'. It seemed, generally speaking, such a stupid question that I thought I would deal with it by reference to a sphere of creativity about which I have some knowledge. Economics isn't my strong point.[/quote:1ydtvu1p] 
I have already explained why this argument is irrelevant. We might as well discuss creativity in sexual perversions, if any creativity is fine by you.   

> [quote:1ydtvu1p]Which plays were suppressed?

 'Moliere'[/quote:1ydtvu1p] 
Nope. The premi

----------


## bad manners

> {lots of irrelevant stuff}

 What does that have to do with creativity? Hockey? Ask me if I care about hockey. 
But you're trying to distort even that. Military service is not "selectively" compulsory in Russia. If there are no medical problems, and I suppose a good hockey player must have none, the only way for him to avoid being drafted is by starting university studies, or, if he has graduated, a PhD thesis. I do not think this hockey guy ever did so. Alternatively, he might avoid military service by having a couple of new born babies, or having disabled parents. And finally a person may be excluded by a presidential decree. Admittedly, lots of Russian men manage to evade the service, but they violate the law. 
Secondly, the CSKA does not "take" anybody. CSKA stands for "Central Combined Club of the Army", and the players must be drafted before they can join the club. And normally they are trained before they join the army, in some junior school sponsored by CSKA. 
So what happened is simple. The guy was trained, for free, in a junior school, then drafted and trained, again for free, by the Army. Then the guy decides to say good-bye and earn some money on the side. He is still in service and what he does is called desertion. 
As for the presidential election... let's compare it with the nonsense that happened in Florida last time.

----------


## joysof

> You were replying to my message that mentioned Sakharov. In that message, I was dealing with the naive materialism of another poster.

 I thought he was pretty naive too.    

> I have already explained why this argument is irrelevant. We might as well discuss creativity in sexual perversions, if any creativity is fine by you.

 You need to express yourself more clearly, then. When you ask 'How was _creativity_ disallowed in the USSR?' (not '_economic_ creativity'), you leave yourself open to attack from all quarters.    

> Nope. The premiere was on 16-Feb-1936.

 I never said they were kept off the stage _altogether_ during the 30s. Moliere was refused a performance licence in March 1930, and although it did appear in February 1936, it was cancelled on 9 March of the same year. After six years, it lasted three weeks. As with much Soviet censorship in the 1930s, Bulgakov's persecution was largely determined by Stalin's whims. Like a cat with a mouse, really.   

> Have you actually read them? I have, and they don't impress me all that much. "Adam and Eve" is particularly bad.

 Oh, I see, _you_ don't like them. Well, I take it all back. They were rightly suppressed. 
What sort of argument is that?   

> So they were published in the end.

 After some thirty years of refusal. That sort of lag hardly makes for a vibrant literary scene, does it?   

> What about creativity in child pornography? It was the law, get over it.

 What _is_ this fixation on sexual deviancy? And what was so odious about Bulgakov's work to make the comparison worthwhile?   

> She should have chosen better time for that. As if there had not been anything more important for the USSR in 1939-1941, when WWII was raging.

 Stalin was particularly busy in that period, what with signing pacts with Fascists and having his fingers in his ears the rest of the time.  
Anyway, that's a cheap shot and beside the point. From Tsvetaeva to Berdyaev and the Nabokovs, great people left (or were forced out) in droves. Russia under both Ulyanov and Dzhugashvili was, regardless of its more serious atrocities, a climate deeply hostile to creativity.   

> Explain what?

 The 'ideology' of human rights, perhaps?

----------


## JJ

> Explain what?
> 			
> 		  The 'ideology' of human rights, perhaps?

 May I explain? HR is an ideology and it's a totalitarian ideology. There are some characteristics of totalitarian ideology:
1. It based on beleif in some irrational ideas. - Why do you think that human's rights should be the same for all cultures and social systems?
2. Proclaim these ideas as established truth.
3. Negative attitude to another ideas - You gave me a link about China, where the Chinese conception of HR is diffrent, so the HRW treat it bad.
4. The followers of totalitarian ideology always gather to organized groups.
HRW corresponds to all characteristics. - At least in Russia there is a group of human's right watchers - Novodvorskaya, Kovalyev etc.

----------


## joysof

> HR is an ideology

 Fair enough. An ideology is a body of beliefs.   

> and it's a totalitarian ideology

 Nonsense. All of the features of 'HR' (do you mean Human Rights Watch in particular or human rights in general?) you supply as justification for this statement - belief in inalienable truths, opposition to those who think differently, an organisational structure (!)-  could apply to any political party, trade union, ornithological society, or the Rotary Club. None of them denote totalitarianism. Restrictions on press freedom, state-sanctioned denigration of political unorthodoxy, a lack of due process in the legal system and the existence of labour camps are what I think of when the T-word is mentioned and as far as I can tell, no human rights organisation practises any of these things. All, however, are features of the current regime in Beijing.

----------


## bad manners

> You need to express yourself more clearly, then. When you ask 'How was _creativity_ disallowed in the USSR?' (not '_economic_ creativity'), you leave yourself open to attack from all quarters.

 The message that you replied to did not have such questions. Learn to answer questions and not questions to answers to questions.   

> I never said they were kept off the stage _altogether_ during the 30s. Moliere was refused a performance licence in March 1930, and although it did appear in February 1936, it was cancelled on 9 March of the same year. After six years, it lasted three weeks. As with much Soviet censorship in the 1930s, Bulgakov's persecution was largely determined by Stalin's whims. Like a cat with a mouse, really.

 I recall that he developed a sort of personal problem with the director (Stanislavsky) and the director simply refused to continue working on it. Which does not surprise me at all, because there is voluminous evidence that Bulgakov was very arrogant and cooperated poorly. 
Oh, and if you believe that Stalin kept an eye on every single person in the USSR and Bulgakov in particular, you ought to reconsider. The only case when Stalin intervened was when Bulgakov had managed to piss off the whole theater and was fired. Thanks to Stalin he was employed again. Do you expect Stalin would have mothered him forever?   

> [quote:2behx1op]Have you actually read them? I have, and they don't impress me all that much. "Adam and Eve" is particularly bad.

 Oh, I see, _you_ don't like them. Well, I take it all back. They were rightly suppressed. 
What sort of argument is that?[/quote:2behx1op] 
I'm saying that they could be left unpublished or unstaged because they were just bad.   

> [quote:2behx1op]So they were published in the end.

 After some thirty years of refusal. That sort of lag hardly makes for a vibrant literary scene, does it?[/quote:2behx1op] 
Are you saying that the "literary scene" was not "vibrant" in the USSR times? Funny, funny. Is it vibrant now?   

> [quote:2behx1op]What about creativity in child pornography? It was the law, get over it.

 What _is_ this fixation on sexual deviancy? And what was so odious about Bulgakov's work to make the comparison worthwhile?[/quote:2behx1op] 
Why is that deviancy, joysof? It's OK in certain countries. But you apparently believe that child pornography is bad by definition. Yes it is, because your law defines it accordingly. If some other law defines something else as illegal, then it is illegal. If you don't like it in this country, leave the country or change the law. Don't piss in the wind.   

> [quote:2behx1op]She should have chosen better time for that. As if there had not been anything more important for the USSR in 1939-1941, when WWII was raging.

 Stalin was particularly busy in that period, what with signing pacts with Fascists and having his fingers in his ears the rest of the time.[/quote:2behx1op] 
Invading Poland, waging a war with Finland, conducting a coup d'

----------


## joysof

> The message that you replied to did not have such questions. Learn to answer questions and not questions to answers to questions.

 That's an extremely iffy technicality.   

> Oh, and if you believe that Stalin kept an eye on every single person in the USSR and Bulgakov in particular, you ought to reconsider.

 Stalin took a personal, and oddly patriarchal interest in the affairs of various prominent artists, including Shostakovich, Pasternak and Bulgakov. In M.B.s case, they spoke on the telephone in April 1930, _The Days of the Turbins_ was, as you said yourself, one of Koba's favourite plays, and Bulgakov was, by all accounts, closely watched throughout the 30s.   

> there is voluminous evidence that Bulgakov was very arrogant and cooperated poorly.

 No arguments here, although I would say neurotic rather than arrogant.
Paranoid, too - although that's hardly surprising.   

> I'm saying that they could be left unpublished or unstaged because they were just bad.

 Could have been. Don't have any facts on that. But another play, _Ivan Vasilyevich_, was certainly banned in 1936 after a Central Committee official visited a rehearsal.   

> Are you saying that the "literary scene" was not "vibrant" in the USSR times? Funny, funny. Is it vibrant now?

 I would say that it was vibrant, if terrorised, during the 20s and 30s, and, yes, largely stagnant thereafter. Any oeuvre with Fadeev at its head was bound to be. As for the scene nowadays, I wouldn't know, although I'm told that it's abject. But then I'm not defending 'now', I'm voicing concerns about 'then'.   

> Why is that deviancy, joysof? It's OK in certain countries. But you apparently believe that child pornography is bad by definition. Yes it is, because your law defines it accordingly. If some other law defines something else as illegal, then it is illegal.

 Don't know where to start with this one. Yes, I find child pornography distasteful, but not because it is illegal. To be quite honest, I find your brand of moral relativism quite obnoxious.   

> If you don't like it in this country, leave the country or change the law. Don't piss in the wind.

 Which country? Don't understand. 
In the Soviet Union, it was often extremely difficult to leave the country, wasn't it? Remember the refuseniki?   

> You don't even understand that most of those in "the droves of great people" are great because the West made them symbols.

 I try not to found my admiration of artists upon their apotheosis by others. But perhaps I do. We're all products of our environment, after all.   

> You do not understand that when you mention Lenin and some events before 1924 you don't speak of the USSR, which is the topic of this thread.

 Are you sure about your dates? From my humble reading I had gathered that the first USSR constitution was actually ratified in 1922, the year poor Marina left the country. I'm willing to stand corrected.   

> You freely admit your ignorance in economy

 Freely and proudly.   

> and are trying to switch the topic to some chimerical creativity

 You needn't have involved yourself.   

> You know, I'm getting tired of your lexicon

 Well, season's greetings to you too   ::  .

----------


## bad manners

> Stalin took a personal, and oddly patriarchal interest in the affairs of various prominent artists, including Shostakovich, Pasternak and Bulgakov. In M.B.s case, they spoke on the telephone in April 1930, _The Days of the Turbins_ was, as you said yourself, one of Koba's favourite plays, and Bulgakov was, by all accounts, closely watched throughout the 30s.

 So he helped him once. Is the lack of help afterwards "suppressing"?   

> But another play, _Ivan Vasilyevich_, was certainly banned in 1936 after a Central Committee official visited a rehearsal.

 Correct. Personally, again, I found this one shallow -- less shallow than the subsequent movie, though. Come to think of it, I do not like his plays, any of them. He wrote marvelous prose, no denying, but his theatrical works were a disaster. So... it might be that they were "suppressed" for some political reasons, I don't care. I will grant you that his novels were held back. They could not have been published even if the party had given a go. This has more to do with the psychology of the country back then than with anything else. This factor is always ignored by those critical of the USSR, and that only demonstrates how shallow their arguments are. 
In 1917-1922, the country was suffering from the Civil War. That civil war was caused solely by ideological differences. In practical terms, it meant that the monarchists were killing those who said things different than they did, and the other parties, including the communists, were doing just the same. Say, do you seriously expect that those who finally prevailed in this slaughter would tolerate any dissidence? I say no, not while the memories were so vivid. It would have taken another generation. Which is exactly what happened. Is it different from any country that had a revolution? Perhaps you have no personal experience with people that have been through a revolution and a civil war. Neither have I. But I have experience with those who have been through German occupation. Even here in Western Europe the older generation stiffens when they hear German. And the Germans actually treated these countries quite gently! In Russia, and especially in Byelorussia, which suffered most, the reactions are significantly stronger. And this is after sixty years.   

> [quote:1djkq9j6]Are you saying that the "literary scene" was not "vibrant" in the USSR times? Funny, funny. Is it vibrant now?

 I would say that it was vibrant, if terrorised, during the 20s and 30s, and, yes, largely stagnant thereafter. Any oeuvre with Fadeev at it's head was bound to be. As for the scene nowadays, I wouldn't know, although I'm told that it's abject. But then I'm not defending 'now', I'm voicing concerns about 'then'.[/quote:1djkq9j6] 
This thread is about the historical perspective. And given the perspective, which is the opposition of "now" and "then", even as regards "general" creativity, the USSR clearly had an edge over the modern Russian Federation (to say nothing of Uzbekistan and some other interesting countries).   

> [quote:1djkq9j6]Why is that deviancy, joysof? It's OK in certain countries. But you apparently believe that child pornography is bad by definition. Yes it is, because your law defines it accordingly. If some other law defines something else as illegal, then it is illegal.

 Don't know where to start with this one. Yes, I find child pornography distasteful, but not because it is illegal. To be quite honest, I find your brand of moral relativism quite obnoxious.[/quote:1djkq9j6] 
Everything is relative. For example, to go fishing in the UK, you have to buy a license (if I'm not mistaken; if I am, take another suitable country). In Russia, you are free to catch almost anything you can without any stupid permit. But we were speaking about freedom of speech. You probably know that the only reason while pornography in general is alive and kicking in most countries in the world is because those countries believe in "freedom of speech", and the porno industry makes it understood in those countries that pornography is just "speech" (or media). But when it comes to child pornography, suddenly freedom of speech becomes limited. As it becomes when dealing with racism and so on. So it is not me who introduces this "moral relativism". It is just that some relativism is more relative than the others. Which is very archetypical when it comes to the USSR and Russia.   

> [quote:1djkq9j6]If you don't like it in this country, leave the country or change the law. Don't piss in the wind.

 Which country? Don't understand. 
In the Soviet Union, it was often extremely difficult to leave the country, wasn't it? Remember the refuseniki?[/quote:1djkq9j6] 
How very interesting. In the previous message of yours, you claimed that "great people left (or were forced out) in droves". Huh?   

> [quote:1djkq9j6]You do not understand that when you mention Lenin and some events before 1924 you don't speak of the USSR, which is the topic of this thread.

 Are you sure about your dates? From my humble reading I had gathered that the first USSR constitution was actually ratified in 1922, the year poor Marina left the country. I'm willing to stand corrected.[/quote:1djkq9j6] 
According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "1924, January 31st: The first constitution of the USSR passed by the second congress of the councils (soviets)". It was almost 1925, as you can see.

----------


## joysof

> So he helped him once. Is the lack of help afterwards "suppressing"?

 No, banning his plays is.   

> Everything is relative. For example, to go fishing in the UK, you have to buy a license (if I'm not mistaken; if I am, take another suitable country). In Russia, you are free to catch almost anything you can without any stupid permit.

 You're confusing legality with morality.   

> How very interesting. In the previous message of yours, you claimed that "great people left (or were forced out) in droves". Huh?

 Both statements are valid. Lasted nearly seventy years, did the USSR.   

> According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "1924, January 31st: The first constitution of the USSR passed by the second congress of the councils (soviets)". It was almost 1925, as you can see.

 I think I understand now. You're quite right, the Constitution was ratified in 1924. However, it had been ratified in principle (by the First All-Union Congress of Soviets) - and the USSR had been declared - by the end of 1922.

----------


## bad manners

> So he helped him once. Is the lack of help afterwards "suppressing"?
> 			
> 		  No, banning his plays is.

 I like this impersonal "banning" of yours. So who did that "banning"? I hope you're not going to reiterate "evil Stalin did". Then again, since you have skipped my arguments for other possible reasons for the "banning", you have apparently recognized their validity.   

> You're confusing legality with morality.

 No I am not. I first explained the legality. Then, because you said that the law was immoral, I explained the historical and psychological background that might justify the law. But you ignore that and keep on saying "oh how illegal oh how immoral". I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.    

> [quote:6xk02nt9]How very interesting. In the previous message of yours, you claimed that "great people left (or were forced out) in droves". Huh?

 Both statements are valid. Lasted nearly seventy years, did the USSR.[/quote:6xk02nt9] 
You don't see a logical incompatibility of the two statements of yours?   

> [quote:6xk02nt9]According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "1924, January 31st: The first constitution of the USSR passed by the second congress of the councils (soviets)". It was almost 1925, as you can see.

 I think I understand now. You're quite right, the Constitution was ratified in 1924. However, it had been ratified in principle (by the First All-Union Congress of Soviets) - and the USSR had been declared - by the end of 1922.[/quote:6xk02nt9] 
"In principle" does not work with constitutions, joysof. It can only be ratified or not. And before a constitution is ratified, no state exists. Plans and pilot state bodies may exist, but this is not quite the same. Actually, we don't even have to discuss all these "technicalities" (as I'm sure you're going to call them). Suffice it to say that Lenin died in 1924, and everything was very different after that.

----------


## joysof

> I like this impersonal "banning" of yours. So who did that "banning"? I hope you're not going to reiterate "evil Stalin did".

 Don't believe in evil, as it happens. But that's another discussion.  
Regardless of who did it, the plays were banned. This has never on my part been a thread designed to demonise JVS.   

> "oh how illegal oh how immoral"

 What do you expect? I'm just a bleeding-heart liberal, after all   ::  .   

> "In principle" does not work with constitutions, joysof. It can only be ratified or not. And before a constitution is ratified, no state exists. Plans and pilot state bodies may exist, but this is not quite the same. Actually, we don't even have to discuss all these "technicalities" (as I'm sure you're going to call them). Suffice it to say that Lenin died in 1924, and everything was very different after that.

 Agreed. A boring detail. Besides, I've had too much to drink and can barely remember my name at this point.

----------


## Friendy

> Yeah, sure and the second example is P.R.C. where communism doesn't work too.   The GDP is growing there for 8% per year.

 PRC's economy has certain capitalistic features, in Russia there was also economical growth during NEP.  So PRC isn't a good example whether communism works or not.   

> HR is an ideology and it's a totalitarian

 With ideology of human rights being criticized here, I'd like to say some words in its defense.   ::  
Let's take any two different persons A and B, HR ideology says that the rights of A are justified as long as they don't contradict to B's rights and vice versa. That is the basics of human rights ideology. All the other possible ideologies can only add the following:
1) Some proof that there are some criteria by which A can be considered more important than B and therefore should have more rights. All these proofs and criteria are subjective.
2) Say that yes, A and B deserve equal rights but those rights should be restricted not only by what was written above but also by something else. But who and why has the right to decide what that "something else" should be? So it's also subjective.
Either way, we only go deeper into subjectivity. So even if the human rights ideology is totalitarian (though personally I don't think so), then any other is also.  

> I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.

 There's actually no state that is shaped the way it's inhabitants want. The shape of a state depends on a lot of factors and has more to do with the circumstances and the will of certain groups than with people's will. Not to say that the term "the right of peoples" is a rather vague thing, and it's certainly not a basic human right (at least because when one speaks about the right of a *person* it's clear what is meant but when one speaks about the right of the *group* of people it requires more assumptions and explanations). 
Though I must agree that some who consider themselves the human rights proponents are often overdoing it, which mostly shows in their tendency to overuse banning (like Novodvorskaya wanting communist ideology to be banned, for example). 
As for HRW, it watches the human rights not only in the countries with "opposite social system" but in USA and EU as well.

----------


## bad manners

> Let's take any two different persons A and B, HR ideology says that the rights of A are justified as long as they don't contradict to B's rights and vice versa. That is the basics of human rights ideology.

 ... which only works so long as there are exactly A and B and nobody else. As soon as there is C, it becomes tricky. And it becomes a joke when there are 150 millions of those not contradicting one another and 10 thousands who want it the other way around.   

> Not to say that the term "the right of peoples" is a rather vague thing, and it's certainly not a basic human right (at least because when one speaks about the right of a *person* it's clear what is meant but when one speaks about the right of the *group* of people it requires more assumptions and explanations).

 Basic or not, it is just more significant than the right of one person. I'm simply stating a fact of life here, not a communists or socialist doctrine. The will of a people (or a group large enough) always has implications far surpassing those of a will of a single person. But the "human rights" doctrine simply denies the entire concept and is unable to deal with the reality of this world in its entirety. It may work in societies which have already reached harmony (such as the EU), but it simply breaks down under more severe conditions.

----------


## TronDD

A group does not have more rights than an individual.  There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.     

> I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.

 People can live anyway they want so long as it does not violate the rights of others.  If you and your friends want to start a Communist state, go right ahead.  But you cannot force anyone to be part of it.  
Tim.

----------


## bad manners

> A group does not have more rights than an individual.  There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.       
> 			
> 				I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.
> 			
> 		  People can live anyway they want so long as it does not violate the rights of others.  If you and your friends want to start a Communist state, go right ahead.  But you cannot force anyone to be part of it.  
> Tim.

 Oh, let's do it the other way around. I and my friends stay, and the others go ahead and start an anti-communist state. Somewhere else. They cannot force us to be part of it, correct? 
Can you achieve _anything_ with this kind of logic?

----------


## bad manners

> A group does not have more rights than an individual.  There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.

 This is ridiculous. And obviously false.

----------


## TronDD

> Originally Posted by TronDD  A group does not have more rights than an individual.  There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.   This is ridiculous. And obviously false.

 What do you mean "obviously false"?  Might does not make right. 
In the real world, yes, groups of people will work together to get their way regardless of the rights of other's that they trample on.  But they are in the wrong. 
Tim.

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by bad manners        Originally Posted by TronDD  A group does not have more rights than an individual.  There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.   This is ridiculous. And obviously false.   What do you mean "obviously false"?  Might does not make right.

 A very simple example: an individual cannot breed offspring. A small group can, but it will degenerate in a very short timeframe.

----------


## TronDD

A group and an individual both have exactly the same _right_ to breed.  Obviously, only the group (possibly) has the ability, but that doesn't allow them any more rights. 
Tim.

----------


## bad manners

> A group and an individual both have exactly the same _right_ to breed.  Obviously, only the group (possibly) has the ability, but that doesn't allow them any more rights.

 I am talking about the ability. You were very explicit about the ability, too: "There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot." 
Moreover, I find this "right without ability" talk quite pointless. Who needs a right that can never be enforced? 
Besides, a group might restrict some rights of an individual. For example, the right to "move freely" (for a criminal).

----------


## TronDD

> I am talking about the ability. You were very explicit about the ability, too: "There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot." 
> Moreover, I find this "right without ability" talk quite pointless. Who needs a right that can never be enforced? 
> Besides, a group might restrict some rights of an individual. For example, the right to "move freely" (for a criminal).

 I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted.  A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot. 
One always has rights.  Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them. 
Groups are not seperate entities from individuals.  Groups are made up of individuals and groups exist only because individuals have the right to associate with others.   
A criminal is a different situation.  When you violate the rights of others (commit a crime) you forfeit some of your rights (freedom, or even your life in the case of capital punishment).

----------


## bad manners

> I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted.  A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot.

 It can and does in every society.   

> One always has rights.  Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.

 So long as "one" is alone or the society grants them.   

> Groups are not seperate entities from individuals.  Groups are made up of individuals and groups exist only because individuals have the right to associate with others.

 Sep*a*rate. Groups do consist of individuals, but their existence creates a new many-to-many relationship, which is ignored by the human rights doctrine. I have said that the doctrine works when the many-to-many is uniform and the society is stable, then the weaker one-to-many or even one-to-one relationship is OK.   

> A criminal is a different situation.  When you violate the rights of others (commit a crime) you forfeit some of your rights (freedom, or even your life in the case of capital punishment).

 Problem is, you need a society to make sure a criminal _shall_ forfeit his rights. And that creates a right _of a society_ to suspend or revoke a right _of an individual_.

----------


## TronDD

> Originally Posted by TronDD  I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted.  A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot.   It can and does in every society.

 I am talking about what is correct (right vs. wrong).  Yes, bad things can and do happen but that does not make them correct.  I think we are arguing about different things.   

> Originally Posted by TronDD  One always has rights.  Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.   So long as "one" is alone or the society grants them.

 A correct society grants Man his rights and protects them.  They are deemed inalienable.   

> Originally Posted by TronDD  Groups are not seperate entities from individuals.  Groups are made up of individuals and groups exist only because individuals have the right to associate with others.   Sep*a*rate. Groups do consist of individuals, but their existence creates a new many-to-many relationship, which is ignored by the human rights doctrine. I have said that the doctrine works when the many-to-many is uniform and the society is stable, then the weaker one-to-many or even one-to-one relationship is OK.

 What is the "human rights doctrine"?  We may be arguing on different pages again.   I support and am speaking from the viewpoint of laissez-faire Capitalism which is based around the rights of Man.  I don't see how what you are saying about ignoring group relationships is part of that system.      

> Originally Posted by TronDD  A criminal is a different situation.  When you violate the rights of others (commit a crime) you forfeit some of your rights (freedom, or even your life in the case of capital punishment).   Problem is, you need a society to make sure a criminal _shall_ forfeit his rights. And that creates a right _of a society_ to suspend or revoke a right _of an individual_.

 That is the roll of goverment.  So, yes,  I can see your point that society, the group, has power over the individual in this case.  But only government is given that power by the people governed by it, that includes the criminals.  If you do not wish to be governed by it, you are free to leave that nation. 
Within that society, no group has any more or less rights than any individual or other group. 
Tim.

----------


## TronDD

I would like to retract my statement that rights are granted by society. 
Rights exist because of Man's interaction with others.  No one grants them.  
This scenario hopefully demonstrates what I mean: 
If you lived on an island alone, rights are a nonissue because there is no interaction with other people.  If I showed up on this island and I decide I want you dead, would it be ok to kill you because no one has granted anyone any rights?  Since you haven't been granted the right to life, do you let me kill you?  I would think you would fight back.  That would be you exercising your right to life.  No one had to grant it, it just came out in our interection with each other.  It would be ok to kill me in self-defense because I did not recognize your right to life.  A right no one had to grant to you. 
Society is simply interaction between Men.  A rational society, will uphold each individual's rights and protect them from others.  They use a government for that purpose. 
Tim.

----------


## Jasper May

This is truly a most charming discussion, but, I'm afraid, not in the slightest related to the subject of this topic or indeed the whole forum.

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by bad manners        Originally Posted by TronDD  I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted.  A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot.   It can and does in every society.   I am talking about what is correct (right vs. wrong).  Yes, bad things can and do happen but that does not make them correct.  I think we are arguing about different things.

 "Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Use more specific terms please. I, however, did not mean "right" or "wrong". I simply stated that groups did (and do) "violate" rights of an individual according to the laws established within those groups. For example, in most countries in the world it is illegal to have weapons of mass destruction "privately". Gross injustice, if you ask me.   

> Originally Posted by TronDD  One always has rights.  Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.   So long as "one" is alone or the society grants them.

 And then the society alienates them whenever it feels like that. That's precisely what I mean. The society has special rights that an individual has not.   

> What is the "human rights doctrine"?  We may be arguing on different pages again.   I support and am speaking from the viewpoint of laissez-faire Capitalism which is based around the rights of Man.  I don't see how what you are saying about ignoring group relationships is part of that system.

 Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this doctrine. As for "laissez-faire Capitalism", I do not see how it connects with human rights. This is a term for a special utopist model of economy. Get your terminology right.   

> That is the roll of goverment.  So, yes,  I can see your point that society, the group, has power over the individual in this case.  But only government is given that power by the people governed by it, that includes the criminals.  If you do not wish to be governed by it, you are free to leave that nation.

 Ro*le*. What you just said will suffice to deem you a die-hard totalitarian. In a liberal and democratic state, government is merely an agent of the people, it is elected by the people, is driven by the people and implements the will of the people. It _is_ the people. 
But I agree with this definition of yours, because it actually makes more sense than the democratic nonsense I wrote just above. If a person cannot live in a society, that person should leave the society, and I have said that before.   

> Within that society, no group has any more or less rights than any individual or other group.

 Ever heard about immunity? And how come that when a police officer pulls me over, whatever the reason, I suddenly lose my right to "move freely"?

----------


## bad manners

> I would like to retract my statement that rights are granted by society. 
> Rights exist because of Man's interaction with others.  No one grants them.  
> This scenario hopefully demonstrates what I mean: 
> If you lived on an island alone, rights are a nonissue because there is no interaction with other people.  If I showed up on this island and I decide I want you dead, would it be ok to kill you because no one has granted anyone any rights?  Since you haven't been granted the right to life, do you let me kill you?  I would think you would fight back.  That would be you exercising your right to life.  No one had to grant it, it just came out in our interection with each other.  It would be ok to kill me in self-defense because I did not recognize your right to life.  A right no one had to grant to you. 
> Society is simply interaction between Men.  A rational society, will uphold each individual's rights and protect them from others.  They use a government for that purpose. 
> Tim.

 I have already replied to a similar "binary" argument. As soon as there are more Men, its simplicity becomes oversimplification.

----------


## TronDD

> It can and does in every society.

 Ok agreed, but a just society doesn't allow it.  I guess the question is: Can a just society exist?"  That's another debate.   

> "Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Use more specific terms please. I, however, did not mean "right" or "wrong". I simply stated that groups did (and do) "violate" rights of an individual according to the laws established within those groups. For example, in most countries in the world it is illegal to have weapons of mass destruction "privately". Gross injustice, if you ask me.

 I don't agree that right and wrong are subjective, but that is also another debate.  I agree that groups do violate rights and laws support them.  That goes back to the "just society" question.   

> And then the society alienates them whenever it feels like that. That's precisely what I mean. The society has special rights that an individual has not.

 Maybe I just disagree with the term "rights" here.  Just because society has the ability to do something an individual cannot, doesn't mean it has a right to.  We are going in circles on this one.   

> Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this doctrine. As for "laissez-faire Capitalism", I do not see how it connects with human rights. This is a term for a special utopist model of economy. Get your terminology right.

 It is not utopian any more than any other govermental system is considered utopian.  It is a specific method of governing, not simply a term.  Like democracy, communism, or a dictatorship.  I don't think either of up understand eachother's view point on this subject.  Kinda kills the debate.   

> What you just said will suffice to deem you a die-hard totalitarian. In a liberal and democratic state, government is merely an agent of the people, it is elected by the people, is driven by the people and implements the will of the people. It _is_ the people.

 That's what I said.  However, that goverment is based on human rights.  Not majority rule.    

> Ever heard about immunity? And how come that when a police officer pulls me over, whatever the reason, I suddenly lose my right to "move freely"?

 Because the officer has to have just cause to pull you over.  They can't just pull you over and detain people willy nilly.     

> I have already replied to a similar "binary" argument. As soon as there are more Men, its simplicity becomes oversimplification.

 I disagree, it'll be exactly the same.  The problem, as you are pointing out, is enforcement  of "proper interaction". 
I guess this debate isn't going to go much further here.  I'm satisfied with much of it, anyway.  Fell free to post final comments or message me if you want but I guess the aguing is over.    ::  
Tim.

----------


## TronDD

> This is truly a most charming discussion, but, I'm afraid, not in the slightest related to the subject of this topic or indeed the whole forum.

 Boo.  I thought it was going well.  Political debates rarely stay civil.  ::  
Tim.

----------


## bad manners

> It is not utopian any more than any other govermental system is considered utopian.  It is a specific method of governing, not simply a term.  Like democracy, communism, or a dictatorship.  I don't think either of up understand eachother's view point on this subject.  Kinda kills the debate.

 It is utopian because it is not implemented anywhere in the world. Communism is and was utopian, too.   

> That's what I said.  However, that goverment is based on human rights.  Not majority rule.

 I do not know any state whose government is "based on human rights". Some governments are "democratically elected", while in fact usually controlled by a group of oligarchs, others are explicitly oligarchies.   

> Because the officer has to have just cause to pull you over.  They can't just pull you over and detain people willy nilly.

 Either way he has more rights than I do, and, importantly, the right to suspend some rights of mine.

----------


## Pravit

> This is truly a most charming discussion, but, I'm afraid, not in the slightest related to the subject of this topic or indeed the whole forum.

 Oh my dear Jas-Jas, you do sound very moderator-like there, don't you! Our little Jas is becoming a man!   ::   
C'mon, Jas, let 'em argue. I don't think they'll listen to you anyway   ::  As long as they stay off of me, it's fine with me.

----------


## flutterby145

Personally, I think the United States won the Cold War. In my opinion, had the USSR won the Cold War, the Berlin Wall would still be up dividing Communist East Germany and non-Communist West Germany, the Communist would still be in power in the Soviet bloc (Romania, Poland, the former Yugoslavia and the rest of Eastern Europe), and the Soviet Union would still be in existence and the US and the USSR would still be fighting the Cold War. Just my opinion.

----------

