Archives for posts with tag: Stalin

Foarte mulți internauți care se folosesc de limba română pentru a-și împărtăși gândurile au început să-și aducă aminte de istorie.
De modul în care a fost răscroită după război geografia Europei de Est, de suprafețele adăugate Ucrainei și de modul în care am fost părăsiți – cu toții, dar în special noi, românii – în brațele comuniștilor moscoviți. Părăsiți de Occident… de Occidentul aflat acum în ‘putrefacție’.
Ucrainenii și-o merită iar Occidentul este chiar mai vinovat decât Putin pentru ceea ce se întâmplă în Ucraina.
Pentru ce se întâmplă ACUM în Ucraina…

Hai să o luăm un pic altfel.

Chiar de la începutul celui de al doilea război mondial, Stalin – pentru o vreme cel mai bun tovaraș de drum al lui Hitler, a ocupat – de comun acord cu prietenul său mai sus menționat, jumătatea estică a Poloniei. Și o parte din Finlanda, dar aia e altă poveste. De la noi, din România, a ocupat jumătatea estică a Moldovei, Nordul Bucovinei și a dat cadou lui Horthy Ardealul de Nord-Vest.
Stalin împreună cu aliatul său Hitler.
Ucraina nici nu exista pe vremea aia!

La finalul războiului – între timp Hitler îl abandonase pe Stalin, ‘amantul părăsit’ a mai căpătat câteva ciosvârte. Sau, mai corect spus, a mai ocupat, prin rapt, alte câteva crâmpeie de moșie.

Pe care le-a atașat Ucrainei. Pentru că așa era geografia locului… Și Belarusului… dar nu dă bine să vorbim si de bucata aia…

Stalin ar fi putut, cei drept, proceda la fel cum a făcut cu Kaliningradul… doar că ar fi fost prea mare bătaia de cap administrativă… Pe lânga asta, Kaliningradul avea o importanță simbolică mult mai mare decât partea estică a Poloniei, estul Slovaciei, nordul Bucovinei și sudul Basarabiei – adică malul de nord al brațului Chilia… Ca să nu mai vorbim despre faptul că ‘enclava’ Kaliningrad făcuse parte din fostul agresor – Germania, pe când restul teritoriilor fuseseră, cel puțin teoretic, ‘eliberate’… Eliberate dar nu și lăsate să se întoarcă la țările de origine…

Cu alte cuvinte, Ucraina – bunicii celor care se apără acum de agresorii asmuțiți de Putin, s-a trezit cu niște teritorii atașate de ea, fără să fi avut ceva de spus pe tema asta.

O mare parte din populația acelor teritorii a fugit în țările de care aparținuseră până atunci iar o altă parte a fost trimisă în vilegiatura prin Siberia. În locul lor au fost aduși ‘imigranți’ ruși.

Acum, după ce lui Putin i s-a făcut frică – dacă le trece și rușilor prin cap să facă ce au făcut ucrainenii și tocmai erau să facă bielorușii, adică să scape de dictator, admiratorii lui Putin s-au apucat să le scoată pe nas ucrainenilor de astăzi, aflați sub asediu, trăsnăile criminale făcute de Stalin în urmă cu mai bine de 75 de ani.

Chiar n-am învățat nimic din istorie? Plecăm capul chiar înainte să ne fi arătat cineva vreo sabie? Sau ne lăsăm momiți de arginți, precum Iuda Iscariotul?


My previous post was about the parallel fate endured by those who had experienced nazism/fascism and/or communism.

My point being that nazism/fascism had been powered by the feelings of those attempting to regain their previous, higher, status while communism had been powered by the feelings of those not allowed to ‘move forward’ by the social constraints paralyzing their societies.

Currently, people are ‘confused’.
Some say communism had been better than nazism – for various reasons.
Others find various excuses for the way both regimes had treated the general population and, mainly, the ‘dissidents’. Or, specially for the nazi, the ‘differents’.
There is, though, a convergence point. Nominally, at least. All sides declaratively abhor the violence employed by both regimes.

To add to the confusion, after the 2007 financial meltdown, more and more ‘concerned individuals’ have fingered capitalism as the main culprit for all the tragedies experienced by humankind in the last century and a half.

For me, this is the straw which will break the camel’s back.

Nazism/fascism – which is nothing but a ‘condensed’ form of corporatism, is bad.
Communism – a similarly centralized manner of social decision making, only differently sold to differently feeling masses, is also bad.
Capitalism – a decentralized manner of resource allocation, is considered to be more or less equivalent to both nazism/fascism and communism. All three of them have been declared equally criminal…

Then what?
What are we to do next? Hang ourselves in despair?
Reheat either fascism or communism?

Or look forward than our own noses?

Both those who had followed Hitler and Lenin/Stalin were feeling desperate. Desperation drives you to do stupid things. And there are plenty of unscrupulous people willing to profit from this kind of situations.

Do we really want to prevent ‘unpleasant’ experiences?
Then we need to go beyond blaming the likes of Hitler and Lenin/Stalin.
They should be dealt what’s rightfully theirs, no doubt about that.
But we also need to make sure that the ‘run of the mill’, the ordinary people who make things work in this world, no longer feel desperate.

How to do that?
Taking into account that contemporary capitalism seems to be faltering?

What was the common thing between nazism/fascism and communism?
The fact that decision making was concentrated in a very small number of hands? Which had led to both regimes ending up in abysmal failure?

What is the apparently unstoppable trend in our contemporary societies?
The apparently unstoppable wealth polarization?

Then let’s tax ourselves out … America worked fine during the ’50s and ’60, when the highest marginal tax was 91%…
Yeah, only those years had been followed by stagflation.
And let me remind you that communism can also be interpreted as ‘100% tax followed by a comprehensive redistribution’. And it also failed.

Then how about ‘libertarianism’? No taxes, no government…

But how about less extremism? Of any kind?

How about remembering that liberal capitalism has made possible all that we have today? Liberal as in free-market capitalism, of course.

Free market as in competition working both ways.
Entrepreneurs competing among themselves for clients AND resources. The workforce being, of course, a resource.
The ‘compensated’ workforce representing the bulk of the clients…

What we seem to have forgotten today is that the circle must be round. If we want the ‘show to go on’, of course.

If some of us concentrate too much control over the rest of us – either way, the circle becomes lopsided. And everybody has everything to loose.

No matter whether this happens as a consequence of nazism/fascism, communism or even capitalism.

At least, capitalism has proved to be manageable.
Let’s make it work, again.

Until we discover something better, of course.

– History is the story of what we remember of what had happened, right? Based on our shared individual recollections, the ‘written sources’ we have at our disposal and our interpretation of any other material traces we might have found… and properly preserved…

– Yep!

– Then no history, no matter how diligent and well intended the historian, will ever be the actual representation of what had really happened, back then!

– Well, you seem to be quite familiar with Heidegger’s work.

– I can’t say that. Popper’s injunction that science is more about being prepared to acknowledge your ignorance than about really knowing is enough for me.

– Then we might be soon delivered from History, after all.
When enough people will share your attitude/paradigm – that no matter how hard we’ll ever try we’ll never know anything for sure… it will be impossible for any would be dictator to pretend they have the ‘right’ answer for any problem we might encounter.

And why are we still trying to solve this riddle?

‘Cause this is indeed a riddle…

Remember those metaphorical stories whose heroes end up having to find the answer to one in order to save themselves/the day?
Like Sophocles’ “What walks on four feet in the morning, two in the afternoon and three at night?”

A riddle, of course, being a question which cannot be answered until the individuals attempting to solve it stick their heads out of the box into which the riddle had been framed.

So. Individualism? Collectivism?

Having grown up under communist rule – supposedly the most collectivist social arrangement to date, I can testify that there is no such thing as collectivism without individualism nor individualism without collectivism.

Libertarians’ mantra is that socialism/communism – and even liberalism, as Americans understand it, is a form of collectivism. And, of course, that collectivism is bad for you.
Socialists, on the other hand, maintain that the current situation – which is seen as being bad, is the consequence of the growingly extreme individualism which plagues modern societies.

Interestingly enough, both sides are simultaneously right.
Communism is indeed bad for you and the bad aspects of today’s society are a consequence of callous selfishness.

On the other hand, all communist societies are composed of a huge mass of obedient subjects AND a small number of individual, and very individualistic, leaders.
Similarly, all developed capitalist societies – including those sporting huge discrepancies between the shrinking number of haves and the growing number of utterly destitutes, have reached the current level of sophistication because most of their members continue to share the belief that ‘all men have been created equal and that all of them have certain, nonnegotiable, rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’.

“Share the belief…”
But wasn’t this the very definition of collectivism?
A social arrangement where the most important possession belongs to THE public?
Was there anything more consequential for what is currently known as the ‘Euro-Atlantic’ civilization than this shared belief? Other peoples have been in possession of way more abundant natural resources. Had reached ‘astronomical’ levels of civilization way before we were even able to wipe our noses… And yet…

Haven’t we, individual thinkers, figured out yet that unless we agree on ‘the basics’, we’ll be easy prey for the callous ‘snake oil merchantmen’ who have no qualms to use collectivist slogans to pitch some of us against the others?

Haven’t we figured out, yet, that there is no ‘political collectivism’ without fear? All collectivist social arrangements, both socialist and fascist/nazist, have been built using fear/contempt (of the other) to cement ‘the people’ into believing the lies proffered by false prophets. Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao… Lies proffered by callously individualistic political agents… bent on satisfying their own domineering instincts and making ‘good use’ of pre-existing conditions.

Haven’t we figured out yet that individualism, the tame version developed along with the good aspects of the Western Civilization, is, by nature, the very beneficial consequence of the mutual respect which (still) exists among the members of our societies?

So, to answer the riddle, we need to understand that there is no real conflict between bona fide individualism and bona fide collectivism.
Just as there is no conflict between two perpendicular lines.

Since, by trade, I’m a mechanical engineer, I’ll use a very practical metaphor to illustrate this idea.
Consider a pressurized Oxygen tank. The more pressure inside, the more Oxygen you can store in it. The more useful the tank. Only if you ramp up the pressure too much, you end up with an explosion.
In this situation, you might consider ‘pressure’ to be in conflict with the ‘walls of the tank’, right?
Wrong. The conflict is only in your mind. Pressure is simply perpendicular to those walls. The more pressure those walls can withstand, the more useful that tank is for you.

But it’s your responsibility to determine the thickness and resilience of those walls. It’s your responsibility to choose how much to ramp up the pressure.
For the very simple reason that that tank is yours.
It is you who will suffer the consequences.

%d bloggers like this: