janw@inmet.UUCP (11/03/85)
> [Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor ] > [answering <50400001@hpcnof.UUCP> Larry Bruns] I believe Gabor's points to be both true and profound. (I don't know Gabor, but I've never seen an article of his that was not worth re-reading). Let me add this. Though hypotheses in "alternative history" are unverifiable, it is quite likely that, without Communism, the Russian empire would have fallen apart. All the others did (count: Austro-Hungary, Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Spain...). This one survived, and spread, and keeps spreading. Communism provided it (1) with an incomparable machinery of power and (2) with a supranational, internationalist ideology, acceptable to the ruling class of subject lands. It also (3) made economic gain secondary to power gain, so the empire needn't be cost effective to exist. Jan Wasilewsky
lkk@teddy.UUCP (11/04/85)
In article <7800608@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >Let me add this. >Though hypotheses in "alternative history" are unverifiable, >it is quite likely that, without Communism, the Russian empire >would have fallen apart. All the others did (count: >Austro-Hungary, Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, >Spain...). This one survived, and spread, and keeps spreading. What about the American empire? Seems like an equally important factor in keeping such empires together is contiguity. The only contiguous empires I can think of off hand are U.S., China, and U.S.S.R. They're all seem pretty permanent. > >Communism provided it (1) with an incomparable machinery >of power and (2) with a supranational, internationalist >ideology, acceptable to the ruling class of subject lands. >It also (3) made economic gain secondary to power gain, so >the empire needn't be cost effective to exist. American ideology (whatever that may be) seems to have done a pretty effective job as well. -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/05/85)
In article <1576@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >What about the American empire? Seems like an equally important >factor in keeping such empires together is contiguity. The only >contiguous empires I can think of off hand are U.S., China, and >U.S.S.R. They're all seem pretty permanent. What American empire? The U.S. is a large country, but that doesn't make it an empire. Culturally and socially, it is a unit -- not totally lacking regional diversity, but relatively so. The same applies to China, with the exception of Tibet, which is occupied territoritory. (Historically, China was an empire, but successfully imposed its culture on much of the occupied territory. Most of the exceptions, such as Korea, are today independent.) Russia today, however, has a dominant Russian culture, which rules a variety of subject peoples of diverse cultures -- the various central Asian Moslem peoples, Ukrainians, Georgians, and the nations of eastern Europe. This is an empire. (India, by the way, is not an empire because of the lack of a dominant culture. It isn't overwhelmingly stable, either.) Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/06/85)
[Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa] > In article <7800608@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Let me add this. > >Though hypotheses in "alternative history" are unverifiable, > >it is quite likely that, without Communism, the Russian empire > >would have fallen apart. All the others did (count: > >Austro-Hungary, Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, > >Spain...). This one survived, and spread, and keeps spreading. > What about the American empire? Seems like an equally important > factor in keeping such empires together is contiguity. The only > contiguous empires I can think of off hand are U.S., China, and > U.S.S.R. They're all seem pretty permanent. Well, I admit I have not defined "empire". I was speaking in the context of the original note (to which Gabor answered). It men- tioned the fact that only half of Soviet population is Russian, and the others mostly live in contiguous republics. If you add Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Cuba and Mongolia, the ratio falls to less than one third. It is an obvious factor of instability. So, for the purposes of this article, let an empire be a combina- tion, under a single de-facto government, of several contiguous territories populated by different nationalities, of comparable size, some of which are dominant, and the others not free to leave. China has something like it, but on a quite different scale: the great majority are Han (Chinese), though some of the others do live in large contiguous territoties. (But then, of course, China is as Communist as Russia). USA has nothing like it except Puerto Rico (and they are free to go) and the Indian reservations. The Soviet situation is much like Austro-Hungary. I think you are quite right about contiguity; it is a factor. We should remember, however, that the Russian empire *did* fall apart during the Revolution, and was then reassembled by main force and ideology in the following years and decades. And, look- ing at the events, my estimate is that it took *both* contigui- ty and something like Communism to overcome the centrifugal forces. The Soviet ruling elite has been toying for several decades now with the idea of replacing the outworn Marxist creed with an ideology of Russian chauvinism. Mythological systems akin to Na- zism but with Russians as the true Aryans are currently quite po- pular there. The reason they have never made the crossing is, I believe, that an ethnocentric doctrine would not be fit for a multi-ethnic empire. Jan Wasilewsky