mlh@abnjh.UUCP (M. L. Holt) (12/14/83)
Stalin's murders and American support of slavery are both in the past, but what is even more revelant is the countries' reaction to the conditions. The United States has repudiated slavery openly, and legally and constitutionally banned it, while the Soviet government has never repudiated Stalin's style of governing (through fear and violence), and continues to use it, though with a lower profile. Mike Holt abnjh!mlh
ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (12/15/83)
Stalin's murders and American support of slavery are both in the
past, but what is even more revelant is the countries' reaction
to the conditions. The United States has repudiated slavery
openly, and legally and constitutionally banned it, while the
Soviet government has never repudiated Stalin's style of
governing (through fear and violence), and continues to use it,
though with a lower profile.
Stalinism was publicly repudated by Khrushchev, shortly after Stalin's
death.
Describing Stalins's style of government as "governing through fear and
violence" isn't saying much. The U. S. government governs though fear
and violence. ("If you break the law we will send you to jail and possibly
kill you.") The difference is that the Stalin executions were massive and
unpredictable whereas today you really have to work on it to get executed
in the Soviet Union or the United States.
Blacks are still discriminated against in the United States, which suggests
that the U. S. still practices slavery, "though with a lower profile."
Of course the Stalin and Andropov regimes are similar in that they are both
repressive. There is no free press, no guarenteed bill of rights, no
freely elected government. But these are things which have never existed
in Russia, so you could equally well compare Andropov with the Tzars.
Kenneth Almquisttrc@hou5a.UUCP (12/15/83)
slavery Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 8 The US government does not govern by "fear and violence" - it governs (officially - IE according to the constitution, and common practice) by controlled and limited use of force. The limits are imposed by laws and force is controlled by the courts and applied by the police. (There are exceptions, but they are *not* the rule.) On the other hand, Russia apparently did and still does use "fear and violence" to keep its people under control.
tim@minn-ua.UUCP (12/16/83)
slavery Organization: Univ. of Minn. Computer Center, Minneapolis Lines: 16 Come on, are we all that better? The people in Russai, even those in charge, are human, too. Lets not be so self righteous. We still discriminate, use propaganda, and do injustices every day. Don't think so? Do you know how easy it is to get thrown into a mental institue never to be seen again. Don't tell me that the CIA is any better than the KGB. Look at our foriegn policy: I am not very proud of it. Amoung other things, we are the ones who are making and placing all the new nuclear weapons. If Russia did this we would be screaming WAR MONGERS all over the place. Since it is us doing it, though, we are just protecting our intreasts. HA!! When Ressia places new weapons, any new weapons, do we say that they are just protecting their intreasts. NOOO!! Don't get me wrong; I am happy, even privileged, to be able to live in this country. Lets keep nationalism and propaganda down, though. Remember, we *have* to live in the same world with them and if we don't do it well, we will *all* suffer.
9231rjs@houxf.UUCP (12/17/83)
slavery Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 18 As to the assertions that the Soviet Union does not rule by force, and that Soviet citizens are free and don't have to worry about suddenly dissappearing, one should keep in mind that this is only true with respect to people who abide by the SU Governments Laws (read GOVERNMENT POLICY) ! This is particularly true with respect to one's religious beliefs! And it is documented, if you want sources, I can obtain them in about 2 weeks upon request. Soviet Citizens who are viewed as some kind of threat are typically incarcerated in so-called "hospitals" ( which are really mental hospitals ) or put into labor camps. I AM NOT JOKING! Please don't tell me about freedoms in the Soviet Union. Bob Switzer Bell Labs 3L-434 (201)9495133
werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (12/17/83)
You make this "fine distinction between "laws" and "policies" and, even though we might find the laws in the western countries more "acceptable", all of them have similar flaws to the ones we complain about in the SU. You want examples?? West-Germany: it is illegal to listen to listen in on certain radio frequencies. So much so, that simply owning a radio capabable of receiving them will result in criminal prosecution. A friend who moved there found out the hard way. And do you like it, that you HAVE TO pay a fee automatically and every month for EVERY radio and TV you own , for broadcasting service, supposedly??? France and Spain: conscientious objectors to the draft are jailed INDEFINITELY, I heard of cases rotting in jail for decades. USA: what about the discrepencies between the consumption of drugs?? I, personally, find the distinction absurd, and, from observation of consumers, would certainly rather make pot-smoking legal, and restrict alcohol. I have never seen violence or even aggressive behavior in result of marijuana. Now, don't smoke, but drink myself, mainly because that keeps me legal, but maybe you can see my point and agree with it. I have often explained to friends that the human is a subject of habits and his environment, and that the "average" Russian does not suffer day-in and day-out under his system,, he does not miss the freedom of press and free expression, mainly because we are all more or less adapted to our environment, and don't have "rebellious" (i.e. independent) thinking. The free-thinking intellectual capabable of "rocking the boat" is truely a rare animal, and a species we should pet and foster with utmost care. It's extraordanary dangerous for anyone, Russians or Americans to "preach" to the world, I for one feel sorry for the Russians that they don't have a better chance to learn about all the things one can do with ones life. But I suffer under the restrictions of the system I am living under and those are the ones I believe in actively trying to remove. And I am tired of hearing it said "Why don't you leave and go to xxx" It's being said in every country, to ANYONE who wants to modify ANYTHING, and is one of the dummest remarks ever made. What's the best way to find the best life??? Go to the BEST place you can think of (and get in) then IMPROVE it. Why waste energy doing it any other way?? It's like trying o invent the wheel. And don't I have the right to claim partial credit for the presnt system and the "GREATNESS" of it? It's all the result of some rebell-rousers who critcized and fought for changes and did not pay a DAMN bit of attention to the "WHY DON'T YOU GO ELSEWHERE" people !!!! As long as a change is desired by at least ONE, we should evaluate seriously, if granting it would really take away anything from anyone else or not. And if not, then implement the change. As simple as that. And when we decide to legislate certain activities, like smoking, drinking, driving, GUNS!!!, let's be rational about it and let's legislate only the REAL problems and in order of human cost, and not follow DEMAGOGUERY lacking all logic, like racism, sexism, nationalism, ...isms. do I need to mention religion in that context??? I highly appreciate religious persons, of most flavors, because most religiouns have a basis of human morality and practicality, which allows the "simpler" mind cope with the complexities of life. And what I really appreciate and find desirable, compassion, understanding, charity to the fellow-human being is displayed and taught by most religous persons. So I am anything but anti-religious, just not religious myself. Now, however, that's no reason, to let a perfectly good and enjoyable fellow-human-being influence the parameters of my life, i.e. laws and opportunities, simply because besides desirable ideas, his religion also has some other mumbo-jumbo part, which does not allow him to watch the next guy do things in ways he cannot approve of, but does not otherwise restrict his chosen way of living. And as far as the final statement in the article, to which I "follow-up" goes, telling someone else: "Don't tell me about freedom", which really got me to foam at the mouth ... I hope, and trust, you did not mean that. I don't know if it's in response to some real "dumb" statement of someone else, but, no matter, you made a statement, which can result in a "loss of hearing" for the good ideas someone may want to express. I don't expect that every statement I read or hear will tell me something new or worthwhile, but that does not keep me from listening and enjoying it. The more I have heard before, the more often I can feel "superior" to someone else's logic, the better for me. A sign that I can be a valuable member of society and make it worth someone else's while and speak up. Wise men are good teachers, and never discourage a question or the courage of a "student" to make a "dumb" statement. And the feeling of "superiority", which they have every right to have, should not lead to a "loss of hearing or sight", but rather to a feeling of obli- gation to try harder to become a better teacher, speaker, listener, and member of the living-things of this universe. Yours in the fight for a better life for all of us. ---Werner (and a Merry Chrismas, Solstice, whatever ....)
ka@hou3c.UUCP (12/18/83)
slavery <705@minn-ua.UUCP> <609@ihuxx.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 53 Let me make clear at the outset that I am not fond of the Soviet Union. I do not like repressive governments, and I would classify the Soviet government as repressive. However, there are degrees of repressive- ness, and the Soviet government is not all that repressive as repres- sive governments go. I agree with Bob Switzer that there is little political freedom in the Soviet Union. For example, in the Soviet Union you are not allowed to vote for the candidate of your choice. How important is this to the average Soviet citizen? Well, the average American citizen does not consider voting to be worth the effort of driving to the polls, and that's in a country with a strong tradition of representative govern- ment. The Soviets are repressive in other ways, but again I'm not sure these are a problem for the average Soviet citizen. I believe that if you are walking down the streets of Moscow you are no more likely to be harassed by police than you are in New York city. The difference is that in New York you are likely to be mugged. (Of course the Soviet Union has social problems too.) I don't want to minimize the flaws of the Soviet Union, but I don't want to overstate them either. Ronald Reagan's claim that the Soviet Union is the worst violator of human rights in the world is simply false. I hope that Reagan's understand of the Soviet Union is greater than his speeches indicate. Dave claims that "the people" can make a difference in the United States whereas they cannot in the Soviet Union. This is pretty much true, but I don't believe that the Soviet government ignores public opinion completely. The U. S. government is heavily influenced by PACs which represent some of the people but certainly not all. Dave mentions the difficulty of finding out what is going on in the Soviet Union. The problem is not just a lack of information (in fact a quite a bit of information on the Soviet Union is available), but the amount of misinformation. The Soviet government puts out a lot of misinformation, but it seems like the anti-Soviet misinformation is more likely to be believed. I can't let Dave's claim that the American people voted for missiles in Europe pass. The book Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections concludes that: In short, the position issues, while clearly related to voter choice, do not support the argument that Reagan received a mandate in favor of his particular policies. Instead, many people had quite mixed views and only slightly favored Reagan's policies over Cater's. Moreover, positional issues provide only one determinant of voter choice. Why then did Reagan win so handily in 1980? ... Regardless of what the incumbent promised to do if returned to office, voters felt he had not done a good job of managing policy during his incumbency. The fact that people didn't like Carter doesn't mean they approved of Reagan. Kenneth Almquist
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (12/18/83)
> Dave claims that "the people" can make a difference in the United > States whereas they cannot in the Soviet Union. This is pretty much > true, but I don't believe that the Soviet government ignores public > opinion completely. The U. S. government is heavily influenced by PACs > which represent some of the people but certainly not all. I would be quite interested if you can come up with ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that the Soviet Union can be influenced by public opinion. My impression is that the Soviet government actively follows a policy of making sure that public opinion cannot be formed or measured, lest it reinforce in the public mind that the people want something different than what the government wants to provide.
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (12/21/83)
[] > From: tim@minn-ua.UUCP (Tim Giebelhaus) > Come on, are we all that better? The people in Russai, even those in charge, Yes, we are quite a bit better even though we are not perfect. > are human, too. Lets not be so self righteous. We still discriminate, use > propaganda, and do injustices every day. Don't think so? Do you know how > easy it is to get thrown into a mental institue never to be seen again. At least, in this country, discrimination is not a matter of government policy. Ask any Jewish person in the Soviet Union, or any Christian. People are not thrown into mental hospitals for having beliefs which differ from government policy in this country. > Don't tell me that the CIA is any better than the KGB. Look at our foriegn > policy: I am not very proud of it. Amoung other things, we are the ones who > are making and placing all the new nuclear weapons. If Russia did this we > would be screaming WAR MONGERS all over the place. Since it is us doing it, > though, we are just protecting our intreasts. HA!! When Ressia places new > weapons, any new weapons, do we say that they are just protecting their > intreasts. NOOO!! > Don't get me wrong; I am happy, even privileged, to be able to live in > this country. Lets keep nationalism and propaganda down, though. Remember, > we *have* to live in the same world with them and if we don't do it well, we > will *all* suffer. The *NEW* weapons we are "making and placing" is in response to Soviet missile deployments which have been continuing for the last several years. We did not put the first nuclear missiles in Europe, the Soviet did. If you truly believe the Soviets are not making any new nuclear weapons, then your grasp on reality is tenuous at best. Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (12/21/83)
From Mark Horton: ___ > Dave claims that "the people" can make a difference in the United > States whereas they cannot in the Soviet Union. This is pretty much > true, but I don't believe that the Soviet government ignores public > opinion completely. The U. S. government is heavily influenced by PACs > which represent some of the people but certainly not all. I would be quite interested if you can come up with ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that the Soviet Union can be influenced by public opinion. My impression is that the Soviet government actively follows a policy of making sure that public opinion cannot be formed or measured, lest it reinforce in the public mind that the people want something different than what the government wants to provide. ___ In fact the SU does conduct opinion surveys although the results are not necessarily made public. Pravda and Isvestia recieve thousands of letters daily about a variety of non-ideological complaints, and these papers do serve as a public forum (within limits). The only reason that Khruschev gained power was due to public support of a sort. After Stalin's death, the party was headed by Malenkov. Khruschev lobbied within the party and was able to oust him, not through violence, but through majority suport within the party. Later, when the "anti-party" group in the poliburo tried to oust him, he appealed to the Central Committee (comprising a few hundred party leaders from around the country) and was retained. There may not be true democracy in the SU, but its not clear its any worse than say Mayor Daly's chicago in terms of responding to public sentiment. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-ml
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (12/22/83)
>And it is documented, if you want sources, I can obtain them in >about 2 weeks upon request. Please get them. And in the meanwhile read Amnesty International reports on countries with a "Western" regime, like Turkey, Chile, Central America and others.... -- Piet Beertema CWI (Center for Math. & Comp. Science), Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (12/22/83)
Did you know that right now in Germany the "Berufsverbot" is back?
That means that if you are merely suspected of having "left-wing"
sympathies, you cannot have certain jobs like shool teacher (and
if you happen to have such a job, you'll be thrown out). Even the
Supreme Court has judged that as legal!
And do you know when this practice started? Right: in the Hitler
days before and during WWII.
Oh, and Werner: in Holland too you HAVE TO pay a fee for "broadcasting
service". But don't forget: broadcasting is not a commercial activity
here!
--
Piet Beertema
CWI (Center for Math. & Comp. Science), Amsterdam
...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet