From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Who are the Occupiers?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:38:01 GMT

In article <95745@bu.edu>, gene@cs.bu.edu (Gene Itkis) writes:

|>Let's take politics first. Btw, I cross-post this to t.p.soviet. I am sorry I
|>did not save the original article of Phill's on the absolute necessity of
|>charisma in communist regimes. Perhaps somebody (Phill?) has it...

This is sloppy of you, you are trying to conduct a personal vendetta and you
haven't even got the competence to have saved the post where I made the
statement you are attempting to dispute. Most people on the net have seen enough
passages taken entirely out of context that this sort of cheap abuse just
dosen't work.


|>In article <1992Sep10.214702.18842@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes:
|>>In article <95618@bu.edu>, gene@cs.bu.edu (Gene Itkis) writes:
|>>
|>>|>First Phill puts his foot in his mouth ascribing charisma to Brezhnev
|>(well,
|>>|>to
|>>|>be fair, he did not say that - he simply made a more sweeping statement
|>that
|>>|>a
|>>|>comunist dictatorship cannot survive without a charismatic leader). 
|>>
|>>Err excuse me Einstein but exactly where is the USSR these days eh?
|>
|>No excuse, Mach - it took a relatively "charismatic" (well, certainly active)
|>Gorby a few years of trying fairly hard to start the reforms that lead to the
|>dissipation of USSR (somewhat to his surprize and dissatisfaction).

You knowlege of current affairs is lacking. Gorby fought to keep the USSR
together. It was when the conservative old guard tried to push him out that the
whole thing fell apart. 

|>>I do not recall saying that a communist dictatorship would fall apart
|>>overnight the minute that the person at the helm was a zero.
|>
|>Well, considering that no comunist regime survived more than ~70 years, you
|>are
|>in a good shape - after all around 20 years of Brezhnev's rule is "overnight"
|>for you. Wake up Phill. You had a rather long night. And what a minute...

As I said I never said anything about overnight changes. Twenty years is a
pretty short time for a whole society to collapse.


|>>In any case the leadership of Breshnev was in a sense predicted by George
|>>Orwell, remember that Big Brother was the all pervading figure that appeared
|>|>>on every street, his speeches in every paper etc, yet the man himself was
|>>"probably" long dead. The man was dead but the icon continued. 
|>
|>Don't call on Orwell, he did not say that a communist regime must have a
|>charismatic leader to survive - you did.

Another typicaly contentfull rebuttal, do you ever consider saying something
substantive rather than just say "you are wrong" and tack on an insult? 


So not only are you unable to understand Plato you have also failed entirely to
understand what Orwell was saying. 1984 is a political alegory, it is not
however a repeat of animal farm it is rather more insidious. Blair was a
Socialist, read Down and Uut in London and Paris if you doubt the fact. 1984 is
two things, it is a damnation of fascism and Stalinism, it is also a parody of
the British establishment. Winstons work in the ministy of truth is very similar
to Blairs, he would of course been aware that during the war others made
Churchills speaches.

The theme of Big brother is all pervading, the initial hope is of course that
things will change eventualy with the death of big brother. This hope is then
crushed quite deliberately when it is revealed that BB is probably dead
already.


|>>Breshnev was in fact clinicaly dead for the last four years of his office.
|>
|>Btw, it is BreZhnev if you want the proper transciption of the sound. And let
|>me assure you - Brezhnev was a zero from the time he came to power. His
|>predecessors were not much more.

He was chosen because everyone in the politburo feared Berria who was of course
a psychopath.

As for your assurances, if you can't understand Plato or Orwell you can keep
them. I think you rather miss the point, I am attempting to make interesting
points and genuinely debate the subject. You are simply negating what I say and
attempting to patronise. I am giving reasoned responses to your "arguments" and
succeeding in patronising you.


|>> the path that the Soviet Union had to tak was set
|>>long before Gorbachev came to power, however dismantling such a state takes
|>an
|>>immense amount of time.
|>
|>Would you say about 72 years?

No, because that would imply that the Bolshevik state represented a complete
discontinuity in the political administration of the Russian empire. This is
just not the case, the Tzar was also a vicious and cruel tyrant. What the
revolution and the bloody aftermath did ensure was that there was a natural
abhorence and distrust of the notion of a counter revolution. 


|>We could expect Phill to retract his statements on the necessity of charisma
|>for the survival of a communist regime, but I suspect he has another option
|>in
|>mind.

Why retract anything? You have merely proved that you are uncapable of grasping
a concept more complex than calling people names. I still think it pretty
obvious that a charismatic leader is a significant factor in the durability of a
Stalinist regime. Lest you think that a weakening of my stand though, it is not
I tend on the whole to be very precise in my use of labels like communist,
mainly because I know something of their history. What you are doing is to argue
against what you thought I said not what I did say, even on this basis you have
made a hash of it.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker