Intifada III

[Womble]

A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia is great. I think that's the only one that was translated into English, but he has several others published in Russian.

I'll check it out. Hopefully one of the Russian book stores at the Tel-Aviv Central bus station has it (well, we have whopping 6 Russian book stores there, one's got to have it, right? )

So you would rather live in slums and work 12-14-hour shifts at a factory with no safety standards, and all that while earning a wage that barely gets you and your family though, and without any benefits? I would rather have a mediocre 8-hour job, a lousy healthcare rather than no healthcare, a lousy wage rather than having to consider white bread a luxury, a public education for children rather than no education. And that's just a few examples. I am not saying that what they did was great, but it definitely wasn't horrible. Just put yourself into the shoes of a typical Russian citizen, and imagine living the way they lived, in poverty and misery, with nothing to look forward to.

Ahem. 8- hour shifts began in the Soviet Union much later than in the Capitalist West, plus they were only nominally 8 hours. Soviet workers did extra time at work on regular basis under one excuse or another, plus obligatory work on weekends from time to time and a whole lot of other stuff of the same sort.
Safety standards? Sorry but that's a laugh. Russian factories STILL have zero work place safety. You are forgetting how much of Soviet reality existed only on paper. Healthcare...don't get me started on healthcare in the country where my grandmother had to go to the hospital with her own food, dishes and, bed sheets. Only those who were lucky enough to live in the capitals had a half decent health care, the "provinces" were being screwed over for the whole 70 years.
Living in slums...My father's family lived in a one room wooden house, with water being taken from a well outside and with a "bourjuika" oven instead of central heating. And that was in Vitebsk, mind you, not in some God forsaken Siberian village. And my dad's parents were both teachers, "intelligentsia", Soviet equivalent of the middle class. And again, don't get me started on what was a "luxury" back then, before I get reminded how people stood in line for hours to buy such rare commodities as sausage, soap and toilet paper.

You don't think that getting literacy levels from 3% of the population to 99% of population is a great achievement? Or establishing a system of public education? Call it forceful if you want, but it created a whole generation of middle class that othewise would be stuck in fields and factories lacking any education whatsoever.

That is the kind of achievement you can credit any dictator for, from Hitler to Saddam.

And so what if they had to give up some territory? Most people living there benefitted from it, and it stopped a bloody and needless war that was impoverishing the country.

...only to push the country into a much more bloody and devastating civil war, that ended with an attempt to reclaim the lands given up under the Brest treaty. A failed and costly attempt, mind you. Tuhachevsky, the "strategic genius" of the Soviets, was beaten by Poland with such ease that to this day I wonder why Pilsudsky didn't chase him to the walls of Moscow.

I read "How the stell was forged," albeit a long time ago. I'm not saying that it was a night-and-day change there. Nor am I big simpatiser of either Russia or the communists. I am only arguing that the communists did accomplish some things that brought progress and development, and that did move the country forward. Sure, very bad things happened then, and more followed later, but that's a whole other issue.

It's the same issue. The price of achievement should be considered when evaluating it. The only progress and development ever achieved by the Soviet Union was in military and space technology- which is why a popular joke said that the Soviet Union was a "Rwanda with rockets".

And even much of that is distorted by the Western Cold-War propaganda that would make you think half of the population of the Soviet Union was in GULAG and the other half was on the list to follow them.

The best anti-Soviet propaganda for me was my father's stories and the episode in school when I accidentally received three different history books from different decades, which gave me a chance to compare.
Yes, most Westerners seem to have a caricature image of the Soviet Union- but the reality was WORSE than they think, not better. No Westerner can even begin to conceive the depth of corruption, the degree of chaos in the "planned" economy and the thickness of deception in the Soviet society.

[KettleWhistle]

I'll check it out. Hopefully one of the Russian book stores at the Tel-Aviv Central bus station has it (well, we have whopping 6 Russian book stores there, one's got to have it, right? )

I remember it from '93, when it was just built. Seemed pretty impressive back then, although it didn't have any Russian bookstores.

Ahem. 8- hour shifts began in the Soviet Union much later than in the Capitalist West, plus they were only nominally 8 hours. Soviet workers did extra time at work on regular basis under one excuse or another, plus obligatory work on weekends from time to time and a whole lot of other stuff of the same sort.

Yes, but it still was easier and better for them than before. I think you are forgetting that the pre-Stalin Soviet Union undergone a sort of cultural renaissance. For most people it was hope-filled time during which they have seen many changes that looked promising in making their lives better. That wasn't the time when people worked extra time because they had to. Rather, they volunteered in order to build their country.

The people who lost during that time, were thouse like my family becase they were the middle-class burgeoise. It took my grandfather a lot of effort and money to get all the official mentions of owning several estates, and huge house in the middle of the city where he lived wiped out. My other grand and great-grand parents owned stores, flour mills, and small banks.

Safety standards? Sorry but that's a laugh. Russian factories STILL have zero work place safety. You are forgetting how much of Soviet reality existed only on paper.

I wouldn't say "zero." No question, it is lousy at best, but it's not what it used to be during Tsar's time. It isn't common for people to have their figers or limbs cut off by the factory equipment, there are some standards for construction work, and some others are in fact in place. But overall, I'm not saying there wasn't some 50 years of neglect. My only argument here, is that initially, during the 20's things did get better.

Healthcare...don't get me started on healthcare in the country where my grandmother had to go to the hospital with her own food, dishes and, bed sheets. Only those who were lucky enough to live in the capitals had a half decent health care, the "provinces" were being screwed over for the whole 70 years.

Well, I lived in a provincial capital, but I don't remember stuff like that happening until 90s.

Living in slums...My father's family lived in a one room wooden house, with water being taken from a well outside and with a "bourjuika" oven instead of central heating. And that was in Vitebsk, mind you, not in some God forsaken Siberian village. And my dad's parents were both teachers, "intelligentsia", Soviet equivalent of the middle class. And again, don't get me started on what was a "luxury" back then, before I get reminded how people stood in line for hours to buy such rare commodities as sausage, soap and toilet paper.

When was that? There were places like that in my hometown, but it was pretty uncommon after 70s.

I wonder why Pilsudsky didn't chase him to the walls of Moscow.

He must've ran into Ivan Susanin.

But jokes aside, I find it peculiar that during that civil war the Red Army consisted of volunteers, while the "Whites" were paid, often even hired mercenaries.

It's the same issue. The price of achievement should be considered when evaluating it. The only progress and development ever achieved by the Soviet Union was in military and space technology- which is why a popular joke said that the Soviet Union was a "Rwanda with rockets".

If you're talking about Soviet Union during the 70+years of it's existence, sure. But not if you compare between before and after the revolution of 1917.

The best anti-Soviet propaganda for me was my father's stories and the episode in school when I accidentally received three different history books from different decades, which gave me a chance to compare.
Yes, most Westerners seem to have a caricature image of the Soviet Union- but the reality was WORSE than they think, not better. No Westerner can even begin to conceive the depth of corruption, the degree of chaos in the "planned" economy and the thickness of deception in the Soviet society.

We can easily imagine that. Mexico is just 2 hour drive South. But really, USSR was livable. It was bad, no doubts about that. But from 60s and on, life was pretty steady and secure. At least that was my experience. My parents worked 8-hour days. We had free healthcare, and doctors even made housecalls--all at no charge. Nobody was worried about losing their job. Most of our problems were along the lines of where to get various things, from food to electronics to even cars. And we worried that somebody might find out we listened to "Voice of America" on the radio.

[Womble]

Yes, but it still was easier and better for them than before. I think you are forgetting that the pre-Stalin Soviet Union undergone a sort of cultural renaissance. For most people it was hope-filled time during which they have seen many changes that looked promising in making their lives better. That wasn't the time when people worked extra time because they had to. Rather, they volunteered in order to build their country.

Or that was what the Soviet propaganda said. I suspect things were a little bit different in practice. "Volunteer" usually meant something very different in the Soviet Novoyaz.

I wouldn't say "zero." No question, it is lousy at best, but it's not what it used to be during Tsar's time. It isn't common for people to have their figers or limbs cut off by the factory equipment, there are some standards for construction work, and some others are in fact in place. But overall, I'm not saying there wasn't some 50 years of neglect. My only argument here, is that initially, during the 20's things did get better.

During the 20-s? As in during the NAP times, when some capitalism was allowed in order to save the state from immediate economic collapse? When Bukharin put up a very un-Communist slogan "get rich"? Yep, there indeed was some improvement for four-five years or so- but it was so short lived I didn't think it was even worth mentioning. Stalin successfully did away with it as soon as the inflation was stabilized.

When was that? There were places like that in my hometown, but it was pretty uncommon after 70s.

Well, my dad was talking about late 50-s, early 60-s perhaps. But my best friend in school lived with his family of four people in a one-room apartment, sharing the kitchen and the toilet with another such family, for as long as I knew him- and that's ten years between the mid-80s and the mid-90s. "Communal flats", remember? People lived in them for decades, raised children and children's children until their turn came to get a flat in a Khruschoba type house (speaking of slams, hehehe).

But jokes aside, I find it peculiar that during that civil war the Red Army consisted of volunteers, while the "Whites" were paid, often even hired mercenaries.

The Red Army consisted largely of people forcibly recruited and had their own mercenaries as well- the infamous Latvian Riflemen, for example, and some Chinese units (which are rarely mentioned, but it is not impossible to find the info if you know where to search). They were also using gangs of anarchist maradeurs, whose main aim was getting rich by robbing the population- such as the gang of Nestor Makhno, who later turned against the Bolsheviks.

If you're talking about Soviet Union during the 70+years of it's existence, sure. But not if you compare between before and after the revolution of 1917.

See above, in the NAP part.

We can easily imagine that. Mexico is just 2 hour drive South.

THAT already shows that you can't imagine that.

But really, USSR was livable. It was bad, no doubts about that. But from 60s and on, life was pretty steady and secure. At least that was my experience. My parents worked 8-hour days. We had free healthcare, and doctors even made housecalls--all at no charge. Nobody was worried about losing their job. Most of our problems were along the lines of where to get various things, from food to electronics to even cars. And we worried that somebody might find out we listened to "Voice of America" on the radio.

It all depends where you lived and how you define liveable. The Soviet peasants, for example, were being prevented from leaving the Kolkhoz by being deprived of passports. Yes, people worked 8-hour days and got enough money for food- provided they lived in a place where shops' counters weren't too empty. For many, having a grandmother in the village or a "dacha" in the countryside was a matter of simple survival, because such people could grow their own food and not depend on anything. I still remember how my dad and I were piling up hundreds of kilogramms of potato in the basement for the winter, both for ourselves and for the grandparents. And why do you think the majority of the Soviet people were going every fall to the forest for the edible mushrooms? Just for the fun of it? Why do you think the ties between friends and family members in the Soviet Union were valued so high? It was all a matter of survival, of being "connected", of having people to borrow money from and "insiders" here and there. Like with the healthcare. Yes, it was free, but to have half-decent healthcare and doctors who knew what they were doing you had to be "connected" or Jewish (in the latter case you had a good chance to find a friend's friend who was a good doctor). The education was also free- except that bribing the examinators was just about necessery to get even into a provincial uni. Ah yes, the central heating was also free- except that it was often being turned off right in the middle of the winter (when my sister was born, in the late December, we had neither heating nor hot water to bathe the newborn, and my mom nearly burned down the flat trying to keep my sister warm with a heating device that would give any Westerner a heart attack just by looking at it).

The pre-revolutionary Russia was an outdated half-Feudal monster, that's right- but it was on the way of reforming. The February revolution brought to power a liberal government aiming to modernize the society and convert it after a British model into a constitutional monarchy with decent living standards. It was that "temporary" government, not the Tsar, who was overthrown in the October revolution.

[Mediocrates]

One of the key failures of the US during the Cold War was prognosticating the size and growth of the Soviet economy. Around 1957, heralded by the 'missile gap', CIA economists predicted that the Soviet economy was about 65% of the size of the US but at current growth rates would match the US around 1977, or in about 20 years. By the mid-late 1960's that parity date was pushed back to 1987. And ten years later it was pushed back another 10-15 years. Going back to the 1950's the US mistakenly assumed that the Soviet economy was growing at about 8-9%/yr. In fact all through this period the Soviet economy was growing at about 1% through 1970 and then turned negative at rates up to -4% in some years. Moreover the base figure, the 65% baseline turned out to be wrong too and the Soviet economy was probably not more than 47% of the US economy at that time. In other words they never had a chance. They would never reach parity with the US unless something catastrophic happened to us. Compounding this difference was the fact that the Soviets never, by design ever developed a consumer economy. All economic development went into industrial and military sectors and not into making people's lives materially better.

[KettleWhistle]

Or that was what the Soviet propaganda said. I suspect things were a little bit different in practice. "Volunteer" usually meant something very different in the Soviet Novoyaz.


During the 20-s? As in during the NAP times, when some capitalism was allowed in order to save the state from immediate economic collapse? When Bukharin put up a very un-Communist slogan "get rich"? Yep, there indeed was some improvement for four-five years or so- but it was so short lived I didn't think it was even worth mentioning. Stalin successfully did away with it as soon as the inflation was stabilized.

Yes, it is all true, but all I'm saying is that the Communist Revolution was a normal response to the situation created by laizes-fare capitalist economy and tsarists abuses. There were all the good, the bad, and the ugly, but you can't blame people who wanted change, and revolted in order to achieve it for all the problems with USSR. It became modish to blame everything that was and is wrong with that country and what has become of it on the communists, Bolshevics, and their revolution. But such judgement is at best very shallow. It is like to say that China is horrible monster of a country and is barely livable, all due to the mistakes made by their communist governments, lack of sewers in the country side, and corruption. In fact most Chinese who live in developed areas are doing just fine.

It all depends where you lived and how you define liveable. The Soviet peasants, for example, were being prevented from leaving the Kolkhoz by being deprived of passports.

That was better than having them flood the cities, as happened after they were allowed there.

Yes, people worked 8-hour days and got enough money for food- provided they lived in a place where shops' counters weren't too empty. For many, having a grandmother in the village or a "dacha" in the countryside was a matter of simple survival, because such people could grow their own food and not depend on anything. I still remember how my dad and I were piling up hundreds of kilogramms of potato in the basement for the winter, both for ourselves and for the grandparents. And why do you think the majority of the Soviet people were going every fall to the forest for the edible mushrooms? Just for the fun of it? Why do you think the ties between friends and family members in the Soviet Union were valued so high? It was all a matter of survival, of being "connected", of having people to borrow money from and "insiders" here and there. Like with the healthcare. Yes, it was free, but to have half-decent healthcare and doctors who knew what they were doing you had to be "connected" or Jewish (in the latter case you had a good chance to find a friend's friend who was a good doctor). The education was also free- except that bribing the examinators was just about necessery to get even into a provincial uni. Ah yes, the central heating was also free- except that it was often being turned off right in the middle of the winter (when my sister was born, in the late December, we had neither heating nor hot water to bathe the newborn, and my mom nearly burned down the flat trying to keep my sister warm with a heating device that would give any Westerner a heart attack just by looking at it).

I wouldn't say that it was all like that. At least not in my experience. Sure, there were problems getting good food, but the basics were always there. Of course, if you wanted good caviar, good fish and meats, good sausage, etc., you had to have connections. Average doctors were free, but for good ones you needed connections, someone to introduce you so that you can bribe them. College admissions? Russians, Ukies, many others got in easily with average scores. Much like blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. If you were a Jew, indeed, you had to either find a Rabinovich, a Wasserman, or Shikerman (no pun intended) on the admission committee, or to bribe you way in. But where don't you need connections to make a decent living?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I'm out of there, and I have no desire to ever visit. Moreover, I think that all the Jews should leave Russia, except for those that have make good money. And even they should be getting their families the hell out of there. Life in Russia is much fancies, easier, and freer when you have money, but it's no place for our people. That said, most of the ideas Westerners, and especially Americans, have about life in the Soviet Union, don't reflect the reality in the slightest. And I think that's a problem.

[Womble]

One of the key failures of the US during the Cold War was prognosticating the size and growth of the Soviet economy.

That wasn't a US failure. The Soviet system, like any totalitarian regime, deceived everyone including itself. The Soviet leaders did not have adequate statistics on their own economy, because the lower rank bureaucrats boasted incredible achievements in order to get a promotion, and they themselves were being lied to by both their superiors and those below them in the hierarchy. Trust me, it was a true insane asylum from the administrative point of view, and you can't blame normal people for not being able to find out what the Soviets themselves didn't know.

[Mediocrates]

I still consider it a failure. Intelligence's job is to know what even your opponent does not know about themselves. I relay an interesting nugget from D. P. Moynihan who spoke of "...knowing that the Soviet Union was finished when upon a visit there, in the limo that picked me up from the airport, the driver grabbed the gearshift level and it broke off in his hand...this was telling".

[Mediocrates]

DISENGAGEMENT - TRACK RECORD EXAMINED







by Yoram Ettinger

1. Israel's 1993/6 disengagement from Gaza and 40% of Judea and Samaria established the pro-Saddam/Taliban PA, coinciding with the dramatic rise in anti-US Islamic terrorism, leading to the Twin Towers terrorism. Palestinian terrorists fought the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Islamic terrorists compare Israel's disengagement to the US retreat from Beirut (1983) and Somali (1993).

2. IDF re-engagement with, and control of, Palestinian towns has sharply cut terrorism in 2004. Palestinian terrorism has targeted, mostly, Israel's pre-1967 area. IDF presence in/around Gaza protects, primarily, pre-1967 Israel.

3. In 1994 Israel disengaged from 85% of Gaza (and 100% of its population). By 1998 Israel disengaged from 40% of Judea & Samaria (and 95% of its population). It yielded unprecedented terrorism, facilitated anti-US and anti-Israel hate-education, smuggling and manufacturing of terror hardware, recruitment and training of terrorists.

4. 250 Israelis were murdered, by Palestinian terrorists, during 1988-1993. 1,700 Israelis have been murdered, by Palestinian terrorists, since the launching of the Oslo-driven disengagements (85,000 in US terms; 28 Twin Towers).

5. The 1994 disengagement created the largest terrorist base in the world, led/harbored by PLO graduates of terrorist camps in Yemen, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon and Tunisia. It is interpreted, by terrorists, as a retreat by the role-model of countering terrorism (Israel), and a reward to the role-model of terrorism (PLO/PA). It has inspired Islamic terrorism, which threatens pro-US Arab regimes (Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.).

6. The 1995 disengagement from Bethlehem and Beit Jallah facilitated a takeover by Moslem terrorists, which has accelerated the flight of Christians.

7. The July 2000 disengagement from Southern Lebanon - following the loss of 21 soldiers in 17 months - propelled Hizballah to regional prominence (including in Iraq and Afghanistan), expanded Hizballah's role in Gaza and J&S, injured Israel's posture of deterrence and adrenalized Palestinian terrorism.

8. Egypt has inspired Palestinian hate-education and has encouraged the smuggling of terrorist hardware to Gaza. Its re-engagement with Gaza could unintentionally produce Israel-Egypt military confrontations (e.g. during hot pursuit of terrorists), dragging the US into unnecessary conflicts with both.

9. President Reagan: "History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." Reaganism and the proposed Disengagement Plan (cut & run from Palestinian terrorists in Gaza and northern Samaria, while uprooting Jews) constitute an oxymoron.



=============================================

Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)

POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel

Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380

mailto:michael@womeningreen.org

http://www.womeningreen.org

To make a contribution via our secure server or through Paypal, go to: https://host5.apollohosting.com/womeningreen/funds/donation/donation.html

To subscribe to the Women in Green list,

please send a blank email message to:

list4-subscribe@womeningreen.org

To unsubscribe from the Women in Green list,

please send a blank email message to:

list4-unsubscribe@womeningreen.org

[Mediocrates]

It's entirely possible that Oprah's massive threat is really no more than a threat to themselves. According to this piece in Haaretz there is an undercurrent that some Yesha Jews would rather kill themselves, than move.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/546747.html

[Mediocrates]

Administrative Detention, something we think of the gulag when we hear it, is the blunt object Israel wants to use against it's own citizens.


http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=4844


Or as Oprah would say "Ve haf vays of makink you tolerant".