Live data from Hacker News

Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

history.state.gov

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

#31
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a little stunned the reference is not obvious to a reasonably well educated person over the age of 20. I was a baby when this album came out and knew who they were by the time I was probably 10 or so, despite the fact they had been long broken up. This is one of the most influential bands in rock music history... for an adult to be unaware, would almost be like a younger version of myself to be clueless about who…

It's probably one of those cases where a lot of people heard about the band, but have no idea what albums they released.

Perhaps, but this is their only album. As noted above (ref the wiki entry), it stands on its own as one of the most influential in modern music history.

I always thought the word “Bollocks” was internationally recognized slang because of it.

Re: Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

#33
post #18

> What To Expect From Moscow Under Gorbachev: ... First moves will be to revitalize Soviet economy, end the arms race, and get Mrs. G a charge account at Neiman Marcus. Two out of three ain't bad. > Don’t blubber. You’re guilty as hell of violating whales Little joke there - but a very important issue as the USSR was a major factor in almost making whales extinct, and for very little economic gain to themselves. > Av…

[deleted]

Re: Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

#34
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simplest explanation is that people in the US gov't act and believe this kind of stuff. It aligns with every piece of leaked private correspondence from these people, as well as public statements at the time and now. If anything the last 4 years (mostly composed of "professional politicians" despite those at the top maybe being outsiders!) should be real "mask off" to the supposed genius and amazing tradecraft of…

It is striking how moronic and ill informed it is. When I think of all Ambassadors with grace and favour appointments it makes me grimace. The extraordinary testimony from Fiona Hill and Alex Vindman was at least reassuring that competent people were in government, even if they were being ignored.

> It is striking how moronic and ill informed it is.

I didn't get that at all. Maybe it's discourteous and flippant. The humour is broad rather than refined but I still chuckled.

Hard to evaluate "ill informed" due to distance in time and the fact that I lack insight into the context. It wasn't aiming to be comprehensive and insightful. It was a tongue in cheek crib sheet between people that appeared to know and get where each other was coming from.

Re: Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

#35
post #18

> What To Expect From Moscow Under Gorbachev: ... First moves will be to revitalize Soviet economy, end the arms race, and get Mrs. G a charge account at Neiman Marcus. Two out of three ain't bad. > Don’t blubber. You’re guilty as hell of violating whales Little joke there - but a very important issue as the USSR was a major factor in almost making whales extinct, and for very little economic gain to themselves. > Av…

> Burkina Faso: important once, I cannot remember why Probably because at the time it was in danger of becoming a successful socialist country (under then-president Thomas Sankara), a state of affairs which obviously could not be permitted to continue (Sankara was duly assassinated in 1987 by his best friend who was much more compliant to the West): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

   successful socialist country
Does such a thing exist?

What do you count as success? Just a few years earlier, and driven by the same socialist expansion strategy, another developing state turned socialist, Cambodia, with active help from Moscow. Is this what you have in mind as success?

Wasn't Sankara a charismatic leader, and military man who came to power by a coup d'état? Have you looked at the track record of military coup d'états in history ...?

Re: Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

#36
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simplest explanation is that people in the US gov't act and believe this kind of stuff. It aligns with every piece of leaked private correspondence from these people, as well as public statements at the time and now. If anything the last 4 years (mostly composed of "professional politicians" despite those at the top maybe being outsiders!) should be real "mask off" to the supposed genius and amazing tradecraft of…

It is striking how moronic and ill informed it is. When I think of all Ambassadors with grace and favour appointments it makes me grimace. The extraordinary testimony from Fiona Hill and Alex Vindman was at least reassuring that competent people were in government, even if they were being ignored.

An intelligent person can communicate important information through jest. In this ability is found charisma and charm - important characteristics for a diplomat. We wouldn't want our adversaries to think us dull.

Re: Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

#37
post #12
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha. "Point to Make —We have new proposal: why don’t you send Lenin’s body to US on tour. Just like King Tut exhibit. —We are prepared to respond by sending Jane Fonda workout group on tour of Soviet cities."

> —We are prepared to respond by sending Jane Fonda workout group on tour of Soviet citise This was most probably a joke but about 10 years ago I discovered this Soviet aerobics video [1] from 1984 which would have put many Jane Fonda videos to shame. The music all by itself is worth it a thousand times. [1] https://youtu.be/TkYdZC6R2rE

Mind boggling! Such gems are why HN can be so much fun :-)

Re: Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

#38
The whole tone of it was corny, even for the standards of the time. But there is a subtext in it worth commenting on. Once you agree to engage on the level of a "serious" discussion in an existential power struggle with committed ideologues, like Reagan and the soviets, you've given key ground.

Even (especially?) communists will tell you the soviet ideology wasn't communism. The soviet state was totalitarian, which is essentially defined by the object against which it constantly militates, which is truth in all and any form. The total war on any truth that could allow for an island of private individual identity in opposition to the movement is the sufficient and necessary condition for the totalitarian urge (Arendt, etc.). What made Reagan the oddly ideal person to respond to that movement was it was his cowboy-actor personal boundaries that were anathema to the uncertainty on which the soviet mentality depended and cultivated in people. It was a unique situation.

Obama had a similar "openness," I think, which was not what most people think at all, but rather complete confidence in the boundary between himself and others that enabled him to seem open to any and all circumstances. Reality is nobody ever gets close enough to see the heat and steel behind it. Comparably, Bill Clinton even had more sharp edges than Obama.

Maybe the 80's were just this corny, but the briefing note has some tells of very polished people code switching to what they understood only from the outside as Reagan's aw-shucks earnestness.

Re: Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

#39

The whole tone of it was corny, even for the standards of the time. But there is a subtext in it worth commenting on. Once you agree to engage on the level of a "serious" discussion in an existential power struggle with committed ideologues, like Reagan and the soviets, you've given key ground. Even (especially?) communists will tell you the soviet ideology wasn't communism. The soviet state was totalitarian, which i…

    communists will tell you 
    the soviet ideology wasn't 
    communism.
This falls in no-true-Scotsman territory, and should be seen as a self-exculpatory narrative, after all, they sent millions to an early death, yet the societies they created were worse than those that they overturned, and much worse than the best functioning societies at the time.

Let's also be clear that Soviets read the works by Marx and Engels in great detail, it's not like they didn't know what Marx and Engels wrote. For example, the Communist Manifesto [1, 2] outlines a few essential demands [3] for a transition that will eventually lead to communist utopia. Every single one of those was executed, and achieved by Stalin.

Exactly what "communism" should mean has never really been clarified, but whatever Marx and Engels meant by it, the fact that carrying out their 10 key demands exacted an 8 digit death toll is an extremely strong indication that there is something fundamentally wrong with Marx and Engels ideas.

Moreover, the world A/B tested this: two countries were split (Germany and Korea), one was ruled by a communist party (Soviet aligned) the other capitalist and within a decade the capitalist one was doing dramatically better than the other. So much so, that you Soviet aligned one had to turn itself to a prison to prevent the population from fleeing. (Yes I am aware that this is not a repeatable scientific experiment. However it is the most decisive 'experiment' you can hope for in politics and social theory. It is what we must learn from. To quote Marx: "A Nation should and can learn from other nations".)

[1] K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party. http://activistmanifesto.org/assets/original-communist-manif...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

[3] Briefly (and from [2]): progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; abolition of child labour; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned land, etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society.

Re: Briefing note: US Deputy Secretary Of State meeting with Andrei Gromyko (1985)

#40
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Burkina Faso: important once, I cannot remember why Probably because at the time it was in danger of becoming a successful socialist country (under then-president Thomas Sankara), a state of affairs which obviously could not be permitted to continue (Sankara was duly assassinated in 1987 by his best friend who was much more compliant to the West): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

successful socialist country Does such a thing exist? What do you count as success? Just a few years earlier, and driven by the same socialist expansion strategy, another developing state turned socialist, Cambodia, with active help from Moscow. Is this what you have in mind as success? Wasn't Sankara a charismatic leader, and military man who came to power by a coup d'état ? Have you looked at the track record of mi…

Not to engage the broader question of whether socialism has any success stories, but I think one could more sympathetically read GP's "successful socialist country" in this context as "a country successfully converted to idealogical alignment with the Soviet Union"
Post reply on HN