21H.001: How to Stage a Revolution

Post by asciilifeform » Sat, Aug 01, 2009, 8:56 PM UTC

drags wrote: post #19

asciilifeform wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would actually be most interested in how to overthrow communist regimes. It is actually very easy - just get yourself a place on the CIA payroll. This will take care of funding for propaganda, bribes, and parties for the right locals. It will also arrange a speedy getaway should your plan fail. Do your best to create and gather up "dissidents." Hype the bright capitalist future with stylish American pants for eve…

It's more accurate to say that this had little to no track record in the former Soviet sphere. The US had essentially no involvement (often to the despair of Soviet bloc citizens) in any of the three major uprisings (1956, 1968 and 1980-89). In fact, in the last of these (the period of instability beginning with the Gdansk Shipyard occupation in Poland, kicking up in 1988 and continuing through the "Year of Revolutio…

You have many good and interesting points, but

> The US had essentially no involvement (often to the despair of Soviet bloc citizens) in any of the three major uprisings

How do we know this? There is an ocean of still-classified documents from that period.

> the US was pretty much a nonentity when it came to "interference in the internal affairs" of Soviet puppet states.

In its official foreign policy, perhaps.

Talk to someone who reads the Russian-speaking blogosphere. This statement is heavily disputed there, for a wealth of excellent reasons (and not limited to the fact of just what kind of people benefited most from the overthrows.) The skeptics I'm talking about aren't on the level of the "9-11 truthers," either - the feeling that the US and its Western European lackeys deliberately undermined the USSR and its allies runs deep, and is not without foundation (see the Afghan War, for example. Or find someone who has heard Voice of America from the period. There is no shortage of evidence, if you care to look.)

Post by drags » Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 4:24 PM UTC

asciilifeform wrote: post #21

drags wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more accurate to say that this had little to no track record in the former Soviet sphere. The US had essentially no involvement (often to the despair of Soviet bloc citizens) in any of the three major uprisings (1956, 1968 and 1980-89). In fact, in the last of these (the period of instability beginning with the Gdansk Shipyard occupation in Poland, kicking up in 1988 and continuing through the "Year of Revolutio…

You have many good and interesting points, but > The US had essentially no involvement (often to the despair of Soviet bloc citizens) in any of the three major uprisings How do we know this? There is an ocean of still-classified documents from that period. > the US was pretty much a nonentity when it came to "interference in the internal affairs" of Soviet puppet states. In its official foreign policy, perhaps. Talk…

Sorry, you are correct about US intervention in Afghanistan. I intended to limit the scope of my response to the Eastern bloc, not the entire Soviet sphere. Poor choice of words on my part.

The reason I can be pretty sure there wasn't much US involvement in Eastern bloc revolutionary movements is that these movements time and again followed one of two patterns: A. "Reformist" 1. Trusted, committed Party members have falling out with Party Secretary, who is heavy-handed/incompetent/annoying. 2. These Party members (usually Politburo) force out the Party Secretary and promise to get the worker's state back on track. 3. These new leaders (to the surprise of everyone) actually become popular by forcing out the hated leader and promising reform. 4. The non-elite classes (i.e. those not in the Party) get a little too excited in the midst of this public euphoria, and start calling for cheaper meat, less overbearing local Party hacks, freely-elected union representatives. 5. The Soviets march in.

B. "Dissident-led" 1. A small group of self-proclaimed dissidents publicly and repeatedly denounce the regime. 2. Because of this, they lose their (usually) intellectual, white-collar jobs, guarantee no secondary education for their children, endure frequent jail stints and get assigned back-breaking physical work. 3. Nevertheless, they refuse to back down, and instead continue their public activities. 4. The economy gets bad/a rally is organized for a slain WWII hero, and 10k-15k people strike/protest/rally in the streets of the capitol city. Anti-communist chants inevitably occur, and someone gets shot. 5. The shooting, and the Party's embarrassment about it, encourages more people to protest and gives them a reason to protest. Soon as much as 1/4 of the population is in the streets on any given day. 6. The Soviets march in/Gorbachev writes off the Eastern bloc.

Neither of these patterns is especially useful/conducive to US interests. The first severely damages right-wing interests; here is an example of the people of a Soviet puppet state showing trust and affection in their political leaders. If it had worked -- if Hungary or Czechslovakia had transformed into something closer to Sweden or even Yugoslavia -- the meme of socialism as perpetrator of evil would be tarnished. It's also difficult to generate political enthusiasm by more than a few hundred people. That just doesn't happen, no matter how much money/support you give.

The second pattern is even more difficult to produce. Anyone willing to be bought off is a rational actor, and in 1977 nobody believed the Soviet Union was going to disappear anytime soon. Why would you give up all earthly comforts for a future that would likely never come?

Re: 21H.001: How to Stage a Revolution

Re: 21H.001: How to Stage a Revolution