This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
And finally, when we destroyed blockade, people destroyed blockade, Yeltsin brought tanks, and tanks were shooting to the parliament. And thousands of people, as I said, were arrested, and so on, and killed. Hundreds were killed directly. So we know what does it mean for more liberal democracy in Russia. We already have this experience.
Paul JayAnd let me add to what I was saying about the United States and formal democracy.
The preponderance of the elites in United States defend formal democracy in the United States. But they have no problem with the most vicious dictatorships everywhere else in the world as long as they're pro-American dictatorships, and not only in Asia, Africa and Latin America, where they have supported dictatorship after dictatorship. The Americans supported dictatorship in Greece after World War II. They supported dictatorship in Spain after World War II. In Portugal.
There's no place that they don't mind a dictatorship as long as it's pro-American and it's suppressing the left.
Aleksandr BuzgalinYes, it's true. That's why we have an ambivalent situation. We have less formal democracy; we need formal democracy; we need more formal democracy. But, what I am afraid, if we don't have real movement, real struggle from below, if we don't have social changes, social orientation, at least a little bit more social orientation, but not minimum, but more social orientation, economic life, if we don't have opportunity to create real independent, strong trade unions, self-management in the regions, in the cities, without that, formal democracy will be not very useful in our country and everywhere. This is first.
And second important aspect. It's contradiction. Our officials are less democratic in formal way than in the United States. But this is one part of the reality. Another part of the reality is that in culture and ideology we have a little bit more memory about anti-fascism, about Soviet experience and some forms of, let's say, support of culture, not of formal marketization of everything.
In our country, we have domination of market, yes. But little bit less than in the United States. You know, it's impossible to say that in our country everything is for sale. We have some values and the memory about heroic decisions of Soviet people even, and so on. So this is not so simple. And sometimes I think Russia now plays a relatively positive role in international politics, at least as counterforce to the U.S. imperialism, and, in some respects, ambitions of other countries who are satellites of the United States or in alliance together with the United States.
So this is important to remember. And when we criticize Russian state - and I criticize all time, even in foreign policy - we must remember that we must in the future, if we want to have progress, to increase this anti-NATO, anti-imperialist line in the foreign policy, not to say we are friends of NATO and we like everything that NATO is doing, and now we'll be satellite of NATO, and we want to have NATO troops in our country.
You know, this is an important aspect, I think.
Paul JayI think it's too complicated right now to get into a serious situation. I'm not so sure the Americans or the Russians, it was anything positive about what they did in Syria. But I certainly agree with you on the NATO. There's simply no justification to even there being a NATO now. It's nothing but another excuse for arms expenditures and having this aggressive positioning towards Russia.
I mean, it's ridiculous to think, in fact it was always ridiculous to think the Soviet Union planned to march into Western Europe. It never planned to do so. There's no evidence of it.
You know, I'm doing this documentary now with Daniel Ellsberg, and part of his transition from being a cold warrior to being a critic of U.S. policy was when he discovered that the, you know, he was working for RAND Corporation as a nuclear-war planner. He actually was helping write the nuclear-war strategy for the United States in 1960. And he came to understand that the Soviet positioning was defensive. There was nothing offensive in the posture of the Soviet Union. And I think it's the same thing today. To think that Russia is going to come and march into Western Europe is just ridiculous. But that's the picture that gets painted. It's a continuation of the Cold War mythology.
Aleksandr BuzgalinYeah, it was necessary to create invented enemy. It was necessary to find enemy anywhere. They decided that Russia is not bad because it is big, big territory and still a big nuclear power, strong army, a relatively strong army, and relatively independent foreign policy. So, we're a good object to create invented enemy and then to have a basis for the growth of military-industrial complex, in general the militarization of our life. The same we received in our country. So, I don't know who was the first, but, as we said, it's together. And this is extremely dangerous, the politics.
And, by the way, now it's time for the renewal of the peace movement. And today is the last day of the World Social Forum. It was a big event on the Internet, but still it was a very big event. And the peace, anti-NATO agenda was very important in this process. It was huge rallies with a lot of listeners, viewers, people who were watching this program on peace. And I think it is time to think again about the struggle against militarization, against the threat of the war and so on.
Paul JayWell, I think that has to merge with the movement on climate change. The threat are both existential and the solutions are more or less the same.
Aleksandr BuzgalinYes, you're absolutely right. I agree completely. Yes.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
