Lenin and Stalin (and Trotsky and Bukharin and Khrushchev etc. -- and Nicholas II and Rasputin for that matter) were the products of a collapsing quasi-feudal society of little relevance to anybody not a part of such a society (and there aren't many left). I don't think they're relevant to either the present day (except ambiguously) or to talking about how "progressive" or "reactionary" the Soviet system was (relative to what? What was the alternative?). It's like debating the merits of Charlemagne or the Pharoahs (were the Pharoahs progressive or reactionary? In comparison to what alternative universe?). My view is that the Soviet system succeeded in modernizing what is now the post-Soviet space (good) and killed and repressed a lot of people in the process (bad). Doing a cost-benefit analysis after the fact is a bit irrelevant. Who does cost-benefit analyses of the Roman Empire?
--- Peter Lavelle <untimely_thoughts at yahoo.com> wrote: Understanding the failed communist experience on this list appears to be an excuse not able to understand our present. Looking back on the likes of Lenin and Stalin does us no good.....
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html