[WS:] I think that this development from "democracy in the archaic sense" - or "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority" or populism -which is the back bone of all forms of dictatorship - to the democracy of civil society and rational individuals in Eastern Europe is probably one of the most clear examples of Marx's dialectics. From that point of view, Stalin was a democrat at one point of historical development, and a bloody tyrant at some later point. 'Democracy' is highly overrated, by liberals and socialists alike. I sympathise with a lot of the anarchist critique here - democracy can be just as tyrannical and repressive as any dictatorship. So, the Stalin era may well have been based on a large scale popular movement - I find that entirely convincing - but it doesn't actually improve the moral legitimacy of the regime at all. I recall from the book (and TV series) 'The Nazis: a warning from history' that the authors researched the activities of the Gestapo in one region and were surprised at how few of them were actually employed for a large population - they relied almost entirely on civilians denouncing each other. Is this the same phenomenon?
"[WS]I think it also explains why the infatuation with populism among the US lefties is viewed with scorn and derision by most Eastern European intellectuals. The naiveté of the US left was often the butt of "yank jokes" when I lived on the other side of the iron curtain. This probably explains why it was the "hard-nosed" Thatcher who became the Anglo-Saxon hero of Eastern European intellectuals after the "velvet revolution" - whereas the US political thought was largely ignored." The mention of Margaret Thatcher sends shivers down my spine! She did more damage to the UK than the communist regime managed to do here in Bulgaria (and they tried hard). 'integument' I don't understand this word. Am I a peasant?
Julian Gollop.