Mange wrote:Can't you see the adverse effects the inefficient Soviet economic system had when the Soviet Union collapsed?
Sorry, but I see more problems from nationalist civil wars than from any Soviet legacies per se. In fact, Soviet "legacy" in the forms of large industrial plants became the basis for large capitals, and today generates the bulk of revenue for post-Soviet republics with such giants as KAMAZ, MAZ, ONPZ, et cetera, while the Soviet policy of giving flats to citizenry has given many initial funds for small capital accumulation. However, the civil wars totally ruined the infrastructure in many republics; this way they ended up in a worse situation than Russia itself. Not to mention that the infrastructure was large, and were the USSR taking the transition as a whole, it would not only have been far milder, but it's effects would have been appropriately less severe due to the ability of inter-border funding.
And I believe you're tempting me to look at the stable and efficient economies of other Central Asian states, which neighbor those. Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. What, not really good? Islamic hellholes, drug centers, unstable as heck with massive poverty? Illiteracy? No rights of women whatsoever? Well sorry. That's the alternative you proposed for those nations. I don't like it. Moreover, AlQuaeda and the Islamists from Afghanistan TRIED to install radical islam back into Central Asia as far as 1991 (that's what progressive, free and independent Soviet neighbors in Central Asia are
) , and targeted Tajikistan first as the base of a proxy war. They
lost.
Mange wrote:And the Tajiks fought against both the Imperial Russian Army and the Bolsheviks for their independence.
Are you saying Islamic warlords were fighting for
their independence? Are you also of the opinion that the Taliban were freedom fighters against "Soviet opression" of a "free Islamic people", as Carter put it, in Afghanistan? The pan-Islamists and pan-Turkists were fighters for "independence"? Good fucking god. Are you saying Enver fucking Pasha, an Islamist and a Turkish official, who vowed to fight in the name of Islam for a pan-Islamic state, and to that end rallied all the radical islamic warlords of Central Asia, the Basmachi, was a "fighter for independence" of anything?
Mange wrote:I'm not a fan of religion and I'm quite outspoken on the matter, but I don't think the solution is to suppress religious life or cultural expressions.
Okay, let's put it that way, Mange. Central Asia was under traditional Islam. Some parts of it, during the October Revolution, turned pro-Soviet. Eventually the Basmachi in the Central Asian republics were destroyed. However, the many of the neighboring states remained Islamic, so we can see the result.
I ask you one more time - which is better for Central Asia, to be under the "foreign" influence of Soviet power (they had their share of Communists, and nationalist elites controlled lots of soviets in those territories, anyway), or to be under Islamic warlords? Embrace universal literacy, modern industrialization, emancipation of women and prohibition of Islam, or become an Islamic nation? If I were given two options, an Islamic nation or a Soviet republic, XX century, which would I choose?
Mange wrote:As you said yourself: Tajikistan was a "hell hole" before Soviet rule, during Soviet rule and after Soviet rule.
Really? I recall saying other Central Asian nations remained hellholes - meaning the neighbors of the USSR, like Afghan, Pakistan, Iran. For the period of Soviet rule, massive investment by the Central Government - which actually contributed to quality of life, as you already admitted - lifted Central Asian republics from what was essentially traditionalist, medieval law societies. Do you think medieval-law societies should survive? Why?
Mange wrote:I was referring to the situation prior, during and after the revolution, but no one asked the Tajiks (or anyone else for that matter) if they wanted to be part of the Worker's Paradise.
Really?
It's not like local Soviets in Central Asia took control of many territories, not like local population was participating in the Civil War?
I want to be very clear: are you saying the victory of Islamic warlords represented the interests of Central Asian nations? Are you saying the USSR didn't basically transform those traditionalist societies into a modern, literate, industrialized ones, or that doing it was
not in the interests of the peoples of Central Asia? Are you saying the USSR should not have massively invested in the region? (and if not the USSR, who? Iran? Paki? Afghanistan? Or just independent theocracies or ochlocracies, poor and horrific as Afghanistan is?). Are you saying the USSR should have "asked" someone? Whom? Islamist warlords - since those were the only effective opposition in Central Asia? Why should it not have fought Islamic warlords? Do you have any reasons why it should have just abandoned Central Asia to them, with a rather clear Civil War going on?
We see the result of independent islamic warlord victories in the wonderful neighbor states of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hallowed be Allah, illiterate women murdered in accordance with Sharia law.
Just as the USSR doesn't mean Russia or any of the resulting nationalist republics.
