[syr74]

Replace "the left" with "liberals", and I would agree with that paragraph.

That would be fair, and more accurate as well. Without question a lack of support among portions of the left was at least partially responsible for Hillary's defeat.

[Rich]

Hmm? No, not really. It is merely that I am becoming more Stalinist as I get older. The doctrine of 'socialism in one country' begins to make more and more sense to me. The capitalist system is currently attempting to lock down its control of the international community with 'globalisation'. How can this be opposed? Only by retaining the sovereignty of the nation-state as far as possible, which will at least leave the door open for a proletarian revolution in one or other of those nation-states.

But Stalin didn't lead one country. The Soviet Union was a union of a number of countries. The Soviet Union was no nation State. Depending on your view point it was a community or a prison house of nations.

[Beren]

it's going to be a long four years.

It's going to be short I think.

[Potemkin]

But Stalin didn't lead one country. The Soviet Union was a union of a number of countries. The Soviet Union was no nation State. Depending on your view point it was a community or a prison house of nations.

No, actually it was Tsarist Russia which was described as a "prison house of nations". There was a policy of forced Russification in the national minorities of the Tsarist Empire, whereas the Soviet Union respected and nurtured the cultural diversity of its peoples. So-called 'Great Russian chauvinism" was not tolerated. And the Soviet Union was indeed a nation-state, in exactly the same way and to the same extent that the United Kingdom is a nation-state: it was a union of many nationalities and peoples under a single government. These nations and peoples had joined together to forge a new, Soviet identity while retaining their own unique cultures and languages, just as the British have done.

[Frollein]

Thanks for pointing out that multi-culturalism is a genuinely left ideology. Funny how all those multi-cultural empires broke apart sooner or later.

I know something! Let's try it again, this time in Germany!

[Potemkin]

Thanks for pointing out that multi-culturalism is a genuinely left ideology. Funny how all those multi-cultural empires broke apart sooner or later.

Need I point out that the Roman Empire, a multi-kulti empire if ever there was one, lasted for more than half a millennium?

[Rugoz]

No, actually it was Tsarist Russia which was described as a "prison house of nations". There was a policy of forced Russification in the national minorities of the Tsarist Empire, whereas the Soviet Union respected and nurtured the cultural diversity of its peoples. So-called 'Great Russian chauvinism" was not tolerated. And the Soviet Union was indeed a nation-state, in exactly the same way and to the same extent that the United Kingdom is a nation-state: it was a union of many nationalities and peoples under a single government. These nations and peoples had joined together to forge a new, Soviet identity while retaining their own unique cultures and languages, just as the British have done.

Yes, Stalin was a hippie compared to the Tsars. He also totally did not force anyone to join his club of hippies.

[Potemkin]

Yes, Stalin was a hippie compared to the Tsars. He also totally did not force anyone to join his club of hippies.

In terms of tolerating the cultural traditions and languages of the various nationalities of the Soviet Union, Stalin was a hippie compared to the Tsars. For example, the Tsars always refereed to the Ukraine rather condescendingly as "Little Russia", and the Ukrainian language and history and culture were always suppressed. Just look at what happened to Taras Shevchenko, the Ukrainian national poet, if you don't believe me.

[Frollein]

Need I point out that the Roman Empire, a multi-kulti empire if ever there was one, lasted for more than half a millennium?

It wasn't a true multicultural empire, though. Becoming a Roman citizen was made very attractive, and "the elites" of the subjugated peoples actively sought to emulate Roman culture and lifestyle. And the Romans actively supported this. There was no question whose culture was superior and was to be dominant in the Empire. I dimly remember a piece we read at school where the Roman author boasted that Rome brought roads and bathhouses and all the amenities of Roman life to the provinces, so that the barbarians admired their superiority and after two generations had forgotten the ways of their savage forefathers.

That is something completely different than preaching the equality of all cultures and allowing everyone to live according to their cultural mores. I doubt that human sacrifice was allowed anywhere in the empire. There were no separate courts where tribal judges decided over their fellow tribe members - nobody in Rome would have tolerated "Sharia Courts."

On the contrary, Rome began to break apart the moment that Germanic tribes had sufficiently infiltrated the military and had outbread the Roman intelligencia. Which again proves my point.

[anna]

I thought the polls were pretty accurate for the American Presidential election. They were about 1% out weren't they? Those that predicted that Donald was certain to win the popular vote were proved to be idiots.

And keeping in mind that opinion polls are different than election polls. Opinion polls reflect the mind of the person at that moment in time, election polls are attempting to predict future behavior, which is another thing entirely.

[Igor Antunov]

Ha ha polls are so fake.

[Rugoz]

Just look at what happened to Taras Shevchenko, the Ukrainian national poet, if you don't believe me.

Looks like he became politically active and questioned the current order which of course the Soviets would not have tolerated either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Shevchenko

[anasawad]

Why just Rome ? The Persian empire had tons of nations and cultures and even languages in it and it lasted far longer than the roman empire.
While being multicultural, even the title of the leader, i.e Shahenshah, means king of kings which basically means king over many nations.

All empires are in one way or anther multicultural, it comes part of the definition actually. Doesn't say multicultural but rather an empire is internally a federation of many nations and cultures mixing together.

Really only weak and small nations cant have multiculturalism.

[Potemkin]

Looks like he became politically active and questioned the current order which of course the Soviets would not have tolerated either.

One of the 'crimes' of which he was accused was writing his poetry and prose in the Ukrainian language. The Soviets actually encouraged the poets of the various Soviet republics to write their work in their own native language.

[Rugoz]

One of the 'crimes' of which he was accused was writing his poetry and prose in the Ukrainian language. The Soviets actually encouraged the poets of the various Soviet republics to write their work in their own native language.

Both the Russian Empire and Soviet period do no exactly look pleasant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Ukraine