[starman2003]

With the exception of WWII alone, the US and the USSR had an antagonistic relationship…

Before WWII FDR recognized the Bolshevik revolution and established diplomatic relations with the USSR. After WWII, there were times when tensions eased and relations improved e.g. when Khruschev came to the US. Later there was detente and the soviet process of capitulation 1989-91.

[KurtFF8]

Before WWII FDR recognized the Bolshevik revolution and established diplomatic relations with the USSR. After WWII, there were times when tensions eased and relations improved e.g. when Khruschev came to the US. Later there was detente and the soviet process of capitulation 1989-91.

Recognizing the USSR in the 1930s was just an acknowledgement of reality, hardly a major warming of relations. Yes there were ebbs and flows of how antagonistic their relationship was, but WWII is really the only time that relations were "good"

[late]

Now you're just engaging in a strange alternate history. The US literally had troops on the ground to prevent the Bolsheviks from coming to power. With the exception of WWII alone, the US and the USSR had an antagonistic relationship and the USA always wanted the USSR and socialism to go away.



The USA wanted Russia to become capitalist and integrate their markets to the West. That was the interest. The idea that this specific version of the "rule of law" was the focus of the US ruling class is absurd.



What excuses do you think I'm making exactly? It seems you're really interested in what some rich American lawyers think counts as the "rule of law" here. And you're rewriting history here to try to fit that narrative.

Russians are paranoid. I was pointing out that we could have destroyed Russia, and didn't. NATO is set up for defensive operations, and severely underfunded if we were planning on attacking. At least we thought NATO was underfunded.

The Modern World is a package deal. You need markets, clean courts, and more for it to work.

Russia doesn't have Rule of Law. But I haven't seen anyone try to defend Russia by turning reality on it's head. So it's been interesting.

I suppose I need to talk about what it all means. The ruble was non-convertible. That means you couldn't use rubles to buy foreign goods, or even exchange them for some other currency.

The courts did what the Politburo wanted. And the Politburo wanted monkey trials. One KGB tactic was to force a person to be awake for days. Once they started to go insane, they would agree to say anything.

Travel was controlled. This changed over time, but if you were travelling, you would be stopped and questioned. If they had any doubt about you, you would be arrested and investigated.

If the KGB didn't like you, and there was nothing to gain by having a monkey trial, they would put a bullet in the back of your head.

If they didn't see you as a threat, then they would send you to prison in Siberia, where many died anyway.

There's lots more.

One of the weird things is that Russia did barter with the rest of the world. They would send planes filled with gold, caviar and diamonds. In return they got cars, computers, Western appliances, and more. But only if you were part of the state...

[KurtFF8]

Russians are paranoid. I was pointing out that we could have destroyed Russia, and didn't. NATO is set up for defensive operations, and severely underfunded if we were planning on attacking. At least we thought NATO was underfunded.

The USA did not have the capacity to destroy the USSR if that's what you're claiming. The US even lost in Vietnam, for example. Also the idea that NATO is a defensive alliance has been disproven by their various offensive military operations. Of all of the NATO operations ever engaged in, only one could be argued to have been defensive (the Afghanistan war, and even that's somewhat debatable)

The Modern World is a package deal. You need markets, clean courts, and more for it to work.

A very liberal take.

Russia doesn't have Rule of Law. But I haven't seen anyone try to defend Russia by turning reality on it's head. So it's been interesting.

Who here is defending contemporary Russia?

Travel was controlled. This changed over time, but if you were travelling, you would be stopped and questioned. If they had any doubt about you, you would be arrested and investigated.

You could literally say this same sentence and it would apply to essentially the entire Black population of the US South for most of the Cold War.

If the KGB didn't like you, and there was nothing to gain by having a monkey trial, they would put a bullet in the back of your head.

I'm not saying state repression didn't happen, of course it did. But the idea that this was somehow unique to the USSR is absurd.

If they didn't see you as a threat, then they would send you to prison in Siberia, where many died anyway.

And at the height of the USSR's prison population it had less of its population imprisoned than the USA does today.

[Tainari88]

@late the progression and the way the rule of law has been interpreted and applied in many nations is fascinating.

Mexico does not have jury trials of people picked from the public.

What drags down Mexican justice big time are how LONG the process takes. If you sue your neighbor because they have stolen water from you over time and go and steal stuff from your roof or for breach of contract? That case to see the inside of a courtroom will take four years of waiting at least.

Lawyers are expensive and so are private investigators.

But the way the Mexicans cope with evidence and witness testimony is very good. Very well done. Fair and just.

Once the accused is convicted the sentence usually is exactly correct. You retain a lot of human rights in Mexican prison. As long as you are not an El Chapo...hee hee.

You get conjugal visits, phone calls, meals, and jobs and you are paid the Mexican minimum wage for those jobs. In the USA it could be you might work for free or make 12 cents an hour. You will never make federal minimum wages working within the US Prison system. The US has more incarcerated people on the planet per capita. It is a great for profit industry.

I worked on some academic work on the US probation and prison system. The US system is all about PROFIT.

It reflects that values of the nation it has as a model for what the society truly values.

I do not doubt your information about the ex Soviet Union.

But the truth is for the average person who fucks up in a system? You probably are going to be safer in the US system but you will wind up in it longer over time than in the Russian system.

In the US system you do have to have a good amount of money to get a decent defense. Otherwise you probably will be forced to plea bargain.

The advantage of the USA system of rule of law is about speedy trial and quickness. It is fairly fast compared to other systems. Most of the violators make money for the state though. It is very easy to wind up paying fines that are in the tens of thousands of dollars because a husband or a wife had a domestic dispute where she threw a shoe at his face and it hit the wall and made a sound in some apartment building and the cops show up for the DV problem and then fine the wife for throwing the shoe over an affair the husband had with someone, and she has to be on probation for a year. The private probation company then fines the wife $12,000 that she needs to pay in monthly installments, and if she fails to do so will be in jail for the rest of her sentence. She coughs up the dough and makes her monthly check in call with her PO (Probation Officer). All that money and anxiety could have been taken from her shoulders if the state had decent marriage counseling and a therapist that specializes in marriage therapy to talk things out with the husband.

The wife winds up losing her hair salon and getting a divorce over the lack of resolution with her husband. Whom she was married to for 17 years.

It is endless Late the amount of shit in the US system of justice. But the issue is not about fake courts like in Russia. The issue is about MONEY. People who have money do not really have to be held accountable for much in the US system. They hire lawyers who are very competent and they usually get off the charges or plea down to nothing really.

While poor people caught up in the system wind up not being able to get a lot of jobs and live off of instability until they can't take the pressure and re-offend again.

Mexico does not have the death penalty at all. Ever. For any crime. It is considered in a Roman Catholic nation to be barbaric practices. Everyone can be redeemed is the justification for lack of death penalty cases. What happens in Mexico is corruption that affects justice. Many towns in Mexico hate the slowness and the lack of accountability due to corrupt officials. So they do wind up beating to death child rapists and kidnappers who are caught to death in the streets.

Justice that is ignored winds up angering the general population.

The Mexicans will not like anything of summons for the jury to have to hear a trial by some criminal and you stuck there for weeks or months not being allowed to see your family or go to work....waiting to give a verdict in isolation. The Mexicans find that FREAKY and inhumane to the citizens. So everyone does not agree on what constitutes true rule of law.

In my experiences with the US justice system? It favors people with deep pockets. It is very much about the state making money from large amounts of people having to pay out of their pockets to avoid jail, and once you have a criminal record in the USA you are condemned to limited job opportunities that make you living a crime free life very difficult.

You create a permanent underclass of people who because they have criminal records, they wind up going back to jail or doing shit that harms the wider society with repeat offending.

The Mexican system is slow, inefficient, corrupt and it relies on people just being frustrated to the point of vigilante justice. What has worked for Mexico in the past and is now being implemented massively with AMLO are more small courts who deal with small cases and a lot more judges, pro bono lawyers and community legal appointees. Community policing is getting popular here.

For my state of Yucatan? I love the cops here. They are very responsive, fast, and efficient, and they also are humane and nice. Not corrupt in the least. And they worry about your safety. They have free auxilio vial...which means if your car breaks down because of mechanical issues they take you home, send for a free tow, there is free gas, free battery jump, flat tire change, etc.

People follow rules here and are orderly. The cops I do not trust are the Federales. Corrupt to the core. And I have no doubts they are on the take. But that is a problem from Mexico City. And they also are being investigated and I have seen even improvements with them late.

No, each system has its flaws. And the people living in those systems need to start doing criminal justice reform.

[late]

The USA did not have the capacity to destroy the USSR if that's what you're claiming. The US even lost in Vietnam, for example.

Also the idea that NATO is a defensive alliance has been disproven by their various offensive military operations. Of all of the NATO operations ever engaged in, only one could be argued to have been defensive (the Afghanistan war, and even that's somewhat debatable)



A very liberal take




You could literally say this same sentence and it would apply to essentially the entire Black population of the US South for most of the Cold War.



I'm not saying state repression didn't happen, of course it did. But the idea that this was somehow unique to the USSR is absurd.



And at the height of the USSR's prison population it had less of its population imprisoned than the USA does today.

Destroying Russia would have been easy. Drop a nuke on the major cities, then a few more to destroy infrastucture. Russia did not have the ability to nuke us (that's what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about). But we could hit them with missiles or bombers.

Invading Russia is a bog deal, and NATO is built to defend against Russia, not invade it.

It's an accurate description of the reality. If you look at the history of capitalism, it's the history of learning how to make it work.

If we are now talking about Blacks after WW2, that was states, while the Federal government worked to limit the racism. So it didn't apply to everyone, and the national government was slowly working at ending it.

True, being a police state was not unique to the USSR.

Also true, and something we need to work on. That's largely derived from the same Southern culture that is so very racist. Southern culture is profoundly anti-democratic (which they keep proving). They strip away the right to vote if you've been convicted of a crime. And they have lots of crimes that are designed to make that easy. I live in Maine, you never lose the right to vote, and can vote in prison.

Speaking of Russia as a police state, you ever notice that a lot of Russian leaders came out of the KGB?

Hmm?

[Tainari88]

Destroying Russia would have been easy. Drop a nuke on the major cities, then a few more to destroy infrastucture. Russia did not have the ability to nuke us (that's what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about). But we could hit them with missiles or bombers.

Invading Russia is a bog deal, and NATO is built to defend against Russia, not invade it.

It's an accurate description of the reality. If you look at the history of capitalism, it's the history of learning how to make it work.

If we are now talking about Blacks after WW2, that was states, while the Federal government worked to limit the racism. So it didn't apply to everyone, and the national government was slowly working at ending it.

True, being a police state was not unique to the USSR.

Also true, and something we need to work on. That's largely derived from the same Southern culture that is so very racist. Southern culture is profoundly anti-democratic (which they keep proving). They strip away the right to vote if you've been convicted of a crime. And they have lots of crimes that are designed to make that easy. I live in Maine, you never lose the right to vote, and can vote in prison.

Speaking of Russia as a police state, you ever notice that a lot of Russian leaders came out of the KGB?

Hmm?

You Maine person. I wonder what they call native Maine citizens?

BTW, late, I did not like you saying to that White Genocide man poster that I had a chip on my shoulder and you overlook it because I write what kinds of posts again?

LOL.

If you live life in this world you are taking risks.

People are forced to deal with the system they live under. Most average citizens over time know what to do and not to do to avoid the worst flaws of their own system.

But money is the name of the game in the USA. It is in many nations too. Those with money tend to get more justice.

Which nations solves the most crimes in the world? I never asked that question before? Let me find out?

I will be back.

[late]

You Maine person. I wonder what they call native Maine citizens?

BTW, late, I did not like you saying to that White Genocide man poster that I had a chip on my shoulder and you overlook it because I write what kinds of posts again?

LOL.

If you live life in this world you are taking risks.

People are forced to deal with the system they live under. Most average citizens over time know what to do and not to do to avoid the worst flaws of their own system.

But money is the name of the game in the USA. It is in many nations too. Those with money tend to get more justice.

Which nations solves the most crimes in the world? I never asked that question before? Let me find out?

I will be back.

Maineah (we used to have a weird accent)

You write very good posts.

Yeah, I am not risk averse.

Yeah; we are corrupt and backwards in a lot of ways.

That is a good question, but I have no idea which country solves the most crimes. Bet it's one of the Nordic countries like Finland.

[KurtFF8]

Destroying Russia would have been easy. Drop a nuke on the major cities, then a few more to destroy infrastucture. Russia did not have the ability to nuke us (that's what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about). But we could hit them with missiles or bombers.

This is just delusional. The USSR absolutely had the ability to nuke the USA. They had a host of ICBMs. The placement in Cuba was simply about increasing their capacity.

Invading Russia is a bog deal, and NATO is built to defend against Russia, not invade it.

Again, NATO is not a defensive alliance. Almost none of their operations have been of a defensive nature.

If we are now talking about Blacks after WW2, that was states, while the Federal government worked to limit the racism. So it didn't apply to everyone, and the national government was slowly working at ending it.

The Federal Government was eventually pressured to work to limit some of the worst overt racist laws. But this was after a decades long resistance movement. That movement being under constant (sometimes violent) threat from that very same Federal Government of course.

Also true, and something we need to work on. That's largely derived from the same Southern culture that is so very racist. Southern culture is profoundly anti-democratic (which they keep proving). They strip away the right to vote if you've been convicted of a crime. And they have lots of crimes that are designed to make that easy. I live in Maine, you never lose the right to vote, and can vote in prison.

The idea that racism is somehow unique to the US South is just absurd.

[late]

This is just delusional. The USSR absolutely had the ability to nuke the USA. They had a host of ICBMs. The placement in Cuba was simply about increasing their capacity.



Again, NATO is not a defensive alliance. Almost none of their operations have been of a defensive nature.



The Federal Government was eventually pressured to work to limit some of the worst overt racist laws. But this was after a decades long resistance movement. That movement being under constant (sometimes violent) threat from that very same Federal Government of course.



The idea that racism is somehow unique to the US South is just absurd.

Bear bombers didn't have the range, and they didn't have a significant number of operational missiles until the late 60s.

NATO is all about defending against Russia. The point was that attacking Russia was never even considered.

Of course, shall we go over what would happen in Russia? Can you say Kulak? I knew you could.

Racism is not unique to the American South. A few hundred years ago, the South copied the slavery that existed in the Barbados. That evolved into a culture that persists to this day.

First Rule of Holes...

[KurtFF8]

You're taking this less and less seriously so it seems there's no need to engage further here @late

[paeng]

Maybe Lee Kwan Yew.

For the spectrum, reminds me of a Chinese expert asked by Pillinger to state briefly the difference between China and the U.S. He said that China is ruled by the Communist Party and the U.S. by Wall Street.

[late]

You're taking this less and less seriously so it seems there's no need to engage further here @late

Translation: you're running from the facts.

Anyway, that's one way of admitting you lost.

[Rich]

We had the ability to destroy the USSR for a long time. We had nukes at the end of WW2, it wasn't until the 1960s that Russia was able to reach us with nukes, and the late Sixties at that.

We didn't want to destroy Russia, we wanted to contain it. That is well documented.

Please stop lying. The Russian Soviet Republic had no nuclear weapons. The nuclear force was organised at the Union level not at the Republic level. We don't forget the industrial scale rape committed by the 1st Ukrainian Front at the end of World War I. We don't forget the brutality of the Ukrainian soldiers in Hungary in 1956, but no one claims that it was the local Ukrainian Communist Party that was to blame. I would also note that by the late 1960s the Soviet Union was lead by Leonid Brezhnev, a man who as far as I can make out never held any notable position of authority within the local Russian Soviet Republic government, party or administration.

[KurtFF8]

Translation: you're running from the facts.

Anyway, that's one way of admitting you lost.

Ironic for you to claim that I'm "running from facts" when you consistently confuse the USSR and the Russian Federation.

[late]

Please stop lying. The Russian Soviet Republic had no nuclear weapons. The nuclear force was organised at the Union level not at the Republic level.

That's a distinction without a difference..

Is there an actual reason for that comment?

[late]

Ironic for you to claim that I'm "running from facts" when you consistently confuse the USSR and the Russian Federation.

Actually, they have a lot in common.

For example, under the USSR, the ruble was non-convertible. Under Putin, nobody wants to take rubles, so the end result is not all that different.

Another thing, your writing is not all that clear...

[starman2003]

Actually, they have a lot in common.

Sure. Back in 1989-91 when communism crumbled, Fukuyama popularized the notion that "history had ended" with democracy the eternal victor. Subsequent events made a mockery of that.

[late]

Sure. Back in 1989-91 when communism crumbled, Fukuyama popularized the notion that "history had ended" with democracy the eternal victor. Subsequent events made a mockery of that.

That doesn't address my point.

[starman2003]

That doesn't address my point.

I was alluding to the revival of authoritarianism in Russia under Putin. That, and the survival/success of China after Tianamen, made a mockery of Fukayama's notion.