Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

Here’s why ‘one size fits all’ political solutions are doomed to fail

Conservative solutions work best in independent states, while leftist solutions are best suited to anti-colonial struggles.

Published

on

651 Views

There is a persistent danger in attempting to apply universal ‘one size fits all’ solutions to every political crisis across the globe.

This is the primary reason why solutions based on broad, sweeping  ideological dogmas tend to produce inferior results to those based on specific problem solving endeavours.

A clear example of this is the age old ‘right versus left’/’conservative versus socialist’ debate. There is no universal answer, it merely depends what is the best specific situation to any given crisis.

Case in point: conservative or gradualist solutions are generally better for solving internal crises in long established states, whilst leftist or radical solutions are often more effective during colonial struggles against a foreign occupier in young states, or states about to be born/re-born.

Both the Revolutions in France in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as well as the October Revolution and subsequent Civil War(s) in Russia led to bloodshed, upheaval and chaos. Each was begun as an attempt to radically alter the nature of government and society in two long established and powerful, independent states.

In both cases, some measure of fault is to be laid at the feet of each major party, but the lion’s share of the blame is of course on the radicals in both situations.

France in 1789 and Russia in 1917 were both healthy states; they had a measure of self-inflicted injuries, but the states would not have readily fallen to external force in either case. Indeed, contrary to leftist propaganda, Russia was winning the war against the German and Austrian Empires in 1917 and would have been winning even more vigorously if Russia had the strong leadership it did in the 1870s and 1880s, during the 1910s.

Likewise, by the end of the 18th century, France had emptied the state treasury after centuries of generally ill-fought wars, but France would have and could have survived without the upheavals of 1789.

In both cases, radicals were motivated by a sectarian agenda rather than a national agenda. The October Revolution was about creating a Russia for Bolshevik power, not about a better Russia for the Russian people. Lenin openly expressed his contempt for the Russian people, Russian patriotism, Russian history and Russian culture. Like the liberal radical Russians of today,  often living opulent lives in Europe, Lenin was the archetypal, self-loathing Russian. Had Lenin been born in Berlin in 1960, no one would have ever known his name outside of a small circle of comrades.

Likewise, Revolutionary France was by and for the Revolutionaries. This explains why many of the peasants in the south of France were totally aloof from and opposed to the Revolution.

Ultimately both states survived by becoming conservative, in spite of a stated ideology.

The French Third Republic resolved many of the crises that had arrested the development of a cohesive French state between 1789 and 1871. Even so, some wounds remained open.

Likewise, by the 1960s, the USSR had become increasingly conservative. Brezhnev’s era, one still beloved by many contemporary Russians said farewell to the bloodshed of Lenin, the vengeful nature of Stalin, the radical insanity of Khrushchev and embraced a culture of prosperity and balance. At the same time, the Soviet Union became the strongest of the global super-powers by the 1970s. The Helsinki Accords of 1975 are a testament to the Soviet state receiving a historically noteworthy maximum portion of respect from its western enemies.

By contrast, for countries engaged in a struggle against a foreign overlord, leftist revolutions are often the only tangible solution available in order to gain or re-gain independence.

The Syrian struggle for independence in 1946 was recently celebrated by a Ba’athist government whose central platform is moderate socialist struggle for Arab nationalism against a tide of ancien religious extremism (like ISIS) and western imperialism.

Vietnam and Algeria are other noted examples of socialism being the only force powerful enough to resist both the medievalism of local extremists  as well as the oppression of foreign powers.

An important question remains, however. How does one living in an independent country bring about meaningful solutions to a crisis without turning to radical leftist revolution?

The easiest solution is by working within the existing system. On the flip side of this coin, it often behoves the ruling factions to co-opt rather than resist would-be radical opposition forces. In the long term, it is often easier to give a radical opponent a meaningless seat at the tables of power than to throw him in a dungeon. It is often even more dangerous to make martyrs of such individuals.

That way, the radical man or woman’s views will be listened to and some of them may even be gradually implemented, thus taking the wind out of the sails of a would be insurrection in the making.

If this is not possible, it is best to try and co-opt a faction of the established political system to work for one’s cause. Successive successful examples of this can be found in Turkey.

Throughout the 20th century, Turkey experienced military coups. But these coups were generally not coups born out of aggression, but born out of the Army’s legal duty to uphold the Kemalist Constitution. In this sense, the Army became both the defenders of Kemalist Turkish statehood, defenders of normalcy and a bulwark against revolution while at the same time, acting to prevent people from getting overly dissatisfied with both corrupt civilian governments or military rule.

Once a coup was over, Turkey’s Army rapidly and peacefully would transition power back to civilian rule. This was a regular pattern in recent Turkish history.

This is why President Vladimir Putin’s modern Russia, while a moderately conservative country, still has allies among former western-colonial states who used left-wing revolutions to throw off a foreign regime. Russia respects sovereignty first and foremost, both its own and those of others who have struggled after centuries of western imperialist rule; often by the same historic enemies of the Russian state.

Internal change in sovereign states is best executed in the way that a self-inflicted wound would be on the body. If one jumps and lands improperly on one’s leg, fracturing a bone; one does not amputate, one applies casts and medicines until the bone is back to normal.

Inversely, when a foreign disease has infected the body, one often uses powerful drugs in order to literally kill the infection until it has dissipated.

The same is true of men and nations. This is why revolutions are useful against a foreign enemy, but dangerous when used to destroy a functional independent state from within.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending