Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any modern economy operating on the basis of the exchange of labor is going to manifest economic inequality. What Russia junked was socialism. The people of the Soviet Union understood that Brezhnev was not a Red. I remember their jokes from this period . . . concerning Brezhnev trying to impress his mother with his power and wealth and privileges. At the end of the story . . . Brezhnev's mother looks at him and says . . . you have done well son . . . but what you gonna do when the Reds come back? --- Everybody in the USSR knew about his fleet of cars, his big boat, and the stuff with women and alcohol. Andropov distributed videotapes of Brezhnev engaging in compromising behavior as part of his anti-Brezhnev campaign -- unfortunately for him, not many Soviets had VCRs! That said, the Brezhnev-era USSR was a reasonably OK place to live for most of the population, if you weren't unlucky enough to get stuck in a communal apartment with bad neighbors. It was the apex of the Soviet way of life. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
It is difficult to understand Putin's organization without understanding its reliance on oil. In the 1980's, the Soviet Union was the world's largest producer of crude, ahead of Saudi Arabia. The bulk of the 12 million barrels produced each day fueled the Soviet economy and its anemic satellites in Eastern Europe, Cuba and North Korea. Yet there was enough left over -- about two million barrels a day -- for customers outside the Soviet bloc who would pay hard currency. This was an Achilles' heel for the Soviets. According to ''Reagan's War,'' a book by Peter Schweizer, ''C.I.A. analysts had concluded that for every one-dollar drop in the price of a barrel of oil, Moscow would lose between $500million and $1 billion per year in critical hard currency.'' The Soviet empire was not extortionary, in the sense of providing a bounty of riches to the imperial center, as India and other colonial holdings had done for Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries; instead, it was a drain on Moscow. Without oil, the heirs of Lenin would have had great difficulty subsidizing their needy allies, their globe-spanning navy, their 45,000 nuclear weapons, their four-million-man army, their record-setting Olympians and their space stations. Oil was, in many ways, more crucial to the Kremlin than ideology. Russian production dropped by nearly half following the Soviet collapse in 1991. The industry's recovery has been a key goal of Putin's government; just as the Soviet Union needed oil to finance its empire, Putin needs oil for his more modest task, to get Russia back on its feet. Since 1999, production has risen by 50 percent, thanks to an influx of investment and the incentive of rising oil prices. Russia is now the second-largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia. According to a World Bank report this year, energy revenues account for 20 percent of Russia's economy and the bulk of its exports. In other words, Russia has become something of an oil state. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/magazine/01RUSSIAN.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
The Soviet empire was not extortionary, in the sense of providing a bounty of riches to the imperial center, as India and other colonial holdings had done for Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries; instead, it was a drain on Moscow. Without oil, the heirs of Lenin would have had great difficulty subsidizing their needy allies, their globe-spanning navy, their 45,000 nuclear weapons, their four-million-man army, their record-setting Olympians and their space stations. Oil was, in many ways, more crucial to the Kremlin than ideology. Some scholars (sorry, I don't have the reference here) argue that even the British empire wasn't profitable for Britain as a whole. But it clearly benefited the upper classes, who were more important in decision-making. Jim Devine
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Some scholars (sorry, I don't have the reference here) argue that even the British empire wasn't profitable for Britain as a whole. But it clearly benefited the upper classes, who were more important in decision-making. Jim Devine The British Empire operated on a capitalist basis, whether or not workers got some crumbs from the table (which they surely did.) The USSR did not. It subsidized its colonies, as the NY Times article points out. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Devine, James wrote: The Soviet empire was not extortionary, in the sense of providing a bounty of riches to the imperial center, as India and other colonial holdings had done for Britain in the 19th and 20th centuries; instead, it was a drain on Moscow. Without oil, the heirs of Lenin would have had great difficulty subsidizing their needy allies, their globe-spanning navy, their 45,000 nuclear weapons, their four-million-man army, their record-setting Olympians and their space stations. Oil was, in many ways, more crucial to the Kremlin than ideology. Some scholars (sorry, I don't have the reference here) argue that even the British empire wasn't profitable for Britain as a whole. But it clearly benefited the upper classes, who were more important in decision-making. If you consider the conditions of English workers in the 1840s 1850s as described by Marx Engels, and if in addition you consider the _change_ for the worse of that condition between (say) 1750 and 1840, also as described by Marx Engels, and if, finally, you consider that the engine of that change had been the textile industry (fueled by exploitation of the u.s. south, India, China), then it becomes fairly obvious that the Empire was an utter disaster for English workers. In fact, the Empire could be regarded as a huge, terroristic machine designed primarily to pump surplus labor out of English workers. Carrol Jim Devine
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Carrol Cox wrote: If you consider the conditions of English workers in the 1840s 1850s as described by Marx Engels, and if in addition you consider the _change_ for the worse of that condition between (say) 1750 and 1840, also as described by Marx Engels, and if, finally, you consider that the engine of that change had been the textile industry (fueled by exploitation of the u.s. south, India, China), then it becomes fairly obvious that the Empire was an utter disaster for English workers. In fact, the Empire could be regarded as a huge, terroristic machine designed primarily to pump surplus labor out of English workers. I know we've covered this territory before, but at a certain point the Empire begins to benefit English and other western European workers. This is the material explanation for Bernsteinism, after all. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Some scholars (sorry, I don't have the reference here) argue that even the British empire wasn't profitable for Britain as a whole. But it clearly benefited the upper classes, who were more important in decision-making. Jim Devine LP: The British Empire operated on a capitalist basis, whether or not workers got some crumbs from the table (which they surely did.) The USSR did not. It subsidized its colonies, as the NY Times article points out. so the USSR didn't have classes? what principles did it follow? was Stalin a benevolent despot? it's clear that the USSR subsidized its satellites, but that doesn't make it any less of an empire, since the USSR didn't grant its allies independence until the USSR itself was falling apart. All it says is that you can't generalize from US-dominated capitalist imperialism to apply abstract theories to the USSR-dominated empire, just as you can't generalize from the classical Roman empire to apply abstract theories to the US- or USSR-dominated empires. (Similarly, just because the USSR was a class society doesn't mean that we can generalize from our understanding of capitalsm to apply abstract theories to it.) jd
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Jim Devine: so the USSR didn't have classes? what principles did it follow? was Stalin a benevolent despot? reply: Jim, it is totally exhausting to reformat your email. Why can't you get somebody to configure your MS Outlook, or do it yourself. Here's how to do it: 1. Select tools/option 2. Select tab mail/format 3. Select Internet format 4. In 'automatically wrap text at -- characters', enter 76. Turning to the substance, there were no classes in the USSR. A bureaucrat and a capitalist have nothing in common in Marxist terms. Jim Devine: it's clear that the USSR subsidized its satellites, but that doesn't make it any less of an empire, since the USSR didn't grant its allies independence until the USSR itself was falling apart. reply: The USSR certainly did control Poland, Hungary et al. The record is quite clear on that. What it did not do is extract value. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Devine, James wrote: it's clear that the USSR subsidized its satellites, but that doesn't make it any less of an empire, since the USSR didn't grant its allies independence until the USSR itself was falling apart. I'm not sure what to call the USSR dominance of its allies, but I think it is misleading to call it an empire. As we ordinarily use the word (leaving aside the oddity of the Hardt/Negri empire), whether in reference to the present or even the distant past, the word carries a more complex intension than just dominance, and part of that intension is, precisely, exploitation. We speak of the ancient Athenian Empire not merely (or at all) just because it dominated its allies, but because it compelled those allies to contribute to the treasury of the alliance, and used that treasury for its own purposes, domestic and foreign. I think calling the USSR an empire interferes with understanding the actual material relations of the alliance, and even points away from a full understanding of what was wrong with it. Put another way, to label the U.S. and the USSR with the same label, empire -- and hence to suggest that there is some analogy between the relationship USSR/Cuba and US/Puerto Rico -- is just too violent an abstraction, it leaves too little material content to what we mean when we speak of empire. Carrol
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it's clear that the USSR subsidized its satellites, but that doesn't make it any less of an empire, since the USSR didn't grant its allies independence until the USSR itself was falling apart. All it says is that you can't generalize from US-dominated capitalist imperialism to apply abstract theories to the USSR-dominated empire, just as you can't generalize from the classical Roman empire to apply abstract theories to the US- or USSR-dominated empires. (Similarly, just because the USSR was a class society doesn't mean that we can generalize from our understanding of capitalsm to apply abstract theories to it.) jd --- Russians lived more poorly than people in any other of the republics or in the Eastern Bloc (except maybe Albania?). Moscow may have been a possible exception. It's one of the reasons why Russia junked them. Ironically, those losses of subsidies have resulted in the wealthiest of the republics -- like Georgia and Moldova -- into the poorest. Russians now live better than people anywhere else in the fSU, except maybe the Baltics, which is why you have so much illegal immigration from them into Russia. There are lots of Soviet jokes depicting Castro as sucking at Brezhnev's teat. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/2/2004 11:16:33 AM Put another way, to label the U.S. and the USSR with the same label, empire -- and hence to suggest that there is some analogy between the relationship USSR/Cuba and US/Puerto Rico -- is just too violent an abstraction, it leaves too little material content to what we mean when we speak of empire. Carrol paraphrase of what i wrote in 'secolas annals' (journal of southeastern council on latin american studies) twenty years ago: much was made of cuba's 'dependency' on soviet union...[but]... cuban-soviet relations did not resemble typical dominance-dependence arrangements, soviet aid strengthened rather than weakened cuba's national control of its economy, further, soviets protected cuba from fluctuations in world market prices of sugar and nickel, insured cuba continual oil supplies, and generally stayed out of cuban political affairs... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Chris Doss wrote: There are lots of Soviet jokes depicting Castro as sucking at Brezhnev's teat. I used to work with Russian émigrés at Goldman-Sachs. This was in the late 1980s, when the USSR was still functioning. One of their biggest complaints was that Moscow was wasting money on the niggers, as they put it. This was their rather infelicitous way of expressing resentment at expenditures on the ANC and the frontline states. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Schumpeter made that argument in his essay, Imperialism. On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:57:20AM -0700, Devine, James wrote: Some scholars (sorry, I don't have the reference here) argue that even the British empire wasn't profitable for Britain as a whole. But it clearly benefited the upper classes, who were more important in decision-making. Jim Devine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
I wrote:so the USSR didn't have classes? what principles did it follow? was Stalin a benevolent despot? LP: reply: Jim, it is totally exhausting to reformat your email. Why can't you get somebody to configure your MS Outlook, or do it yourself. Here's how to do it: 1. Select tools/option 2. Select tab mail/format 3. Select Internet format 4. In 'automatically wrap text at -- characters', enter 76. I've tried all this before (those specific instructions don't work with my MS Outlook 2000: SR-1, 9.0.0.3821) - and I've complained to the IT folks (and people on pen-l). So I'm trying to see how MS Word (2000, 9.0.3821 SR-1) works as my e-mail editor. Of course, the on-line version of MS Word that I used this morning to send the message that LP responds to doesn't have this option. Turning to the substance, there were no classes in the USSR. A bureaucrat and a capitalist have nothing in common in Marxist terms. If (1) the bureaucrat belongs to a social stratum that controls the state in a despotic way - enough to kill or imprison those who oppose their rule - and (2) the state owns the most important means of production, then doesn't that bureaucrat have a social power akin to other ruling classes? me:it's clear that the USSR subsidized its satellites, but that doesn't make it any less of an empire, since the USSR didn't grant its allies independence until the USSR itself was falling apart. LP: reply: The USSR certainly did control Poland, Hungary et al. The record is quite clear on that. What it did not do is extract value. they may not have extracted value in the capitalist sense (exchange value), but the old USSR worked according to non-commodity-producing standards. As did several pre-capitalist empires. Jim Devine
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
I wrote: it's clear that the USSR subsidized its satellites, but that doesn't make it any less of an empire, since the USSR didn't grant its allies independence until the USSR itself was falling apart. CC wrote: I'm not sure what to call the USSR dominance of its allies, but I think it is misleading to call it an empire. As we ordinarily use the word (leaving aside the oddity of the Hardt/Negri empire), whether in reference to the present or even the distant past, the word carries a more complex intension than just dominance, and part of that intension is, precisely, exploitation. ... the USSR could have exploited the CMEA (COMECON) countries in a military/diplomatic way, while over-all totals of net flow of value into the CMEA can easily hide positive net flows of important benefits going the other way... Put another way, to label the U.S. and the USSR with the same label, empire -- and hence to suggest that there is some analogy between the relationship USSR/Cuba and US/Puerto Rico -- is just too violent an abstraction, it leaves too little material content to what we mean when we speak of empire. I would say that USSR/Hungary or USSR/Czechoslovakia would be more like US/Puerto Rico, whereas USSR/Cuba might be more like US/England. Of course, no analogies are perfect. jim devine
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Chris Doss writes: Russians lived more poorly than people in any other of the republics or in the Eastern Bloc (except maybe Albania?). Moscow may have been a possible exception. It's one of the reasons why Russia junked them. Ironically, those losses of subsidies have resulted in the wealthiest of the republics -- like Georgia and Moldova -- into the poorest. Russians now live better than people anywhere else in the fSU, except maybe the Baltics, which is why you have so much illegal immigration from them into Russia. There are lots of Soviet jokes depicting Castro as sucking at Brezhnev's teat. this part is what's generally accepted as valid in this thread. Jim Devine
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Devine, James wrote: I've tried all this before (those specific instructions don't work with my MS Outlook 2000: SR-1, 9.0.0.3821) - and I've complained to the IT folks (and people on pen-l). So I'm trying to see how MS Word (2000, 9.0.3821 SR-1) works as my e-mail editor. Of course, the on-line version of MS Word that I used this morning to send the message that LP responds to doesn't have this option. Reply: Why don't you set up an account on yahoo? JD: If (1) the bureaucrat belongs to a social stratum that controls the state in a despotic way - enough to kill or imprison those who oppose their rule - and (2) the state owns the most important means of production, then doesn't that bureaucrat have a social power akin to other ruling classes? Reply: Yes, they had lots of power over people. What they lacked was the power to fire workers, bequeath property to their sons or daughters, sell/strip assets, etc. Looking at China today, with 18 year olds committing suicide because they can't afford college, we can certainly say that a return to the status quo ante--with all the bureaucratic deformations--would be progress. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
I would say that USSR/Hungary or USSR/Czechoslovakia would be more like US/Puerto Rico, whereas USSR/Cuba might be more like US/England. Of course, no analogies are perfect. jim devine Although it is impossible precisely to evaluate the gains and losses in intra-Comecon trade it is generally agreed that the USSR was subsidizing Eastern Europe and that over time this subsidy was rising largely because of the growing opportunity costs involved in supplying the group with 'hard' commodities such as oil. Up to the mid-1970s the Soviet Union was apparently willing to pay this price in return for politically stable and loyal allies; up to the 1973 oil-price explosion the only way in which the subsidy was reduced was the Soviet insistence that East European countries contribute to the development of its resources. During the 1970s, however, it became clear that the terms of trade of 'hard' goods would continue to rise and that East European countries would not be able to reduce the subsidy for the following two reasons: first, because they incurred, in some cases considerable, convertible currency debts so their ability to buy oil in non-Comecon markets was severely restricted, and secondly, the imports of Western technology initially undertaken in the hope that the 'softness' of East European manufactures would be reduced did not result in a direct improvement (and could, as in the case of Poland, lead to severe strain and eventual collapse). On the other hand, the USSR is in no position to continue to subsidize Eastern Europe indefinitely. There are several reasons for this. First, the Soviet economic growth has declined to unprecedently low rates; secondly, the oil industry is experiencing difficulties in securing adequate supplies for the 1980s; thirdly, the Soviet Union is forced to continue to spend substantial hard currency outlays on the import of grain; and fourthly, it undertook to subsidize the developing members of Comecon--Cuba, Mongolia and most recently Vietnam. (Vladimir Sobell, The Red Market : Industrial Co-operation and Specialisation in Comecon (Aldershot, 1984 -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
I never disagreed with this. Jim Devine LP quotes: Although it is impossible precisely to evaluate the gains and losses in intra-Comecon trade it is generally agreed that the USSR was subsidizing Eastern Europe and that over time this subsidy was rising largely because of the growing opportunity costs involved in supplying the group with 'hard' commodities such as oil. Up to the mid-1970s the Soviet Union was apparently willing to pay this price in return for politically stable and loyal allies; up to the 1973 oil-price explosion the only way in which the subsidy was reduced was the Soviet insistence that East European countries contribute to the development of its resources. During the 1970s, however, it became clear that the terms of trade of 'hard' goods would continue to rise and that East European countries would not be able to reduce the subsidy for the following two reasons: first, because they incurred, in some cases considerable, convertible currency debts so their ability to buy oil in non-Comecon markets was severely restricted, and secondly, the imports of Western technology initially undertaken in the hope that the 'softness' of East European manufactures would be reduced did not result in a direct improvement (and could, as in the case of Poland, lead to severe strain and eventual collapse). On the other hand, the USSR is in no position to continue to subsidize Eastern Europe indefinitely. There are several reasons for this. First, the Soviet economic growth has declined to unprecedently low rates; secondly, the oil industry is experiencing difficulties in securing adequate supplies for the 1980s; thirdly, the Soviet Union is forced to continue to spend substantial hard currency outlays on the import of grain; and fourthly, it undertook to subsidize the developing members of Comecon--Cuba, Mongolia and most recently Vietnam. (Vladimir Sobell, The Red Market : Industrial Co-operation and Specialisation in Comecon (Aldershot, 1984
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
JD:If (1) the bureaucrat belongs to a social stratum that controls the state in a despotic way - enough to kill or imprison those who oppose their rule - and (2) the state owns the most important means of production, then doesn't that bureaucrat have a social power akin to other ruling classes? LP:Yes, they had lots of power over people. What they lacked was the power to fire workers, bequeath property to their sons or daughters, sell/strip assets, etc. Looking at China today, with 18 year olds committing suicide because they can't afford college, we can certainly say that a return to the status quo ante--with all the bureaucratic deformations--would be progress. If you think about the power to fire workers, bequeath property to their sons or daughters, sell/strip assets, etc., you're thinking about a specifically capitalist form of class power. (Did the Pharaoh have the ability to the power to fire workers, bequeath property to their sons or daughters, sell/strip assets, etc.?) There have been many other kinds of class power in the history of the world. In any event, Kim il Sung seems to have bequeathed North Korea to his son. Also, there's nothing in my original message in this thread about the issue of progress. A shift from a non-capitalist mode of production to a capitalist one usually involves primitive accumulation, which is extremely bloody (or only corrupt and violent). Maybe there have been some progressive shifts from the USSR-type mode of production to capitalism (Czechoslovakia?), but I doubt it. Jim Devine
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
Devine, James wrote: If you think about the power to fire workers, bequeath property to their sons or daughters, sell/strip assets, etc., you're thinking about a specifically capitalist form of class power. (Did the Pharaoh have the ability to the power to fire workers, bequeath property to their sons or daughters, sell/strip assets, etc.?) There have been many other kinds of class power in the history of the world. In any event, Kim il Sung seems to have bequeathed North Korea to his son. Reply: Well, we seem to have a different understanding of class. I consider ownership of the means of production to be crucial. Like a feudal lord owning land, or a Southern Bourbon owning slaves. I didn't consider Jimmy Hoffa to be a member of the ruling class in the USA despite the outward trappings of wealth and power. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The Soviet empire was a drain on Moscow
In a message dated 8/2/2004 10:28:39 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russians lived more poorly than people in any other of the republics or in the Eastern Bloc (except maybe Albania?). Moscow may have been a possible exception. It's one of the reasons why Russia junked them. Ironically, those losses of subsidies have resulted in the wealthiest of the republics -- like Georgia and Moldova -- into the poorest. Russians now live better than people anywhere else in the fSU, except maybe the Baltics, which is why you have so much illegal immigration from them into Russia. There are lots of Soviet jokes depicting Castro as sucking at Brezhnev's teat. Comment This Great Russian Bully . . . seeking the restoration of an historially evolved privledge . . . was unshackled as the results of the era of Nitkia Khrushchev . . . although many may had thought they met the "bully boy." Being forced to try and recover what you had is a harsh school. Striving to receive what you think you have coming is the school of chauvinism. This Great Russian Bully . . . who was handcuffed and forced to serve the dictatorship of the proletariat is going to teach some harsh lessons. Lessons an enormous section of our proletariat learnt in a pervious era and during several junctures in the development of our industrial system. Wealth is measured against master's house and not your neighbors shack. Khruschev's betrayal of Lumumba and the Congo set the basis for the evolution of Soviet policy up to the collapse of Soviet Power and the overthrow of its property relations in the industrial infrastructure. The vassal states of the Soviet Union were not colonies or the meaning of colonies in the sense of bourgeois imperialism. The Soviet Union was an imperial power and its responsibility was to uplift the petty bourgeois countries and aid the world proletariat to the best of its ability. Any modern economy operating on the basis of the exchange of labor is going to manifest economic inequality. What Russia junked was socialism. The people of the Soviet Union understood that Brezhnev was not a Red. I remember their jokes from this period . . . concerning Brezhnev trying to impress his mother with his power and wealth and privileges. At the end of the story . . . Brezhnev's mother looks at him and says . . . "you have done well son . . . but what you gonna do when the Reds come back?" The real ideological basis of support of the counter revolution . . . outside the apparatus that intermingles with international capital and the characters able to exact tribute from Ivan Average on the basis of their station in the bureaucratic apparatus (something understood by every industrial worker having labored in a large factor or tenured Professor languishing under the heavy hand of the machine) . . . is the petty bourgeois intellectual that alter the ideological sphere on behalf of its prejudices. What wrecked the Soviet Union was democracy and I do not mean incarceration or the lack or social engineering . . . but the petty bourgeois concept of workers democracy and political rights. If you are fighting on an economic terrain that is hostile to you all you have is ideology as the social glue. Under the Stalin regime there could be no talk of the ANC being niggers at the trough of the Soviet Economy or Castro sucking a breast. None of us get a world like we envision it and workers in America are in the process of showing the world their conception of democracy. It is not going to be pretty and our greatest failing is the inability to understand how people actually think things out. It means we cannot reach our workers because subjective conception of democracy create the unbridgeable class barrier. Poland gets what it deserves. Those within the former Soviet Union are going to get what they deserve and they are going to pay more than under Sovietism. The world workers are going to get what they deserve and are paying more than under Sovietism. Then again . . . the damn bureaucracy flips . . . man. And the bureaucracy is not a class. In the Soviet Union the bureaucracy was an excretion of the state in practical terms due to its peculiar curve of development. In the historical sense it was part of the line of industrial development. Where in history has any society every overthrown the machine before its economic basis was eroded? The Bully Boy is back . . . the real bully boy and not that guy you freaking thought was a bully. A democratic slave master is still a slave master however . . . and there were some decent slave masters . . . according to some who never escaped the mental chains of slavery . . . or rather bourgeois democracy. Melvin P.
