Some excerpts from Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (Pipes). Key difference between Russia, where the Bolsheviks succeeded, and the rest of Europe, where they failed, is that the masses of the rest of Europe were at least a little bit patriotic.
Of the big Euro socialist parties, the Italians PSI joined the Comintern, but was expelled for not expelling the minority who didn't want to. The German and British Communists were unable to take over SPD/Labour, respectively. Only in France did the major socialist party join.
Communists being comparatively rare and treated with suspicion abroad, most Soviet support abroad came from liberals and fellow travelers.
Liberals went out of their way to excuse, downplay, and minimize Soviet atrocities and express general support, if with criticism of specific details. The Labour Party in Britain took the same tack, saying "Jacobinism" was inevitable in a revolution and hence OK, if regrettable.
"Fellow travelers" were more credible than actual Communists because they did not appear to be beholden to the Soviets, but acted the same way. They took over a large swathe of Western publishing/media and suppressed anti-Soviet views (eg Orwell).
Many Western businessmen were also in favor of normalizing relations with the USSR to make money, and spread narratives that trade would civilize the Bolsheviks [sounds very familiar]. Lenin had a point about capitalists being happy to sell the rope with which to hang them.
These commercial agreements paved the way for diplomatic recognition, mostly in 1920/21. France was the least compromising because a portion of French capital was in loans the Bolsheviks defaulted on.
USG was hostile, but didn't care too much (this being right after WWI). Formal recognition would wait for FDR. Lloyd George (Britain) was pro-Soviet enough to want to set up commercial ties (the Soviets, correctly, saw him as a sucker).
Soviet collaboration with Weimar to overturn Versailles is well-known; worth pointing out that this was desired across the political spectrum and the SPD was actually unusually anti-Soviet (because the Bolsheviks condemned them as reformists).
The Soviets controlled press reports of them through the very simple mechanism of not letting in unfriendly journos. Of the major newspapers, only the (British) Times failed to comply. NYT's infamous Walter Duranty was anti-Communist to begin with, but changed his tune for $$$.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread with excerpts from "Foundations, their power and influence" (1958), by the former chairman of the Reece Committee, a Congressional committee to investigate the conduct of tax-exempt foundations.
The administrators of the great foundations formed an interlocking cartel wielding (illegally) immense political and cultural influence using other people's money, as the foundations are tax exempt.
Foundations are tax-exempt because they are supposed to be run for public benefit.
Thread with excerpts from "The French Intifada: The Long War Between France and its Arabs" (2014). This book, by a leftist (participant in communes) author, portrays race riots by Arab immigrants to France as simply one more episode in a centuries-long war between the two.
Both the French Left and Right framed the 2005 riots as part of the long French tradition of revolt. But they were wrong; the protestors were mostly Arabs rioting against France itself, not against "the bosses" or "the state."
The rioters (remember, Arab immigrants and their descendants) see themselves as soldiers in a long war against France, Europe, and even civilization itself. Recall that the author is on their side.
'The Unknown Warriors' (2006) is a collection of WWII veteran's views on modern Britain gathered via newspaper ad. So what did WWII veterans think of the 2006 UK? They hated it; 134 responses were negative vs only 6 positive (plus 31 N/A and 13 neutral). Excerpts below.
The below is typical (from a D-Day veteran): "I am absolutely disgusted with the way things are turning out... and sometimes wonder if it was worth all the suffering of a war."
"I have many, many misgivings on how matters have turned out. Problems seem to be resolved, by more and more legislation, instead of action at the source... What many veterans abhor, is the acceptance of homosexuality as the norm."
Employers hiring people and then training them in the specific skills they require has declined as a hiring model for decades, in favor of a hiring market where employers look for people who already have those skills.
In the training/internal labor markets model, a company struggling to find specific skills will train promising entry-level employees. In the hiring market model, they can raise wages or otherwise improve conditions. In both, they can also substitute technology for labor.
Neither a hiring market nor training model for matching jobs to seekers is compatible with "skill shortages" as a concept, which implicitly assumes skills are fixed and once people with those skills run out employers can do nothing (except through immigration or schooling).
"Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (TR Fehrenbach, 1973/1995) thread of threads. Mesoamerican civilization was horrifying and very backwards by Old World standards, but unique.
Excerpts from TR Fehrenbach's "Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico" (1995). The PRI had massively expanded higher education. These universities were entirely 'free'/self-governing and became locuses of left-wing organizing.
In 1968, security forces fired upon a massive student demonstration/riot against the Olympic Games.
By 1970 Mexico had made enormous progress; the national income increased sixfold while the death rate dropped by half. But Mexico was still struggling with foreign-exchange; the govt pursued import-substitution to improve balance-of-payments.