"Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation."
Means nothing to me what you personally do for a living. I'm pretty sure there are aparatchik sales people, or at least I'm quite confident I might've dated a few, admittedly rare, in my youth..
I didn't mean all businesspeople or all anything. I meant the mediocre MBA types who shuffle around from company to company and try to monetize units of... wait... what is it we sell again?
The dominant ideology and paradigm of today is pretty brilliant. Partisans of neoliberalism always portray it as somehow the natural order of things, arising anytime people and institutions are free to self organize. In reality, though, the supposed guiding invisible hand is the veiled fist of the State.
Its magic comes from decentralizing and shifting individual and systemic accountability while still allowing for the world to be dominated by a hierarchy of power. The State has created a world where people to effortlessly flow between government and ostensibly private institutions, even when one or the other has failed miserably: free floating MBAs are one manifestation of that tendency. And the resilient network structure of power makes it impossible to effect change by holding any nexus responsible for moral failure.
The current world system is a mirror of the 1970s and 1980s USSR, except done much more efficiently. In a way, there was much more transparency in the Brezhnev era USSR: everyone, foreign and domestic, saw clearly through the thin air of lies and perceived directly the systemic corruption of its government.
In the USA today, far too many of us chase colorful glamours, ignorant that the world we see is just the passed dispersion of a prism.
As a person who actually used to live in a former Soviet republic, I completely agree. But that does NOT mean that the US is becoming a communist/soviet state. No. But it's using techniques we had 30-40 years ago,and which were part of everyone's life. You could expect no privacy then, and it seems like in the US you can't expect privacy now.
"Those who don't remember history are bound to live through it again".
Very simple. KGB had network of informants, your best friend could have been one, every workplace supposed to have one. And that was very good network of very frightened people, so generally nobody knew who was in there. Now decades later, if some informant is uncovered, the reaction usually is - never would have guessed.
I am not the original poster and I have not lived it first hand, but my grandparents left Lithuania in the 1930s (not a Soviet republic at that time). I was always told the story of how my grandfather went back to visit in the 1970s, and that his friends and family expressed concern that they were being surveilled.
On the other hand I wonder if that might say something about these specific people, and if it might have varied by place. I've talked to a lot of people from Russia (as opposed to satellite republics) who say that it wasn't really on very many people's minds at the time.
- Every phone call would start with the operator informing you that "the call is being monitored, the call is being monitored". Everybody knew, nobody cared. US does the same thing, although automatically,not with actual people listening to what you say - apparently, that makes it completely ok.
- You couldn't travel out of town before reporting that fact to the police. US does not need to do that, since they can easily monitor where you are anyway, using your cellphone, automatic car plate readers along roads, face detectors in major towns, and transaction monitoring. Again, apparently completely ok, because terrorists. 30 years ago we had "enemies of the state". It's just the name that changes, the principle behind it does not.
- Everyone was equal,but obviously, people in power were more equal than others. Whatever they said was the law. A regular discussion with an official would look like that: -"you can't do this" , "yes I can, there is a regulation x.y that says I can", "no, because I said so". An official complaint could end with a prompt visit from local police department or even KGB. "Disturbing public order". "Disruption to government activities". "Stopping a government official from doing their work". They would find a paragraph for you. There used to be a saying "show me a man, and I will find a paragraph for him".
In my personal opinion, the US is pretty much the same nowadays. You have secret courts from which decisions you cannot appeal from, you can be given an official order and at the same time not be allowed to speak about it, or a most recent example from today - a US official saying that complaining about the quality of water can be treated like terrorism. Or complete inability to find out why one has been placed on a no-fly list. Government says so, so it goes.
- Speaking of no-fly lists, you had to apply for a passport if you wanted to leave the country, it would be issued for a limited number of days, and then had to be returned to the nearest police department. US is not keeping your passports,but then it doesn't need to - someone,somewhere, in a secret office that will deny its own existence, a decision can be made to put you on the no-fly list. Effectively banning you from leaving the country forever. The same method has been used before to exile people out of US - you can't fly back, and most companies that travel by sea won't accept people who are on the no-fly lists too, so your options are limited to nearly zero.
- Post offices would regularly open your correspondence to check for any "illegal" material. This is the same to me as your border agents and TSA agents strip-searching people,their cars and their baggage without a warrant, for no reason(pardon, for "national security" reasons), not only at the airports,but also within the 100 mile radius from the boarder.
- Journalists were obviously monitored and could only write about state-approved matters. In the US journalists have been threatened with prison for writing about some of the processes of Guantanamo prisoners. Personally, I don't see a difference here.
- People would be send to prisons without a trial. As far as I understand,this is how Guantanamo works, nothing more needs to be said.
- People were rewarded for spying on each other and telling on one another. Noticed your neighbor has more shiny things than you do? Report him and our glorious party will reward you. It was reported today that Obama wants to prosecute people who don't report on whistleblowers. Again, I don't see the difference here.
- Most people had files on them kept by the secret police, where agents would write down every detail about you, if you happened to catch their attention somehow. Then all of that could be used in court against you. And existence of such archives was always denied, even though everyone knew they existed. Once again - I absolutely don't see a di...
It's easy to say that this comparison is silly because the US still has free press (well, kinda) and such, but it really does make you look twice when you read about the US government making people disappear off the streets without a trial, and has been engaging in torture.
The Communist party for years discussed ways of turning American high society into Communists, whether they liked it or not, or .. at least Socialists, if but a little more willingly. It didn't matter to the Communists if it was called Communism; what they wanted was to get the actions of American society in alignment with Communist goals, whatever the terminology used to describe it.
This was a very big deal. In the 50's. So, maybe we're seeing the shock-wave of these efforts, in the culture and manners of the current suite of politicians and other cultural leaders promoting the ways of the new Socialist order. Whether they like it or not. (cf: FoxNewSpeak, et al.)
24 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 64.9 ms ] threadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatchik
"Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation."
The dominant ideology and paradigm of today is pretty brilliant. Partisans of neoliberalism always portray it as somehow the natural order of things, arising anytime people and institutions are free to self organize. In reality, though, the supposed guiding invisible hand is the veiled fist of the State.
Its magic comes from decentralizing and shifting individual and systemic accountability while still allowing for the world to be dominated by a hierarchy of power. The State has created a world where people to effortlessly flow between government and ostensibly private institutions, even when one or the other has failed miserably: free floating MBAs are one manifestation of that tendency. And the resilient network structure of power makes it impossible to effect change by holding any nexus responsible for moral failure.
The current world system is a mirror of the 1970s and 1980s USSR, except done much more efficiently. In a way, there was much more transparency in the Brezhnev era USSR: everyone, foreign and domestic, saw clearly through the thin air of lies and perceived directly the systemic corruption of its government.
In the USA today, far too many of us chase colorful glamours, ignorant that the world we see is just the passed dispersion of a prism.
"Those who don't remember history are bound to live through it again".
On the other hand I wonder if that might say something about these specific people, and if it might have varied by place. I've talked to a lot of people from Russia (as opposed to satellite republics) who say that it wasn't really on very many people's minds at the time.
- Every phone call would start with the operator informing you that "the call is being monitored, the call is being monitored". Everybody knew, nobody cared. US does the same thing, although automatically,not with actual people listening to what you say - apparently, that makes it completely ok.
- You couldn't travel out of town before reporting that fact to the police. US does not need to do that, since they can easily monitor where you are anyway, using your cellphone, automatic car plate readers along roads, face detectors in major towns, and transaction monitoring. Again, apparently completely ok, because terrorists. 30 years ago we had "enemies of the state". It's just the name that changes, the principle behind it does not.
- Everyone was equal,but obviously, people in power were more equal than others. Whatever they said was the law. A regular discussion with an official would look like that: -"you can't do this" , "yes I can, there is a regulation x.y that says I can", "no, because I said so". An official complaint could end with a prompt visit from local police department or even KGB. "Disturbing public order". "Disruption to government activities". "Stopping a government official from doing their work". They would find a paragraph for you. There used to be a saying "show me a man, and I will find a paragraph for him". In my personal opinion, the US is pretty much the same nowadays. You have secret courts from which decisions you cannot appeal from, you can be given an official order and at the same time not be allowed to speak about it, or a most recent example from today - a US official saying that complaining about the quality of water can be treated like terrorism. Or complete inability to find out why one has been placed on a no-fly list. Government says so, so it goes.
- Speaking of no-fly lists, you had to apply for a passport if you wanted to leave the country, it would be issued for a limited number of days, and then had to be returned to the nearest police department. US is not keeping your passports,but then it doesn't need to - someone,somewhere, in a secret office that will deny its own existence, a decision can be made to put you on the no-fly list. Effectively banning you from leaving the country forever. The same method has been used before to exile people out of US - you can't fly back, and most companies that travel by sea won't accept people who are on the no-fly lists too, so your options are limited to nearly zero.
- Post offices would regularly open your correspondence to check for any "illegal" material. This is the same to me as your border agents and TSA agents strip-searching people,their cars and their baggage without a warrant, for no reason(pardon, for "national security" reasons), not only at the airports,but also within the 100 mile radius from the boarder.
- Journalists were obviously monitored and could only write about state-approved matters. In the US journalists have been threatened with prison for writing about some of the processes of Guantanamo prisoners. Personally, I don't see a difference here.
- People would be send to prisons without a trial. As far as I understand,this is how Guantanamo works, nothing more needs to be said.
- People were rewarded for spying on each other and telling on one another. Noticed your neighbor has more shiny things than you do? Report him and our glorious party will reward you. It was reported today that Obama wants to prosecute people who don't report on whistleblowers. Again, I don't see the difference here.
- Most people had files on them kept by the secret police, where agents would write down every detail about you, if you happened to catch their attention somehow. Then all of that could be used in court against you. And existence of such archives was always denied, even though everyone knew they existed. Once again - I absolutely don't see a di...
> Sure. Poland.
Poland is a former Soviet satellite. It can also be described as a former Communist republic.
It is not, however, a former Soviet republic, as it was not one of the 15 constituent republics of the former Soviet Union.
And this, I find really quite alarming... https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/06/21-3
If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged. -Cardinal Richelieu
This was a very big deal. In the 50's. So, maybe we're seeing the shock-wave of these efforts, in the culture and manners of the current suite of politicians and other cultural leaders promoting the ways of the new Socialist order. Whether they like it or not. (cf: FoxNewSpeak, et al.)