Skip to main content

What was peak Soviet? Part I

 


In the long historical arc of the Soviet Union, from creation in 1917 to death in 1991, what was the peak? The high point of that arc?

I'd like to suggest: 1959. 

At this time, the Soviet Union was literally leading the human race into outer space, sending out its satellites and in time human beings and daring the other World Power to catch up. Also at that time, it acquired a new ally island-nation just 90 miles away from the United States -- indeed, 90 miles away from the metropolis of Miami. Further, to all appearances there was a great communistic concord between the Soviet Union of this moment and the Peoples' Republic of China.

If, in 1959, you were one of the privileged elite in either Moscow or Peking/Beijing, you would have known that this concord was less than perfect, but you would surely have gone along with that facade. The break did not become an open one until years later.

Soviet control over the eastern half of Europe was unquestioned -- indeed, it had confirmed it at the expense of Hungary not long before, in an act in which the Eisenhower administration quietly acquiesced.  

So ... 1959. Peak Soviet. 

By the time a decade had passed, much had changed. The split between the two great communist powers was out in the open by 1969.  Prominence in the exploration of space was a "torch that passed" into American hands over the course of that intervening decade, punctuated by a dramatic act of flag planting at the end of it.  Castro was clearly still a nuisance to Washington in 1969, but he seemed to be a tolerable one, and the island of Cuba was at least a missile-free zone. The Soviet Union was still an impressive force in the world, and a dangerous one to cross, but its peak was behind it. At least, it looks that way in a rear view mirror.  

Why does it matter? Because I think this is an object lesson in HOW empires fall. Or at least in the timelines.     

More to come. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more