Putin and Russian TV Slander Campaign Against Ukraine.

A lot of people say that Putin lies. People do laugh about Putin's claims about Nazis in Ukraine. 

However, Putin does not just lie, he and Russian TV run an intentional campaign of slander, aiming to ruin Ukraine's image and reputation in the eyes of Russian public as well as global community. The multi-year slander campaign to mislead the public about actual situation in Ukraine and convince them in necessity of the military intervention.

The slander campaign involved near daily reports, most or all of which were completely fabricated by Russian TV personnel. The fake reports would cover multiple instances of the fabricated hate crime, committed by alleged Nazis against Russophone population of Ukraine. Such crimes would include instances rape, gun crime, property damage and murder solely on ethnic ground. 

Such reports would typically feature an interview with an alleged victim or witness of such crime. Victim would usually claim that Ukrainian authorities are unwilling to investigate and prosecute crimes of the alleged Nazis. Some would ask Putin and Russia to interfere and save them from the Nazis.

These reports, that Russian TV was running for years, are completely fictitious and fabricated completely. The report of crimes that did not happened. They feature false victims and witnesses who did not witness of were victims of any crimes but were paid by Russian TV to tell a prefabricated story on camera.

This campaign of a blatant slander, run by Russian TV aimed at ruining Ukraine's reputation and its government credibility. 

Such campaign has two aims. One it to convince public in Russia that a military intervention in Ukraine would be a benevolent act of saving Russophone people of Ukraine from serious hate crime. Second it to dilute the support of Ukraine among global community by portraying it as dangerous and dysfunctional state.

Due to Russian slander campaign Ukraine suffered a significant reputational damage. In addition to losses inflicted by war, that was justified with the slander campaign, there were also a loss of potential foreign investments. Ukrainian economy clearly underperformed compared to many other eastern European states in a similar situation, such as Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia or even Belarus.

Because of that if would be appropriate to refer this matter to international arbitration in order to refute slander. International arbitration should force Russian TV to issue an official rebuttal of all the lies they told the public about Ukraine, apologize to Ukraine and award Ukraine compensation for the damages, caused by the slander. Russian TV should be banned from broadcasting in international community if they refuse to comply with orders of the international arbitration.

Hopefully international community will finally take Russian slander campaign seriously and will finally work to restore the truth and good image of Ukraine.

Better Political Compass: The Layers System

 

A while ago I wrote that political compass fails to represent political opinions clearly enough. By now four squares political compass became nothing more than a meme tool that only reflect political/social culture rather than political positions.

So here I created a better political alignment tool, that I call Political Diamond. 

Left and right still represents economic struggle between rich and poor. Right is an attempt to keep rich richer and poor poorer or at least prevent change to economic status quo. Left is instead attempted to level the field and make society more economically equal. 

The triangulars at the very edge can be considered extremes of such ideology. However economic extremes only, as authority vs liberty is represented by the vertical axis.

However, authority vs liberty is too complex to simply represent with one axis. There are many forms of authoritarianism or libertarianism, that have little in common with each other.

So, I created horizontal layers and named them after the defining features of these ideologies. 

Layers from middle to top.

I will begin with middle top layer and then go up. Afterwards I will take on middle bottom and go down instead.

Traditional center-left and center-right

Between Democracy and Ideology layers are red and blue. Red is traditional center left (Social Democracy, Labour) and blue is central right (Conservative and many other names). 

There are democratic ideologies that use limited state authority to implement policies, they see as desirable. Red wants more economic equality but within democratic framework, blue wants to simply preserve status quo and wealth accumulated by those who are better off.  

Both red and blue respect democratic system and rule of law. Under this system you are better off if your party is in power, but you do not suffer too much if it's the other way around. These two parties are what is normal in most Western World.

Far left and far right

Between Ideology and Dogma there are dark red and pale blue. Dark red are authoritarian socialists and communists. Pale blue is a variety of ideologies, determined to restore traditional social order and hierarchy. These are what people call far left or far right. They themselves probably see themselves as moral right or orthodox left.

For both of these layers their ideology or principles are more important to them that democratic governance or individual freedom. They believe their believes are more important that people's will or individual liberty and should be enforced on people if they refuse to toe the line.

In Dark Red and Pale Blue, you either think it's a righteous system that runs the country as its ought to be or instead think that this is a totalitarian oppression and cruelty. Your wellbeing and place in society depends on your personal agreement with the prevailing ideology as well as on how favorably or not such ideology views you personally. 

Autocracy

Above Dogma and below Totalitarianism lie various autocratic regimes. All power is vested with a single person or some authority body who makes all the decisions at their discretion. Absolute monarchies, totalitarian states, primitive despotisms would fall under this purple corner. 

Unlike lower sectors you can no longer call them ideologies. Here there is no longer clear distinction between left and right as omnipotent authority can run syncretic or even arbitrary policy. 

Various corrupt and devolved states with self-serving rulers do fall under this category as well. Such rulers exploit their position of authority to exploit the state and the people for their personal benefit.

Autocratic regimes are where your power and wellbeing depend only on your place in the pyramid of power and good will of those in power. There are in general very bad places to live.

Layers from middle to bottom.

After going up towards more autocracy now we will go down towards more liberty.

Libertarianism, both left and right

Between Democracy and Liberty lie various forms of libertarianism. Some associate libertarianism with right wing only, but that is incorrect. There are both left and right libertarianism. Andrew Yang and Pirate Parties are good example of left-libertarianism. I colored right libertarianism gold and left libertarianism (Social-Libertarianism) gold instead.

Libertarianism wants to increase personal individual freedom within liberal democratic system. In that regard they oppose traditional parties as more authoritarian than they are themselves. Traditional parties fall midway between libertarianism and illiberal far-left or far-right.

Libertarianism sees a lot of rules that restrict individual freedom and wish to eliminate them. Cannabis legalization, gay marriage, gambling, alcohol and guns are many such things that libertarians wish to legalize. Libertarians wish to legalize as much as possible, seeing maximization of what is legal as a way towards maximizing individual freedom.

Within libertarians there are also distinctive left and right trends as there are between traditional parties. Right-Libertarians are mostly concerned with minimization or elimination of taxes and less government regulation on business. Left-Libertarians instead focus on things such as Universal Basic Income as the way to give everyone bureaucracy and authority free income to facilitate individual freedom.

Unlike green and blue sectors, libertarianism does not seek to abolish state per se. State is needed to make sure this maximized liberty survives.  

Neo Primitivism and Chaos

Between Liberty and Anarchy lie various theoretical and experimental ideologies. I colored them green and dark blue. 

To libertarianism they are, what far-left, and far-right are to the traditional (democratic) parties.

If far-left and far-right erode democratic and liberal principles of the state in order to turn the state into a tool for enforcement of their dogma, then green and dark blue sectors instead seek erode governmental structures themselves.

Green is used in Anarcho-primitivism as well as in traditional political compass, so I guess we can use this color for this culturally left sector of Communal Primitivism. At best they want to create something like Christiania in Denmark at worst some lawless society that paradoxically uphold certain rules through communal effort. 

Dark blue is darker shade of traditional right, the opposite of pale blue of far-right. If far right wished to enforce their morals and way of life on the rest of the society, then this Paleo Conservatism instead wishes to create some autonomous isolated communities, where they can live in accordance with their believes, kind of like Amish.

This is the only area where division between left and right is more cultural, then economic. However, even here paleo conservatism would be unlikely to create economic equality. I sincerely doubt that Communal-Primitivism will be able to provide everyone with economic equality or even decent standards of living. 

Lawless Society

Between Anarchy and Law of the Jungle, at the bottom most there is lawless society. Where there are no laws or rules, might makes right, like in wild nature. This can happen if society collapses. However, some extreme ideologies, such as Social Darwinism, pure Primitivism, Avaritionism wish to create it on purpose. Of course, such ideologies do belong to this bottom most corner. 

Just like in Autocracy there is no division between left and right. It's just random luck, ability to force one's way on others and survive.

Eventually an individual or an organized group may emerge and turn this society into an autocracy by force. Because of that this system is not self-sustainable and will eventually be replaced with a different system.

Conclusion

That can more of less cover most ideologies and create a clear idea where everyone stands on issues. Social-Libertarianism and Communal-Primitivism has little in common, but would be in lib-left quadrant of the traditional political compas, albeit for different reasons. Center-left and far left each got their own sector as well. So are many other ideologies. 

There are still certain issues that are not covered by this system, such as relationship between man and women. However, these are better addressed by a separate system.

Extra: Theoretical Anarchism

Anarchism by itself is not represented anywhere on this compass.

Theoretical anarchism, the one of which people like Max Stirner talked with their intellectual friends, is not a ready to implement ideology, but an idealistic wish to live in a society, free from any authority.

Their spirit lives in libertarians, but we have to create an ideology that can actually achieve freedom, rather than destroy society and plunge us into primitivism.

Strictly speaking Anarchism is a legacy of Libertarianism only and Communal Primitivism or Paleo Conservatism has nothing to do with it. However, some of Communal Primitivists might want to claim their ideology to be Anarchist.

Social-Alt-Libertarianism and All the Based Ideologies

Here is the list of all ideologies that I support and consider based. As well as the reasons for doing so.

The resulting mix of all these ideologies could be called Social-Alt-Libertarianism.

I can also call it Thorism, but that sounds too close to torysm, an ideology I passionately oppose. 

Individualism

My core value has always been Individualism. Personal self-interest is most important thing for me. I do not trust ideologies that put community, family or authority above the individual. All of them lead to oppression and misery. 

However, on the simplest level, I do what I want, how I want, when I want.

I do not sacrifice for the sake of others, any others.

Nietzsche's Master Morality as well as Max Stirner thoughts, outline these Ideas as well. I am Egoist and proud of it.

Anti-Authoritarianism

Individual freedom must be safeguarded. One of the biggest threats to freedom is authoritarianism. Dictators who oppress people are easy to understand stereotype.

However, it does not end there. Any ideology that claims it knows better than individuals themselves and seeks to control what people say or do is a threat to individual freedom. For example, woke-ism and cancel-culture have absolutely no respect for individual freedom. All such ideologies have to be opposed.

People should not be told what to do. At the very least I should not be told what to do. I do not listen to what others say as all (vast majority) who disagree with me are idiots.

Welfarism

 

Wage-slavery is another threat to individual freedom. Reality is that people need money to afford food, various necessities and lead a comfortable life. Therefore, it's a government job to make sure people do not go without.

Situation where people have to do some work in order to survive is the antithesis of freedom. People who say stupid things, such as "no free lunch" or criticize "money for nothing" are enemies of freedom and closet tories. 

Universal Basic Income is the best way to ensure that people have the money they need. It eschews unnecessary eligibility bureaucracy of traditional welfare and provides money directly to people who need them. 

Social-Libertarianism

If you combine strong individual freedom with welfare state, you get Social-Libertarianism. Civil Freedom, Individual Freedom, Business Freedom and Universal Basic Income to prevent wage slavery and dependency.

Out of relatively mainstream politicians in the US or Anglophone countries only Andrew Yang champions these views. 

However, most Pirate Parties of the world are broadly social libertarian in their ideology and policies. While many are not represented in parliaments, there are exceptions. In Czech Republic Pirate Party is in government, they are also having mayor of their capital Prague. Icelandic Pirate Party is in parliament with a significant fraction.

Pirate Party Politics

Pirate Party began as a movement against copyright takedowns by RIAA and other such organizations. Pirate party oppose copyright laws on ground of civil liberties. Overtime it grew to champion other causes, that are popular with internet-native mostly young people. 

The party and movement are broadly socially-libertarian in character.

There are Pirate Parties all over the world, organized in Pirate International. In some of these countries, Pirates are in government.

Patriarchy - Male Supremacy

This one seems to generate the most outrage from various quarters.

Afghanistan did create some outrage in the world by enforcing male supremacy rule on a few dissenting women in their country. However, fact, these stoning only happen because Taliban had to undo the reforms of Babrak Karmal and Najibullah, and their communist Soviet masters.

Male dominated relationships between genders are actually very common throughout the world. Japan, India, Pakistan, Arab countries all practice it. In fact, this is how the majority of the world is. In these countries male authority is never questioned by women so no stoning and such happens. And they all are happy and content with all that, look at Bollywood movies for example.

Feminism is a failure. It is abhorrent to me on personal level, but it also creates failed societies, like the one of former-USSR. High diverse rates, lots of single mothers, male alcoholism and biggest disparity between male and female life expectancy are all due to feminism. Feminism is mortal enemy of men everywhere.

The only other societies where women hold significant power are some African failed states, where tyranny and constant civil war is norm of the day. Only completely braindead feminism would say that Robert Kony is better than Taliban, yet if you ask Antifa they will likely back Kony over Talibs. We should oppose feminism to prevent our society devolving into an African failed state.

So, it is a question of very issue of male survival to oppose feminism and women rights at every opportunity with all we got.

Alt-Libertarianism

This one is simply a combination of Yang and Pirate Parties Social-Libertarianism with Alt-right, Patriarchy and Male-Supremacy policies. 

Some misguided idiots call it fascism or nazi. However, it's the very same idiots who participate in Antifa and for whom everything that is not feminist is fascist. 

Antifa are the only actual Nazis we have in modern society, feminazis. Their bigotry and hate are a poison than makes our society worse. 

Feminazi and Antifa thugs have no place in our society. They do not respect human rights, so they in turn should not be given any respect either. Society will be better and safer for everyone if we eliminate Antifa's Feminazis. The only place for Antifa Feminazi is gas chambers and graveyard prison.

Welfare Chauvinism

This has two purposes. One is to ensure male domination in society and the other one is practical considerations.

I talked about reasons why male dominated society is better and necessary for our survival. Thus, welfare should be for men only. Women should be made dependent on men and forced to accept male authority in all things.

The second issue is a capacity to actually provide care and services. There is so much wealth every country can produce so it cannot be squandered carelessly. 

Most of the prosperous countries in the world have very small population as well as population density. That means they need to divide the resources they have between much less people.

Because of that it is essential that we keep the population levels on comfortable sustainable levels. We should stop rewarding people for having more babies and begin penalizing them for doing so instead.

While a level of personal comfort should be every individual's human right. Right to have 5 kids is not. Only people who can provide their children with decent standards of living should be allowed to have children at all. 

That can produce insensitive for some people to work harder in order to earn enough money to support a child.

Once again bad parents should be penalized for treating children badly and standards for child welfare should be increased.

Finally elderly care is undue waste of our limited resources. Keeping some 80s something alive with expensive surgeries and nursery home care is the most retarded thing, society can do. Only few exceptional individuals (less than 0.1% percent of total population) can be given such expensive privilege. The rest should be given a painless and humane euthanasia so they can die with dignity while they are still humans, rather than a barely alive lump of flesh. If a 75+ person cannot take care of themselves, it should be clear euthanasia.

Globalism - Neoliberalism

World is full of oppressive inhuman regimes, sometime run downright insane dictators. These places have no respect for human rights, human dignity and everything that is good and just that I outlined above or further below.

Thus, we should fight tyranny and oppression and spread our Social-Alt-Libertarianism to these places.

World is not safe until people like Kim Jong Un, Alexander Lukashenka or average African dictator oppress people daily. It is up to NATO and other Euro-Atlantic Institutions to fix that.

For Social-Alt-Libertarian world.

Enlightenment

Enlightenment was a collection of thoughts that allowed Europe and broader Western world to shed its own authoritarian feudal past and finally become the prosperous modern society we know it today. This was a starting point of the great society of freedom and human dignity that we sometimes take for granted nowadays.

Back in 18th century few intellectuals such as myself gathered in coffee houses to discuss society, concluded that it was a mess and started to think of the ways to fix it. Nietzsche, Stirner, but also Marx came out of these circles. Some of these, for example Marx were heavily misinterpreted and corrupted by communists: communists call themselves Marxists despite Marx himself condemned and decried their ideology. Some others were misinterpreted as well, for example Nietzsche was not a Nazi as some claim.

Few understand what Enlightenment even was, and some might want to misuse this term for their own nefarious ideologies, such as communism.

Thus, we also need to make sure that ideology is formulated well enough to avoid misinterpretation.

Transhumanism - Futurism

I am man of the future, of the internet and technology. I do not want to return to stone age or even preserve some nonsense from 60s like some other idiots do nowadays.

We should work to create individualist technogenic male dominated utopia, not preserve times of medieval robber barons or 20th century totalitarian dictators like Stalin, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot.

Past belongs to museums and history books. We need no living fossils.

In future robots would do all the work and we would rule the universe and be free to do whatever we please.

For out better future.

Hedonism

Hedonism is the end goal of it all I would say. That is why I placed it last. The most important thing in life is maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. The rest of the ideologies above all lead to this outcome.

Conclusion

These are the most important ideologies out there and the only truly based ones.

In the past I could consider something like co-op economy, but in fully automated future such arrangements are completely redundant.

Another reasonably interesting ideology I did not listed here is Georgism. Taxing land usage is one way for equitable society where the more land and real estate one owns, the more one has to pay tax. However, it can create unreasonable complications further down the road. 

Ideally, we can have a society where everyone can own some land, however if that is unachievable, then Georgism is the way forward.

These 11 ideologies are the way towards better future for us all. The sooner society realizes it, the better.

On Eastern and Western Mentality

That was more due to the fact that Kim did not attempt any dramatic change to the policy.

Dubcek did try altering policy and run country more like a Western European country across his borders, for example Austria or West Germany. That eventually attracted the invasion of USSR and Warsaw Pact.

In contrast all three Kims stick close to Soviet blueprint even after USSR no more. They have South Korea across their borders, however despite it being much more prosperous, they do not try to be like them. Some might say that it's because he is afraid to lose power in free elections.

Also, I do not think Yugoslavia was all that independent. They just pretended to not be with USSR so that they can manipulate non-Align movement and make it secretly pro-Soviet. Core of Yugoslavia was Serbia, and it stays stubbornly pro-Russian even if that attracts criticism from the US and European Union.

There is difference in assumption too.

Dubcek assumed that he and his people are free to run their country how its best for them. USSR went to show them its not and if their big neighbor is not happy, they can make things ugly and change leaders in Prague. That realization and invasion actually made Czechs hate USSR. That is why when USSR was collapsing in 1989, Czechs and the rest of Warsaw Pact ditched communism and went democratic. They still celebrate is as freedom.

Kim's on the other hand assume that China and USSR have to be appeased and kept happy in the first place. However, in a way it was the same for Korea during Chinese Empire time, they used to appease Chinese back then and continued afterwards. China in turn continued their goodwill towards them.

I guess this is a difference in Western and Eastern psychology. Do what is best for your vs being on a lookout for big neighbor.

Whole Warsaw Pact sit and waited for USSR to crook so that they could be free again. Many crossed the infamous Berlin Wall to be in the West and not be subject of this Soviet interference.

Or maybe not, Some defect from north Korea to south one. To freedom and prosperity or maybe there are some other reasons.

However, for example Japan on their islands likely to feel freer in that regard. China and even Mongols could not reach them, so they have no need to appease them.

Are the rest of the Asians hate them because they envy this security and freedom from China's influence, or there is some other reason?

However, they could instead hate China for telling them what to do.

Final note. That is also why Western men want Asian girlfriend over Western One. It seems Asian girl is more likely to work hard to please them, rather than do what she wants like Western one.

On Freedom or Lack of in USSR

Some people like to praise Gorbachev for introducing freedom in the USSR. While he indeed passed some reforms aimed at reducing censorship and allowing private businesses, impact on wider population was limited. Overall, he is not remembered in former-USSR as a person who made life freer. That is how Americans like to see him. In former USSR Gorbachev is mostly remembered for making shelfs of grocery stores empty. 

If anything, more people would credit Yeltsin with liberalization than Gorbachev, even if Yeltsin legacy is also much more complicated than that. None of them were simple enough to define with one signature policy like Obama with his Obamacare.

However, how free or not free USSR really was?

USSR had three to four different periods with different levels of freedom.

First Period

First was the shortest, just between the end of Civil War and 1929. 

That was the freest period of USSR. Landlords were exterminated and lands were given to peasants to work them as they see fit. Industrial plants and factories were ceased by employees and were managed partly as government owned business, partly as co-op. It was the only period in USSR when it was possible to start own business. Censorship was low, it was possible to say whatever. Travel too was very open and free. Russian Empire restrictions were lifted, and new Soviet ones were not introduced yet. Government was one party system, but The Party's culture back then was that of open discussion and debate. Stalin was already a General Secretary, but back then it was just an administrative job about keeping track of various records and paperwork, it had no influence on policy.

It was an optimistic time where government felt like embracing modernity and trying out all sorts of new things. Innovative architecture, art, music, cinema and such were created. 20s were good times everywhere and USSR was no exception. In some ways it even managed to pioneer many new things during these times.

It was so different from what came after, it's almost impossible to believe it even happened. However, that period can explain why people would fight a civil war to make it happen.

Second Period

Second period was from 1933 to the death of Stalin in 1954. Years between 1929 and 1933 were somewhat of a transition between first and second. War years between 1941 and 1945 had some unique characteristics as well.

Second period was characterized by paranoia and constant fear of KGB (then NKVD). That was used as a tool of power and control that Stalin and the Party used to rule the population. 

Stalin administrative job in 20s included processing party membership applications. Overtime he filled the Party with people who were vastly different from those who founded it. Former Russian Empire bureaucrats all applied to join and eventually outnumbered the old-Bolsheviks in all Party structures. They brought their totalitarian culture with them. They used to serve Tzars, who maintained they are God chosen and their decisions cannot be questioned. People who used to work for Tzars therefore saw any criticism of superiors as capital crime. 

Such people were a very poor fit for The Party as they did not believe in discussion and debate and hardly had any ideas of their own. Overtime they somewhat adapted to this alien environment by fervently defending opinions and policies of party founder, Lenin and attacking everyone who they perceived as criticizing or disagreeing with any of that. Slowly the party of debate ideas and discussion evolved into a cult of Lenin where fervent zealots would compete in their display of loyalty towards their now dead leader. That loyalty also applied to Lenin's most loyal follower, Stalin, whom they perceived as the most rightful successor to Lenin's legacy, his most loyal follower and most authoritative interpreter of his vision.

Eventually former bureaucrats purged all old-Bolsheviks from all structures. Eventually NKVD purges allowed them to exterminate them as well. Then they began cracking down on broader population. Everyone who is perceived not following will of Lenin could be a target.

Land reform partly triggered and partly solidified this transformation. The idea was to take lands from peasants and turn them into collective farms. Such farms can later be provided with modern faming equipment such as tractors and harvesters. However, the idea was unpopular with peasants who did not want to lose their private land towards some collective entity, even co-op one.

Government response to that discontent was to jail those who disagree and push through with reform anyhow. That created public outrage and criticism both within the party and outside. Government decided to crack down on disloyal party members and broader public as well. Soon those in party who criticized the reform, were first expelled, then arrested and finally executed on the grounds of treason. 

After they purged the party, then went after general public. No one was safe from potential arrest and either death or lengthy prison sentence. Eventually filling Gulag with inmates became goal in itself and NKVD would simply invent crimes, forge evidence and then arrest people.

Closer to the end Stalin and government would keep targeting more and more groups of people for "investigation." The last such case was against medical practitioners, whom Stalin accused of deliberate malpractice to sabotage socialism. Some doctors were repressed but Stalin died soon after.

 

That period led towards people becoming more secretive and private. Most useful thing was to attract as little attention as possible to avoid being targeted by NKVD.

Some instead opted towards showing zealous devotion to Lenin to get ahead. However, that could lead towards groundless accusations of crimes from envies rivals. NKVD struggled to fulfil their quotas on convicted and would take any half-baked accusation, no matter how absurd. Anyone who hated their neighbors could easily get rid of them by telling NKVD that there are American spies. That also meant any random person could be send to Siberia on false accusations.

So, people became secretive, kept minimal public facade and only opened up to close friends who managed to somehow prove they are not the type to rat you out to NKVD.

There were also useful moral idiots who believed in what Party was saying. It was best to avoid such people as they could bring NKVD on you out of stupidity.

Third Period

After Stalin's death third period began. Khruschev era was somewhat transitional here. However, from Brezhnev to Gorbachev, there were a consistent period of half-baked oppression, that most people remember nowadays.

Rules somewhat remained the same as during the Stalin's era, but KGB was reluctant to enforce them.

After Stalin's death party bureaucracy united behind Khruschev against Beria. Beria was head of NKVD and was seen as architect and chief executive of purges. Party bureaucrats feared for their lives and did not want the paranoia of Stalin times to continue, so they opted to rally behind milder Khruschev and purge Beria.

That gave party the idea that they fundamentally can control who is in charge. After all various party bodies, such as central committee do get to vote on who is in charge. During Khruschev era they had several opportunities to decide fate of leaders with such vote.

After purging Beria and outmaneuvering Malenkov, Khruschev faced two coups. First was in 1957. Stalin Era top leaders, such as Molotov wanted to oust him. However, most saw Molotov as being more hardline than Khruschev so Khruschev won. Molotov and his allies were expelled from the party, but not executed like Beria.

Second was in 1964 and here Khruschev fell and was replaced with Brezhnev. Overtime party grew to see Khruschev as "voluntarist". By this term they meant that he just makes all decisions himself on gut feeling without consulting much and them makes everyone go along with him. That sometimes did lead towards problems such as introduction of corn, that was mismanaged. Some might call it leadership, but that became too radical by 1964.

Brezhnev was possibly the most moderate and Vice-Presidential person imaginative. Doing nothing became the new reality. Brezhnev would regularly annually report how things have improved since last year. Then get awarded another medal of Hero of USSR for all his hard work of reading from a paper and that was it. I doubt many American Vice Presidents could match his levels of inaction and managed to do less.

Brezhnev perfectly reflected the nature of his era. Rules stayed the same, but they became nothing but ceremonial formality. Gulag was phased out. KGB would no longer arrest people. 

People would profess some nominal loyalty to the system and agree with whatever Brezhnev says, but then just went on to do what they please.

There was censorship and many Western things or news were banned, but people would bypass restrictions and get access to that stuff anyway. Black market was thriving, you could buy Western Music, Hollywood movies or jeans from them. You could still tune to Voice of America or Duetsche Welle despite government running noise generators on their frequencies.

Kind of like internet piracy nowadays. Important people say it's wrong and RIAA works to enforce DMCA. However, people can pirate stuff anyway.

Occasionally some major enforcement would happen, but such events were rare. 

Open protests and criticism were still illegal and could lead to arrests, but most would not bother to go public. In private with friends, they just said what they wanted. Jokes about Brezhnev and communism were very popular.

Aftermath

Gorbachev's Perestroika was another such transitional period. That from Brezhnev's era hubris, that critics call stagnation and defenders stability, country moved towards uncertainty and transformation.

However, Perestroika coincided with economic difficulties and most people were concerned with finding groceries and other goods. Hence why Gorbachev is mostly remembered for empty shelves. Term "deficit" was used to describe it, people did pick it up and used it extensively in 90s to describe this phenomenon.

Yeltsin has managed to solve the empty-shelves problem, he inherited from Gorbachev. Stores were fuller than ever. Some Many did complain that they could not afford to buy anything thought. Eventually Presidential elections of 1996 showed that those who found stores full do outnumber those who cannot afford to buy anything.

Yeltsin fully restored international travel as well as private business. Censorship was abolished and TV and news could report variety of things.

On the other hand, economic uncertainty, job losses. Unlike USSR times one can actually lose one's job and become money-less and homeless.

Then came Putin and combined worst qualities of Brezhnev era with worst qualities of Yeltsin's one. Political freedoms like during Brezhnev and economy like during Yeltsin.

Why Rome did not Lasted

Rome collapsed due to internal reasons, then it should be some kind of very different Rome to last this long. Theoretically it could end up like Byzantium and simply fall later.

Thing it Rome could have prospered and be eternal only if it stayed in its Golden Age (Augustus Era). However, changing socio-economic factors led to its decline. Even in 200AD it was a mess, in 476AD Rome just fell on its back die to exhaustion and refused to move.

Even before this date Emperors relied on German mercenaries to do actual fighting, however after that date they could not even find a competent enough local general, so they promoted leader of mercenaries to a de-facto emperor. Of course, new security soon realized that there is no one left to enforce terms of their contract so they can run the place as they see fit.

East Rome (Byzantium) could have interfered, like they did during the Justinian time. However, most thought that relatively poor and unprofitable West just is not worth it compared to much richer East. So, they just let Germans have it.

It's not the first time Western military elite simply dumped their home countries and relocated themselves somewhere more affluent and profitable. Take Diadochi for example. The just ruled in modern Egypt and middle east and could not be bothered to take their home Macedon back from even Greek city states, much less Rome. 

End Neo-Feudalism

This video is about UK, but many of the issues in it also apply to Australia. Tony Abbot and his far-right bunch created Jobactive and work for the dole that is essentially a slave-labor system, similar to feudal times. That all lead to a disastrous outcome for the country and people.

I hope this video can open people's eyes on this issue and hopefully lead towards abolition of Jobactive, work for the dole and mutual obligations requirements.