Mark,
Thanks for Hitchen and Trotsky. Very intersting indeed!
In that exchange between Hitchen and Servant, I would’ agree with Hitchens’ own remark, that Servant stays as more professional and informed, while Hitchen is an amarteur, a journalist choosing an interesting personality. (It is if only I understood Hitchen correctly, whose accent was not fully clear to me).
It is indeed very intersting what Stalin indeed thought and who he indeed as a personality was. I meet different opinions on that. I know Steve was reading Radzynsky and other works. Would be interesting to his opinion.
On the other hand, whatever Stalin or other Bolsheviks, or Hitler thought, though will always be intersting and controversional, would not change what they have done.
Trying, maybe unsuccessfully, stear again closer to China. I am not sure if the analogy between the Soviet Perestroyka and present day China is deep.
Beside the dissidents, it was an economic failure that caused the Russian perestroyka. It was a combination of many things, including the fallen oil prices and the enermous militry spending. A learner of Russian recently reminded me, that USSR of Perestroyka spent on the military about 32% of its GDP, while USA only 5%. From the old age, from the kindergarden to school to university. it was implicitly and explicitely instilled in our brains, that had we not arm ourselves, the USA and Nato would wage a war against us like Germany have had, and the only way to avoid the thread is to have the strongest military.
China (fortunately) is not characterised with 32% spending on its defence, and its economy is currently booming.