Radio Free Europe does indeed broadcast news to countries that lack a free press, or have an undeveloped press.
One of its original purposes was to provide news and an outlet for refugees, and knowing this makes this song make more sense.
"Calling all in transit" - "Straight off the boat, where to go?" "keep me out of country"
Much of it sounds like broken English, like something Babelfish might spit out...or something a refugee with poor English might say.
"Instead of pushing palaces to fall" - Radio Free Europe was created to encourage the people in these countries to rise up and take over their government in order to secure their freedom. It is the 'defying media', and it defies the media of the countries it is broadcast to.
The song wasn't meant to have a clear meaning, and it's very open-ended, but it is clearly talking about the actual Radio Free Europe.
Agreed. Unlike a number of creative posts here, yours is spot on. Although full of ambiguous lines (some extremely hard to decipher, if not simply gibberish), the song is clearly about RFE propaganda radio during the cold war.
Agreed. Unlike a number of creative posts here, yours is spot on. Although full of ambiguous lines (some extremely hard to decipher, if not simply gibberish), the song is clearly about RFE propaganda radio during the cold war.
"Radio Free Europe does indeed broadcast news to countries that lack a free press, or have an undeveloped press... One of its original purposes was to provide news and an outlet for refugees"
"Radio Free Europe does indeed broadcast news to countries that lack a free press, or have an undeveloped press... One of its original purposes was to provide news and an outlet for refugees"
If this isn't flat-out wrong, it's misleading. Radio Free Europe was a company funded by the US Government to spread anti-communist propaganda to Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
If this isn't flat-out wrong, it's misleading. Radio Free Europe was a company funded by the US Government to spread anti-communist propaganda to Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
leige, it's not misleading at all. I pointed out quite clearly that the station encouraged people to rise up and take over their government to secure their freedom. The 'communism' of the Soviet Union wasn't communism at all, but Totalitarian Socialism with the explicit goal of becoming communist 'eventually.'
leige, it's not misleading at all. I pointed out quite clearly that the station encouraged people to rise up and take over their government to secure their freedom. The 'communism' of the Soviet Union wasn't communism at all, but Totalitarian Socialism with the explicit goal of becoming communist 'eventually.'
There would have been no war, cold or otherwise, if they were REAL communists. Not that anyone in politics has ever made the distinction, of course.
There would have been no war, cold or otherwise, if they were REAL communists. Not that anyone in politics has ever made the distinction, of course.
But Radio Free Europe did all of the things I stated. It was not ONLY anti-Communist propaganda.
But Radio Free Europe did all of the things I stated. It was not ONLY anti-Communist propaganda.
I’m not the USSR’s #1 superfan or anything, but these are some absurd liberal takes. The gist of your original comment was correct, but leigel3 absolutely has a valid point about the political spin being misleading.
I’m not the USSR’s #1 superfan or anything, but these are some absurd liberal takes. The gist of your original comment was correct, but leigel3 absolutely has a valid point about the political spin being misleading.
>The 'communism' of the Soviet Union wasn't communism at all, but Totalitarian Socialism
>The 'communism' of the Soviet Union wasn't communism at all, but Totalitarian Socialism
This is a typical “No True Scotsman” type, low-effort analysis of what the USSR had going on and/or what Marxism-Leninism represents. There is not now, nor has there ever been, one single strain of socialism/communism. Even before the USSR came about, there were many competing schools of thought....
This is a typical “No True Scotsman” type, low-effort analysis of what the USSR had going on and/or what Marxism-Leninism represents. There is not now, nor has there ever been, one single strain of socialism/communism. Even before the USSR came about, there were many competing schools of thought. One could easily argue that there is a reason why just about every ostensibly ‘communist’ nation that has existed embraced some derivative of ML ideology… the competing ideologies don’t seem to have led to viable revolutions. Take Trotskyists for example, who have never prevailed anywhere on Earth. Does that mean ML is intrinsically the correct school of thought? No, but it’s certainly worth taking into consideration.
Also, whether the USSR was truly a totalitarian state at various periods in its existence (its history was far from static) is a hotly debated and controversial issue among scholars who study it. This idea gets thrown around as a matter of fact when it’s far from a settled issue. The ubiquity of propaganda on both sides of the Iron Curtain makes it difficult for the average person to access information that can safely be considered ‘objective’.
> with the explicit goal of becoming communist 'eventually.'
I mean… what is the alternative? Do you really think it’s possible to flip a switch and magically have a stateless and classless society, especially starting from what they had to work with? It’s further complicated by the fact that most of the rest of the world was increasingly capitalist and had a vested interest in their project not working. Was it a utopia? No, but the USSR was a more equitable society than what came before in Russia’s history.
> There would have been no war, cold or otherwise, if they were REAL communists.
This is by far the most asinine thing you wrote. You make it sound as if the Cold War was a unilateral effort instigated by the Soviets. You are very naïve if you think that if only communists were ‘nice’ enough the western imperialists would have turned a blind eye and allowed them to exist peacefully. Maybe do some reading on all the different instances where countries tried to convert to socialism only for the US to sabotage them… the history of Latin America is a good place to start. The fact is, without a strong military deterrent there is no way for a socialist/communist society to get off the ground, sorry.
Sorry, I do not care if you disagree with my characterization of the USSR's political position. Your fallback on ad hominem speaks to the fact that you don't have a rational argument to make on it anyhow. It does not further your argument - only makes you look over-emotional and 'mean.
Sorry, I do not care if you disagree with my characterization of the USSR's political position. Your fallback on ad hominem speaks to the fact that you don't have a rational argument to make on it anyhow. It does not further your argument - only makes you look over-emotional and 'mean.
@WingedWolf What, when did I do an ad hominem? I never called you any names or attacked your character in any way. And how was it not 'rational'? I asked how would a society emerge where communism would immediately happen when they're coming from an impoverished, largely agrarian society that had been living under unbelievably tyrannical conditions before their revolution? That's an incredibly reasonable question. And I cited the long history of American imperialism quashing any attempt at self-determination for sovereign nations who wanted to pursue a socialist system for their people. I mean this in the most polite way...
@WingedWolf What, when did I do an ad hominem? I never called you any names or attacked your character in any way. And how was it not 'rational'? I asked how would a society emerge where communism would immediately happen when they're coming from an impoverished, largely agrarian society that had been living under unbelievably tyrannical conditions before their revolution? That's an incredibly reasonable question. And I cited the long history of American imperialism quashing any attempt at self-determination for sovereign nations who wanted to pursue a socialist system for their people. I mean this in the most polite way possible, but read about the history of American intervention in 20th Century Latin American and ask yourself if it's reasonable for a socialist/communist state to not be militarized. Your movement will be destroyed by external imperialists and internal reactionaries before it even gets off the ground, that's just common sense.
Radio Free Europe does indeed broadcast news to countries that lack a free press, or have an undeveloped press.
One of its original purposes was to provide news and an outlet for refugees, and knowing this makes this song make more sense.
"Calling all in transit" - "Straight off the boat, where to go?" "keep me out of country"
Much of it sounds like broken English, like something Babelfish might spit out...or something a refugee with poor English might say.
"Instead of pushing palaces to fall" - Radio Free Europe was created to encourage the people in these countries to rise up and take over their government in order to secure their freedom. It is the 'defying media', and it defies the media of the countries it is broadcast to.
The song wasn't meant to have a clear meaning, and it's very open-ended, but it is clearly talking about the actual Radio Free Europe.
Agreed. Unlike a number of creative posts here, yours is spot on. Although full of ambiguous lines (some extremely hard to decipher, if not simply gibberish), the song is clearly about RFE propaganda radio during the cold war.
Agreed. Unlike a number of creative posts here, yours is spot on. Although full of ambiguous lines (some extremely hard to decipher, if not simply gibberish), the song is clearly about RFE propaganda radio during the cold war.
@WingedWolf
@WingedWolf
"Radio Free Europe does indeed broadcast news to countries that lack a free press, or have an undeveloped press... One of its original purposes was to provide news and an outlet for refugees"
"Radio Free Europe does indeed broadcast news to countries that lack a free press, or have an undeveloped press... One of its original purposes was to provide news and an outlet for refugees"
If this isn't flat-out wrong, it's misleading. Radio Free Europe was a company funded by the US Government to spread anti-communist propaganda to Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
If this isn't flat-out wrong, it's misleading. Radio Free Europe was a company funded by the US Government to spread anti-communist propaganda to Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
leige, it's not misleading at all. I pointed out quite clearly that the station encouraged people to rise up and take over their government to secure their freedom. The 'communism' of the Soviet Union wasn't communism at all, but Totalitarian Socialism with the explicit goal of becoming communist 'eventually.'
leige, it's not misleading at all. I pointed out quite clearly that the station encouraged people to rise up and take over their government to secure their freedom. The 'communism' of the Soviet Union wasn't communism at all, but Totalitarian Socialism with the explicit goal of becoming communist 'eventually.'
There would have been no war, cold or otherwise, if they were REAL communists. Not that anyone in politics has ever made the distinction, of course.
There would have been no war, cold or otherwise, if they were REAL communists. Not that anyone in politics has ever made the distinction, of course.
But Radio Free Europe did all of the things I stated. It was not ONLY anti-Communist propaganda.
But Radio Free Europe did all of the things I stated. It was not ONLY anti-Communist propaganda.
I suppose we shouldn't refer to it...
I suppose we shouldn't refer to it in past-tense.
Yes, it is funded by the US Government.
And it still exists. :) https://www.rferl.org/
@WingedWolf
@WingedWolf
I’m not the USSR’s #1 superfan or anything, but these are some absurd liberal takes. The gist of your original comment was correct, but leigel3 absolutely has a valid point about the political spin being misleading.
I’m not the USSR’s #1 superfan or anything, but these are some absurd liberal takes. The gist of your original comment was correct, but leigel3 absolutely has a valid point about the political spin being misleading.
>The 'communism' of the Soviet Union wasn't communism at all, but Totalitarian Socialism
>The 'communism' of the Soviet Union wasn't communism at all, but Totalitarian Socialism
This is a typical “No True Scotsman” type, low-effort analysis of what the USSR had going on and/or what Marxism-Leninism represents. There is not now, nor has there ever been, one single strain of socialism/communism. Even before the USSR came about, there were many competing schools of thought....
This is a typical “No True Scotsman” type, low-effort analysis of what the USSR had going on and/or what Marxism-Leninism represents. There is not now, nor has there ever been, one single strain of socialism/communism. Even before the USSR came about, there were many competing schools of thought. One could easily argue that there is a reason why just about every ostensibly ‘communist’ nation that has existed embraced some derivative of ML ideology… the competing ideologies don’t seem to have led to viable revolutions. Take Trotskyists for example, who have never prevailed anywhere on Earth. Does that mean ML is intrinsically the correct school of thought? No, but it’s certainly worth taking into consideration.
Also, whether the USSR was truly a totalitarian state at various periods in its existence (its history was far from static) is a hotly debated and controversial issue among scholars who study it. This idea gets thrown around as a matter of fact when it’s far from a settled issue. The ubiquity of propaganda on both sides of the Iron Curtain makes it difficult for the average person to access information that can safely be considered ‘objective’.
> with the explicit goal of becoming communist 'eventually.'
I mean… what is the alternative? Do you really think it’s possible to flip a switch and magically have a stateless and classless society, especially starting from what they had to work with? It’s further complicated by the fact that most of the rest of the world was increasingly capitalist and had a vested interest in their project not working. Was it a utopia? No, but the USSR was a more equitable society than what came before in Russia’s history.
> There would have been no war, cold or otherwise, if they were REAL communists.
This is by far the most asinine thing you wrote. You make it sound as if the Cold War was a unilateral effort instigated by the Soviets. You are very naïve if you think that if only communists were ‘nice’ enough the western imperialists would have turned a blind eye and allowed them to exist peacefully. Maybe do some reading on all the different instances where countries tried to convert to socialism only for the US to sabotage them… the history of Latin America is a good place to start. The fact is, without a strong military deterrent there is no way for a socialist/communist society to get off the ground, sorry.
@BitterLake
@BitterLake
Sorry, I do not care if you disagree with my characterization of the USSR's political position. Your fallback on ad hominem speaks to the fact that you don't have a rational argument to make on it anyhow. It does not further your argument - only makes you look over-emotional and 'mean.
Sorry, I do not care if you disagree with my characterization of the USSR's political position. Your fallback on ad hominem speaks to the fact that you don't have a rational argument to make on it anyhow. It does not further your argument - only makes you look over-emotional and 'mean.
@WingedWolf What, when did I do an ad hominem? I never called you any names or attacked your character in any way. And how was it not 'rational'? I asked how would a society emerge where communism would immediately happen when they're coming from an impoverished, largely agrarian society that had been living under unbelievably tyrannical conditions before their revolution? That's an incredibly reasonable question. And I cited the long history of American imperialism quashing any attempt at self-determination for sovereign nations who wanted to pursue a socialist system for their people. I mean this in the most polite way...
@WingedWolf What, when did I do an ad hominem? I never called you any names or attacked your character in any way. And how was it not 'rational'? I asked how would a society emerge where communism would immediately happen when they're coming from an impoverished, largely agrarian society that had been living under unbelievably tyrannical conditions before their revolution? That's an incredibly reasonable question. And I cited the long history of American imperialism quashing any attempt at self-determination for sovereign nations who wanted to pursue a socialist system for their people. I mean this in the most polite way possible, but read about the history of American intervention in 20th Century Latin American and ask yourself if it's reasonable for a socialist/communist state to not be militarized. Your movement will be destroyed by external imperialists and internal reactionaries before it even gets off the ground, that's just common sense.