Atom Heart Mother

In the course of human events, some of the most monumental developments occur in the collapse of an empire. The schism of The Church, the failure of the 1812 campaign, and the fall of the Qing dynasty all come to mind. In 1979, the Soviet Union was on its way to collapse, between the defining reigns of Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev, laid the troublesome reign of Leonid Brezhnev. Although no single event can be attributed to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the invasion of Afghanistan goes down as a tributary. 25 years on from the coup that ended a nation, we look back at one of the most disastrous modern military campaign, alongside Vietnam, and the 2003 Iraq war.

On an otherwise normal day Kabul, Soviet soldiers dressed in Afghan uniforms flooded into the country, seizing government buildings and media outlets. Tensions were high in the build up to the invasion, after a kidnapped US ambassador was killed in a Soviet operation to rescue him, as well as various Islamist and communist insurgencies rising in the country. Brezhnev's soldiers quickly occupied urban centres, and sought to neutralise potential rebellion. But the occupation had the opposite of the intended effect. Brezhnev intended the occupation to pacify the population of Afghanistan, but it instead inspired an immense feeling of patriotism and nationalism. By 1980, nearly half the Afghan armed forces had defected or deserted, to fight in resistance groups.

The Soviet camp pushed for the invasion in order to prevent an Islamist regime emerging, especially notable is the emergence of the Taliban during the Soviet occupation, but Moscow also had economic interests, with them cancelling 90% of Afghanistan's debt.

The faliure of the invasion, however, lies in the 10 years after the initial occupation.

Retrospectively, the invasion is referred to as the bear trap, and the USSR's Vietnam. This is becuase of the incredible disregard of the Soviet authorities of the Afghan people. Thousands of civilians died during the invasion to Soviet hands, much like the Vietnamese against America. The hearts and minds of the Afghans had been lost before Brezhnev even sent a soldier over the border, with a growing divide between communist revolutionaries, and supporters of the status quo.

When the Soviets finally left, they had left two nations in shambles. One was war torn, and the other was rotting from the inside out. In just 18 months, the USSR would no longer exist. The manpower and production lost in Afghanistan was negligible to the Soviet Union, but what was painstakingly obvious through the entire campaign, was that the USSR was no longer a superpower. It's own internal struggles had crumbled the nation that stopped the biggest war machine in history.

In Afghanistan was a much starker picture. This was the first major powers intervention in the middle east since the second world war, and although it can be argued that the establishment of Israel was the tipping point for stability in the region, the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the post-Soviet world was a direct consequence of the botched occupation and withdrawal in 1989.

The Genius of The Chain

Track 7 of Fleetwood Mac's hit 1977 album is and tense, fragile song that feels like it's waiting to implode. The Chain has achieved more widespread fame in the United Kingdom after its bass driven outro was used as the Formula 1 theme music on the BBC. I consider The Chain Fleetwood Mac's best song, rivalled only by Gold Dust Woman, and what makes it so brilliant is more simple than how its fleeting guitar fills may make it seem.

Rumours was an album birthed in anger and sorrow. Fleetwood Mac was not the happiest of bands at the time of its conception. The bassist John McVie and keyboardist Christie McVie has seperated after 6  years of marriage. Guitarist Lindsey Buckingham and vocalist Stevie Nicks had an on-off relationship, leading them to fight often. Fleetwood himself was struggling, after discovering his wife had an affair with his best friend. With all these emotions in the cauldron, The Chain is what emerged.

"If you don't love me now, you will never love me again, I can still hear you saying you will never break the chain." Goes the song's chorus. The Chain was a lyrical metaphor for the chain that held the band together, and they promise to one another that even with all these issues betweem them, they won't let that split them up. Fading vocals at the end proclaim "Chain, keep us together." showing that they may not have total confidence in their own ability to hold the band together.

But the song's beauty emerges in the dueling vocals of Nicks and Buckingham, with beautiful sweeping harmonies. No two singers in the world could harmonise as brilliantly and interweave seamlessly like those two. They grew to hate each other, but often times during The Chain, their voices become one. Despite all the angst and tension within the band, they came together perfectly, in vocals, and instrumentally, to form a piece of music that ultimately would hold them together for many years to come.

                

Back In The U.S.S.R (Dictatorship vs Ochlocracy)

With recent events becoming clearer in Turkey, now appears to be a good time to discuss methods of government outside the standard western concpet of liberal representative democracy. Where I live, every 5 years we all get together and as a population, choose who will form our next govenment. Alternatives to this system exist. But two notably rare forms of government are those of the omnipresent dictatorship, and mob rule.

What these two styles of govenment have in common is that they are never official. When these systems take hold no-one stands up to say this is now a dictatorship. All that is realised is that power has shifted. Despite this, the two can be compared as methods of government. Which is better? But in truth, it's extremely difficult to compare the two. Mob rule has only genuinely taken hold iin fleeting moments of history. Most notably the witch trials. As for an omnipresent dictatorship, Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany quickly spring to mind.

The failed coup attempt in Turkey appears more and more like a power grab from Erdogan, but almost one that the people support. Shocking images of supporters confronting army personel on the streets showed almost a support of dictatorship and a power grab. A support of the end of secularism, an islamist regime. Since the faliure of the coup, 2,000 judges [1], 60,000 officials [2] and 45,000 civil servants [3] including soldiers and ministerial workers have been purged from the Turkish state. Consolidating power has certainly been on Erdogan's agenda for a while. It is some weird hybrid of mob rule demanding dictatorship. This can be likened to Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party being elected into power, and subsequent consolidation of power after the Reichstag fire.

Despite this, we can look at both forms of government and assess their merits. Mob rule is a difficult thing to characterise, but is often driven by hysteria. Most witch-hunts occurred within the contruct of a monarchy. However one distinctive witch hunt occurred in almost pure isolation, with very little authority. The events that occurred in Salem, Massacheusets from 1692-1693 were a unique exploration of mob rule and hysteria. This is due to the complete isolation that this new colony had felt. They were exiled puritans, cut off from any of other way of life for over half a century. This reached a boiling point in the witch trials, which saw the only recorded execution in the USA by pressing [4], of Giles Corey.

In some ways, the repressiveness of puritan society in Salem was a direct tributary to a hysteria breaking out, and mob rule taking hold, where one action is holy, and its opposite is of Lucifer. This, alongside most dictatorship shows how each regime is driven by ideoogy and idealism of a utopia, where an action is directly hindering the promised land for everyone else. We have never seen a dictatorship that isn't ideologically driven, except perhaps, in George Orwell's 1984. A faceless, totalitarian regime, not driven by utopia, but by a ruthless instilling of order. Which is ultimately what a dictatorship boils down to. Authority and absolute order. Mob rule, by its definition, is one of free will, and the people doing what they wish, as a collective. Not an anarchy exactly, but extreme in its sense of freedom.

Establishing this, we can assess the strengths of each. Order is certainly desirable in a society. It is comfortable, knowing you have a place in society, but also establishes a hierarchy, where people can be suppressed effectively. Mob rule is oddly similar in its appeasement of the people. In fact, its entire structure is based on participation, and citizens feel more comfortable the more they buy into the system of accusation and participation in witch hunts. This creates a positive feedback loop, where citizens become more and more loyal to government and government becomes even harder to topple. With this, mob rule is far more effective at suppressing opposition, as someone needs to go against those they stand shoulder to shoulder with, not those they see up above commanding them. It would be less of an uprising, and more of a betrayal. Heresy. Witchcraft.

As far consolidation of power goes. The mob rule, once it properly gets going, is extremely effective in establishing order, despite its unorderly appearance. Even more so than an authoritative dictatorship.


1. http://www.mystatesman.com/news/ap/top-news/turkish-president-says-hes-in-control-coup-falteri/nrzBT/

2. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/02/world/europe/turkey-purge-erdogan-scale.html

3. http://www.cnnturk.com/turkiye/iste-darbe-sorusturmasinda-kamuda-aciga-alinanlarin-kurum-kurum-listesi

4. Goss, K David, The Salem Witch Trials: A Reference Guide, P32, 2007.