Question about ethics of Cold War policy.

[Shi Huangdi]

And by the way, Marx also said states would undergo a feudal period before transitioning to capitalism. But if a state didn't go through such a period for some reason, say they were conqured while still in a hunter-gatherer tribal state, but now had a political and economic system identical to the US, you wouldn't say that said nation isn't capitalist would you?

Originally posted by Sava
Actually, I'm not even a leftist. I just support various leftist policies that would do good in a civilized industrial society like the US. There are also various "rightist" policies that I support. And my political views have little to do with the fact that Communism has never truly existed. Please Shi, don't let my views or historical fact get in the way of another one of your anti-leftist rants.

Did you just read my first sentence before making that post? If you want to contribute to the discussion do so, but all you are doing here is Fezzing and repeating your bald faced assertation you made earlier, without doing any real debate.

[Sava]

I didn't realize the FACT that communism has never existed was a bald-faced assertion...

Man, how long will these leftist go on with their bull**** "that isn't real communism"?

Yeah, I read your ignorant post. Who's Fezzing?

Perhaps you mean this one:

Ok, if you want to get technical, the red states we were opposing during the cold war were not communist, they were socialist

Wrong again Rush. All of these pseudo-commie states were authoritarian police states. They weren't communist, they weren't socialist. The dictators and power mongers that took power simply fooled the populous to believe they were in fact Marxist states.

Just because you are wrong and I point it out, doesn't mean you have to insult me and say I'm Fezzing. And don't get angry if I go off-topic to point out your errors.

[JCG]

The Cold War was realpolitiks, with some token moral backing obviously, but then again at heart both the USSR and the U.S. were playing the same game.

And there are just too many different forms or variants of Communism, thus I seriously doubt that anyone but Marx (and Engels maybe?) truly understood what he wanted and meant to promote.

I think that whatever the "true"/"perfect" system ends up being, it will be completely different to those described and proposed up to this day.

[Sandman]

Do the workers control the means of production in Western Europe? Are the welfare states in Europe part of a transitory program to bring the nation and the world to communism? If not, you aren't socialist.

Says who?

I repeat, Marxists don't have the sole control of the term 'socialist'. To think that they do would be to ignore the large numbers of non-Marxist socialist movements throughout history. Are Christian socialists not socialist? Are socialists who renounce Marxist dogma not socialist? Are historical figures who were socialist but not Marxist like Albert Einstein and George Orwell not really socialist?

[Shi Huangdi]

"Marx was smart enough to realize that capitalism is simply feudalism with the illusion of freedom and political power for the people."

Wrong. Feudalism and capitalism are considered distinct states, with the aristocracy holding power under feudalism and the burgeois holding power under capitalism.

"I didn't realize the FACT that communism has never existed was a bald-faced assertion... "

You made a claim: "Communism Never Existed". You said nothing to back it up. Hence the bald faced assertation.

"All of these pseudo-commie states were authoritarian police states. They weren't communist, they weren't socialist. The dictators and power mongers that took power simply fooled the populous to believe they were in fact Marxist states."

And who is to say said dictators weren't correct?Again, you make a claim that said countries were not communist or socialist. You do not back up or support your assertation. Hence, you are Fezzing.

"Just because you are wrong and I point it out, doesn't mean you have to insult me and say I'm Fezzing. And don't get angry if I go off-topic to point out your errors."

You are one of the least civil and most insulting people on this forum, and routinely make insults about people who disagree with you. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

"
I repeat, Marxists don't have the sole control of the term 'socialist'."

Well it was Marx who invented the term, although you are correct in that others have used it as well. However for the purposes of discussing the cold war, the "socialist" states of Western Europe were very much distinct from their socialist neighbors to the east. It wasn't the West European "socialism" we were fighting.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
Can't recall the US winning many countries over from the communists back then. More than 3/5ths of the world's population was commie and it looked like a fair part of the rest was going to go also. So Kennedy put in troops, advisors he said, and Johnson threw in half a million of them.

Democrats.

Actually, the stage was set by Ike, who carved out the state of South Vietnam from Ho Chi Mihn's Indochina. Then Ike set up a minority Catholic puppet goverment in the person of Diem. The result was not surprisingly a rebellion.

Kennedy inherited the mess from Ike and sent in "advisors" to aid the South Vietnamese military. JFK later decided that was a failed policy, but before he could announce a pull out of the troops, he was assassinated.

Following the popular swell of pro-Kennedy emotions in America, Johnson didn't have the courage to contradict Kennedy's last-stated position, so he trudged ever deeper into the Big Muddy.

Nixon, who got elected on his promised "secret plan to end the war" sent yet more American boys to die.

So we can add in a "Republicans"

[Zkribbler]

I don't think a Vietnam discussion is helpful to the thrust of this thread.

A better debate would be centered on the U.S. invasion of Grenada: A little Carribean communist nation, not threatening anybody--when BOOM, one sunny morning they're invaded by the U.S.

[Sava]

Humans have never been to Mars... I don't have proof, so according to Shi, I'm Fezzing.

As for whether I'm civil or not, well, I only act in response to someone else. You started the flame war.

Shi, I'm not going to hold your hand and educate you about China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc... the info is out there. Get off your ass and learn, m'kay? Just because you aren't educated on a subject, that doesn't put the honus on me to support an obvious fact that Communism has never existed in pure form. I doubt this fact has ever been opposed.

You seem to enjoy stereotyping everyone who disagrees with you as a leftist and degrade them for their political beliefs.

I have a quote for you buddy. As for your silly belief that the SU and others are communism...

"Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining"

And as for your elitist attitude about civility...

"Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones."

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
As I pointed out, no they weren't communist. They were socialist.

First off, Russia did undergo limited capitalist development in the late Tsarist period. Marx made a prediction that capitalism would develop before the socialist revolution. That was simply that- a prediction- which was shown to be that wrong that states could not enter a transitory period to communism without becoming fully industrialized.

I don't think it was just a prediction. True, he failed to predict that peasants would revolt, but all the more reason to not consider the USSR a communist state as far as Marx described one. I think that it is important for a state to develope under capitalism instead of communism. Industrialization is exploitive in its nature, because you have to take away from current consumption to build the means of production. This happens much more naturally and more efficiently under capitalism. Exploitation has its rightfull place.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
all you are doing here is Fezzing

Ya know, everytime I see that phrase, my heart lifts a little, knowing I was the one who coined it. *sniff*

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I don't think a Vietnam discussion is helpful to the thrust of this thread.

A better debate would be centered on the U.S. invasion of Grenada: A little Carribean communist nation, not threatening anybody--when BOOM, one sunny morning they're invaded by the U.S.

Why do you say this? I do not understand how North Vietnam was a threat to the United States, so North Vietnam is just as a legitimate discussion in this thread as Grenada.



I have a question for Shi -- what makes communism evil? I disagree with the ideology of communism, but I fail to see it as something evil.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that it is important for a state to develope under capitalism instead of communism.

And that, my friend (I don't think I'm being too forward calling you this, am I? ), is why I don't think that Marx's communism WILL work. As the state develops in capitalism, Marx totally missed the fact that capitalist states will increase government intervention in the economy and form a totally new economic system: The Mixed Economy. The Mixed Economy doesn't have the stratification that Marx required for class revolution.

The only path to socialism with be through voting. And people don't like super high taxes .

When you predict the future, it is hard to be on the money.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I think that it is important for a state to develope under capitalism instead of communism.

And that, my friend (I don't think I'm being too forward calling you this, am I? ), is why I don't think that Marx's communism WILL work. As the state develops in capitalism, Marx totally missed the fact that capitalist states will increase government intervention in the economy and form a totally new economic system: The Mixed Economy. The Mixed Economy doesn't have the stratification that Marx required for class revolution.

The only path to socialism with be through voting. And people don't like super high taxes .

When you predict the future, it is hard to be on the money.

We will both be friends of the revolution one day.

Just kidding friend. True that Marx did not predict these things. That had to be left to others. However, mixed economies still have weaknesses. We will see when the next big crash comes how the governments handle it. Eventually, they won't be able to pay for intervention and the intervention will have a small effect anyway.

[David Floyd]

However, mixed economies still have weaknesses.

Duh. Their biggest weakness is that they are unfree.

[DuncanK]

Are you going to let him talk like that about your mixed economy Imran?