The lesser evil

[Y2A]

In your opinion which was the lesser evil, the U.S or the Soviet Union?

[Vinny Rafarino]

That's a matter of very diverse opinion. Naturally, no one in their right mind would ever dismiss an oppressive capitalist state as being the lesser of two evils. To answer this question appropriately, you must consider that depending on what line you follow, you will more than likely make a judgement based on that rather than the facts as they are presented;

It's typical "voting your caucus" politics that trap even the most "seasoned" of political intellectuals.

For example, I would personally say that the USSR prior to Khruschev was the perfect example of Marxism and therefore cannot be considered the "lesser" of any evils. Yet once Nikita's "reforms" began to re-create severe political and economic class distinctions, I must "vote my caucus" and dismiss the "new" USSR.

I would suggest that the post-Stalin USSR was nothing more than a regressive beauracratic mess with political and economic platforms that rival the USA's "self-interest" platform.

What I am attempting to convey is this;

Your question is simply too simple to allow for a response other than what can be typically expected. Each political group will obviously follow their line and pop out a canned-answer much like mine.

Why even bother?

[elijahcraig]

I've never been in the habit of choosing a lesser evil, I think it is a stupid thing to do.

[Xvall]

I'm with Craig, as far as this issue goes. Why must be pick the lesser of two evils? Do we not have the ability to deeviate ourselves from these 'evils' altogether?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I view the USSR as a good rather then a lesser evil... Although I look down on some of Krushchevs "reforms", I think that it was good that he cut back on Stalin's excess and took measures to avoid nuclear war. I was never much a fan of branding fellow comrades as enemies of the people and having them and their families hauled off to the gulags. Although I agree with much of Stalin's economic policy, most notably the 5 year plan, I greatly distain his purge of the military (many of whom fought in the first Bolshevik uprising) and the exile and eventual assination of Trotsky.

[Robert Edward Lee]

My political views lead me to naturally view the USA as the lesser 'evil' of the two, but what I really want to post is agreement with Midnight Maruader in regard the purging of the military.

I believe that Stalin eventually killed 3 of the 5 Marshalls and (killed or 'retired') around 70% of officers above the rank of Major. The result was that when Barbarossa kicked off, men, who in the Wehrmacht were entrusted to command 10-50 men, were in the Red Army expected to direct Regiments and Brigades of maybe over 1,000. Utter lunacy. It is no surprise the Wehrmacht got so far and it is a testament to the sticking power and eventual officer promotions of the Red Army that it held out long enough to rally and fight back.

[Wenty]

I think that it was good that he cut back on Stalin's excess and took measures to avoid nuclear war.

Lets admit it, you'd have to be a K. apologist not to think putting missiles on Cuba was a very threatening act of nuclear war.


Although I agree with much of Stalin's economic policy, most notably the 5 year plan

What about collectivisation? If the proletariat don't want it we'll force them to do it! What a bastion for the working class he was.

Finally, i think 5yr plans were good until Stalin overworked the people far too much, then killed most of them too. What an admirable man.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:35 PM
I've never been in the habit of choosing a lesser evil, I think it is a stupid thing to do.
Listen, the Cold War had to have a winner. I'm sorry but that is just the way things are. It's not all flowers and lollypops and to say "I choose none" is avoiding the truth.

[Vinny Rafarino]

This statement does not even pertain to your original question.


The fact is "lesser of two evils" scenarios are the equivalent of matching the square block with the square hole.

Your sudden shift to "there had to be a winner of the cold war" is a completely unrelated subject that you have used as a smoke and mirror excuse to attempt to cover up the fact we find your original topic juvenile.

Here is a bit of "truth" none of us can avoid;

Your meaningless topics continue to cast an absurd light onto the right wing. Keep up the good work.

[New Tolerance]

If the Soviet Union can be kept alive by me calling it the more evil one then, I would say that the United States is actually the lesser evil. (As in I don't really want to see one of them eliminated)

The thing is if you pick a lesser evil, then you will have to fight the more evil one. But once you kill the more evil one, the lesser evil is the next in line and now becomes the most evil, since now there's nothing to compare it to. (since you've just killed it's completition)

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think that it was good that he cut back on Stalin's excess and took measures to avoid nuclear war.

Lets admit it, you'd have to be a K. apologist not to think putting missiles on Cuba was a very threatening act of nuclear war.

If Krushchev had never put missles there in the first place, the US would have simply invaded and taken it, and had Krushchev not taken them off, there would have been war. By taking the missles off the island, he got the US to agree not to attack Cuba. I think Krushchev did the right thing in that situation.



Although I agree with much of Stalin's economic policy, most notably the 5 year plan

What about collectivisation? If the proletariat don't want it we'll force them to do it! What a bastion for the working class he was.

The proletariats DID want it, it was the landowners that didn't want to. I am 100% behind forced collectivization. The alternative is small, inefficient (not to mention capitalist) private farms which would eventually turn into corporate farms which only benefit the investor that owns the land anyways. Take your pick.


Finally, i think 5yr plans were good until Stalin overworked the people far too much, then killed most of them too. What an admirable man.

Remember now, this was the WWII period. You can't just make a spawling industrial powerhouse necessary to fight off Nazi Germany from essentially nothing in just 5 years sitting on your duff. Had the entire world kissed and made up and decided to stop making guns and tanks and instead decided it was time to start making the world a happy place, I'm sure things would have went a bit nicer.

I would be a proud supporter of the Soviet Union right up until Gorby started to try pulling a Deng Xaiopeng.

[elijahcraig]

Listen, the Cold War had to have a winner. I'm sorry but that is just the way things are. It's not all flowers and lollypops and to say "I choose none" is avoiding the truth.

The choice you present me with is as follows: Do you SUPPORT this capitalist state or THIS capitalist state?

There are no “winners” in this except the bourgeois, and the globalization of capitalism.

There is no logic to support supporting either side from the socialist standpoint.

There is no logic to support the phrase that I am “avoiding the truth.”


What about collectivisation? If the proletariat don't want it we'll force them to do it! What a bastion for the working class he was.

Finally, i think 5yr plans were good until Stalin overworked the people far too much, then killed most of them too. What an admirable man.

I would agree with you that if the working class doesn’t want it, then it should not be done. The problem is that they DID want it. They actually collectivized a much higher rate than even Stalin and the Party had thought to be possible. Why? Poverty and a need to share the wealth and means of production.

I often think it funny when as so-called Communist opposes “collectivization” (a main theme of Communism) as if it is something extremely bad (not to say it couldn’t be bad, and probably was to an extent when it EVER occurs).

Those who opposed the collectivization, as always, were the wealthy landowners, who had something to lose by giving up their ownership to poorer collectives for getting through economically hard times.

Some even committed terrorist attacks, with help from the US (ally of the rich anywhere and everywhere no matter what the price).


If Krushchev had never put missles there in the first place, the US would have simply invaded and taken it, and had Krushchev not taken them off, there would have been war. By taking the missles off the island, he got the US to agree not to attack Cuba. I think Krushchev did the right thing in that situation.

You are aware that we were one word away from nuclear holocaust are you not? “Supporting” such blatant acts of idiocy on either side to me seems like a logical fallacy of the supreme kind.


The proletariats DID want it, it was the landowners that didn't want to. I am 100% behind forced collectivization.

I don’t know why it mattered and why you argue that the “DID” want it if you are behind “forced collectivization” (ie, fascism under a different name carried to the extreme).

[LuZhiming]

Well, obviously the USSR. The USSR should be called "mini-U.S." We can run down the list if we have to, but the USSR just hasn't been able to commit nearly as many crimes as the U.S. has, and anyone that analyzes the Cold War should know this.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

You are aware that we were one word away from nuclear holocaust are you not? “Supporting” such blatant acts of idiocy on either side to me seems like a logical fallacy of the supreme kind.

So that means appease the enemy and let the US take Cuba?


I don’t know why it mattered and why you argue that the “DID” want it if you are behind “forced collectivization” (ie, fascism under a different name carried to the extreme).

Since when did fascism want to collectivize anything? How can you possibly claim to be socialist and support wealthy landowners keeping their proporty?


Well, obviously the USSR. The USSR should be called "mini-U.S." We can run down the list if we have to, but the USSR just hasn't been able to commit nearly as many crimes as the U.S. has, and anyone that analyzes the Cold War should know this.

:blink:

[Loknar]

I think both are equal.


RAF what about the winter war? are you telling me that wasnt imperialism? or what a bout the joint attack on poland?

[Wenty]

As far as I know the peasants didn't support C. Lenin had given them land in 1918 and now it was being taken away from them!

I pulled this off the internet

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/collectivisation.htm

I quote this from another site


. In 1929 Stalin sped up the process because peasants refused to share their labour and would rather burn their crops and kill their animals instead of selling food to the government. The government had to apply force to make them join the collectives. Those who resisted were severely dealt with. At the same time, Stalin dealt with the rich class of peasants, the kulaks

I can imagine the Kulaks in a lose lose situation. You've worked hard to earn your keep and then your suddenly told you have to give it all up.

P.S. I'm always a little weary of stuff I find on the internet but this seems in keeping with what I know.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 06:21 AM
I think both are equal.


RAF what about the winter war? are you telling me that wasnt imperialism? or what a bout the joint attack on poland?
Odd, I don't recall ever talking about "imperialism", The "winter war" or any "attacks" on Poland.

What point are you attemting to make here, boy?

I think I have made it very clear how I feel about "lesser evil" topics.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:14 AM
I don’t know why it mattered and why you argue that the “DID” want it if you are behind “forced collectivization” (ie, fascism under a different name carried to the extreme).
Fascism doesn't mean authoritarianism, i wish people would stop using the word fascism to describe anyting 'bad'

[Nas]

Originally posted by Y2A+Apr 6 2004, 01:01 AM--> (Y2A @ Apr 6 2004, 01:01 AM)
[email protected] 5 2004, 09:35 PM
I've never been in the habit of choosing a lesser evil, I think it is a stupid thing to do.
Listen, the Cold War had to have a winner. I'm sorry but that is just the way things are. It's not all flowers and lollypops and to say "I choose none" is avoiding the truth. [/b]
yea i hate when people can not take the thruth , they avoid it, ignore it
they dont wana be prove wrong ,
and when they talk blah, blah, blah , its really annoying

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:14 AM

Listen, the Cold War had to have a winner. I'm sorry but that is just the way things are. It's not all flowers and lollypops and to say "I choose none" is avoiding the truth.

The choice you present me with is as follows: Do you SUPPORT this capitalist state or THIS capitalist state?

There are no “winners” in this except the bourgeois, and the globalization of capitalism.
The idea that you think that the Soviet Union was "capitalist" is laughable. Even the current Russian Federation isn't capitalist. Any nation inwhich the state owns media and the economic future of it's citizens is not "capitalist" but of course we all know that means nothing because to all of you capitalism=any nation that is evil. Face it, you use capitalism as a scapegoat.

[BOZG]

If the RF is not capitalist today, then what sort of society is it?

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:29 PM
If the RF is not capitalist today, then what sort of society is it?
There is no "capitalist soceity" when "communists" attack a "capitalist soceity" they are infact attacking Social Darwinism. Also, in reality there has never been a truly capitalist state. But any state inwhich the state owns vast industries is by definition not capitalist.

[elijahcraig]

So that means appease the enemy and let the US take Cuba?

You’d rather the whole world suffer a holocaust?

And the USSR putting a nuke in did not “save” Cuba. Just as the US putting nukes in Turkey didn’t “save” Turkey.


Since when did fascism want to collectivize anything? How can you possibly claim to be socialist and support wealthy landowners keeping their proporty?

Do you mean forcing the rich to give up land? If you meant that, I agree with you. You shouldn’t use the term “forced collectivization” since it has been used ever since the early days of communism to express “forcing” the workers to collectivize. Forcing the rich to collectivize is ordinary revolutionary collectivization.


QUOTE
. In 1929 Stalin sped up the process because peasants refused to share their labour and would rather burn their crops and kill their animals instead of selling food to the government. The government had to apply force to make them join the collectives. Those who resisted were severely dealt with. At the same time, Stalin dealt with the rich class of peasants, the kulaks


I can imagine the Kulaks in a lose lose situation. You've worked hard to earn your keep and then your suddenly told you have to give it all up.

P.S. I'm always a little weary of stuff I find on the internet but this seems in keeping with what I know.

Kulaks are also known as “RICH PEASANTS”, those who force the poor to work for them as near-serfs.

Kulaks don’t “work hard” for anything, unless you consider capitalism to reward those “who work hard.”

The Kulaks are the rich landowners who caused starvation by blocking grain and murdering entire populations of animals, and destroying crops and committing terrorist acts against the poor and different industrial sectors with aid of the US.


Fascism doesn't mean authoritarianism, i wish people would stop using the word fascism to describe anyting 'bad'

Fascism certainly does mean authoritarianism.

It is control of the State by a dictatorship, along with the aid of an “aristocratic” class, which views the majority of the population as cows to be slaughtered for the progress of the state.

I’ve debated Fade enough on The Phora to get a fairly good view of Fascism. You can throw in the Aesthetic parts of it as well.


yea i hate when people can not take the thruth , they avoid it, ignore it
they dont wana be prove wrong ,
and when they talk blah, blah, blah , its really annoying

I hope someone who took the name of a corporate rap star didn’t just insult me without argument for not accepting the “thruth”…


The idea that you think that the Soviet Union was "capitalist" is laughable. Even the current Russian Federation isn't capitalist. Any nation inwhich the state owns media and the economic future of it's citizens is not "capitalist" but of course we all know that means nothing because to all of you capitalism=any nation that is evil. Face it, you use capitalism as a scapegoat.

There are varying versions of capitalism. Monopoly state capitalism, state capitalism, etc. Media control by the state in capitalist nations is predominant, so that’s not an argument against my calling USSR “capitalist.” And the idea that the State doesn’t determine the economic future of its citizens is also, as you say, “laughable.” The State is the only institution which keeps the capitalist-Imperialist system up.

Anarchists would say that the USSR was capitalist as Lenin took power.

Leninists (who don’t support Stalin) would say that the USSR became capitalist after 1924 (or was never quite socialist).

Stalinists (Leninists) would say that the USSR began a downfall to Capitalism (State Monopoly Capitalism) after the death of Stalin and the growth of the revisionist policies in the 1960s.


There is no "capitalist soceity" when "communists" attack a "capitalist soceity" they are infact attacking Social Darwinism. Also, in reality there has never been a truly capitalist state. But any state inwhich the state owns vast industries is by definition not capitalist.

That’s ridiculous. What you are describing as “Capitalism” is “Ideal” or “Utopian” Capitalism. What I describe is the actual resultant of the Capitalist state being played out in the real world.

Nearly every State in the world today is Capitalist. The world market is Capitalist.

Social darwinism was mainly a theory created by big business to justify their treatment of the workers. It has nothing to do with the real world economic system.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:05 PM
Fascism certainly does mean authoritarianism.

It is control of the State by a dictatorship, along with the aid of an “aristocratic” class, which views the majority of the population as cows to be slaughtered for the progress of the state.

I’ve debated Fade enough on The Phora to get a fairly good view of Fascism. You can throw in the Aesthetic parts of it as well.

Fascism is authoritarian but it doesn't mean authoritarianism, an authoritarian government isn't automatically fascist.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:05 PM

The idea that you think that the Soviet Union was "capitalist" is laughable. Even the current Russian Federation isn't capitalist. Any nation inwhich the state owns media and the economic future of it's citizens is not "capitalist" but of course we all know that means nothing because to all of you capitalism=any nation that is evil. Face it, you use capitalism as a scapegoat.

There are varying versions of capitalism. Monopoly state capitalism, state capitalism, etc. Media control by the state in capitalist nations is predominant, so that’s not an argument against my calling USSR “capitalist.” And the idea that the State doesn’t determine the economic future of its citizens is also, as you say, “laughable.” The State is the only institution which keeps the capitalist-Imperialist system up.

The USSR is by definition NOT CAPITALIST. I have no idea what your idea of capitalism is. It seems that you just use the word to associate with every totalitarian government.

[elijahcraig]

Alright smart ass.

[Y2A]

Witty reply, indeed.

[elijahcraig]

Witty reply, indeed.

I didn’t see your post when I replied, I was speaking of our resident Fascist/Authoritatian police man up above.


The USSR is by definition NOT CAPITALIST. I have no idea what your idea of capitalism is. It seems that you just use the word to associate with every totalitarian government.

What do you mean “not by definition”?

[Capitalist Imperial]

1) The USSR was more evil by every conceivable measure.

2) The USA is not evil in the 1st place, but is instead a strong, righteous, benevolent land that sets the standard for freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the modern world. In fact, the United States of America is the easily greatest empire to ever exist, and any action that America takes at home or abroad is justified, as such actions are undertaken to maintain America's sphere of influence and interests in the world, and the maintaining and expanision of such interests is good for the American people and the people of the world.

Let us stop and use - and this is a stretch for you commies - common sense and simple observation:

I know that every day countless people risk life and limb just for a chance to step on American soil and explore the opportunities for bountiful and unlimited success that this land yields. On the other hand, I also know that every day people risked life and limb to escape the desperation, dead-end life, and utter cold confines of the USSR. What does that tell you?

At what point does the useless analysis and hair-splirtting stop and basic common sense kick in?

At what point does empirical observation take precedence over unsupported theory?

As usual, you stupid leftist pukes are too ignorant and wrapped up in your disproven theories to just take a step back and observe REAL-WORLD BEHAVIOR AND REAL WORLD RESULTS.

Try it some time (reality, that is), it may yield something novel to you...

The truth

Screw a commie, USA forvever





"We only need two things to defeat the Soviets, the hand of God, and more Stingers"
Mujahadeen Field Officer

[elijahcraig]

Your life must be putridly pathetic to spend all your time on the opposing team's website, CI. Why do you even bother?

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:19 PM

The USSR is by definition NOT CAPITALIST. I have no idea what your idea of capitalism is. It seems that you just use the word to associate with every totalitarian government.

What do you mean “not by definition”?
The state CAN'T CONTROL INDUSTRY in a capitalist system. Now, in some capitalist nations there are exceptions to this rule. The entire concept of "lassier-faire" is undeniably absent in the Soviet Union. It's not capitalist.

[elijahcraig]

The state CAN'T CONTROL INDUSTRY in a capitalist system. Now, in all capitalist nations there are exceptions to this rule. The entire concept of "lassier-faire" is undeniably absent in the Soviet Union. It's not capitalist.

That’s why I said State Monopoly Capitalism.

Maybe you should read Marx and Lenin on the subject.

It doesn’t fit the “ideal” form of Capitalism (whatever that is), but it does fit the real-world effects of Capitalism.

The notion that Corporations can stay out of the State business is ridiculous.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Marx coined the term 'capitalism' to refer to society which was ruled through use of capitalism, there have been many such societies.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:29 PM

The state CAN'T CONTROL INDUSTRY in a capitalist system. Now, in all capitalist nations there are exceptions to this rule. The entire concept of "lassier-faire" is undeniably absent in the Soviet Union. It's not capitalist.

That’s why I said State Monopoly Capitalism.

Maybe you should read Marx and Lenin on the subject.

It doesn’t fit the “ideal” form of Capitalism (whatever that is), but it does fit the real-world effects of Capitalism.

The notion that Corporations can stay out of the State business is ridiculous.
Then you are an anti-corporatist not an anti-capitalist. The entire purpose of capitalist is to control inflation by way of competition. A state-monopoly completely contradicts that.

[elijahcraig]

The you are an anti-corporatist not an anti-capitalist. The entire purpose of capitalist is to control inflation by way of competition. A state-monopoly completely contradicts that.

NO.

I am an Anti-Capitalist.

Adam Smith’s ideal system has FAILED. The system we now have in the world is the ACTUAL as opposed to the IDEAL form of Capitalism. That is the State virtually indefinable from the Capitalist system.

[elijahcraig]

Marx coined the term 'capitalism' to refer to society which was ruled through use of capitalism, there have been many such societies.

Marx didn’t coin the term capitalism. He merely showed the system as it is as opposed to as it tries to “ideally” be.

[Y2A]

Indeed, I never claimed capitalist to be a perfect utopian system. But as oppose to Communism which inevitibly creates a Marxist-Leninist state, I would much rather have a capitalist system.

[Y2A]

Marx never even used the term "Capitalist". And the idea of how he showed it "how it is" is uncomparable to today's system. First off, during the period of they were living in the period during the industrial revolution. Comparing Germany then to America now is ridiculous.

[elijahcraig]

Indeed, I never claimed capitalist to be a perfect utopian system. But as oppose to Communism which inevitibly creates a Marxist-Leninist state, I would much rather have a capitalist system.

Communism is the final state attained by society according to Marxism. Marxist theory says that after the revolution you establish a workers Socialist state, then after the world economy is no longer capitalist, the state can fade away. The feasibility of the state ever “withering away” is highly unlikely in my opinion.

So there is no reason to use “inevitable” in this way. It is “correct” and “wanted” according to Marxist theory.

[elijahcraig]

Marx never even used the term "Capitalist".

What do you mean he “never used the term”? Are you insane? He didn’t go through his entire life analyzing the system and never use the word!


And the idea of how he showed it "how it is" is uncomparable to today's system. First off, during the period of they were living in the period during the industrial revolution. Comparing Germany then to America now is ridiculous.

No it’s not. The economies have obviously changed. The functioning of the state and capital in society has fundamentally stayed the same.

The word “ridiculous” is mine in this debate. Back down, Zhivago!

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 08:53 PM

And the idea of how he showed it "how it is" is uncomparable to today's system. First off, during the period of they were living in the period during the industrial revolution. Comparing Germany then to America now is ridiculous.

No it’s not. The economies have obviously changed. The functioning of the state and capital in society has fundamentally stayed the same.

The word “ridiculous” is mine in this debate. Back down, Zhivago!
My point it that comparing the situation workers then to workers now is "ridiculous". To compare the two eras is simply inaccurate because at that time it truly was a "lassier-faire" system. Until labor unions came along that is. And also you are wrong in the "role of the state" back then there were no child-labor laws or minimum wage laws.

[elijahcraig]

My point it that comparing the situation workers then to workers now is "ridiculous". To compare the two eras is simply inaccurate because at that time it truly was a "lassier-faire" system. Until labor unions came along that is. And also you are wrong in the "role of the state" back then there were no child-labor laws or minimum wage laws.

The State’s function is not to protect citizens against the Corporate destruction of workers’ rights, but to aid them in their attempt to maximize profit. The State did a very good job in those days. The State adds protection in Imperialist nations in an attempt to manifest the idea that “it’s not that bad,” while making up for it by the exploitation of the third world.

[Osman Ghazi]

Britain and Prussia had both passed child-labour laws and minimum wage laws by 1840. Unions (albeit underground in most cases) also already existed. How much do you think we could fundamentally change in the 130 or so years since Marx wrote? Also, what is with 'lassier-faire'? Have you ever heard of a dictionary? Laissez-faire, kiddo.