Did the USSR provide a check and balance to US Hegemony and Power? And was it beneficial?

[Taverner]

When the USSR fell in the early 90's, many of us breathed a sigh of relief. The Commie v Cappie war had gone on long enough, and had killed too many innocents. Things looked bright, and finally we could get Stolichnaya for half of the price.

But in the 20 or so years that followed, the US grew stronger, more paranoid, and more forceful. Democracy has all but withered up and died here in the US. We have become what we once hated - with Abu Gharaib, Gitmo and Quantico subbing for the Gulag Archipelago. We now torture, beat prisoners to death, rape them and smile for the cameras while giving a "thumbs up."

Even the most liberal President since Carter can't fix things. The folks in Flyoverstan are dead set on regressing to the past, instead of progressing towards the future.

This has been discussed a little bit before, but do you think having the USSR as an enemy forced us to be a more ethical nation? If anything so we could tell people "In the USSR they will send you to a gulag for speaking out against the government! We in America would never do that!"

[villager]

1. Good question. Certainly the abyss has been staring back -- hard -- at the US, these past decades

n/t

[Taverner]

3. So true...

[socialist_n_TN]

2. In a word, YES.........

DEveloping it further, even the deformed worker's state that Stalin turned the USSR into at leastm in theory, gave the world an alternative to the capitalists. That kept the capitalists from overreaching. The removal of the USSR took that check away and we are now seeing the results.

[el_bryanto]

4. Presumably you see that as the natural progression of Capitalism

Rather than poor decisions by us as voters and citizens?

Bryant

[socialist_n_TN]

11. In a bourgeoisie "electoral" system you have a choice

ESPECIALLY in the USA, between corporate candidate A and corporate candidate B. One might be a slightly more covertly corporate than the other, but they're still a corporate candidate. We don't really have a choice in this dictatorship of capital.

Add in a century of propaganda making capitalism the equivalent to God and unlimited money to propagandize the majority of the population that doesn't pay attention, along with outright election fraud if the propaganda and money doesn't work, and you have a SYSTEM that is impossible to change by elections.

When the overtly corporate candidates get in office, notice how their first priorities are ALWAYS getting more money to their corporate bosses by tax breaks and privatization and deregulation from as much government oversight as possible. This IS the natural progression of capitalism. Think of a game of Monopoly. One winner with all the bucks and the rest bankrupt. That's the natural progression of capitalism.

When the more covert corporate candidate gets into office, he/she does the same thing, they just don't advertise it.

[el_bryanto]

12. In other words Capitalism is the American Economic System

And you can't win by advocating Socialism?

That's not really news. I agree socialism or communism or any other economic system is likely to be enacted only through revolution; but i differ on the desirability of such a revolution.

Bryant

[Taverner]

17. Many European states got there without a bloody revolution

Although not all revolutions are bloody...

[socialist_n_TN]

23. Well sure..............

but capitalism is NOT enshrined in the Constitution. In fact, the founders in most cases had a healthy distrust of capitalism.

As to the "desirability of such a revolution" it won't happen by the vote true, but then it won't happen until a majority of people are, AT LEAST, willing to accept that revolution too. But thanks to the capitalist overreach which is becoming more overreaching all the time, socialists of all stripes are growing in numbers.

The best recruiters for Marxism are the capitalists. And I don't see them giving up this recruiting role at any time in the forseeable future.

[Taverner]

32. Capitalism failed. There's no getting around that

You're absolutely right about it not being enshrined in the Constitution - in fact a little-known fact about history were the cattle ranches during Westward Expansion. Many of them were "socialist" by design. The owner would hire cattle hands as 'partners' as they got a cut of the profit. Often the cow-hands would work on a farm, make some cash, and then go out and buy a farm themselves, setting it up the same way. That's an employee-owned cooperative.

Often the owner would sleep in the same sleeping hall as the cow-hands, they would share the food and help take care of the rancher's family. The idea of a Lone Rancher running the farm like a CEO is pure myth.

In fact, last decade when there were these historical reenactment reality shows, the "rancher" obviously a Republican, ran his ranch into the ground by going Feudal with his farm. By the end of the show, all of the cow-hands left, they had no money, many of the cows had been "stolen" by the "indians" (and the asshole would not negotiate with 'terrarists.') The owner and his family ate high on the hog, while the ranch hands only ate beans. Back in the old days, that wouldn't have cut it.

[socialist_n_TN]

46. YEp. Anarcho-Syndicalist socialist style of business

But yep, still socialist.

[Taverner]

47. Anarcho-Syndicalist was the original plan for the USSR

The 'Soviets' were syndicates, although they were also like unions at the same time. Since unions were illegal in Tsarist Russia, all union activity had to be done in cells. The initial idea that the syndicates wanted was to control the USSR from the syndicates up, not be led by a dictator from the top down. Unfortunately, things got ugly before that took place.

[socialist_n_TN]

49. Yep. The counter revolution aka, the civil war

put a lot of plans on hold.

[Taverner]

50. And of course Stalin didn't help things either

The funny thing is Emma Goldman knew right away where things were headed. And yet we deported her.

"If I cannot dance then I don't want to be a part of your revolution."

[Taverner]

5. Consider when engineers arrived in a 3rd world country

If they were American, their argument was that they would make them rich while secretly exploiting them

If they were Soviet, their argument was to join the workers of the world, while secretly exploiting them

The difference today is there is no 'secretly' to exploiting them anymore

[blindpig]

6. Not so much ethical but rather constrained.

It was not just the military stand off, it was competing social systems. Capitalism was required to show a pretty face when confronted with a system which looked after people's needs as it's primary purpose. So unions were tolerated, wages were allowed to rise despite the loss of profits, a marginally decent social safety net was to be had. This was possible because the US was the super dominant economic power, note that things started getting shitty as soon as the Germans and Japanese got competitive and started taking market share. Once the Soviet Union succumbed Capital was free of constraints, and here we are.

It could be said that the american 'middle class' was defended by Soviet tanks, they're gone now.

[el_bryanto]

7. That storyline doesn't necessarily flow

Reagan did as much as anybody to smash unions and he was pre-Soviet Collapse. I think to find out what really went wrong in America you need to look at what happened to the Republican Party, Southern Conservatives, and Civil Rights.

Bryant

[Taverner]

15. "I think to find out what really went wrong in America..."

"...you need to look at what happened to the Republican Party, Southern Conservatives, and Civil Rights."

A- MEN!

[blindpig]

52. Absurd, as though the Dems had nothing to do with government.

Many Democrats voted for Taft-Hartley, no Democratic administration or majority has ever even suggested that it be repealed. That act was a knife in the heart of union organizing.

The march towards a Capitalist Paradise has been a bipartisan effort, Clinton "reformed" welfare, supported every scheme of international capital which crossed his desk, this president is more of the same but more so. The political is always beholden to the economic, the parties are both capitalist, what you see is what you get.

[white_wolf]

8. I think so.

The capitalist class was forced to play nice to stave off the threat of revolution. Hell, that is a big part of why we got the New Deal. FDR enacted all of his reforms to save capitalism from the very real danger of a socialist revolution in America.

[geardaddy]

9. Flyoverstan?

Nice.

[Taverner]

14. Oh I forgot - the red states are just misunderstood progressive paradises

My bad

[geardaddy]

16. Oh, I forgot California doesn't have any republicans.

[Taverner]

19. We all have our resident assholes. It's just that red states have higher numbers per capita

Hence, their tendencies to vote 'red'

[geardaddy]

22. Agreed.

I'm just point out that age-old regionalist bullshit of "everything in the middle is red."

[Taverner]

34. I don't think anyone would consider those states 'flyover country'

Sure, the Rust Belt cities have been shrinking, but they still have a pretty vibrant population and diversity

Now Arkansas (and I know some thin-skinned idiot is going to bark) is flyover country, and it's a red state. Redder than red. Texas is flyover country, and yes, its mostly red. Houston, Austin and Dallas may be the exceptions, but even in their suburbs the idiots vote Republican. And they can hem and haw about how real Texans aren't Republicans, and how their daddy died for the lone star flag, but that's what you and I would call "bull shit." I would like to point out the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Yes, California gave us REAGAN and NIXON. But Texas not only gave us bad Republicans (BUSH) it also gave us bad Democrats (LBJ)

We're not better than anyone else out here, in fact our direct democracy is killing us. But anyone who takes umbrage to me saying Texas is mostly Republican is just lying to themselves about the great Texan Progressive Paradise.

[geardaddy]

38. I understand.

No harm. But, there is a penchant for coasters to refer to anything not on the coast as "Flyoverland"

I understand where you're coming from.

[JVS]

24. Your state produced Reagan + Nixon. You lecture someone from the state of Mondale and HHH about...

assholes per capita and their propensity to vote?

[Taverner]

27. Hey our state produced Prop 13 and voted against gay marriage twice

However, ask any gay man or woman: where would you feel safer living? Little Rock or LA?

[JVS]

30. Little Rock is part of Minnesota?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

35. .

Flyover country and flyover states are Americanisms describing the region of the United States between the East and the West Coasts. The terms, which are often used in a pejorative sense, refer to the regions of the country passed over during inter-coastal flights – e.g., flights between the nation's two largest cities, New York City and Los Angeles. Flyover country thus refers to the part of the country that many Americans only view by air and never actually see in person at ground level.
When the term flyerover states is used, it most commonly refers to the midwestern states. This is due to the fact that much of this region is sparsely populated relative to the coasts and tend to be mostly rural, thus much less likely to be traveling destinations or starting points. Yet many domestic flights have to fly over these states due to their geographic placement while relatively fewer actually take-off or land in these areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyover_country

[Taverner]

36. So Chicago is Flyover Country

You said it, not me...

[JVS]

39. Chicago is also not Minnesota.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

18. Not all the blue states are on the coast. MN, WI, IL, and MI have no ocean front property.

[Taverner]

20. Isn't Chicago on the "North Coast"?

[JVS]

21. No, it's on a lake.

[Taverner]

25. I know, I'm just making funny

Life's too short to take everything personally

[JVS]

26. You're not doing a very good job.

[Taverner]

28. Then go read someone else's post

May I suggest anything written in all caps?

[Jackpine Radical]

10. That is a very interesting question.

As several have pointed out, the existence of a nominally Communist alternative may have served as a counterweight. On the other hand, we used them as a foil to justify our own huge military buildup. We were always a little imperialistic, especially beginning in about 1898, but we really got going after WWII, and I think it would have been a lot harder to station military all over the world etc. without them as an excuse. I think of the phony "Missile Gap" that JFK touted to build up our own high-tech arsenal is a classic example.

As an afterthought, would there have been a moon project had there been no Sputnik?

I still remember the shock with which we all greeted the news of Sputnik. I was in 8th grade at the time. And there was a sudden influx of $$ into public school science education. I was in high school at exactly the right time to be a beneficiary of all that neat new stuff that came pouring in. Only the saving grace of having some really rotten math & science teachers prevented me from ending up in physics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Both the buildup of the military-industrial complex, and the idea of 'the ends justify the means'

have to be taken into account. I think the claim in the OP that the US has grown more paranoid in the past 20 years doesn't hold up - look at the paranoia of McCarthyism. If anything, the paranoia needs a supposed 'Big Foe' - communism, or al Qaeda. When there wasn't one, in the 1990s, the USA was less adventurous abroad - no intervention in Rwanda, and reluctant to step into ex-Yugoslavia. Compare that to all that was done in south east Asia in the 60s and 70s.

[TheKentuckian]

13. Yes and yes for western workers

[dionysus]

31. it was used as reasoning to have to fight in korea and vietnam. the cold war wasn't happy times.

yeah, and that time we nearly had nuclear war over cuba.

:eyes:

[Taverner]

37. Something to take into account

But somehow the "good guys" weren't as bad, or at least didn't seem as bad as today

[dionysus]

41. right. i'm just pointing out the whole affair did cause a lot of death in far off places.

[Taverner]

43. It did - not just during wartime either

Great Leap Forward, Five Year Plan, Cultural Revolution, absolutely anything having to do with Trofim Lysenko....

But the law of unintended consequences is unpredictable - and weird causations have even stranger effects.

[Recursion]

40. Eh. The bigger issue was that it kept the third world third

Which "worked better" for everybody outside of it.

[harun]

42. Having an alternative philosophy out there made the dominant

philosophy in the U.S. more compassionate and caring. Without an alternative there is no chance of losing the populace to it. Hence, the new reality is going to show no compassion for anyone not directly supporting it. So the poor, weak and independent will be destroyed.

[Xithras]

45. The USSR also gave us a yardstick to compare ourselves against.

Paper checks, forced renditions, warrantless searches...these were the tools of the Soviets, who were the enemy. Even during the Cold War there were people in the U.S. who would have preferred to implement those things here, but they were held in check by one simple question; "Don't the Russians do that?" Nobody wanted to be like the Russians.

Without the USSR, there's no boogieman to contrast ourselves against. Our government now routinely does things that we once blasted the Soviets for, and people who complain about it are written off as lunatics. Agencies like the TSA could have never been formed in the 1970's, because it would have looked too similar to the Soviet NKVD (internal police forces). Nowadays, making that comparison has no value, because the NKVD doesn't inspire fear...people no longer understand the threat these agencies pose to people.

[Taverner]

48. Exactly, and the new boogeyman is hadly a yardstick

Since they are a bunch of societal rejects, living in caves, trying to party like it's 1099...

[eridani]

51. The further away a country was from the USSR, the more likely it was to benefit

Eastern Europe therefore did not benefit, but various countries in Africa and Latin America did.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.