America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the rhetoric and ignoring both our foreign policy (support for anti-democratic forces in Iran, Iraq, Central & South America, Africa) and our internal problems (civil rights, income inequality).
> America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the rhetoric...
That is one thing that America excels at -- propaganda. Along with some other so called "democracies", it can at the same time install brutal regimes, kill and start wars all over the world _and_ somehow mentain its relatively stable propaganda image as a "peacemaker", "example of democracy", "human rights advocate" and so on.
Anyone who studies history or is seriously interested in the current world affairs will recognize the propaganda for what it is. But interestingly enough, very few Americans do. A lot of them have a very skewed image about their own country, they believe in "moral supperiority" that US has over any other country in the world.
The level of self-censorship and delusion even among "educated" intellectuals, the media, the majority of the population is astounding.
In the ex-Soviet Union, we knew propaganda was propaganda. Except for some really crazy people, nobody believed in the system. Even those at the top. For example, it was interesting to observe how ex KGB agents, supposedly the ones most devoted to the communist cause, became uber-capatillists practically overnight in the quick grab of power and resources after the collapse.
I suspect some of the political upheaval in America is growing from the disjunction between American ideals with American reality (taking many forms of expression - Tea Party, nativism, corporatism, escapism, back-to-the-land movements, localism).
I see young people buying farms as a form of back-to-the-land. Localism seems to capture eating locally grown foods & buying locally made goods. Not saying these are real movements with web sites and books about them, just words to capture trends.
I was pretty sure that's what you meant by "localism" but didn't realize this purchasing tendency had been raised to the level of an "ism". My family and I started going in this direction around 10 years ago. To be clear, we prefer locally grown and made goods, but we like variety in our diet, so we happily purchase food that is out of season locally.
Back-to-the-land is a new one for me. I didn't realize young people were eschewing modern office life for farming. It's a very respectable choice.
Is this worth reading? I stopped after the ridiculous claim that "If you can pay peanuts, you can produce tanks and ICBMs that cost peanuts."
I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts. Likewise, the US had objectively more economic power than the USSR, and, assuming that the USSR had to maintain military parity with the US to remain stable, it would be quite possible for the US to beat the USSR by out-producing it. (I'm not enough of a student of history to know if this is actually what happened.) Yes, things can be misleading if you use straight exchange rates, but that doesn't mean it was logically impossible for the US to out-spend an authoritarian government.
I thought it was worth reading. Obviously his expressions and grammar mistakes show English is not his first language but the point he makes is worth spending the time.
> I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts.
Why not? He captures or pays off someone from US who has the know-how, and if he has an industrial base, natural resources they sure can do it. That is what the soviets did.
A lot of their technology was pirated from the West. The atomic bomb, or most of the computer chips and operating systems (by the late 70s).
If those hunter-gatherers are amongst the world's top scientists, then of course you can produce tanks and ICBMs for peanuts. And USSR had plenty of scientists and natural resources ;)
Wealth and money aren't the same. They're related, but they don't freely interconvert, and are generally people overestimate the degree to which they are related.
Building ICBMs requires not just money, but wealth. Infrastructure, the ability to divert your smartest people to building ICBMs because they aren't needed to solve "the food problem", ability to create a system where smart people can become educated, etc.
Communism is a system in which the government basically has all the money, but it isn't very good at producing wealth. Wealth is produced by the aggregation of countless little local decisions and communism is absolutely terrible at making those local decisions. So even though the government basically has all the money, it was in a system that didn't have a lot of wealth.
The USSR had plenty of scientists and natural resources, but they were embedded in a system that couldn't produce enough wealth to compete. The US ultimately, for all the sound and fury surrounding the military expenditures of the 1980s, was building its military out of the leftovers of its budget. A much less wealthy system couldn't even keep up with a fraction of the wealth the US had, regardless of how much money it may have controlled.
Which is why Somalia is just full of the things. And they were invented circa 2,000 BC.
You're so far off I despair of even imagining where to begin trying to correct you. You have to have a base level of wealth to even come close to building them.
In a communist society, the state owns everything. They own all natural resources, the industries that processes them, the supply chains, the labor and the economy. Profits and margins are not the objectives and there is no competition. So overall, the expenses to the state are far lesser than in a capitalistic society. Imagine if the US government owned IBM, Boeing, Lockheed, all the mines, had the cheapest yet most skilled labor then the cost of an ICBM would have been significantly lesser.
Except that, in the united States at least, it doesn't work that way. Public works are significantly less efficient than private works. It is very common in the US for a public entity to spend many times as much on a work as a private company. The incentive systems in the private sector are just that much much better. This is in fact one of the arguments for a capitalist society.
If a command economy were capable of producing on the same level of efficiency as a private one, then Stalin's various five year plans would not have starved millions and the collective farms might have actually worked. As it is, they didn't and Soviet Communism just wasn't very efficient.
Public work in the US cannot be a good comparison. Workers in communist Russia must have other motivations to be efficient - patriotism and pride in their work for some, but more likely, fear of the state and lack of alternatives.
Either way, my point was not that they had an efficient or scalable model, but that the government can throw in any resource they have at making more weapons - even at the expense of starving millions.
You might not know (or forget) Stalin's various purges of some of the most brilliant and effective people the USSR (along with millions of others), not to mention the tens of millions of Soviet citizens who died when their country was ravaged during WW2.
There was also the fear and terror the country was ruled by, resulting in a state of constant paranoia among the citizenry. Not to mention the cronyism inherent in that system, by which only the most "loyal" (not to the state, but to their bosses) had any kind of future. And then there was the massive and vicious oppression and persecution of various minorities across the nation, and of the nationals of the various countries which the Soviet Union invaded and absorbed.
And even at the start of the Soviet Union, there were the millions who were killed during the Russian revolutions, which radically restructured the societies which made up the Soviet Union.
All these factors and many more contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union. It's just not nearly as simple as saying that "capitalism is more efficient than communism".
You just explained part of why a centralized system is less efficient, though even if you remove all those problems a centralized system still can not beat a capitalistic system with its superior capital allocation via pricing mechanisms. But those things are an intrinsic part of having a fully centralized system. Somebody not in the favored central government is going to want to be in the favored central government clique, and in the absence of other mechanisms to keep them in check (like letting the market decide who wins or even having both win), it's going to turn to violence. Proponents of centralized government can't ignore this aspect of their proposals and thereby forget they are talking about governing humans, and not abstract beings without ambition, happy to be drones.
"You just explained part of why a centralized system is less efficient,"
Um.. No. I explained some of the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed. No other "centralized system" had the particular history that the Soviet Union had. It was absolutely unique. And I can see no reason why any other "centralized system" must have all, or even any, of those negative factors which caused the Soviet Union to collapse.
"even if you remove all those problems a centralized system still can not beat a capitalistic system with its superior capital allocation via pricing mechanisms"
This statement of yours sounds like an avowal of ideology (an ideology that's sadly all too prevalent on HN), rather than any sort of argument in favor of capitalism or against communism.
"Somebody not in the favored central government is going to want to be in the favored central government clique, and in the absence of other mechanisms to keep them in check (like letting the market decide who wins or even having both win), it's going to turn to violence."
Are you saying that "favored central government cliques" and violence aren't possible in capitalist systems? Even a superficial look at a model capitalist country like the US will reveal their presence.
"This statement of yours sounds like an avowal of ideology (an ideology that's sadly all too prevalent on HN), rather than any sort of argument in favor of capitalism or against communism."
No, it's a reflection of Economics 101, really. You simply can not replicate the amount of information in a price in a centralized system, it's actually impossible.
Walk through the first few chapters of http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC... . No, seriously, do it. The first few chapters are very basic and if you can just wave them away as "ideological" then we're done here anyhow. Prices contain a lot of information and no central authority can match it. They especially can't match it if they believe prices are a moral issue and they ignore the basis of them in the first place.
"Are you saying that "favored central government cliques" and violence aren't possible in capitalist systems? Even a superficial look at a model capitalist country like the US will reveal their presence."
First, the US is not a model capitalist country and has not been in a long time. The idea that the US is some sort of unrestricted capitalist paradise is propaganda, not fact. Second, your logic here is terrible. When I say that the only outlet for advancement is one or another form of violence in a centralized system, therefore I am claiming that in a capitalistic system it is never a form of advancement? If you're not even reading my actual points and you're willing to bend what I'm saying that hard, or you can't even see the grievous crime against logic you just committed, that's not even worth replying to.
I most certainly don't forget, (I have a degree in this :)) Stalin's purges happened long before the Soviet Union's collapse and actually precipitated its high-point. Not to mention that the economic difficulties of collectivism actually preceded the atrocities. The Soviet Union found out extremely early on that centralized economies don't work. During the first wave of collectivization, the economy collapsed and millions starved. (This is on top of the economic difficulties already afforded by the war and revolution.) Lenin was forced to institute the NEP which was a limited free market system in order for the economy to recover. The purges themselves were responses to the failures of collectivization. They targeted scapegoats such as the Kulaks (who, if you take Soviet policy as any kind of guide, were a sort of fictional minority group,) in order to distract from the deeper problems with the system. You can actually poke through the early Soviet economic history and see a pattern of attempted collectivization, famine and revolts, loosening of market controls, and finally recovery of the economy. The history of the Soviet Union is actually a pretty strong condemnation of extreme collectivism.
It's not like the USSR was unique historically. China, Vietnam, and North Korea also attempted similar systems. Of the three, two have effectively admitted defeat and are now pursuing progressively free-market systems while the third hasn't, and is a Hell-hole as a result.
The problem is that people under this system are not motivated to do things efficiently. Competition itself is responsible for reducing expenses, because companies compete to lower them. Without the competition, there's no reason to.
Prices in a capitalist system are information signals that inform the system how to allocate resources. If you do away with the pricing information (by setting mandatory prices, for example), you break this and usually end up with large surpluses or shortages. Getting other people to inspect the system for inefficiency and remove it is less efficient than using prices for the same purpose.
Capitalism more efficiently allocates the labor of people than a command/communist economy. Thus, for the same population, a capitalist economy has more wealth -- it can spend this on better consumer goods AND better military hardware. The tokens themselves don't matter.
As well, the "western world" was much bigger and better resourced than the soviet bloc, and started from a much higher level of development.
It's amazing that the soviets were able to maintain some level of parity as long as they did (maybe to 1960-1965 in most military forces); for some things, playing catch-up was easier than initial development (nuclear tech, lots of other weapons, many consumer products), so it was easier to remain in a close second place than to potentially be the leader.
> It's amazing that the soviets were able to maintain some level of parity as long as they did (maybe to 1960-1965 in most military forces)
They actually never had arms parity - USA had over a 20:1 ratio of nukes in the 1960's. The problem is, the :1 is still enough to wreck all sorts of havoc. Also, massively more infantry.
Edit: Sorry, my numbers were wrong, misremebered. 1964: USA 2,416 USSR 375 [1]. So more like 8:1... later on the USSR closed the gap, but the USA had better strategic positions with bases in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and West Germany, and they cut off Cuba from the USSR after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Within Europe, they had a massively superior conventional force, to the point that the US almost certainly would have initiated the use of nuclear weapons (tactical or strategic), after being overrun. Part of this is that they really only had to put their forces on their own border, and could support them with lines of communication entirely on land and within their own territory. The US had to pay a lot more to sustain forces in Europe, and keeping the Atlantic open during a major war would have been difficult.
At some point, nuclear forces are pretty much a binary thing -- either you have enough to guarantee a second-strike countervalue capability, or you don't. China seems to believe it can do this mission with ~200 warheads, today.
It doesn't seem right to state "He's pretty unclear on economics, yes." and then go on to make an unqualified statement of amazement that soviets were able to maintain some level of parity as long as they did.
Like it or not Russia defeated the bulwark of the German war machine, there is no question they suffered the brunt of the German military force that would have easily overwhelmed other allied nations, even possibly the US. Russia did so using that inefficient system to allocate resources.
They did not do this by simply chucking their soldiers at the Germans with the threat of being shot by a Peoples Party Officer if they tried to run back, and often repeated myth of why Russia was able to halt and then pursue the Germans back to Berlin.
I am fully aware of the quality of Russian military equipment and military during WW2. (they had the best mass-produced tank in the war, one of the best air support fighters, and they had much simplified logistics vs. the US) However, after Stalin purged most of the officers, and the damage of WW2 to the industrial base, and then the results of planned economy (shrinking the overall size of the economy), it's pretty amazing they had the resources to maintain near-parity with the US for ~10-20 years. They only really achieved this by devoting a much larger fraction of their industrial base to the military than was done in the west.
Also, any discussion of Russia during WW2 needs to include Simo Hayha ("White Death"), just because he's the most amazing sniper in the history of the world.
The whole idea that the USSR central planning policy result in economic decline is bunk?
I am suddenly reminded of Paul Samuelson and his economic textbook touting the idea that the Soviet economy will surpass the USA's economy. Of course, it never came true.
For a really simple way to illustrate how bad the USSR central planning was, look no further than some big companies IT shops. Managers not trained in the specific area and very mistrustful / contemptuous of the actual workers giving orders; defining process and schedule; and telling the workers what "best practices" is. Now, imagine this crud applied to farms and factories.
As a Latin-American, I laugh at the notion that the US have any sort of moral authority. In fact, many communist movements in LA actually came to be in response to oppression administered from Washington; if you had a nasty dictator propped up by the US and the only people who would help were in Moscow, then your best bet would be to become a communist, just as the Croats cozied up to the Nazis in order to get rid of the Serbs.
Of course, this might be the case with Latin America, I have no knowledge of the situation down there. But for us, Easter-Europeans, USA was really the better alternative to USSR
You don't always have the best alternatives available to you, even if you were clairvoyant enough to distinguish them.
Would you say the russians were fools to embrace communism when they lived in a feudal system? The communist resistance in Europe started even before the US entered the war. Maybe if the US hadn't taken so long, things might have turned out different for the eastern bloc. Then again they might have taken a bashing for not being prepared and you would be under nazi rule still today.
I was reading a book about Roads that talks about roads from brazil to the pacific. The author mentions a story about seeing a teen in South America, Venezuela iirc, wearing a t-shirt with bin laden's picture on it and the author asked the kid why he is wearing the shirt.
The teen says, "Because he is a defender of the world's poor."
Is this how people in South America see the war? Rich people killing poor people? Is Bin Laden really revered down there like this? I'm not trying to take sides, just curious about it because I can't even imagine someone wearing a bin laden t-shirt here.
> if you had a nasty dictator propped up by the US
Be careful. The US had a lot to do with Latin-American right-wing dictators, but a lot of what is said these days is propaganda from left-wing larval dictators trying to create a patriotic response to an external "threat". Chávez in particular, seems to be considering delaying the upcoming elections by declaring war.
The people from Western Europe would not go on a jihad. However, during the last decade their opinion on the USA plummeted, too. Twenty years ago, if you were an American in Berlin, you would be revered, and more honored than the Berliners around… Not anymore. Now, you can often hear: “The country that lied to the entire world about the Iraqi WMD? That created and still maintains the Guantanamo gulag? That ran Abu Graib? That bombed to destruction the civilians in Faluja? That shot the Italian hostage resque mission? That killed the BBC journalists in Baghdad? That photographs, fingerprints and tracks every visitor like a criminal? That created the ECHELON system? That is killing in Afghanistan maybe more civilians than terrorists?… If it is decent, then Stalin is, too. This country is a blemish to the humankind."
Although it's really hard to pick, you should just read the entire thing.
If you still prefer the reader's digest:
… Remember the great support Obama had among the ordinary people abroad before the president elections? Especially in Europe? There is a reason for this support. The ordinary people hoped that he will restore the US moral superiority, by bringing moral to the US politics… He failed to do it. The Guantanamo gulag stays. Some measures are taken to prevent the worst things the US Army does abroad – however, the “culture of concealment” is stronger than ever. Slowly, but surely one trend emerges and grows in the thinking of the people outside US. Namely, that this state has gone too far on the Evil Empire road. That it cannot be stopped anymore, even by a good-intended President. And that it is better late than never to say openly: “Things changed. This is not anymore the moral leader of the world – this is just another evil empire. One that the decent people must hate, loathe and oppose to.”
What will happen if this trend of thinking prevails? Easy guess. Al-Qaeda will grow and attract more and more people, and will probably obstruct more of the US activity abroad. In fact, it may gain enough support to carry its fight on American soil. The support for US in Europe and the rest of the world will gradually diminish, to the extent that even the pro-US politicians will have to become blind and deaf to the USA needs. And very surely there will be new “cold wars” – economic, cultural etc. – between USA and some other countries, but it will not be possible anymore to win them through moral superiority.
[.. snip ..]
To preserve moral superiority, the US must first learn what is the correct move in situations like the current one. Whether Wikileaks is its enemy, or the best friend they can find – one that is brave enough to tell you you have a nasty problem, and to press on you to solve it on time. And whether people like Mike Mullen are its best servants, or its best enemies – the ones that tell you “There is no problem, continue this way, people will never learn of the crimes, truth never comes out”.
If you are still not sure which is the correct position, ask one truly outstanding soldier – Gen. David Petraeus. He will surely be able to tell you the truth… Actually, you can tell it yourself, by using his simple principle – which action decreases the number of your enemies, and increases the number of your friends.
So the Soviets under Stalin murdered 10's of millions before 1950 but maintained moral equivalence with the United States until JFK was elected? I guess I have a different sense of morality.
You know, things like nuking whole cities do count when measuring moral. Not that USSR was highly moral, just the opposite. USA was not too moral that days.
I am not trying to measure who is (was) worse.
The thing is that the USSR had their arguments to carry their propaganda on for several decades. And their people believed them more or less.
You know, things like making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) is terrible thing to have to do. Making a calculated political decision to murder millions just isn't in the same category. I don't want to justify any of the wrongdoings of anyone based on "the other guy is worse". I also don't accept that the United States was morally equivalent to the Soviet Union until JFK was elected.
As I said (in the neighboring comment):
I am not trying to measure who is (was) worse. The thing is that the USSR had their arguments to carry their propaganda on for several decades. And their people believed them more or less.
> making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?)
There are always options. The simplest argument to be made is that, at most, nuking one city would probably suffice. There was little need for nuking the second one. Next, one could, conceivably, nuke a landmark instead of a city, prove the destructive power of the device and, still, spare a lot of lives.
No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war.
> No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war.
You'd think nuking one city would have been enough for that...
The Americans didn't have to nuke any cities to test the nuclear bomb, they had already measured it's destructive capacity in the dessert. There is a belief among some historians that dropping the bomb was a way to impress the USSR and this idea does have merit.
As for the second bomb, the US only dropped the second one when the first one failed to elicit the response they desired. Japanese scientists were actually further along in designing their own weapon than the Nazi's were. They had a notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were gambling that the US couldn't make another.
There were three days in between the two nukes. The Japanese govt. had observers report back at the end of the first day. People forget that the US had already destroyed ~85% of the top 60 cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exempted so they could serve as undamaged test cases.
The Japanese strategy, once it became clear they were losing the war, was to increase the cost in order to force concessions from the Allies. The atomic bomb, by changing the equation to one plane, one bomb, one city destroyed that hope.
The Japanese high command didn't surrender because they lost two more cities, they surrendered because the US demonstrated that it could annihilate cities without giving any opportunity to strike back.
For better or worse, wars aren't won by killing people, they're won by killing hope.
It's irrelevant whether you can rationally defend dropping an atomic bomb. The only thing that matters is that you lose moral credibility when you do, whether you like it or not. This isn't about who is right; this is about how the public responds.
This article, right or wrong, is about perception; your comment perfectly captures the way the same act can be perceived by different groups. Can one of the down modders please explain why they did so? The only thing that is coming to mind is that you disagree with the opinion (and that really is no reason to do a down mod)
While from my armchair perspective I disagree with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they at least were under the auspices of ending a much larger war. Stalin's massacres had no such justification. The two acts are incomparable.
He's confused when he compares the Soviet Union with Al Quaeda, and proposes that Al Quaeda is popular due to the loss of moral superiority of the US.
A more sensible comparison would be Soviet Union versus some hypothetical repressive theocratic 'caliphate' that Al Quaeda would like to set up. No doubt the unfortunate subjects of such a system would end up feeling the same way as the unfortunate subjects of the Soviet Union.
I agree with him that the US should export their values. Unfortunately if they do more than talk then they are going to come up against people who will violently oppose such a project, and then he'll be denouncing the US as the evil empire again, regardless of the conduct of the opposers.
PS: I feel like there's a lot of spittle flying around in this thread!
A nonsensical screed, since the nations of Western Europe have also been the targets of radical Islamic terrorist groups. For example, what should the Danes have done to prevent the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan in 2008? What heinous action did they commit to lose their 'moral superiority' like the Americans? Since there's no Danish Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib to point to, might I respectfully suggest the reasons for these attacks aren't quite as simple as the author would suggest?
As for whether the actions of Bradley Manning will result in the deaths of American soldiers or Afghan informants - I suspect none of us here has the ability to properly evaluate this, and neither does the author of the article.
Yes, of course I'm aware of it. Just as I'm aware of the simple reason for the attempts on Salman Rushdie's life.
Now read the parent article, which praises an earlier United States - one that had not yet lost its 'moral authority', which primarily consisted of its superior freedom and civil liberties.
If the author's logic is correct, the United States could reduce terrorism by regaining and retaining its moral authority. Yet both the Danish attack and the fatwa against Rushdie were specifically directed against people exercising their civil liberties, the same civil liberties that the author argues were an essential component of the American 'moral authority' that ultimately undermined the USSR.
This is why the author's article is an anti-American screed. However repugnant we might find Abu Ghirab, and whatever our opinions about the war in Iraq, these events are not the root cause of Islamic terrorism in the West.
"Republicans don't actually stand for anything, they're just really good at winning elections".
This is a quote from the movie Boogieman: The Lee Atwater Story. (Lee Atwater was a Republican spin-doctor who influenced Karl Rove, the man who helped Bush get elected.)
> Things changed drastically under John Kennedy, and even more under Lyndon Johnson.
Whoa, Lyndon B. Johnson? You'd have to have severe blinders on to like him, he's probably the worst President since the post-WWII era. Increased war, crime, corruption, poverty (ironically), dysfunction, bureaucracy... dude combines the worst aspects of both parties.
He massively screwed our international relations in a very corrupt fashion to increase his votes among unions. This wasn't public until after his presidency:
> In retrospect, audio tapes from the Johnson White House, revealed a quid pro quo unrelated to chicken. In January 1964, President Johnson attempted to convince United Auto Workers's president Walter Reuther not to initiate a strike just prior the 1964 election and to support the president's civil rights platform. Reuther in turn wanted Johnson to respond to Volkswagen's increased shipments to the United States.[39] The Chicken Tax directly curtailed importation of German-built Volkswagen Type 2 vans in configurations that qualified them as light trucks—that is, commercial vans and pickups.[39] "In 1964 U.S. imports of "automobile trucks" from West Germany declined to a value of $5.7 million—about one-third the value imported in the previous year. Soon after, Volkswagen cargo vans and pickup trucks, the intended targets, "practically disappeared from the U.S. market."[38]
Vietnam, of course.
Immigration Act of '65, which had a good spirit but terrible bureaucratic implementation and very poorly thought out.
Great Society - all of which pretty much backfired. You know when you hear rappers say "I'm from the projects", meaning really dangerous crime-ridden drugged out zones? Yeah, that was LBJ's "Great Housing Projects" - this destroyed black communities, reduced black ownership of business, and coincided with massive increases in violent black on black crime, black on white crime, and addictive drug use.
Gun control.
Riots.
"Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" about Vietnam.
"At Kennedy's death, there were 16,000 American military advisors in Vietnam. As President, Lyndon Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963... Johnson expanded the numbers and roles of the American military following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident ... The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted.[62] It was Johnson who began America's direct involvement in the ground war in Vietnam. By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were inside Vietnam."
Should I keep going? Seriously, who was worse than LBJ? Carter or G.W.? Not even close. LBJ was the worst of Carter and GW combined. As a result of his policies, America's budgets, politics, immigration policy, international relations, military all got screwed up, massively increased corruption and bureaucracy, and increased poverty violence and drug use in black communities. He gets credit for the Civil Rights Act, but it was already done under Kennedy's watch at that point.
Clearly the worst President in the post-WWII era. How anyone could think he did anything right is beyond me. You'd have to believe in what he said was his goal as opposed to the real outcomes.
66 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] threadThat is one thing that America excels at -- propaganda. Along with some other so called "democracies", it can at the same time install brutal regimes, kill and start wars all over the world _and_ somehow mentain its relatively stable propaganda image as a "peacemaker", "example of democracy", "human rights advocate" and so on.
Anyone who studies history or is seriously interested in the current world affairs will recognize the propaganda for what it is. But interestingly enough, very few Americans do. A lot of them have a very skewed image about their own country, they believe in "moral supperiority" that US has over any other country in the world.
The level of self-censorship and delusion even among "educated" intellectuals, the media, the majority of the population is astounding.
In the ex-Soviet Union, we knew propaganda was propaganda. Except for some really crazy people, nobody believed in the system. Even those at the top. For example, it was interesting to observe how ex KGB agents, supposedly the ones most devoted to the communist cause, became uber-capatillists practically overnight in the quick grab of power and resources after the collapse.
localism is probably communitarianism
Back-to-the-land is a new one for me. I didn't realize young people were eschewing modern office life for farming. It's a very respectable choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R8gKQGmoao
I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts. Likewise, the US had objectively more economic power than the USSR, and, assuming that the USSR had to maintain military parity with the US to remain stable, it would be quite possible for the US to beat the USSR by out-producing it. (I'm not enough of a student of history to know if this is actually what happened.) Yes, things can be misleading if you use straight exchange rates, but that doesn't mean it was logically impossible for the US to out-spend an authoritarian government.
Why not? He captures or pays off someone from US who has the know-how, and if he has an industrial base, natural resources they sure can do it. That is what the soviets did.
A lot of their technology was pirated from the West. The atomic bomb, or most of the computer chips and operating systems (by the late 70s).
Building ICBMs requires not just money, but wealth. Infrastructure, the ability to divert your smartest people to building ICBMs because they aren't needed to solve "the food problem", ability to create a system where smart people can become educated, etc.
Communism is a system in which the government basically has all the money, but it isn't very good at producing wealth. Wealth is produced by the aggregation of countless little local decisions and communism is absolutely terrible at making those local decisions. So even though the government basically has all the money, it was in a system that didn't have a lot of wealth.
The USSR had plenty of scientists and natural resources, but they were embedded in a system that couldn't produce enough wealth to compete. The US ultimately, for all the sound and fury surrounding the military expenditures of the 1980s, was building its military out of the leftovers of its budget. A much less wealthy system couldn't even keep up with a fraction of the wealth the US had, regardless of how much money it may have controlled.
You're so far off I despair of even imagining where to begin trying to correct you. You have to have a base level of wealth to even come close to building them.
If a command economy were capable of producing on the same level of efficiency as a private one, then Stalin's various five year plans would not have starved millions and the collective farms might have actually worked. As it is, they didn't and Soviet Communism just wasn't very efficient.
There was also the fear and terror the country was ruled by, resulting in a state of constant paranoia among the citizenry. Not to mention the cronyism inherent in that system, by which only the most "loyal" (not to the state, but to their bosses) had any kind of future. And then there was the massive and vicious oppression and persecution of various minorities across the nation, and of the nationals of the various countries which the Soviet Union invaded and absorbed.
And even at the start of the Soviet Union, there were the millions who were killed during the Russian revolutions, which radically restructured the societies which made up the Soviet Union.
All these factors and many more contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union. It's just not nearly as simple as saying that "capitalism is more efficient than communism".
Um.. No. I explained some of the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed. No other "centralized system" had the particular history that the Soviet Union had. It was absolutely unique. And I can see no reason why any other "centralized system" must have all, or even any, of those negative factors which caused the Soviet Union to collapse.
"even if you remove all those problems a centralized system still can not beat a capitalistic system with its superior capital allocation via pricing mechanisms"
This statement of yours sounds like an avowal of ideology (an ideology that's sadly all too prevalent on HN), rather than any sort of argument in favor of capitalism or against communism.
"Somebody not in the favored central government is going to want to be in the favored central government clique, and in the absence of other mechanisms to keep them in check (like letting the market decide who wins or even having both win), it's going to turn to violence."
Are you saying that "favored central government cliques" and violence aren't possible in capitalist systems? Even a superficial look at a model capitalist country like the US will reveal their presence.
No, it's a reflection of Economics 101, really. You simply can not replicate the amount of information in a price in a centralized system, it's actually impossible.
Walk through the first few chapters of http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC... . No, seriously, do it. The first few chapters are very basic and if you can just wave them away as "ideological" then we're done here anyhow. Prices contain a lot of information and no central authority can match it. They especially can't match it if they believe prices are a moral issue and they ignore the basis of them in the first place.
"Are you saying that "favored central government cliques" and violence aren't possible in capitalist systems? Even a superficial look at a model capitalist country like the US will reveal their presence."
First, the US is not a model capitalist country and has not been in a long time. The idea that the US is some sort of unrestricted capitalist paradise is propaganda, not fact. Second, your logic here is terrible. When I say that the only outlet for advancement is one or another form of violence in a centralized system, therefore I am claiming that in a capitalistic system it is never a form of advancement? If you're not even reading my actual points and you're willing to bend what I'm saying that hard, or you can't even see the grievous crime against logic you just committed, that's not even worth replying to.
It's not like the USSR was unique historically. China, Vietnam, and North Korea also attempted similar systems. Of the three, two have effectively admitted defeat and are now pursuing progressively free-market systems while the third hasn't, and is a Hell-hole as a result.
Prices in a capitalist system are information signals that inform the system how to allocate resources. If you do away with the pricing information (by setting mandatory prices, for example), you break this and usually end up with large surpluses or shortages. Getting other people to inspect the system for inefficiency and remove it is less efficient than using prices for the same purpose.
Capitalism more efficiently allocates the labor of people than a command/communist economy. Thus, for the same population, a capitalist economy has more wealth -- it can spend this on better consumer goods AND better military hardware. The tokens themselves don't matter.
As well, the "western world" was much bigger and better resourced than the soviet bloc, and started from a much higher level of development.
It's amazing that the soviets were able to maintain some level of parity as long as they did (maybe to 1960-1965 in most military forces); for some things, playing catch-up was easier than initial development (nuclear tech, lots of other weapons, many consumer products), so it was easier to remain in a close second place than to potentially be the leader.
They actually never had arms parity - USA had over a 20:1 ratio of nukes in the 1960's. The problem is, the :1 is still enough to wreck all sorts of havoc. Also, massively more infantry.
Edit: Sorry, my numbers were wrong, misremebered. 1964: USA 2,416 USSR 375 [1]. So more like 8:1... later on the USSR closed the gap, but the USA had better strategic positions with bases in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and West Germany, and they cut off Cuba from the USSR after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
At some point, nuclear forces are pretty much a binary thing -- either you have enough to guarantee a second-strike countervalue capability, or you don't. China seems to believe it can do this mission with ~200 warheads, today.
Like it or not Russia defeated the bulwark of the German war machine, there is no question they suffered the brunt of the German military force that would have easily overwhelmed other allied nations, even possibly the US. Russia did so using that inefficient system to allocate resources.
They did not do this by simply chucking their soldiers at the Germans with the threat of being shot by a Peoples Party Officer if they tried to run back, and often repeated myth of why Russia was able to halt and then pursue the Germans back to Berlin.
Also, any discussion of Russia during WW2 needs to include Simo Hayha ("White Death"), just because he's the most amazing sniper in the history of the world.
I am suddenly reminded of Paul Samuelson and his economic textbook touting the idea that the Soviet economy will surpass the USA's economy. Of course, it never came true.
Would you say the russians were fools to embrace communism when they lived in a feudal system? The communist resistance in Europe started even before the US entered the war. Maybe if the US hadn't taken so long, things might have turned out different for the eastern bloc. Then again they might have taken a bashing for not being prepared and you would be under nazi rule still today.
The teen says, "Because he is a defender of the world's poor."
Is this how people in South America see the war? Rich people killing poor people? Is Bin Laden really revered down there like this? I'm not trying to take sides, just curious about it because I can't even imagine someone wearing a bin laden t-shirt here.
Is bin Laden the new Che in South America?
No way. And, BTW, only angry teens wear Che t-shirts these days.
Be careful. The US had a lot to do with Latin-American right-wing dictators, but a lot of what is said these days is propaganda from left-wing larval dictators trying to create a patriotic response to an external "threat". Chávez in particular, seems to be considering delaying the upcoming elections by declaring war.
I'm saddened that a lot of people will not read it because it is so long though.
The people from Western Europe would not go on a jihad. However, during the last decade their opinion on the USA plummeted, too. Twenty years ago, if you were an American in Berlin, you would be revered, and more honored than the Berliners around… Not anymore. Now, you can often hear: “The country that lied to the entire world about the Iraqi WMD? That created and still maintains the Guantanamo gulag? That ran Abu Graib? That bombed to destruction the civilians in Faluja? That shot the Italian hostage resque mission? That killed the BBC journalists in Baghdad? That photographs, fingerprints and tracks every visitor like a criminal? That created the ECHELON system? That is killing in Afghanistan maybe more civilians than terrorists?… If it is decent, then Stalin is, too. This country is a blemish to the humankind."
Although it's really hard to pick, you should just read the entire thing.
If you still prefer the reader's digest:
… Remember the great support Obama had among the ordinary people abroad before the president elections? Especially in Europe? There is a reason for this support. The ordinary people hoped that he will restore the US moral superiority, by bringing moral to the US politics… He failed to do it. The Guantanamo gulag stays. Some measures are taken to prevent the worst things the US Army does abroad – however, the “culture of concealment” is stronger than ever. Slowly, but surely one trend emerges and grows in the thinking of the people outside US. Namely, that this state has gone too far on the Evil Empire road. That it cannot be stopped anymore, even by a good-intended President. And that it is better late than never to say openly: “Things changed. This is not anymore the moral leader of the world – this is just another evil empire. One that the decent people must hate, loathe and oppose to.”
What will happen if this trend of thinking prevails? Easy guess. Al-Qaeda will grow and attract more and more people, and will probably obstruct more of the US activity abroad. In fact, it may gain enough support to carry its fight on American soil. The support for US in Europe and the rest of the world will gradually diminish, to the extent that even the pro-US politicians will have to become blind and deaf to the USA needs. And very surely there will be new “cold wars” – economic, cultural etc. – between USA and some other countries, but it will not be possible anymore to win them through moral superiority.
[.. snip ..]
To preserve moral superiority, the US must first learn what is the correct move in situations like the current one. Whether Wikileaks is its enemy, or the best friend they can find – one that is brave enough to tell you you have a nasty problem, and to press on you to solve it on time. And whether people like Mike Mullen are its best servants, or its best enemies – the ones that tell you “There is no problem, continue this way, people will never learn of the crimes, truth never comes out”.
If you are still not sure which is the correct position, ask one truly outstanding soldier – Gen. David Petraeus. He will surely be able to tell you the truth… Actually, you can tell it yourself, by using his simple principle – which action decreases the number of your enemies, and increases the number of your friends.
There are always options. The simplest argument to be made is that, at most, nuking one city would probably suffice. There was little need for nuking the second one. Next, one could, conceivably, nuke a landmark instead of a city, prove the destructive power of the device and, still, spare a lot of lives.
No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war.
You'd think nuking one city would have been enough for that...
The Americans didn't have to nuke any cities to test the nuclear bomb, they had already measured it's destructive capacity in the dessert. There is a belief among some historians that dropping the bomb was a way to impress the USSR and this idea does have merit.
As for the second bomb, the US only dropped the second one when the first one failed to elicit the response they desired. Japanese scientists were actually further along in designing their own weapon than the Nazi's were. They had a notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were gambling that the US couldn't make another.
Is there any evidence of that? Any official communication inside the Japanese government?
The Japanese strategy, once it became clear they were losing the war, was to increase the cost in order to force concessions from the Allies. The atomic bomb, by changing the equation to one plane, one bomb, one city destroyed that hope.
The Japanese high command didn't surrender because they lost two more cities, they surrendered because the US demonstrated that it could annihilate cities without giving any opportunity to strike back.
For better or worse, wars aren't won by killing people, they're won by killing hope.
This article, right or wrong, is about perception; your comment perfectly captures the way the same act can be perceived by different groups. Can one of the down modders please explain why they did so? The only thing that is coming to mind is that you disagree with the opinion (and that really is no reason to do a down mod)
A more sensible comparison would be Soviet Union versus some hypothetical repressive theocratic 'caliphate' that Al Quaeda would like to set up. No doubt the unfortunate subjects of such a system would end up feeling the same way as the unfortunate subjects of the Soviet Union.
I agree with him that the US should export their values. Unfortunately if they do more than talk then they are going to come up against people who will violently oppose such a project, and then he'll be denouncing the US as the evil empire again, regardless of the conduct of the opposers.
PS: I feel like there's a lot of spittle flying around in this thread!
As for whether the actions of Bradley Manning will result in the deaths of American soldiers or Afghan informants - I suspect none of us here has the ability to properly evaluate this, and neither does the author of the article.
I was in a moderate islamic country when the cartoons were published and shall I say it was not a comfortable feeling when communicating with locals.
Now read the parent article, which praises an earlier United States - one that had not yet lost its 'moral authority', which primarily consisted of its superior freedom and civil liberties.
If the author's logic is correct, the United States could reduce terrorism by regaining and retaining its moral authority. Yet both the Danish attack and the fatwa against Rushdie were specifically directed against people exercising their civil liberties, the same civil liberties that the author argues were an essential component of the American 'moral authority' that ultimately undermined the USSR.
This is why the author's article is an anti-American screed. However repugnant we might find Abu Ghirab, and whatever our opinions about the war in Iraq, these events are not the root cause of Islamic terrorism in the West.
besides, could you name "western country" not part of the "coalition of the willing" that has seen similar increase in terrorist attacks?
This is a quote from the movie Boogieman: The Lee Atwater Story. (Lee Atwater was a Republican spin-doctor who influenced Karl Rove, the man who helped Bush get elected.)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1262863/
It seems to me when people vote the Republicans into power that America slides backwards for those years.
ps. I'm not American, so I don't really care one way or the other who America elects as president, as long as he (or she) leaves my country alone.
Whoa, Lyndon B. Johnson? You'd have to have severe blinders on to like him, he's probably the worst President since the post-WWII era. Increased war, crime, corruption, poverty (ironically), dysfunction, bureaucracy... dude combines the worst aspects of both parties.
He massively screwed our international relations in a very corrupt fashion to increase his votes among unions. This wasn't public until after his presidency:
> In retrospect, audio tapes from the Johnson White House, revealed a quid pro quo unrelated to chicken. In January 1964, President Johnson attempted to convince United Auto Workers's president Walter Reuther not to initiate a strike just prior the 1964 election and to support the president's civil rights platform. Reuther in turn wanted Johnson to respond to Volkswagen's increased shipments to the United States.[39] The Chicken Tax directly curtailed importation of German-built Volkswagen Type 2 vans in configurations that qualified them as light trucks—that is, commercial vans and pickups.[39] "In 1964 U.S. imports of "automobile trucks" from West Germany declined to a value of $5.7 million—about one-third the value imported in the previous year. Soon after, Volkswagen cargo vans and pickup trucks, the intended targets, "practically disappeared from the U.S. market."[38]
Vietnam, of course.
Immigration Act of '65, which had a good spirit but terrible bureaucratic implementation and very poorly thought out.
Great Society - all of which pretty much backfired. You know when you hear rappers say "I'm from the projects", meaning really dangerous crime-ridden drugged out zones? Yeah, that was LBJ's "Great Housing Projects" - this destroyed black communities, reduced black ownership of business, and coincided with massive increases in violent black on black crime, black on white crime, and addictive drug use.
Gun control.
Riots.
"Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" about Vietnam.
"At Kennedy's death, there were 16,000 American military advisors in Vietnam. As President, Lyndon Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963... Johnson expanded the numbers and roles of the American military following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident ... The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted.[62] It was Johnson who began America's direct involvement in the ground war in Vietnam. By 1968, over 550,000 American soldiers were inside Vietnam."
Should I keep going? Seriously, who was worse than LBJ? Carter or G.W.? Not even close. LBJ was the worst of Carter and GW combined. As a result of his policies, America's budgets, politics, immigration policy, international relations, military all got screwed up, massively increased corruption and bureaucracy, and increased poverty violence and drug use in black communities. He gets credit for the Civil Rights Act, but it was already done under Kennedy's watch at that point.
Clearly the worst President in the post-WWII era. How anyone could think he did anything right is beyond me. You'd have to believe in what he said was his goal as opposed to the real outcomes.