Amnes. Intern. finds United States to be Morally Abject

Mike · 05-29-2005, 05:26 PM

Sorry I didn't see this post before... I skipped over it because I hate you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Biglesworth

Mike, this is something i've always wondered about and maybe you could cast light on. At what point did America (particularly) begin to actually feel threatened by the communist economic model and its spread? What was the nature of this antipathy? I've never fully understood why America would so venemously opposed to an alternative, perhaps untested economic model?

As far as i've understood it, the ideological war on communism was mostly a veil for a more real and straightforward battle for global dominance between the US and USSR. Was the fight against communism really just a fight against the spread and fruition of soviet influence? To what degree was the Cold War actually ideological? (you don't need to get into identity politics to answer that one)

The first legitimate fears of seeds of Communism in the United States probably began around 1915 - 1920, and heightened after the Bolsheviks took power in October of 1918. The fear in the United States was more a fear of mass unionization, as opposed to a political revolution.. or opposed to a Communist democratically elected. Unionization, while good in moderate doses, was partially at fault for tearing apart European economies, and is as much to blame for Germany's post-war economic plummet as the tithes demmanded by the successful powers of World War I (well, all but the US... which made the United States and Woodrow Wilson very unpopular in Europe). Woodrow Wilson, as you know, was interested in establishing his League of Nations... Tin-foil-hat wearers challenge this as being an attempt to make a world police, yada yada... but it was more an attempt to catch the United States up with the rest of the world, puting them on an even keel... power-wise. They also wanted Germany to join, to prevent future outbreaks of war... and by belittling Germany and destroying their economy, Germany would be less apt to join the league of nations. The Socialist model of society ... the abolishment of national territory for a cohesive world-people, differentiated through their nationality, but connected as people ... stood as abject to Wilson's League of Nations. Furthermore, there was economic turmoil in the United States with the unionization of industry ... so it seemed like a threat. Of course, Marx himself was against unionization, but this was routinely ignored by those fearful of Communist ideology.

What communism also represented was something that wasn't only an new, untested economic model ... but it demmands a restructuring of society... abolition of the family, abolition of God (which preceeds the abolition of a moral foundation), and then, of course, the abolition of private property. The United States was built on the championing of private property and personal ownership (though this has been modified largely by American progressives and liberals over the last 200 years [income tax and eminant domain being their greatest successes])... So a model challenging the fabric of American society, and then the base of American economics (that base being individual ownership), and the American entrepenuerial meritocratic philosophy (a philosophy that may or may not really ever be practiced, but that so many held too... especially 70 - 80 years ago) wasn't entirely popular.

The US had a tired relationship with Stalin... as most countries did, and towards the close of World War II, though the USSR was the reason the allies won in the European theater, both the UK and the US were opposed to Soviet Stalinism. Churchill summarizes his thoughts on Stalin and the USSR well in his Sinew's of Peace speech ... which Reagans Evil Empire address almost mimmicks (though lacking the racialism of CHurchhill's). The US, in the 1950's had a moral restrengthening led by the rebirth of the traditional family ... and Communism, like it did in the 20's and 30's, represented something that was contrary to this reflowering. This is where the Cold War took off ... because the US Gov't did not want to make American philosophy look inferior to Soviet philosophy ... represented by their economic, militaristic, and scientific achievments. By ... '52 (?), the Soviets show the world that they have Nukes, and the military arms race explodes. The rest we all know about (space race stuff, all of that).

Was the fight against communism really just a fight against the spread and fruition of soviet influence? To what degree was the Cold War actually ideological?

When China went in '49, it was considered one of the greatest failures of American diplomacy ... especially because up until 1948, it seemed like the KMT, the Chinese nationalist party were handling the Communists. The CPC, under Mao, idealized Soviet Stalinism... and how he managed to take Soviet Russia from an under-industrialized agricultural society and turn it into a thriving military industrial giant in about 9 years. Truman was vehemently opposed to communism, as much as of the republicans who are known for their anti-communism... This was mostly because he was Roosevelt's Vicepresident, and Roosevelt shared the concern that Churchhill had for Stalin and Soviet Russia. The CHinese falling to the Communists looks like a huge failure for the Democrats. The Republicans had been locked out of the presidency for 20 years at this point... and needed something to regroup under. They took the charge of being anti-communist, and tried to portray the Democrats as a weak party who would not stop the growing international threat of communism. This has still stuck around until today, though it shifts to represent the modern threat ... Republicans (including myself) still paint the Democrats as weak on international relations. To the credit of Republicans, the Dems do nothing to defend this idea ... as they have a rich failure of preventing global, political catastrophes (The rise of Fascism under FDR, the Rise of Communism under FDR and Truman, involvement in Vietnam under Kennedy; Genocide in Europe under FDR, Genocide in the USSR under FDR, Genocide in Cambodia under Carter, Genocide in Rwanda under Clinton, Genocide in the Balkins under Clinton, Genocide in North Korea under Clinton).

---- I have to meet some friends at a restaurant ... sorry that this is so long... I'll finish it when I get back in an hour or two ----

Mr Biglesworth · 05-29-2005, 10:58 PM

You're a goddamn living encyclopedia, Mike, please continue.

Mike · 05-31-2005, 03:55 AM

I really sort of forgot where I was, historically.

The war on Communism waged by the conservatives was an attempt to get power in the United States. While this is partially a criticism of conservatives, it's justified, because they hadn't been able to gain any momentum for about 20 - 25 years, politically. And Communism was perfect, as it still provided a threat (a threat to American values, American society, the economy, and also militarily... though I see most of the military race similar to the space race, where they both militarized not to use those weapons against one another, but to show each other that they *could* use those weapons) and it was something that the Democrats really weren't that good at handling... first with Wilson and the February/October Revolutions (though there was nothing the US could do with that, nothing they really wanted to do either), then with FDR's mishandling of unionization in ... maybe like 1933/1934 or so, with Truman and China, and then with Kennedy and Vietnam. Many of these weren't really out-right failures ... but they were obvious and in the public spotlight (especially with China).

So, the Republicans used the Communist threat to gain a foothold in American politics. It actually birthed the Neoconservatives, Republicans who still held conservative economic and social viewpoints, but were able to use the ferved passions of progressive liberals (this is something that I still think that Progressive liberals in the US resent... I'm not a NeoCon, but the *hatred* for "the Neocons in Washington" runs through almost every noteworthy piece of liberal journalism ... because they use the same techniques, word play, etc, that successful liberals had used [FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton--the most successful democratic liberals of the 20th century--share the same techniques that Reagan used in their speeches... they're principalled, they play on passions, they harp on themes that run through society ... it's he heart of any good speech... this was something that conservatives could never do before the Neocons mastered it]).

THough, while the Conservatives used the Communist failures of the Dems against them, they also had a resounding success with dealing with Communism. Nixon, though remembered as one of the few presidents to leave office before his term expired, was brokered international relations between China and the US ... this was a huge victory... though it was shakey, it has stood as the basis for Chino-American diplomacy for the last 40 years. Though Korea is still a political and military hotbed, Eisenhower managed to prevent the Chinese-backed Korean communists from taking over Korea... though the nation remains divided and the war is shrouded in indecision and confusion. Reagan, of course, is heralded for bringing about the end of the Soviet Union ... and while I still don't always buy into it ... IF Reagan did not take the hard-line approach that he did, it is arguable whether the USSR would have actually fallen (though, it's also arguable that it never really did).

Though the Cold War ended in 1991, US politics is still dictated by its rules. It's 4:54... This is mostly what the Cold War and the USSR meant to US national politics. I still haven't really addressed the nature of the Cold War between the US and USSR.... Though that's a difficult question to answer, because the policies within the Soviet Union are still shrowded in some mystery.

I'll come back tomorrow probably.

Mr Biglesworth · 05-31-2005, 05:31 PM

Keep it coming, Mike, I'm enjoying it.
I bought a book on Nixon's presidency... 'President Nixon' by Richard Reeves, I thought it would be a good way to get a snapshot of American political life and history. I also won an american government textbook in my Political Science class, I'll have to make the time to look at it sometime.

Mr Biglesworth · 06-08-2005, 11:24 PM

Damnit Mike where's my history lessons?

05-31-2005, 05:31 PM	#4
Mr Biglesworth Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: I live in London Posts: 862	Keep it coming, Mike, I'm enjoying it. I bought a book on Nixon's presidency... 'President Nixon' by Richard Reeves, I thought it would be a good way to get a snapshot of American political life and history. I also won an american government textbook in my Political Science class, I'll have to make the time to look at it sometime. Last edited by Mr Biglesworth : 05-31-2005 at 05:36 PM.

05-29-2005, 10:58 PM	#2
Mr Biglesworth Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: I live in London Posts: 862	You're a goddamn living encyclopedia, Mike, please continue.

05-31-2005, 03:55 AM	#3
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	I really sort of forgot where I was, historically. The war on Communism waged by the conservatives was an attempt to get power in the United States. While this is partially a criticism of conservatives, it's justified, because they hadn't been able to gain any momentum for about 20 - 25 years, politically. And Communism was perfect, as it still provided a threat (a threat to American values, American society, the economy, and also militarily... though I see most of the military race similar to the space race, where they both militarized not to use those weapons against one another, but to show each other that they could use those weapons) and it was something that the Democrats really weren't that good at handling... first with Wilson and the February/October Revolutions (though there was nothing the US could do with that, nothing they really wanted to do either), then with FDR's mishandling of unionization in ... maybe like 1933/1934 or so, with Truman and China, and then with Kennedy and Vietnam. Many of these weren't really out-right failures ... but they were obvious and in the public spotlight (especially with China). So, the Republicans used the Communist threat to gain a foothold in American politics. It actually birthed the Neoconservatives, Republicans who still held conservative economic and social viewpoints, but were able to use the ferved passions of progressive liberals (this is something that I still think that Progressive liberals in the US resent... I'm not a NeoCon, but the hatred for "the Neocons in Washington" runs through almost every noteworthy piece of liberal journalism ... because they use the same techniques, word play, etc, that successful liberals had used [FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton--the most successful democratic liberals of the 20th century--share the same techniques that Reagan used in their speeches... they're principalled, they play on passions, they harp on themes that run through society ... it's he heart of any good speech... this was something that conservatives could never do before the Neocons mastered it]). THough, while the Conservatives used the Communist failures of the Dems against them, they also had a resounding success with dealing with Communism. Nixon, though remembered as one of the few presidents to leave office before his term expired, was brokered international relations between China and the US ... this was a huge victory... though it was shakey, it has stood as the basis for Chino-American diplomacy for the last 40 years. Though Korea is still a political and military hotbed, Eisenhower managed to prevent the Chinese-backed Korean communists from taking over Korea... though the nation remains divided and the war is shrouded in indecision and confusion. Reagan, of course, is heralded for bringing about the end of the Soviet Union ... and while I still don't always buy into it ... IF Reagan did not take the hard-line approach that he did, it is arguable whether the USSR would have actually fallen (though, it's also arguable that it never really did). Though the Cold War ended in 1991, US politics is still dictated by its rules. It's 4:54... This is mostly what the Cold War and the USSR meant to US national politics. I still haven't really addressed the nature of the Cold War between the US and USSR.... Though that's a difficult question to answer, because the policies within the Soviet Union are still shrowded in some mystery. I'll come back tomorrow probably.

06-08-2005, 11:24 PM	#5
Mr Biglesworth Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: I live in London Posts: 862	Damnit Mike where's my history lessons?