From: kovarik@utkux1.utk.edu (SaintMeechTheChaste)
Subject: Re: A new source of Angst.....
Organization: University of Tennessee Oil and Loob Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:15:43 GMT

In article <18132@acorn.co.uk> ABienek@acorn.co.uk (Alex Bienek) writes:
>
>The Soviet economy was a failure all by itself, bled dry by the demands
>of the arms race spurred on by megalomania more than US subterfuge.
>Ironically, the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union could be
>the greatest tragedy of this century rather than the greatest triumph
>because its failure was not due to the system but to the greed of 
>people implementing it. Generations from now people may be mature
>enough to make the system work, but will it ever get another chance ? 
>

I'd agree that it was a failure all by itself, but I would also claim
that its demise was hastened by the policies of the West.   It's not
so much Socialism that failed, since the government was not really
Socialist at all, but one in which one set of privileged individuals was
was replaced by another (members of the Communist Party).  Calling
the Soviet Union Socialist is an insult to real Socialists.

I don't know if I would call what the Soviet Union did in its military
program megalomaniacal, either.  It's a country that has been repeatedly
invaded by foreign armies over the last several hundred years, and that is
certainly reasonable cause to be xenophobic.

I cannot consider it to be a complete failure also, inspite
of the failures of the government of the Soviet Union.  Not that I would
support the totalitarian policies of the Olde Soviet Union.  However,
I believe that many things we take for granted, like social programs, we have
as a response to the fear of a Socialist revolution in this, and other
countries in the West, things whose origins were in The Depression, and before.
As bad as the end results of the Soviet Revolution were, it had a major impact
on how we treat members of our own society, for the message of Socialism
was perceived in a more positive way by the working class in the West  in
the early part of this century than it is now, and this certainly affected
the policies of the governments in the west.  

The fact is that alot of early Socialists from Western countries who eventually
found their way into the Socialist Paradise of the Soviet Union were
strongly disillusioned by what they experienced there (Stalin did not
exactly wear a white hat).  However, the basic ideas of Socialism have
more to do with treating all people in a more egalitarian way, things
not really successfully accomplished by the Soviet Union, and it is these
ideas which spread, which affect our society today.

>>Eh?  What sort of superiority are you talking about?   3 nuclear weapons
>>to our 1?  Nonsense.  At their peak strength, they could have overrun
>>Europe in a week.  The only way they could have been stopped is with 
>>tactical nuclear weapons.  Clearly they had sufficient numerical superiority
>>to pull that off, but they didn't. 
>
>I think they were aware that their weapons technology was inferior and also
>they could see that realistically it would rapidly escalate to a nuclear
>exchange which no one would win. But if they could have seen a way.....
>

I think you're  grabbing at straws. 

>>The collapse of the Soviet Union did not cause them. But the Soviet
>>Union did keep all these forces in check.  Sort of like a police force,
>
>more like a Gestapo !
>

However you describe it, there are probably many people who are nostalgic
for the good old days.  Perchance you should take a poll of members of 
various unnamed ethnic minorities in this country to see how they perceive
the police forces of the communities they live in?  Like in LA?

>>If there had been a controlled transition of power in these countries,
>>it is possible that a new strong source of authority could have developed,
>>instead of allowing local warlords to run amok. 
>
>Nice idea, but after being suppressed for so long the people wanted their
>freedom, and they wanted it NOW. Anything less just wouldn't do. 
>

Hey! Yeah!  There's a Hurricane!  The lights go out!  I decide to claim
my neighbour's 36 inch TV, and carry off his wife!!! Geez, after watching him
watch that Damned TV throught the window, and on top of that him having a 
nice wife too, I'm green with envy, and when I get that chance, when the cops 
are busy elsewhere, I'm gonna take what I want....   Freedom, and anarchy......
Yeehaw!!!!

>>Should Iraq be the only country in the Middle East WITHOUT weapons of
>>mass distruction?  The Iranians, Syrians, and Israelis are stockpiling
>>weapons of mass destruction of all sorts,
>
>I think it's just the case the Saddam Hussien has reach the top of
>the list of 'Mad Bastards Likely to Use Them' and for this reason
>alone must be dealt with first.
>

Agreed!!! Let's finish off Iraq!!!  Then let's knock off Iran, and 
Syria!  Maybe Jordan too. Heck! There's no end to this.

>
>>There are better ways to solve problems than by blowing up people
>
>I agree, but did you ever try negotiating with the school bully to
>stop beating you up ?
>

On the other hand, did you ever leave the school bully a bleeding
corpse on the playground?  There are always methods of dealing with
these sorts of things without going to extremes.

>Yeh, I wish good could triumph over evil every time, just like
>the movies, but it ain't gonna happen just yet. In fact, looking
>around this world, one would be sorely tempted to put ones money
>on the bad guy.
>

I'm not saying that we should not act to protect the human rights of
people elsewhere.  I'm suggesting, however that what we do should
be balanced.  That we do not annihilate Country B to protect Country A.
In the war with Iraq, not only were many tens of thousands of Iraqui
military killed, but as a result of the destruction of the infrastructure
of the country, one to two hundred thousand young children (whom we would 
describe as innocents in the conflict) died as a result of destruction
of medical facilities, famine, and so on, who would have lived otherwise.

While on the other hand we are slow to respond to assist the millions
of refugees in the former Yugoslavia, nor to make more than a token
attempt to halt the killing there.  

See what I mean?  I am not really trying to defend Saddam Hussein,
or the policies of the Soviet Union. I am just trying to reflect upon
how we should encourage change for the better in other countries.

					Meech