It's because I believe in individual freedom and the right to knowledge and information.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Iran & USA information wars
- Thread starter Brickjectivity
- Start date
For the most part, our government was interested in expansion and economic gain. There was a dispute between factions over whether America should have a plantation economy or an industrial economy, but the industrialists eventually won out. Either way, many Americans were benefiting from this huge land rush, staking their claims and pushing further and further west. You're right that there were those who opposed it and protested against it, but it seems that their voices weren't really heard until the damage was already done. Hasn't that always been the case?
Not sure how an invasion of Japan would have worked out for us if we had tried. I don't think our leaders were thinking of anything that ambitious during the 19th century, and it would have been a disaster for us if they tried.
The US wasn't the only country interested in Japan. Part of what drove our government (along with other governments) was the state of the world at the time where multiple powers were competing and scrambling for territory to colonize/conquer and exploit for resources. Japan realized this, and they wanted in on the game as well. The U.S. was in a similar position, although we were far better off, resource-wise. But much of what we did was rooted in the idea that, if we didn't do it, someone else would. That doesn't make it okay, but it was the way of the world (and in many ways, it still is).
I don't agree with the idea that the Nazis were a "socialist party." Not only did they continue to allow profit and private ownership in the Third Reich (and even maintained contracts with US companies), they were declared, committed enemies of Communism and anything associated with it. This is how Hitler was able to gain absolute power, because of frightened people. The Germans were frightened of Communism and the USSR in the same way that many Americans were frightened of it.
The USSR preached against capitalism and religion because they saw them as harmful to the well-being of the common people. They also called for a world revolution, and there were Communist movements in multiple countries which shared similar beliefs. Keep in mind that WW1 was still fresh in people's memory, and that was a capitalist/imperialist/nationalist war, where millions of common people were set up as pawns to slaughter each other by malignant interests. It was especially bad in Russia, as they were losing badly to the Germans, their people were starving, and their Tsar was an incompetent buffoon who had no business attempting to lead troops in battle. I can't say that I blame them for wanting to overthrow the Tsar and quit the war.
Officially, the Soviet Constitution allowed freedom of religion, even though they discouraged religion.
During the 1920s and 30s, the USSR was not internationally aggressive, and in fact, Stalin shifted the emphasis to building socialism in the USSR and putting the idea of world revolution on the back burner. If an opportunity presented itself, he would take it, but it wasn't like he was going around looking for governments to convert. That started to change as Hitler grew into more and more of a threat. Just as the Germans were frightened of Communism, the Russians had good reason to be frightened of Nazism.
They also had good reason to be frightened of capitalists, too. Our pro-capitalist and other Western governments opposed them from the get go - even before they had a chance to do anything "evil." Even then, there was a progression of events which led to Stalin's rise and the atrocities attributed to him. Many of his victims were fellow Communists, and he would later be strongly denounced by his successor, Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviet Union went through a period of thaw after Stalin, and things gradually got better. Gorbachev implemented Glasnost and Perestroika, encouraging more freedom and openness. Unfortunately, the fall of Gorbachev and the Soviet Union was accelerated by an abortive hardline coup, leading to Yeltsin's rise and the Soviet Union (legally and mostly peacefully) voting itself out of existence.
So, there are Communists, and then there are Communists. They're not all the same; there's quite a difference between Stalin and Gorbachev. Or Stalin and Trotsky.
What if we judged capitalists the same way? The capitalists of the 19th century were truly a horrible lot. They were plantation owners, racists, slaveowners, mine owners, railroaders, robber barons, carpet baggers, sweatshop owners, exploiters of child labor. They were among those who expanded across the continent, rolling over anyone in their way (and they're the ones who stood to benefit the most from that expedition to Japan you mentioned). What if we judged capitalists by that, and only that? It would be a very ugly portrait, just as Communism is portrayed.
In any case, people might have just as much reason to be frightened of that.
I won't deny that their system had many problems, along with much brutality, atrocity, and suffering. It's easy to play the blame game and Monday morning quarterback and say "it's all the Bolsheviks fault," but all I can say is that the history you're addressing here is complicated, to say the least. I'm not saying they were a bunch of good guys, but I am saying that they weren't a threat to the United States. They had more of a reason to feel threatened by us than we ever did of them. Tying this back into the original topic, the creation of CENTO and SEATO came about due to fears of the Soviet Union, although they saw it as encirclement by the West designed to strategically isolate them. Iran was a member of CENTO, along with Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, and the UK.
I guess a key question should be asked: Do we have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, all because many Americans were afraid that Satan was trying to get their children? We might be afraid of Stalin or socialists in Russia or China, but how does that give us the right to meddle in other nations which aren't Russia or China?
If Americans really wanted to stop the Communists from being a threat, then they should have listened to Patton and MacArthur back in the day. If we really did believe them to be so grave a threat, then that would have been the sensible thing to do at the time.
That we didn't can mean only one of two things: Either our leaders didn't really believe they were a threat (which would mean the entire basis for the Cold War and Red Scare was a lie), or they were a bunch of gutless cowards who made a pretense of "fighting communism" by slaughtering the small fry of the world and/or interfering in their internal affairs to some degree or another.
I don't know how many people were murdered or tortured under the Shah's regime, but part of the reason those people suffered as they did was because Americans were frightened of the USSR. But rather than deal with that directly, we decide to install a dictator to murder and torture Iranians. Because we were afraid of Stalin, we punish the Iranians? Is that supposed to make sense?
The editor is crappy today. I'm sorry I had to chop up my reply. The software logged me out while I was editing, and weird things happened. I'm not sure, but I may have duplicated parts or left parts out.
Last edited:
We don't hear about the times when it isn't, only the times when it is. A lot of land was empty due to plagues, so many settlers simply moved into empty plots. Many cleared trees to make fields. Many lived in peace with neighboring indigenous people.
No we didn't want to invade Japan. Had it been empty, sure; but the Japanese were resistant to plague. Hawaii was an opposite case -- destroyed by plagues carried by sailors. Then it became a very ethnically mixed region and was also colonized on top of that. The Queen of the island was taken in a coup. For a time there was slave labor on the pineapple plantations -- people from around the globe. It became a US state around 1950 or so.
I only meant they called themselves socialist. It was in the name, one of the initials. I didn't know the Germans were frightened of communism.
Either that, or the leaders saw capitalism as a threat to their own wealth and influence. I'm not a historian, and it seems like rosy lenses to claim that Stalin was only against capitalism out of sentiment. The soviets preached communism but installed a new tzar. Stalin and Lenin may have claimed that capitalism was the enemy of the people, but they were the center of power. Whoever had their favor had wealth and privilege. Isn't this so? Of course no other countries would take them seriously once this fact was understood.
From the beginning there was not freedom of speech. Freedom of religion was soon ended also.
Perhaps he was a conqueror who conquered his own country first then set his sights abroad? This is common for great generals and leaders. Why should we assume any of these soviet leaders were better?
The abortive hardline coup? Was that the tank episode in which a tank commander refused to fire upon protestors?
I don't know in what way our pro-capitalist and western governments opposed the soviets early on. That is less commonly discussed history.
Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin were not merely communist but thinkers and writers, like our Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. As writers we can judge them and as people who acted certain ways either with their words or against their own words. Thomas Jefferson wrote beautifully but lived a lie. So did Stalin, plus Stalin was a mass murderer. This does not mean that everyone who likes what Jefferson or Stalin writes is a liar or a murderer.
Reason is not so much a part of it as fear. Fear is simply very strong. It is one of the most powerful political forces. He who is scariest has the most enemies.
Maybe the terms aren't that important in this conversation, but in other conversations I'm a pedant about the word right. Rights do not come into it. Do we have the duty? That is the question. I'd say no in most cases we do not, so I'd agree with you but would not use the term right.
I must apologize for not knowing this about Patton and MacArthur. I presume they wanted us to conquer?
Some of our government leaders acted without public permission. They were able to do that because large governments such as ours are too unweildy to properly control. We the people failed to control our government. The USSR fell apart for similar reasons. It didn't have the temperate climate we share nor the economic structure needed to hold such a large body together. It did amazingly well considering everything that was against it. The US involvement in Iran's government was performed by some people who acted arrogantly and without congressional approval. It was an illegal act. It was not constitutional, not good for our country, not Ok.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
As would the US have a responsibility to actually promote freedom and democracy around the world; although I guess one could argue that in a way, America's drone war is freeing the people of Yemen from their mortal shells and allows them to partake in the Democracy of Heaven.
This is true. The ordinary settlers were just common people looking to farm and establish a homestead. It was the bigshot capitalists who were responsible for the atrocities associated with this period.
Japan was much larger and had many more people than tiny Hawaii. I don't believe any country has ever successfully conquered Japan - not until we did it in 1945, and it required 2 atomic bombs. No way we could have done anything remotely close to that in the 19th century.
Hawaii was officially annexed as a territory in 1898 and was admitted as America's 50th state on August 21, 1959.
There was a relatively large Communist Party in Germany, and it was common for Nazis and Communists to have mass brawls in the streets in the years prior to Hitler's rise to power. There was also a Socialist Party as well, in addition to a Social Democratic Party, which was the largest party in Germany up until that point.
We also had (and continue to have) a Socialist Party here in the U.S., although they made a point of saying that they had no connection to the Communist Party whatsoever. The main difference is that the Communist Party supported total revolution, whereas the Socialist Party favored evolutionary, incremental, and peaceful means of achieving their goals.
Well, they were born and raised in Tsarist Russia, so their opposition to capitalism and that form of government was partly influenced by their own experience. I'm not making any claims about possible personal motives they might have had, except to say that a lot of people were thinking along the same lines back in those days.
Do you see why the Russian people would have a grudge against the Tsarist government? There was a chain of events and several years between the time of the Revolution and Stalin reaching a position of absolute power.
"Wealth and privilege" had different meaning under their system. Marxist revolutionaries sometimes have an aversion to bourgeois luxuries and comforts.
All I can tell you is that the Soviet Constitution says otherwise.
C1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part IV (bucknell.edu)
ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality.
The right to work is ensured by the socialist organization of the national economy, the steady growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crises, and the abolition of unemployment.
ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.
ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.
ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native Ianguage, and by the organization in the factories, state farms, machine and tractor stations and collective farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people.
ARTICLE 122. Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.
ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.
ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.
ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
- freedom of speech;
- freedom of the press;
- freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
- freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
ARTICLE 126. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to develop the organizational initiative and political activity of the masses of the people, citizens of the U.S.S.R. are ensured the right to unite in public organizations--trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations,' sport and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies; and the most active and politically most conscious citizens in the ranks of the working class and other sections of the working people unite in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and is the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state.
ARTICLE 127. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court or with the sanction of a procurator.
ARTICLE 128. The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.
ARTICLE 129. The U.S.S.R. affords the right of asylum to foreign citizens persecuted for defending the interests of the working people, or for their scientific activities, or for their struggle for national liberation.
ARTICLE 130. It is the duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. to abide by the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to observe the laws, to maintain labor discipline, honestly to perform public duties, and to respect the rules of socialist intercourse.
ARTICLE 131. It is the duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. to safeguard and strengthen public, socialist property as the sacred and inviolable foundation of the Soviet system, as the source of the wealth and might of the country, as the source of the rosperous and cultured life of all the working people.
Persons committing offenses against public, socialist property are enemies of the people.
ARTICLE 132. Universal military service is law. Military service in the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army is an honorable duty of the citizens of the U.S.S.R.
ARTICLE 133. To defend the fatherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. Treason to the country--violation of the oath of allegiance, desertion to the enemy, impairing the military power of the state, espionage is punishable with all the severity of the law as the most heinous of crimes.
Historically, the Russians tended to do poorly in any attempts at aggressive warfare or conquest. Defensive wars have been a different story.
I'm not sure. Are you referring to the famous footage from the Tiananmen Square protest? It showed that protester standing up to a tank. But that was in China.
In Russia, most of the military didn't go along with the coup. It fizzled out within a few days. The US government at the time didn't seem particularly worried, almost as if they already knew it was going to fail.
Of course it's less commonly discussed history. Most of the Western rhetoric of the Cold War was terribly one-sided, with a very selective telling of history.
But yes, it's true. During the Russian Civil War, which overlapped with World War I, the Allies sent troops to Russia to aid the Whites against the Reds. This actually helped elevate the Bolshevik cause and gave them another reason for people to support them, because they could then say they were fighting to defend Mother Russia against foreign interlopers.
Of course, the opposition to socialism, along with any and all kinds of labor movements, was pretty well entrenched and established among the upper classes of Europe and America decades before the Revolution. Our labor movement in America took a different path, but they went up against manifest opposition from intransigent capitalists who were determined to resist and refuse any demands for better pay, better working conditions, etc. They sent out strikebreakers, thugs to violently beat and kill any disobedient peasants who dared to defy them.
The reason for their opposition is obvious: Greed. They don't kill for principles like freedom or justice. It's pure greed - nothing more. They masquerade as crusaders for liberty and democracy, and of course, they'll rewrite and revise history in such a way so as to make their enemies look like the spawn of Satan. It's an old political tactic which probably goes back before the Roman Empire, but I'd like to think humans have matured at least somewhat since then.
The U.S. was actually one of the last major powers to recognize the USSR, which didn't happen until FDR became President. Interestingly, the Russian Empire was the last major power of Europe to recognize the USA after we became independent.
I would say there's worlds of difference between the kind of system Jefferson and Franklin lived under before the American Revolution, as opposed to what Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin grew up with under the Tsarist government.
In the early days of the Soviet Union, while Lenin was still alive, the Soviet Union was a bit more free and even allowed some elements of capitalism and private property. That was Lenin's New Economic Policy. Russian industrial development and infrastructure was quite a bit behind when compared to the West.
Trotsky didn't think very highly of Stalin. He called him a "mule" and a "mountaineer" and said Stalin was "the great mediocrity of the Party." But Lenin still thought Stalin was useful, and appointed him General Secretary mainly because no one else wanted the job. But that put Stalin in the position of being able to control key party functions, including party security.
After Lenin died, there was no clear successor, but Stalin was able to share power with Kamenev and Zinoviev, as they had their own reasons to oppose Trotsky. Trotsky was eventually forced into exile, and Stalin would ultimately purge Kamenev and Zinoviev, along with many of the other old Bolsheviks.
Stalin ended the New Economic Policy and moved on to the period of Collectivization and Industrialization, which probably represents the bloodiest period of Stalin's reign. There were still private landowners and some peasant farmers who had gotten moderately wealthy under the NEP. The Bolsheviks' main strength was in the cities, although some 80% of the nation's population were peasants working on farms. They were quite resistant to the idea of collectivization and the reorganization of agriculture. They felt like they were getting a raw deal, since they were toiling in the fields to produce food for the cities, and they didn't think they were getting enough back in return. The problem they were facing is that their industries were backward, and they had to try to catch up to the West, since they really had no other viable choice.
But the farmers were stubborn, and they refused to give up their produce. Many of them tried to eat as much as they could, including their seed grain. They would rather destroy the crops themselves than let the Communists have it. This was the response to the policy of collectivization, and it was widespread enough that it led to a famine. This was accompanied by a period of rapid industrialization, laying the foundation for what would prove to be essential to their victory in WW2.
I'm not denying the crimes and atrocities attributed to Stalin, although from all indications, he appeared to be focused more on defending the USSR in this early stage (in addition to consolidating his power internally). No doubt he would have remembered the tremendous ghastly defeats the Russians had suffered at the hands of the Germans in the last war. On the other hand, they might have still held out hope for a Communist revolution in Germany, although once it was clear that Hitler was firmly in power, the Soviets started building T-34s.
Fear is what causes most of the problem.
I don't remember who said it first, but I've heard that people don't vote out of love, they vote out of fear.
I consider a "right" to be a claim. It doesn't necessarily have to be in some kind of a official document ratified by a government (although that often helps).
In some cases, we might be obligated by treaty to help defend another nation if they are attacked, so that would settle the question of legality - if it ever came to that (hopefully not). But in other cases, it's not so clear cut.
We also signed treaties such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact in the 1920s, in which many nations agreed to ban and refrain from aggressive invasions of sovereign countries. The same idea was echoed in the UN Charter, which we also signed.
So, we couldn't just go in and invade a country, since that would violate the treaty. This meant that we had to be more clever and operate more sneakily. Coups like the 1953 installation of the Shah in Iran was just one of many instances of the US interfering in other countries in the name of anti-communism.
I agree that we didn't have the right to do it, although apologists might argue that it was necessary for "national security." Black ops, secret wars, coups, proxy governments, along with hot wars in places like Korea and Vietnam. How much danger were we actually in that required such an extensive and expensive intelligence network and military-industrial complex? Naturally, the Soviet Union (and later, China) responded in kind. What else could they do? Surrender?
Patton wanted to attack the USSR after the end of WW2. MacArthur wanted to invade and conquer China during the Korean War, but Truman held him back and ultimately removed him from his post as Supreme Commander. But they were clearly very staunch anti-communists, reflective of the overall anti-communist sentiment among America's leadership, even if they were far more extreme than moderates like Truman and Eisenhower.
We allowed our fears to cloud our judgment, and the government was given too much power and had the tools and resources to carry out their agenda. The CIA and the NSA never even existed until the late 1940s, and they came about due to fear. All of those "alphabet soup" agencies grew and became more powerful, not because of big spending, big government liberals, but because of militarists, warmongers, and national security fanatics.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Here's a short Wikipedia article to get you started:
Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War - Wikipedia
About 13,000 American soldiers fought in the Civil War, alongside British, French, and Japanese interventionist expeditions.
I think you are arguing that government must be in place and set limits on how much a person may own. I am partial to that idea, because there is a limited amount of property to go around. I think that a person should be allowed to own quite a lot but not so much that no one else can thrive. How much? Well I am in favor of trust busting, breaking up large scale industry. Other people think differently about it. I don't view capitalism as completely self regulating, but I think it regulates some things that government regulates poorly. It keeps people motivated to innovate, to try new ideas, to attempt to build successful ventures.
The tzars and other monarchs of Europe (and Eurasia) had a concept of divine right, but this was eroded in Europe by the newer concepts written about by John Locke and by the success of America, France, Britain etc. Before them it was assumed that land rights and other rights came from God through to the royalty. New ideas began to erode this in Europe. I don't know whether they did in Russia which was transformed by Marx's ideas. I gather that Marx had no use for the concept of ownership or rights as used previously. He was for a completely different world, even more different than what the libertarians wanted.
It is an impressive document with many high ideals. I can see why people signed up.
No, not 'Tank man'. I'm speaking about Sergey Yevdokimov, the tank commander who defied orders and prevented the coup. He ordered his tanks to surrounded parliament but then turned them to point away from it.
That is very good guy vs bad guy thinking. People believe in capitalism and libertarianism, so they don't merely support them out of greed. Money is used in greed, yes, but its also a tool to distribute wealth, to facilitate trade, to help people. So is ownership. Its not like ownership was invented as a weapon to destroy lives. It is a stopgap to manage scarcity, and it has pluses and minuses. Even most kings believe they are necessary. If they think they aren't necessary they tend to either go crazy or abdicate.
I'd quote more of your posts, but the editor keeps running out of words! Some very interesting content about the USSR.
That damn coup. They thought they were being clever and got us inextricably tied up with making a lot of people miserable.
We didn't have a duty to do it, either. Its not our business to fix other places. They have to fix things for themselves or the patch won't stick. Syria, Lebanon etc. These situations are too complicated for voters to understand, so we don't belong in them and neither do our diplomats.
Blooded generals are dangerous. They do well in war, but then they can turn around and conquer their own country.
We are 50 states. That is a lot of states to govern. Its not efficiently governed by a central power. There are advantages to centralized power, such as the ability to introduce broad reforms (desegregation), the ability to do great works (putting a person in the moon); but there are many disadvantages, too.
I think much of it depends on how equitably it's distributed and what purpose it serves for the larger society. I'm not against all capitalism. In America, there were some capitalists who were reasonable enough and had the political foresight to learn to take less for themselves for the greater good. These may have been more of the liberal/progressive variety who supported FDR, JFK, and other liberal politicians. In essence, they saved capitalism by making it better for the working classes of America. For a time, it worked quite nicely, and we're still enjoying some of the remnants of those reforms. However, I've noticed that, since the Reagan era, many capitalists have been chipping away at those ideas and pushing more for a laissez-faire, anarcho-capitalist society. As our result, our economy has mostly stagnated, while industries have been outsourced and our infrastructure rots.
Some of our problems are more related to politics, sociology, culture, and other factors as well - so it's not all due to the economic system. But we've grown to be very materialistic, very consumerist, luxury-minded, money-oriented, with everyone trying to keep up with the Kardashians. This is what our culture has degenerated to, so the economic system somehow seems to play a central role in it all.
The West changed largely due to the rise of an activist labor movement which gained enough support so as to be able to eventually operate legally. In countries where that's not allowed, it makes it much easier for revolutionary agitators to gain recruits. Plus, with the land, resources, and wealth generated by colonialism and expansionism through the 19th century, the US, Britain, France, and others were quite wealthy and could well afford to share some of the spoils. They had no pressing reason to be so miserly, so liberal and progressive social programs became more palatable.
In Russia, it was different for a variety of reasons, but the result was that their industrial growth moved quite slowly, and they were far behind the West. They had very few factories or railroads, compared to other countries. Even though they reached a level of prestige and gained a lot of territory after the Napoleonic Wars, they didn't seem to know what to do with it. Plus, they were a multi-national empire with various nationalities not really wanting to be part of it. They were also very strongly rooted in tradition, even if their traditions were becoming more anachronistic in the changing world.
I think there were many who wanted to make an honest go of it. Just because someone chooses socialism, it doesn't automatically make them an evil or horrible person. It may have been especially bad in Russia, especially in the 20s and 30s, right after the Revolution. There was a lot of hatred, anger, and resentment, fed by massive wars and centuries of tsarist abuse.
I thought this was a telling exchange in the movie Nicholas and Alexandra, where it's after the Revolution and the Tsar is being held with his family at a house in Yekaterinburg, just before he is executed. His son's attendant, Nagorny, had struck one of the guards after he tried to steal something from the Tsar's son. As a result, he was taken away to be executed.
[as Nagorny is to be executed]
Tsarevich Alexei: I'd like to kill them.
Tsar Nicholas II: Wait and see. They'll do what's right.
Tsarevich Alexei: I know him. He's a murderer.
Tsar Nicholas II: He's a thoughtful man. He'll send Nagorny back to us. He's not a monster. I've never known a heart without some murder in it. I made these men. They are our Russians. I am responsible for what they are. I let them starve. I put them in prisons. And I shot them. If there's hatred in them now, I put it there. But they ARE filled with love. And mercy, too. You must remember that.
Tsarevich Alexei: They are all murderers.
[the execution shot is heard outside]
Tsarevich Alexei: I'd like to kill them all.
Oh, okay, now I remember. The Soviet Union probably wouldn't have collapsed if not for that coup.
I understand what you're saying, and when speaking of it in the abstract, it makes sense. But in practice, human nature tends to foul things up. The idea that "power corrupts" seems to be a constant throughout human history. In our highly capitalist system, money is a way of facilitating more power, and when there are disparities in the economic system, then there is an imbalance of political power.
I'm not saying that makes each and every capitalist a bad person, but such a system is insufficient for safeguarding against the abuses of power that we've seen in this and in other capitalist countries. The fact that our economy has somehow grown dependent upon other countries where they don't have our labor laws or other protections for workers is also somewhat telling.
The problem is that, by and large, most of this country's collective wealth has been built on a largely predatory economy, and while we've tried to dissociate ourselves from that and denounce our past, we still want to keep all our luxury and wealth (and the global power that comes with it). I believe this is the great contradiction that we currently face, and it's from this that most of our problems emanate. We want to have our cake and eat it, too. This is why we're stuck. This is why we can't go on or move forward as a nation.
One thing that bothers me about all of this is the gaslighting, manipulation, posturing, and other mendacity which comes from our government, politicians, and media. I've seen it all my life, and it was even more prevalent during the Cold War era. The internet has changed the landscape quite a bit - some good, some bad.
They seemed to do that a lot during those years. They had some successes in thwarting communists, although they let Cuba slip through their fingers. Vietnam also didn't go very well. And even in Iran, while the revolutionaries weren't communists, they had a different kind of revolution in mind in 1979.
I agree, and I've argued this same point many times in the past. But those who advocate for interventionism and global militarism can be very aggressive and pushy in their methods of debate and styles of persuasion. Note what I said above about masquerading as crusaders for liberty and democracy. People who opposed the war in Vietnam were accused of treason. This is the kind of mentality one goes up against when calling for reform of our foreign policy. Oftentimes, interventionists will point to history, such as the 1938 Munich Conference and the Allied policy of Appeasement.
I remember watching the Phil Donahue Show once, and something he said stuck with me: "What would you warmongers ever do without Hitler? He gives a good name to war."
Eisenhower had much more finesse.
I agree, there are advantages and disadvantages. One of the key reasons for centralizing power is that humans are humans and are protected by the Constitution wherever they may go in the U.S.
Partially supported by the new 'Liberal' churches (new because they had been cut off by the fundamentalist churches for not being literalist biblicists). I always include the impact of the church when calculating the causes for problems and successes. The church is at fault or deserves credit. I don't view it as a passive element. It is to be held responsible. It is, if you will, our own greatest communist claimant. Governments come and go, and senators come and go. Longer term institutions bear the responsibility for the wrongs of a country. The church, believe in Jesus or not, is the responsible institution. If the church was doing what it claimed it was then the 'Greedy capitalists' will be held in check, and the church was always far, far more influential than government or technology. It simply didn't do anything that it was supposed to do. It backstabbed us. The same goes for problems in the USSR. The churches failed. You don't even consider them to be a factor! That's how badly they failed.
That is sad, but its a great story about a brave individual refusing to fire upon civilians and saving his country from a bloodbath that would never be forgotten.
Power does corrupt, and size increases power. Our country is too big. Just as the monopolies are too big, so is our country. I realize that events made this necessary and comment on that further down. The government is in charge of too many things, too many people and too much land. That kind of power always corrupts. Obviously its hard not to centralize authority when people try to avoid responsibility, when the salt of the earth isn't salty.
Naturally I say the church is at fault, but I'm one of the few people who hold the church responsible for doing what its supposed to. Historians don't, and politicians don't. Ministers seem to think "Oh well its in the past." Its not in the past. Its today and now, and only religious people have the power to change it.
A geeky science fiction fan might even call it a 'Seldon Crisis'. I don't know if you know what I'm referring to. I'm not making light of your comments. I'm suggesting a great idea for when you are discussing it. Its a pivotal crisis which will determine the success or failure of some future better version of America and maybe of other places. We want to envision improvement and a better future. Thus calling it a Seldon Crisis seems cool. How do we resolve this crisis? We replace the institutions that are not working with ones that do work.
...and churchmen. Yes, wealthy people have influence, and businesses and senators etc. They aren't the people who say what is and what shall be. They are more like sheep in a way and crowd pleasers. Its church people who make Walmart the hog that it is. Its church people who have together made America into an oil barron, a sugar barron, a coca cola barron, who crushed all the mom and pop shops in favor of Amazon and Walmart etc. Not them exclusively but them and all the various religious groups are the ones who can turn things for the better.
Good point.
Yes, but that was only made necessary by the failure of the religious institutions to suppress racism and slavery. We needed a strong central government to reign in the madness, but it brought other madness with it.
When you say the churches failed, are you referring to the Russian Orthodox church prior to the Russian Revolution? There may be a great deal of truth to this.
In the U.S., I would credit religion with supporting the Abolition movement, although I'm not sure how much religious support there was for labor unions or workers marching for better pay and working conditions.
I think the main complaint that communists and socialists have about religion is that it keeps society backward and acts more as impediment towards social progress or political advancement. A religion which tells oppressed people to turn the other cheek and/or submit to tyranny is only working to help facilitate tyranny and injustice.
Yes, those were interesting times. To me, I find history fascinating, the way that events from long ago and far away can still affect life in the here and now.
Churches have some influence, just as the media, academia, and corporate America have influence. Part of the problem is what these institutions do with the influence they hold. I don't think it's a matter of people not holding the church responsible, although I think a lot of people associate religion with right-wing conservatism and corporate capitalism. However, considering that money is power in our society, people might view Wall Street and big banking as the center of power, while the church is in a lower position within that pecking order. This is why many view capitalists as holding the real power over less affluent politicians who are compelled to suck up for donations.
If the church wanted to oppose this mentality, then I suppose they could, but then they'd be alienating the monied interests they need to stay afloat. It seems the church would rather feed the poor and be called saints, rather than ask why they are poor and be called communists.
I'm only vaguely familiar with what a Seldon Crisis is, but I'm talking about a more fundamental contradiction of values and principles. It's analogous to the crisis of climate change. We've grown used to certain ways of doing things which are/were destructive to the environment. Now, we're being told that we have to change those ways - and people are resisting. Some are saying that the changes we should make may not be feasible at this point. We can't just stop using cars, planes, or electronics. We can't just stop making things in factories. (And humans can't seem to stop breeding either, so the population and consumption keeps going up, up, up.) Is that what you'd call a "Seldon Crisis"?
In other words, we're finding out now that everything we've been doing for the past 200-300 years has been wrong, and now we have to change everything from top to bottom if we want to survive.
Another example would be the fight over gun control. Humans invented guns, and governments eagerly demanded them in great numbers - so they could invade and conquer other lands. America has become very large, wealthy, and powerful due to guns, but now, some people are saying "No, we shouldn't have guns, since people shoot each other with them." But it's impractical. We can't just get rid of all the guns. Nor can we say that only governments should be allowed to have guns, especially if we consider it a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." In any case, people are going to have guns, since someone already invented them. You just can't put that genie back in the bottle. Would that be another Seldon Crisis?
I can see your point. Many churchmen have been very staunch right-wingers and flag-wavers. Many are pro-capitalist. I can understand their opposition to the USSR because they saw them as atheist, although sometimes I think the churchmen are more concerned with the survival of their institution than they are about the principles the institution was built to uphold. This was also a problem with the Communist Party, as the party became more important to them than the actual principles they claimed to believe in.
Well, someone should have noticed the discrepancy when the Founders signed a document which proclaimed that "all men are created equal," yet founded a society which didn't practice that principle (among many others). It's as blatant as a church claiming to be Christian while openly practicing human sacrifice to appease the Devil. You'd think that somebody would have noticed something sooner.
And some people wonder why the West is so hated by many.