RoR: Forum

Marcus - thank you for taking that line of reasoning head-on. It's the kind of myth that can only breed complacency. Evil can only win by default.

Jason

Post 21

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 1:02pm

The fall of Communism was just a cosmic blip - an unfortunate twist of fate - a downturn in the economy. Nothing at all to do with Reagan and Thatcher turning up the heat on the arms-race and thereby giving Gorbachev encouragement and leverage to start making reforms.

No it wasn't a cosmic blip - given the inherent flaws of the communist system it was surely more or less an absolute and unavoidable certainty . The question was never really "if" it would collapse, but "when". How much the "when" had to do with Thatcher and Reagan is debatable, but the example of free-market reforms in the 1980s probably had at least as much to do with it as the arms race.

As for the poll on George W Bush, I voted "probably".

MH

Post 22

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 1:05pm

First of all, it wasn't something pro-communists say, but rather what we can perceive, when we look at the events (f.e.) in the DDR. It was mostly the ideal of a free society and they had perceived that their society wasn't free.

I don't say that the USA had no role in it, but I don't believe that it was a military role, but rather a symbolic one.
The first things people wanted in the former DDR, were all those gadgets of prosperity that were available in the US. I know this is hard to understand for a someone inclined on military solutions only.
It was the ideal of the USA, of a free society, where your rights were not ripped apart by a faceless machinery of the state, that brought the wall down and subsequently all the other Soviet nations.
It was Gorbatchov, who fought against the resistance in his own party, because he knew that there was nothing else to do. There was nothing to be won if they delayed anymore. It would have resulted in a real revolution, that could have ignited Russia as well, so they rather tried "Perestroika" and "Glasnost" and lost some satelites.

You can't bring up the wars in Angola or Afghanistan, because those were substituted wars, wars at the edges of the battle-field. It'd be the same if you bring the Cuba Crises as an example. Despite the chaos it wrecked and the danger it posed, it changed nothing.
The wars in Afghanistan and Angola changed nothing (seen what happened in Afghanistan two years ago, I believe the US intervention might even be the fuel for its own War on Terror. (Who sponsored the Taliban against the Soviets?)).

I also would like to add that Konrad Adenauer (among others) had also spoken against the eastern socialist societies and that the Federal Republic of Germany never fell from this stance. Perhaps we were so resistent, because all the nuclear weapons, all the slaughterhouses were so close to our borders.

I give in to your argument about arms-race, because this was indeed a helpful factor (and I have also been in favor of the NATO Resolution to double the armament compared to Soviet standards).
In the end, however, I don't believe the USA won in the Cold War, because it fought Wars in Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam or Korea, but rather because it lead by example, because Reagan never gave in, neither to the Russians, nor to the statists at home. If you corrupt the example at home, what signal would that have been?

P.S.:

Well, then where is the mark, when we can't sacrifice domestic liberty for liberty abroad (even UNCERTAIN liberty)?
I mean, we are talking here about the Patriot Act (who will not be abolished by the Republicans ever) and we are talking about some Wars abroad, who have yet to show that they will lead to "more" freedom or just a new kind of tyrannic state.
As I see it now, there is just a lot of change, blood and fire in the Middle East, that either brings all to ash or that will burn to a blinding flame of Liberty. But that is still uncertain...

(Edited by Max on 3/10, 1:10pm)

Post 23

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 2:57pm

"The first things people wanted in the former DDR, were all those gadgets of prosperity that were available in the US."

So they just needed 50 years to get around to it?

The only reason that they revolted then and not earlier was because the people and government of the DDR realized that the USSR was now in a kowtowing position towards the west (thanks to Reagan and Thatcher) - and would not oppose a popular uprising.

Post 24

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 3:23pm

Yes and No. The DDR couldn't do much without the Soviet military, but what they did was enough. They tried to arrest people, but you don't have a lot of options, when your people are running from you (within a few months 100000 tried to escape through Tchecheslowakia or to Austria).

I also believe that Gorbatchev only issued Perestroika and Glasnost, because the Communist countries couldn't compete any more.
Of course, the resistance of Regean and Thatcher (among Others) were one constant in the equation, but economic pressure and social pressure was the most obvious.
Just look at it, they couldn't compete in the military race anymore. If the US or Europe wanted to outmatch them, they could have done this easily. I think it was quite clever of the falling Soviets to get the US to extend them a hand give them back a humane face. If you look on how Putin-Russia is seen today, we can see the consequences of this truly wicked game.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, Gorbatchev has given Russia a future, in which it mustn't apologize for any of the victims from Soviet Russia.

You also see this in the fashionable "Che Guevara" - Cult or the idea that Stalin and Lenin weren't "all too bad after all".

I grant that the US played a role in the fall of Soviet Russia, even an important one. But it was not the military intervention abroad that granted it the victory, but the "Leading by Idealism and Example".
So, that's why I tend to believe that the US economy and the Image as a Free Society (which it has lost some time ago and which Ayn Rand has also critized) are better weapons than any interventionist policy ever produced...

Post 25

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 4:03pm

"I also believe that Gorbatchev only issued Perestroika and Glasnost, because the Communist countries couldn't compete any more."

Max,

The USSR couldn't compete economically with the west for 70 years.
They couldn't compete during the collectivism of the twenties, which resulted in human canabalism and mass starvation.
They couldn't compete during the bloody purges of the thirties.
They couldn't compete during their near defeat in the Second World War.
They couldn't compete during the US post-WWII economic boom.
They couldn't compete during the cuban missle crisis of the sixties.
They couldn't compete during the oil crisis of the seventies.
They couldn't compete during the Western Economic prosperity of the nineteen eighties.

So what changed in this picture?

Political pressure on the Soviet Union by Reagan and Thatcher. Only a "western-style" politician like Gorbachev could have had any type of dialogue with them. Reagan and Thatcher made his presidency possible.

Post 26

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 3:12pm

Socrates was put to death for his beliefs and now he is praised for them. A cause is not always pretty in the midst of its action; often, the true intention does not come out until some time later. The fight to spread freedom throughout the world is not something that is easy but it is absolutly necessary. We are, after all, one species living on one planet. Those who claim "it is not our country so stay out of it" are failing to see the big picture. In order to coexist, we all need to see eye to eye especially on social issues. I am by no means comparing Bush to Socrates, but the situations are similar. Bush is simply trying to spread the idea that every man, woman, and child deserves freedom regardless of race, sex, or creed. I am with him. (By the way, my brother is currently in Iraq, so I feel personal sorrow for the soldiers over there. However, I still believe this war may be necessary)

Post 27

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 5:41pm

Best wishes for the safe return of your brother, Tom, and tell him a lot of us want to say, "thank you."

Post 28

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 7:28pm

Whoah whoah whoah, Delilah!

Matthew, are you telling me that the free-market reforms in USSR in the 80s had nothing to do with Reagan and Thatcher?

Keep in mind (and there is evidence of this) that the Soviets soiled their pants with shit the moment Reagan fired the Air-traffic Controller. It demonstrated brass and KASS, and caused the Soviets to look at an American leader in a totally different way than they had before. (Cf. Kruschev's belligerent expansions that followed nearly every summit with JFK, who seemed visibly frightened and impotent during those meetings.)

What about those summits with Reagan? He began each one by telling an anti-communist joke that made the State Dept. sissies cover their faces in horror. One time he told the following joke [during the vodka rationing period]: "There are two Russians standing in line to get their vodka rations. One says to the other: 'I'm sick of waiting in this line! I'm going to go kill Gorbacev.' The next day he's back in the vodka line, and the other guy asks him: 'What happened? I thought you were going to kill Gorbacev.' 'I was,' he said, 'but that line was even longer.'"

This is Reagan telling that joke to kick-off an international summit with Gorby!!!

Alec

Post 29

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 7:46pm

Another important individual in the movement that led to the fall of East European Communism: Lech Walesa of Poland's Solidarity.

It's interesting for me now to see the different point of views of the same events from people who were "inside" and people who were "outside" .

Post 30

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 8:38pm

But don't you think a lesson of the Cold War was that containment works?
Containment was in fact the centerpiece of the US strategy.

Take the Cuban Missile Crisis for example (quick question, is a term like Cuban Missile Crisis a proper noun deserving of capital letters? I honestly don't know. Anyhow.....). The hawkish view at the time, as personified by General LeMay, was to invade and occupy Cuba. We know now that that there were missiles already on the island, and they were pointed at the US, and Castro was prepared to order them fired if the US attacked. LeMay was aware of this risk, but thought it better that the US confront the Soviet Union on nuclear level sooner rather than later while we still had a 2 to 1 advantage over them. He viewed a nuclear showdown with the Soviets as inevitable (it wasn't a crazy viewpoint at the time, however). Fortunately for all of us, cooler heads prevailed.

Their is strong evidence that the containment strategy on Iraq employed by Bush I and the Clinton adminstration was effective. If David Kay and a team of 1400 scientists from around the world are to be believed, it appears as though Saddam's nuke and chem-bio program was essentially non-existent, thanks in large part to the inspections. And that combined with the international sanctions imposed on Iraq had weakened the regime to the point where even its neighbors weren't that afraid of it.

(Edited by Pete on 3/10, 8:40pm)

(Edited by Pete on 3/10, 9:18pm)

(Edited by Pete on 3/10, 9:19pm)

Post 31

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 8:50pm

Hong,

The brilliance of Polish radicals was in choosing Lech Walesa, a real "proletarian worker" as their spokesman and negotiator. The Communist Party was by then an exclusive club of new-class apparatchiks, forced by official Marxist ideology to proclaim - a lie obvious even to themselves - that they were defending the "working class." Objectivists should also appreciate the courage and brilliance of the dissident intellectuals of KOR, who educated Walesa with the ideas of the Enlightenment, and in every way out-thought the Communists until victory. In my book the real heroes are Walesa's teachers, Jacek Kuron and Adam Michnik.

Post 32

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 1:19am

"The hawkish view at the time, as personified by General LeMay, was to invade and occupy Cuba.... Fortunately for all of us, cooler heads prevailed."

Ayn Rand was not one of them. She was all in favour of an all out invasion of Cuba.

She criticised "the cooler heads" for being far too prissy and compromising with Cuba and the Soviets!

In spite of what anti-war isolationists claim, she was no fan of detente!

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 3/11, 1:37am)

Post 33

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 1:22am

Alec,

Matthew, are you telling me that the free-market reforms in USSR in the 80s had nothing to do with Reagan and Thatcher?

No, I explicitly said both the arms race and the free-market reforms in the UK and the US probably played a role. Both of those were due to Reagan and Thatcher policies.

I just think that communism's such a screwy system something was bound to give sooner or later,
but that it happened when it did was probably due in part to western policies. Everything that happens is part of a wider context, so I don't think it can really be argued that the collapse of communism was entirely due to Reagan and Thatcher or even Gorbacheav - though they all played some role, as did Walesa.

If the soviets had a more "hardline" communist leader perhaps it would have turned out differently, equally perhaps without pressure from the west Gorbachev would have held off longer on reforms (or had to hold off longer due to lack of support etc). We'll never know

But the one thing we can say for certain is that communism is inherently flawed as a social system.

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 3/11, 1:24am)

Post 34

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 1:39am

This just shows that even Ayn Rand was only a human being after all and had her bad times and her best.

An invasion of Cuba would have been a psychological and logistical problem that wouldn't have worked. stealth operations of this size tend to get recognized and the chances are high that in this case, there wouldn't be much left from modern society.

There is also an ironic idea that just sprung up. Mr. Bush proclaimed in his program for the first period, that he would do something about Cuba. Well, guess what, he could have shown "how easy it is" to invade Cuba (secretly and by surprise), instead he used Cuba to build prison camps safely away from US jurisdiction, that's great isn't it. And he chose to fight a war (that might lead to more liberty, or not) under false pretenses, given forth to outright lies about the reasons. And when he got his war and it was obvious that he wouldn't find any WMD, he changed the strategy to nation-building (socialist-state-welfare) and being the Super-Liberator.
This is something I could forgive, he would have done it only once. But Bush acts this way all the time on many topics during his first period of presidency.

P.S.:
I think, we can start discussing the ACTUAL liberty of the Middle East states in some years. It is too early to say that it is a big step towards freedom. As long as the majority of US troops have to occupy Iraq, we can't discuss peace and freedom, because they have neither in full.

(Edited by Max on 3/11, 1:45am)

Post 35

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 2:03am

"Probably not" here.

I think Bush is a pretty good guy but as a principled leader...well...he wouldn't have been elected had he stated his principles (if he even has principles).

Contrast Bush with the Founding Fathers. Bush is nothing like Thomas Jefferson and the rest. Freedom requires men of that ilk.

Post 36

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 2:15am

I don't know if this feat is required. You mean that tradition should tell me to anticipate the same thing over and over again and I shouldn't try to change it?

I also would like to forward that you can't take apart liberty abroad and liberty inside the US, because the liberty abroad (so far) fueled the restrictions at home.
One example, would you like to go to jail without being told your crime or even some kind of accusation. (You should read "Der Prozess" by Franz Kafka)
And in return for your prison time, some other people may live in semi-liberty?
There is always a connection between wars abroad and domestic policy.

Post 37

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 2:23am

Sorry Matthew, I misread your previous post and missed the word "example" -- I thought you were crediting it all to Gorbacev. So, never mind about my question.

But it's obvious that Communism is inherently flawed. So are a lot of systems that have been around for thousands of years and continue to wreak havoc and misery on millions. It's really futile to "blame" the USSR's fall on its inherent flaws -- the point is: after decades of persistence, what finally brought it down? A combination of things? That's also a futile response, since one can always find a combination of small factors that lead to any major result.

The important thing to discern is the radical force -- the fundamental change in approach -- without which nothing else would've amounted to anything.

There is no question as to what that radical force was.

And everyone should remember that, in the West, the very thought that the Soviet Union would collapse was absolutely incredible to just about everyone ('cept for a choice few) up until the actual fall of the Berlin Wall. Believing the USSR could be brought down was enough to qualify one for a mental institute in the minds of just about anyone, of any persuasion, at any level.

So don't anyone tell me that this was something just about to happen anyway and, gee, weren't Ronnie Raygun and Maggie just so lucky to preside. That's a bunch of anarcho-libertarian, potheaded crap -- rationalizations to evade the horrifying possibility that a dollar of defense spending might have actually achieved something. (Not directed at you Matthew.)

The sheer incredibility of the Reagan-Thatcher achievement -- in such a humongous matter, against the "better judgment" and under the arched noses of the world -- is something that must not be denied or minimized in any way by anyone who considers moral integrity a virtue.

Alec

Post 38

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 2:53am

Despite the fact that I have mixed thoughts about Reagan as a political person in domestic policy, I never said that he didn't do a brave thing.

I just don't think that any US war led in some substitute battle-field and not against the very nations of the Soviet power Russia itself, has helped to spread Western values.
I think Reagans stance and the example the US gave to the world was the tool that brought the UdssR to the brink of disolution, starting with the satellite states. However, I don't think that any of the foreign wars helped the US in this, if you look at the trouble THOSE states have posed to contemporary America.

But I never said once in any of my posts, that, for example the nuclear program was a failure or unnecessary. I think the run for armament was a key issue to show the Soviets that they couldn't compete (didn't their philosophy reject competition in any form?!) and that their cause was flawed.
I also never praised the Russian system of government to be worthwhile.
I also didn't say that warfare in itself is evil, but that there are wars that you MUST fight and there are wars that you NEED NOT fight.

I read this somewhere farther up:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose � and you allow him to make war at pleasure.... If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't." - Lincoln

Post 39

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 3:19am