US Politics: Confederacy vs Nazis vs USSR

[karaddin]

There was a compelling piece I read a week or two ago which was saying that the value of slaves in the Southern States can be estimated to be about $10 trillion dollars, and that viewed through that lens it's not really surprising it took a civil war to end the practice. The only comparable situation of the elite being asked to take that large an economic hit is the current situation with oil barons etc and climate change (note - it did not in any way try to draw a moral equivalence between the two, it was merely looking at the "The elite are being asked to give up a colossal amount of wealth for the greater good...they will fight that with all they've got" angle).

[Summah]

Ser Scot, I live in a state that had slavery and was on the union side in the civil war. You're right the slavery was not the sole cause although it was the most important and foremost cause, but as you said above if not for slavery the war would not have have happened; many confederacy apologists like to claim the war was solely about state's rights and slavery had nothing to do with it and that is ludicrous, I really have no idea where our newly returned nazi/confederacy apologist falls on this issue, I just felt like a preemptive strike was in order.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GotSI,

Understood. And thank you for seeing my point.

[Wise Fool]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/thousands-of-slaves-in-israel-global-study-finds/

https://archive.org/details/IsraeliSexSlaveTrade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Saudi_Arabia

The Confederacy had legalized, state-approved slavery to such a degree that they were willing to go to war in order to defend the "state's right" to uphold slavery as an institution.

Slavery is a crime in Israel, and the worst your sources say is that the government oversimplifies the problem by seeing it as a symptom of organized intranational crime. Comparing the two as if equal in any way is just one more example of your obsession with Israel, and with Jews in general.

[Summah]

Mazigh, There are currently 30 million slaves in the world, there are slaves in every country or nearly every country in the world, what is your point exactly?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Was the USSR better than the Confederacy?

(Has the US Politics thread ever been Godwinned in the thread title? and this thread title was probably better than: US Politics: Piketty-ninnies)

from the last thread:

Here's an interesting question, prior to the USSR what was the state of infrastructure, education and trade there? Also China, and you can't count forcibly industrialized colonial zones like Shanghai. How non-modernized were China and Russia prior to communism?

Russia was in a better place than China prior to Communism in terms of education, industry and infrastructure, but it's true that neither place was nearly as developed as Western Europe. I assume you mentioned that in order to excuse Communism for all the shit that's happened in those two countries. Maybe there's some merit to that, but maybe there are other examples. What about a heavily industrialized country, with a rich tradition of scientists, poets, and philosophers and per capita income around 3rd or 4th in Western Europe but then level it in a war and then divide in two, with one side mostly capitalist and one side communist? What about a rural, undeveloped country that's spent more than century under foreign domination before being split in half after a bitter war that still hasn't ended. Again one half has a (mostly) capitalist economic system and the other side (mostly) communist? In both of these cases, which half does better economically?

Those aren't perfect examples. Obviously you can't have laboratory experiments with history. The Allies helped rebuild West Germany while the Soviets deliberately removed industry from the East, at least in the beginning. North Korea has dysfunctions beyond just Communism. But those examples plus dozens others, including examining China pre and post liberalization add up to demonstrate Communism's deleterious effect on economic activity.

That said, I can see the benefits of a move towards socialism in rich countries where continued economic growth might not be absolutely necessary or even desirable (for economic reasons.) I personally believe that where Germany is right now is about as far towards communism you can go on the hypothetical capitalism-communism spectrum and still have a robust economy. Not Sweden since it's a small, ethnically homogenous society.

What an amazing question even if posed facetiously.

Nazis: scum of the Earth on an historic scale, committed unimaginable atrocities. most Germans still utterly ashamed of them to this day. the only good thing one can say is that they apparently got down with the carbohydrate hypothesis, but that will only get you so far.

Confederacy: scum of the Earth on an historic scale. took slavery to the next level to their eternal shame. most Americans still utterly ashamed of them to this day. nothing good can be said as I would never tar our friends in the South today that love life and college football with this legacy (except in situations where folks ask for it).

USSR: one of the worst things that can be said is what they did to their own soldiers and the people in the Bloodlands, but some of this was done to deal w/ the folks behind door #1. complicated. terrible and complicated.

I guess the bottom line is that there are two groups of people who need to deal with the possibility that the USSR was less distasteful than they were. ouch.

While I give credit to Stalin for beating Hitler, I don't think you can excuse the Soviet Unions crimes due to the exigencies of that conflict. Between the mass starvation, deportations, relocations, purges, forced labor, expropriation of resources, and territorial aggression (having stabbed Poland in the back worse than the French and British) they've dropped more bodies than the Nazis, though admittedly over a much longer period of time. I would not consider them better than the Confederacy.

[Seli]

As a note from the previous thread Ramsey Gimp said:

And you guys blanche when I say there's a strong Marxist worldview in these threads...

Capitalism and liberalism won, guys. Get over it. The Glorious Proletarian Revolution isn't coming

To which needs to be pointed out that the versions of capitalism and liberalism that 'won' are the ones rooted in a balance with a more socialist/communal approach to society and economy. We cannot ignore the influence of the Deal, GI bill, social democracy, etc.

[Horza]

not to mention that the idea of dialectical conflict and triumph of modes of production is an straightforwardly Marxist notion - Ramsay just thinks the End of History is in the rear view mirror.

[Zippertrain85]

Russia was in a better place than China prior to Communism in terms of education, industry and infrastructure, but it's true that neither place was nearly as developed as Western Europe. I assume you mentioned that in order to excuse Communism for all the shit that's happened in those two countries. Maybe there's some merit to that, but maybe there are other examples. What about a heavily industrialized country, with a rich tradition of scientists, poets, and philosophers and per capita income around 3rd or 4th in Western Europe but then level it in a war and then divide in two, with one side mostly capitalist and one side communist? What about a rural, undeveloped country that's spent more than century under foreign domination before being split in half after a bitter war that still hasn't ended. Again one half has a (mostly) capitalist economic system and the other side (mostly) communist? In both of these cases, which half does better economically?

Those aren't perfect examples. Obviously you can't have laboratory experiments with history. The Allies helped rebuild West Germany while the Soviets deliberately removed industry from the East, at least in the beginning. North Korea has dysfunctions beyond just Communism. But those examples plus dozens others, including examining China pre and post liberalization add up to demonstrate Communism's deleterious effect on economic activity.

That said, I can see the benefits of a move towards socialism in rich countries where continued economic growth might not be absolutely necessary or even desirable (for economic reasons.) I personally believe that where Germany is right now is about as far towards communism you can go on the hypothetical capitalism-communism spectrum and still have a robust economy. Not Sweden since it's a small, ethnically homogenous society.

While I give credit to Stalin for beating Hitler, I don't think you can excuse the Soviet Unions crimes due to the exigencies of that conflict. Between the mass starvation, deportations, relocations, purges, forced labor, expropriation of resources, and territorial aggression (having stabbed Poland in the back worse than the French and British) they've dropped more bodies than the Nazis, though admittedly over a much longer period of time. I would not consider them better than the Confederacy.

I'm curious, where did you get the source Communism had more deaths than Nazi Germany?

[Crazydog7]

USSR: western imperialists stopped hitler from freeing all the lands occupied by the allies invader of afghanistan innocent country they ruined it help britain create israel and invade iran for no reason steals all the oil very greedy

Confederacy: poor farmers invaded by the US helped the indian against the western expansion

Third reich: oppose the western imperialists almost defeated them

Oh Christ I thought he was gone.

As per the neo-confederate thing about the war being a constutional question rather then one of slavery yeah it is utter horseshit that you still often see banded about down here. I have the documentation for it but I would rather cut off both of my arms and one of my legs then join the Sons of Conferedate Veterans or some other apologist wank party.

[karaddin]

Oh Christ I thought he was gone.

Is now.

[Crazydog7]

Is now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9RVS8cjNN0

[Wise Fool]

From the other thread, I asked someone to clarify their statements about Marx and RG used my questions as an example of how rampant the strong Marxist position on this forum is.

I thought that was a nice live demonstration of how strong the neo-McCarthyist trend is among the right today. Ask questions about Marx? Now why would you do that, comrade?

Frankly just being liberal and on the internet, since about, oh, 2008, is enough to get right-wingers accusing you of being:

• Communist
  
• Marxist
  
• Socialist
  
• Nazi
  
• Any combination of 2 or more of the above
  

It's gotten to be such a reflexive trend that normally I just tune it out completely, file it under the same kinds of accusations like "reverse racist" or "feminazi" or "hates freedom" or "nanny state" or "gay agenda" or "Obama phones." Just some of the more common types of croutons in the word salad of right-wing rhetoric.

[SeanF]

It can be difficult to differentiate between (a) people who were deliberately killed as an act of policy and b people who were killed through neglect or incompetence.

Were the deaths caused by the Ukranian Famine of 1932-33, the Great Leap Forward, and Pol Pot's emptying of the cities a case of (a) b or both?

[Prosesskrift]

I'm surprised that not having an understanding of what Marx actually wrote is considered a point of pride amongst so many.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The USSR was a morally complex creature, capable of both great good and great evil. No such complexity exists with regard to either the Confederacy or the Third Reich.

[Galactus]

Anyway, in terms of human lives destroyed, I think the USSR is worse than the Confederacy. But since both regimes were brutal and evil it's a bit of a moot point.

Well, there's also the fact that the confederacy lasted for a couple of years and the USSR for about 70. (I wonder what the "deaths-per-year" ratio would be like?)

[Galactus]

Russia was in a better place than China prior to Communism in terms of education, industry and infrastructure, but it's true that neither place was nearly as developed as Western Europe. I assume you mentioned that in order to excuse Communism for all the shit that's happened in those two countries. Maybe there's some merit to that, but maybe there are other examples. What about a heavily industrialized country, with a rich tradition of scientists, poets, and philosophers and per capita income around 3rd or 4th in Western Europe but then level it in a war and then divide in two, with one side mostly capitalist and one side communist? What about a rural, undeveloped country that's spent more than century under foreign domination before being split in half after a bitter war that still hasn't ended. Again one half has a (mostly) capitalist economic system and the other side (mostly) communist? In both of these cases, which half does better economically?

Those aren't perfect examples. Obviously you can't have laboratory experiments with history. The Allies helped rebuild West Germany while the Soviets deliberately removed industry from the East, at least in the beginning. North Korea has dysfunctions beyond just Communism. But those examples plus dozens others, including examining China pre and post liberalization add up to demonstrate Communism's deleterious effect on economic activity.

That said, I can see the benefits of a move towards socialism in rich countries where continued economic growth might not be absolutely necessary or even desirable (for economic reasons.) I personally believe that where Germany is right now is about as far towards communism you can go on the hypothetical capitalism-communism spectrum and still have a robust economy. Not Sweden since it's a small, ethnically homogenous society.

Economic development is complex. If you want to a very strange example, look at Poland and Brazil. Around 1900 they were about equivalent in most economic and life-standard measuremenets. Poland today (or even in the 1980's) is way better off.

What the east-bloc economies seems to have been capable of is (more or less literally) liquidating the old agricultural ruling-class, and forcing countries to industrialize. (it should be noted that you don't have to go full-blown commie to do this: Taiwan, South Korea, Japan etc. all got rid of their landlord class by their own means)

[The Marquis de Leech]

Well, there's also the fact that the confederacy lasted for a couple of years and the USSR for about 70. (I wonder what the "deaths-per-year" ratio would be like?)

First off you'd need to define what constituted a death at the hands of the regime (difficult enough). Then you'd have to work out how many people fell into that category (nigh on impossible). Even with the Nazis, who did keep accurate records, thereby obliging themselves to sad internet geeks seven decades later, there's the issue of whether you count war deaths, seeing as they started it.

[sologdin]

it's routine to attribute famine deaths to 'communism,' such as in the ukraine in the 1930s or china in the GLF years, because those deaths appear fairly readily attributable to intentional policy decisions by persons who were communists of some sort and therefore the deaths are because of communism. (must leave aside the debate as to whether there was specific intent to kill the victims of the famines by the policymakers--the case against stalin is stronger than against mao, I think--though neither the rightwing nor the leftwing benefits much from the imputation of murderous intent to the leadership, given their ultimate rhetorical goals in this colloquy).

what is not routine, at least among those who wish to highlight this types of grim calculus, is the attribution of famine--and much more pedestrian starvation--deaths to 'capitalism' because of policy decisions by persons designated as political (as opposed to economic) capitalists. there, we get the ideology of personal responsibility to sweep up the deaths--it was your own fault for dying, after all, dirty poor person.