In "If voting could change anything..." Mad Max had the following to say: Reagan did end the Cold War. There's no two ways about it. Military spending killed the Soviet Union because they couldn't keep up. This while the Democratic Congress sympathized with the Communists and criticized Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an evil empire -- even though Stalin and others killed far more in the name of Communism than Hitler ever did in the name of Facism. I don't want to distract the conversation over there, but I really take exception to this assertion. This idea is a typical example of American Chauvinism. This theory generally goes two ways: (a) that Reagan put a bunch of American dollars into accelerating the nuclear arms race, forcing the USSR to also increase its military expenses, which became too heavy a burden on their economy and the whole system collapsed. Or (b) that the expenses to compete with Americans in an arms race were so high that Gorbachev was forced to sue for peace instead of engaging in the escalation. While (b) is better than (a), they're both crap. I can't provide numbers anymore since it's been a while since I looked at it, but here's why: 1. Military expenditures in the USSR were high long before Reagan reignited the Cold War. In just about every arena, including the military, the USSR was playing catch-up with the West. As a result, from the inception of the communist government, military spending had been high. It racheted up from WW2 to Stalin's death, and then again for the war in Afghanistan. But, they never really experienced a period where they spent within the same order of magnitude as the US on the military. 2. When US military spending went up, the USSR's spending stayed level. And then it went down. Gorbachev's 2 short-lived predecessors didn't touch military spending. Gorbachev, soon after becoming Secretary-General, cut military spending and engaged the US in very aggressive peace talks. Reagan's spending did not cause the USSR's expenses to rise so the idea that increased military spending caused the government to fail is untrue (for a good theory on why it did fall, I'd refer you to a book by Ronald Suny, The Revenge of the Past, which suggests that ethnic divisions caused the collapse of the Empire). You could still suggest that he was unable to cut expenses enough to keep the state alive, but Reagan couldn't have anything to do with that. 3. Still, there is the possibility that Reagan's spending scared Gorbachev into retreating from the arms race and making friends. This is harder to debunk, since it is true that Gorbachev saw that military spending was a large burden on the economy and tried to cut it as a result. Here's some reasons why I don't think he was pushed into it: (a) The CCCP wanted to reform their economy once Brezhnev died. The CCCP acknowledged that the years under Brezhnev had stagnated the system, which was rife with inefficiencies and corruption. This was the main reason why Gorbachev was chosen as G-S: he was from a younger generation and widely perceived as intelligent, creative and energetic. He was chosen to reform the government within a socialist context. Regardless of the outside world, the CCCP was going to reform itself, because they already knew their system wasn't going to fly. (b) Gorbachev himself was bent on reforming the system. In 1984, when he was Secretary of Agriculture, he was already making some competitive-market reforms in the farming industry. He garnered a reputation as being the "last communist" or sometimes "the last Menshevik" for his communist idealism. In his early economic reforms, he tried to create a government-controlled economy that reacted to market pressures (he was foiled by the apparat and was forced to veer more and more towards capitalism). Besides the economy, only a year or so after taking office, he considerably loosened the reins on free speech in Russia (glasnost). In short, perestroika was bent on reforming the entire system, because everything was grinding to a halt under Brezhnev, and that included the military. Other things of note: I\ Stalin did murder millions of people for Communism, in the 1930s. Reagan's comments came almost 50 years later. Since Stalin, the Soviet system reformed itself considerably. Reagan's evil empire quote was rhetoric aimed at natural human xenophobia to cast the USSR as something inhuman that we, the good guys, should utterly stamp out. Russians are no more evil than Americans, nor are communists (nor, I would argue, was Stalin even, but that is more a philosophical question than a political one) -- though you may argue that they are more wrong. II\ As a parting shot on Reagan: if Brezhnev had lived during Reagan's presidency, I think it is possible that we might all be dead right now. In part of Reagan's arms race escalation, he put these missiles in Istanbul that could fly under Soviet radar so that the Kremlin would have about a minute's warning before we could blow up Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, etc. That means that if the Soviets were going to launch a counter-strike, they'd have less than a minute to decide to. The only way to avoid this situation for the Soviets was to do a pre-emptive strike on the US and Istanbul in hopes of knocking out some of our nuclear capability. I think if Brezhnev were in charge at the time, he may have considered that an option. Those who followed his tenure (Andropov, Gorbachev, and another guy whose name I forget), fortunately, took a different tack. ------------------ Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
I just now saw this post. Very well said, Mr. Valdez. Your points are well thought out and quite logical. Other things to keep in mind when giving Reagan credit (approaching it from the other end). 1. Reagan, more than many other presidents, was a walking symbol. From the beginning he delegated power to those below him. Some say that those under him abused his trust a little- maybe. Anyway, he spent most of his tim personifying the new american ideal/dream. 2. During most of his second tenure, his mind was deteriorating rapidly. If you look at the old vidoes, you can see how he was just kind of led around by aides. It is amazing that they were so good in hiding it. It was always said that if there had been television, FDR would not have been president. Well, Reagan was always in front of a camera and he pulled it off. I am sure the USSR was the last thing on his mind during these times. As a colleague of mine once joked about a typical thing heard from Reagan during those last four years, "Nancy, who is the Gipper?" ------------------ "One evening I seated Beauty on my knees. And I found her bitter." "I am a sick man...I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."
Juan -- interesting... First of all..I never said Russians were evil people...nor did I say Germans were evil people...but both of those nations, in the name of an ideology, killed millions. People die in communist nations when they oppose the government...see Cuba. The "exports" of government dissidents to the far reaches of Siberia never stopped until the Communist regime fell. In fact, Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" would have been truth to many Russian citizens who were deported or killed because of their religious faith or their political beliefs. No, the Russians aren't evil..but a system of government that forces an ideology on people without inviting some sense of personal freedom and choice is. When a government unreasonably limit a person's freedom to travel, to worship, to read certain materials, or to choose one's own place in life that's the personification of evil to me. As for Reagan...this guy was a master negotiator...read accounts of the summits he had with Gorbachev where he completely upstaged him and backed him into a corner. The threat of a missile defense system, though it was highly unlikely that the technology was there, scared the hell out of Russia. If we could defend ourselves from their nuclear arsenal they would have to keep up!! This "keep up" competition persisted for years. The old Tsars fell because they kept commiting Russian troops to wars and commiting Russian tax money to battles that the people felt were unnecessary. Eventually the Russian Revolution turned on itself when the Communists did the same thing. Their desire to spread communism throughout the globe led to a military buildup that an economy hindered by socialism couldn't keep up with. The people reached a point where enough was enough. As tiny cracks in the wall started to form, Russians were able to view the quality of life in America and the cultural influences begin to swell...who can forget Billy Joel playing in Moscow?? or Pepsi and McDonald's being introduced??? I don't believe Americans are inherently better than any persons...I do believe our form of government, while highly unperfect, is about the best you can hope for. Our poorest people live better than almost everyone in undeveloped nations. A poor boy from Hope, Arkansas can grow up and become the world's most powerful leader. It is still the land of opportunity for many immigrants. Including my Russian friend who lauds Reagan as a hero! ------------------ [This message has been edited by MadMax (edited July 31, 2000).]
In my ever-so-humble opinion: Ronald Reagan was one of the worst Presidents this country ever had. Look at all the wonderful things he did while in office: Tripling the national debt. Iran-Contra. Double-digit unemployment. Ignoring the AIDS crisis. And no, IMHO, he did not end the cold war. If Billy-boy can be impeached for lying about what he did with his groin, why wasn't Ronnie impeached for lying about things that were much more dangerous to the country and our national security (i.e. Iran-Contra)? ------------------ Bring It!!
MadMax, Communism is an economic system, not a governmental one. People die for reasons you stated where there are fascist/totalitarian dictators. These can exist in communism and capitalism. Just thought I'd clear that up... ------------------ "One evening I seated Beauty on my knees. And I found her bitter." "I am a sick man...I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."
This was in the "if voting..." thread, but I am going to cross reference, because I do not know which is more appropriate: MadMax: Funny that you mention the common working person and Reagan together. It was a great 8 years for investment bankers... I will call it the Reagan administration, because Reagan did not really do much, his underlings did. During the 80's gang activity increased (the modern day "ghetto" concept formwed. Illegal drug activity went away from peace loving hippie types, to armed, poor, gangs. This was the new economy that took off. Racial tensions were worse in the 80's, after some slight progression in the late 70's. 1/3 of all funding Reagan cut were programs for women and minorities (they accounted for a miniscule portion of the total budget). The stock market crash in '87 would have been worse than '29, had it not been for computers that saved us. What links the two? The economic policies of the 20's and 80's were very similar (supply side to trickle-down). Clinton lied about sex. Reagan lied about Iran/Contra. Yawn, who cares? ------------------ "One evening I seated Beauty on my knees. And I found her bitter." "I am a sick man...I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."
Max: Ok, so maybe we don't legislate beliefs, etc., but isn't there an underlying sense of what is right and wrong even outside of our personal freedoms? The Republican party platform, for instance, includes a stance against homosexuality and all forms of abortion (unless the woman is raped or in danger). Aren't these, in essence, limiting of our personal freedoms? Just like laws against growing hemp because it is related to mar1juana. These are subtle, but very effective ways of keeping us all in line. Pushing for prayer in schools, voting against women's sufferage, you name it. These are ways of proclaiming that we should follow a prescribed formula for life or get out. Sure, we can do what we want, but the penalty could be anything from criticism and ridicule to imprisonment. Just because we agree with our system of government doesn't make it less oppressive. As Bill Murray said in Stripes, "Our forefathers were kicked out of the best countries in the world. We're mutants." I love it here too, but our society can be as oppressive as any. Just ask the Hari Krishnas who have a temple down the street from my old Lutheran High School. They were "persuaded" to move numerous times because neigborhood groups didn't want "a cult" in their neighborhood not knowing that Hari Krishna is an offshoot of the Hindu religion, hardly a cult. Fortunately, they continue to hold services in their new building and have free dinner for the poor every week as part of their committment to community service. Subtle though it may be, oppression exists here as much as it does anywhere in the world. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Jeff -- You may be ridiculed by individuals...but in other countries you're put to death or imprisoned for difference in opinion...quite a difference. The Constitution doesn't protect you from other individuals..only from your government. Again...the US isn't perfect...no country or system of govt is...but if you're concerned about quality of life, justice and oppression, there's no other country I'd want to live in. Your govt doesn't keep you from going to church on Sunday, nor does it make you go there; your govt does not tell you how many children you and your wife may have. Yes we legislate morality to some degree...every culture does...but there's quite a difference between liberty in the US and elsewhere...I hope you understand that because thousands of men have died to help give us that. rimbaud -- I understand that communism is an economic, not a governmental system...but communism presumes a high level of govt control in your life...in essence, it provides for govt ownership of industry. So while you're right that it's largely a school of thought on economics, those economics don't exist without the kind of centralized govt of a country like the Soviet Union was. ------------------ [This message has been edited by MadMax (edited July 31, 2000).]
Max: I am not completely oblivious to the plight of other countries. I've been all over Europe and throughout Africa and I recognize the problem My point was to bring up the hypocracy of decrying the loss of personal freedoms in other countries while we have many of the same problems. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Honestly, Jeff...I don't think Americans are hypocritcal when they bemoan ( I finally worked that word into a sentence! ) the lack of personal freedoms around the world. The very notion that you have rights given to you by God, nature, etc before a government even comes into play is completely foreign to most of the world. The very question, "what do you want to be when you grow up," is irrelevant in most of the world. We are not a completely libertarian society. Nor should we be. There is nothing wrong with a culture's values shaping their laws. But the level of personal freedom here far exceeds most of the world. Try starting a business in almost any other country across the world and see how much liberty you have! ------------------
MadMax, Huh? In other countires people can't decide what they want to be when they grow up? Do you mean that in France, the government tells everyone what they have to do? England? Germany? Japan? Canada? Mexico? Finland? Spain? Argentina? Nigeria? Australia (poor Smeg)? Ok, my fingers hurt - you get the point. How many Americans really end up doing what they want to do and not just what will earn money? ------------------ Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit
Chernenko Mango ------------------ 1. Put new topics in the proper forum 2. Use clear wording for new threads 3. No duplicate threads 4. Conduct yourself as an adult The Serious Police are watching Donate Blood or be assimilated!
rimbaud -- please keep up with the group. This discussion started framed in communism. Obviously one has the liberty to determine what one wants to be or accomplish in the countries you mentioned...though it's arguable it's more difficult given the level of government restrictions on individuals doing business. Try to start your own business in Finland or Spain and see what it takes. Just because people fail at becoming what they want to be doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there. I could have been a doctor if I had really tried harder at math and science...but I didn't choose to make that effort and those classes ate my lunch. But in this country, had I set my mind to it, it was a possibility. Those possibilities exist for very small margins of persons in many (not all) other countries. And in communist nations (China, Cuba and the former Soviet Union) those choices are made for you by the CEO of all industry, the government! You certainly seem smart enough to know what I'm talking about...stop trying to trash the argument by "catching" me with words. If you'd prefer living in Finland or Spain or even China, be my guest. Personally, I thank God every day I was born in the United States. If that makes me somehow "unhip" or not intellectually with it, then so be it. ------------------
Actually, I don't think working in your chosen occupation was very hard in the Soviet Union. They had many programs for retraining people to fill different roles in society. Gorbachev himself came from farmer stock and was put in some very good schools -- not because of his intellect, even, but because he was the son of a poor farmer. They were short of doctors throughout the Soviet era and were constantly encouraging and helping people to enter the field. The reason participation was low was because the pay was so bad vis a vis the training required. ------------------ Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
i agree with rocket man tex ------------------ i am rather like a mosquito in a nudist camp..i know what i ought to do but i don't know where to begin...
The point still remains..it's not your individual choice. The government decides where they need you. ------------------
It also depends on your chosen occupation. In Finland, Norway and Sweden, for example, it is far easier to say start a band. I know of numerous bands who got all their gear and their recording costs paid for through government subsidies. As a result, they managed to become successful. Obviously, we know that many here aren't in favor of that level of government support because of the hight cost of taxation in those countries, but I thought it was worth noting. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Jeff, Hey the Soviets did great things. They abducted Kasparov, for example, from his parents so that the Russians could fight the evil imperialists and their Fischer creation. kf8-kg7 ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? - Dubyah in Florence, SC. 01/11/2000
MadMax, I was simply replying to the last post you had written (the one right before my response) in which you stated that in most of the world deciding what you want to be when you grow up is irrelevant. This discussion started with the Cold War, went to communism in general, and then you took it farther to "most of the world." I am doing my best to keep up, really. Even in totalitarian regimes, everyone is not told what they must do. For one thing that is not very feasable - too many people. Look at Juan's post. The USSR encouraged people towards fields with shortages. So does the US government. Was the USSR a great place with no problems? No, of course not. Is the US a greta place with no problems? No, of course not. The US is so isolated that it iscommon for people to lump the rest of the world together and talk about how much better "we" are. I see no reason why you should suggest that I was suggesting you were "unhip." That is just plain silly. Spain is still suffering due to the reign of Franco. He hated communists. Spread all over time. Refurbished. I lived in Paris for a while and enjoyed it. I would move if I could. I just am happy I was born period. I do not care where fake boundaries are. I am better than everybody! ------------------ Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit
Mad Max, you've got this much to your argument: after collectivization and for a long time, passports in the USSR were needed to enter towns and peasants were not generally issued passports. This was done to keep farmers from fleeing to the cities and making a bad agricultural situation even worse. This is generally called the Second Serfdom, because peasants were effectively tied to their collective. Here I will concede. However, that is the only example I can think of where occupations were foisted on people by the communist government. The other half of the citizens who lived in cities and had passports could take a job wherever they wanted, provided they were qualified (and, for some jobs, a Party member). If they liked they didn't even have to have a job. Nobody really worked there anyway ("We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."). I don't think it is so different in the States. I can't have any occupation I want. The trajectory of my career was determined by my social status at birth. I am the American version of an urban Party member. That means I have doors open to me to do things that others were never given the opportunity to try for. It also means I can't get a job as a welder or a steelworker. ------------------ Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
