Does anyone here have a problem with the idea of stopping the spread of communism?

I think the real question is not "Does anyone" but "Did anyone". Stalin was vigorously opposed to the Marshall Plan. It was not in the Soviet Union's perceived self-interest although in the long run, the US's position was proven correct. For that matter, it was not in the perceived self-interest of Germany in WWII to capitulate to the Allies. Which is somewhat analogous to the situation now in Iraq. The Iraqi government desperately feels it is not in its interest to lose the war (although it will inevitably). It remains to be seen whether the Iraqi people can (like the Europeans including Germany did) build from this loss into something better than they have today. I think the US feels the Iraqi people can do so.

I don't know. Food aid to Zimbabwe? I can't think of any particular political advantage to feeding those folks. Mugabe isn't going to attack anyone we care about (politically), so it's not about deposing him for political reasons. Zimbabwe has no particular strategic advantages, not that Mugabe would let us do anything there if there were.

I can't think of any good reason to help those folks other than it's the right thing to do.

And they're all dictatorships.

They don't have to be, though. It's just that every time the US saw a nation's democratically elected government heading towards communism, they encouraged (actively or passively) a coup. The only ones left are the malignant ones that oppress their dissidents.

Food aid to Zimbabwe?

Bzzzt. Wrong on two points:
1) I said "major act"... I don't think we committed a lot to Zimbabwe, certainly nothing on the scale of the Marshall plan.
2) Giving aid to Zimbabwe is at least partially in self interest because it makes the U.S. look good.

My question was a trick question, because I believe there's no such thing as a completely selfless act. Even a completely humanitarian gesture makes the individual who's committing it feel good, and elevates that person's image amongst others. Some acts are more selfish than others, of course, but my point with the Marshall plan is it was one of the more selfless. From what I've read, Marshall himself didn't design it to combat communism, but as it went through the legislative machine, that ended up being something that the average congressman (and his constituents) could latch onto.

They don't have to be, though. It's just that every time the US saw a nation's democratically elected government heading towards communism, they encouraged (actively or passively) a coup. The only ones left are the malignant ones that oppress their dissidents.

My knowledge of history is pretty poor, but the scenario you describe here can't be applied to China, can it? I don't have any knowledge of the U.S. trying to encourage a coup there...

OK, here I am, but quickly :

I said Europe (and France in particular) does have reasons to be very grateful, and the fact that US entered the war after understandable reluctance primarily from self-interest does not diminish that.

I don't think UN inspections were 'sham'. They were not given enough time, and US kept repeating they had evidence Iraq has or is attempting to produce WMD, but never showed any. When finally US decided to present such 'evidence', it just turned poor Mr. Powell into laughing stock.

As for economic interests in Iraq, I assure you I don't have any, and still think this war is not such a good idea . Another thread points to an article which pretty nicely articulates what kind of outcome I fear. So, my objections are not strictly 'legalistic' (after all, I did not object to intervention in Kosovo, perhaps partly because the guys being targeted were the same ones that kept my family running to shelter, and who put my coworker's parents into a mass grave few years before).

As for no-bid contracts, that's what I read in American sources. If they are innacurate, I stand corrected. (But tenders were certainly not international, were they )

I believe there's no such thing as a completely selfless act

How 'bout giving your life to save someone else?

My knowledge of history is pretty poor, but the scenario you describe here can't be applied to China, can it? I don't have any knowledge of the U.S. trying to encourage a coup there...

China became communist due to a coup (of sorts) in 1949. The US didn't recognize the new Communist government in China until 1972 (or so), instead pretending that the Nationalists in ``exile'' in Taiwan were still the legitimate government of China.

So no, they encouraged no coup, but that was a legitimate people's uprising, as it was in Cuba. No coup probably could have been fomented. In both cases, the former governments were incompetent to corrupt.

I don't think UN inspections were 'sham'. They were not given enough time, and US kept repeating they had evidence Iraq has or is attempting to produce WMD, but never showed any. When finally US decided to present such 'evidence', it just turned poor Mr. Powell into laughing stock.

The inspections came about as a result of Resolution 1441 and others. The resolution stated serious consequences. France would not allow any accountability or enforcement of serious consequences. Therefore the resolution meant nothing. Therefore, resolution is a sham, and therefore, inspections are a sham. Now, Bush and his cronies were a little pushy throughout, but the fact that someone wouldn't even agree to accountability for a resolution that was already PASSED UNANIMOUSLY makes the U.N. look just as bad.

As for no-bid contracts, that's what I read in American sources. If they are innacurate, I stand corrected. (But tenders were certainly not international, were they)

hehe. Sure, we fight the war, you guys come in and make the money on the rebuilding... That's about as good as Bush's "we fight the war, and U.N, even though you're irrelevant, you guys can go ahead and take care of the humanitarian situation afterwards."

But it doesn't work.

Actually it could work, all it would take is perfect and selfless people and a leadership that is not only benevolent and wise, but also near-omniscient enough that all the needs of society could be identified accurately.

Ok, so you’re right; however, I think there are a number people who would say that a country should be free to try things that don’t work. Freedom to do stupid things, interestingly enough, is fundamental to capitalism.

By the way, I personally agree with most of the points you’ve been making throughout this thread.

How 'bout giving your life to save someone else?

Touché.

Ok, so you’re right; however, I think there are a number people who would say that a country should be free to try things that don’t work. Freedom to do stupid things, interestingly enough, is fundamental to capitalism.

Yes, because countries under Communist leadership are always free to try other things that don't work.

The idea isn't that Western democracy and capitalism are the only legitimate forms of government. But the fact that a disproportionate amount of Communist states are complete dictatorships with no mechanism to go in any other direction (no open elections, etc.) So choosing Communism becomes an irreversible decision. So it's Communism, not capitalism, that is fearful of other ways of doing things.

By the way, I personally agree with most of the points you’ve been making throughout this thread.

Thanks, it's good to know I'm not alone here.

So choosing Communism becomes an irreversible decision.

Unfortunately, the world was never given the opportunity to have this disproved.

On the other hand, choosing Capitalism seems to be an irreversable decision, too. I'm not sure exactly what your argument is here.

And there are as many non-Communist tyrannies as there are Communist tyrannies (without actually counting).

And there are as many non-Communist tyrannies as there are Communist tyrannies (without actually counting).

A "communist tyranny" is not communism.

Does anyone here have a problem with the idea of stopping the spread of communism?

With Marshall Plan? No. Otherwise, see Bitt's response.

But it doesn't work. It encourages each cog in the communist machine to do the minimum amount to get by, and the government will take care of them just as if they had tried harder. It encourages mediocrity.

Then why it has to be fought from outside?

Seriously, I think that US brought more Communist dictatorships into existence than brought down. For example:

If Batista was not supported, Castro would have harder times comming to power. Without isolation, he would have harder time staying on power, and would less depend on Soviets (do you think he liked being their puppet?)

Without atmosphere of siege brought to you by Ollie North and his Contra friends, Sandinistas would have harder time eliminating everybody else from their rulling coalition. Withour supporting (Somosa ? - or was he in some other briliiant democracy?), Sandinistas would not come to power in the first place.

If the coup was not engineered against Prince Norodom Sihanouk (sp?), we would not have Khmere Rouge uprising against US puppet Lon Nol (?), leading to their subsequent rule of terror.

Even in Vietnam, the more US meddled, the more dependent on Soviets Vietnamese were (again, progression was from wide pro-independence coalition Vietminh that kicked French out, to Moscow's puppets).

A "communist tyranny" is not communism.

True (and refreshing that someone noticed that). I gave up pointing out that the fact Stallin called something 'communism' didn't make it communism.

France would not allow any accountability or enforcement of serious consequences.

How the heck do you know that!?

hehe. Sure, we fight the war, you guys come in and make the money on the rebuilding... That's about as good as Bush's "we fight the war, and U.N, even though you're irrelevant, you guys can go ahead and take care of the humanitarian situation afterwards."

So you think it is actually as simple as plundering Iraqi oil after all, as half the world is maintaining (while I think it is far more complex and dangerous than that)?

there's no such thing as a completely selfless act

Well, research of evolution indicates that altruism if often beneficial to altruist (its offspring, actually).

If Al Gore had been elected, would we look so arrogant?

Well, he probably would not take Wolfowitz, Pelre and Chehey for advisers.

I recommend you elect this guy next time you have a chance.

David,

I believe that the British curiousity about the American Pledge of Allegiance and the Americans' flag fascination stems from the two different forms of democracy in the UK and USA. The British parlimentary system with a monarchy has as its head of state the monarch (king or queen). The British and other Commonwealth countries accepting the monarch pledge alleigance to the monarch as the head of state.

In the US the Constitution defines the three branches of government. The President, head of the executive branch, is tasked to be head of state. Since Presidents come and go, never allowed to stay in office more than eight years, Americans generally grant more respect to the position or office than the person who is, for now, the President. The American flag represents the Republic, the nation, in somewhat the same way the British monarch, the Queen, represents the British nation/people. Americans pledge alliegance to their flag not their President.

The British have their Queen and the Americans their flag. Two different forms of democracy. Both seem to work well most of the time.

PS - Where I went to school, Casper, Wyoming, we said the Pledge of Alleigance every morning while in elementary school, 1955-1961.

My knowledge of history is pretty poor, but the scenario you describe here can't be applied to China, can it? I don't have any knowledge of the U.S. trying to encourage a coup there...

No, you are right. Communism came to China through the Peoples' Revolution, because 99% of the people were fed up with the other 1% owning all of the wealth.

Before that, China was perhaps the most capitalist country that the World has ever known. The theory that capitalism and a free market economy only promotes competition, efficiency and a fair and happy country obviously applied. The reality was that political power ended up in the hands of the wealthy, who then abused it to consolidate their wealth, and the efficiency gains obviously only benefitted the wealthy, leading eventually to widespread poverty, and then civil war.

Now take a good hard look at the US today. Tell me how many people are in Congress. Now tell me how many of them are worth less than $5m.
Next, take a look at legislation that has gone through Congress in recent years. Can you find more examples that really benefit the US population at large, than those that benefit corporate interests? Don't forget to check the tagged on clauses.
Now take a look at tax figures. In 1940, corporate tax made up nearly 60% of federal tax returns, and individuals just over 40%. Today, corporate tax only makes up 13.7% of returns, with individuals paying 86.3%. Now that big tax break being targetted to the wealthy (who own and control such corporations) doesn't look so rosy. The trend indicates that individuals would be paying all of the tax receipts by sometime around 2010.
Now look at the Enron and Tyco scandals. Have we heard *anything* recently about any possible resolution for the poor sods that lost their retirement savings?
Next, look at the harsh penalties applied to one of the World's wealthiest company when it was found guilty of maintaining a monopoly position though illegal means. Note how many (predominately individually funded) tax dollars were spent in this prosecution. Now look at what's happening in the FCC, and how Ma Bell is restoring her power.
Now look at how the number of people living under the poverty line is increasing, not decreasing, despite a relatively stable population size.
Finally look at how many US children don't have basic medical insurance.

Are the Alarm Bells ringing yet? They should be - this has all accelerated in the past 40 years, and shows no sign of slowing down. When the individual states go broke, who do you think will suffer when state systems such as unemployment benefits, education, prescription drub benefits, etc break down? The wealthy?

I think we're missing the point. The biggest risk to The American Dream comes not from foreign 'outlaw' nations, nor from terrorist groups. It comes from the ever increasing concentration of wealth and power amongst fewer people.

The White House needs someone with some real balls. Someone who is prepared to veto any and every bill that promotes corporate interests above those of individuals. Someone who is prepared to shout at Congress on a daily basis until they get their shit together and start writing bills that help readdress the balance.

My fear is that it wont happen, and sometime within the next 50 years the USA will not be a very pleasant place to be.


Sorry Tony, but since you mentioned history and China in the same breath, I thought it was worth reminding people that we could actually learn from their experience, and try and avoid the same path.

How 'bout giving your life to save someone else?

Touché.

Is it really selfless? It certainly is an extreme example, but if you consciously decide to give your life to save someone else, isn't the other option always worse? Are we saving a loved one because of our love for that person, because of our principles ... or because we couldn't bear a life without this precious person (and a life of blaming ourselves)?

Then there's the religious argument that you'd be going to a better place, so how could it be selfless?

Then there's the religious argument that you'd be going to a better place, so how could it be selfless?

If you were God. . . (since you brought up religion )

Also, if you're not a religious person then dying for someone else would be a selfless act.

if you consciously decide to give your life to save someone else, isn't the other option always worse? Are we saving a loved one because of our love for that person, because of our principles ... or because we couldn't bear a life without this precious person (and a life of blaming ourselves)?

According to research that has been done in this specific area, one of the most popular explanations for this is the one of the reproductive fitness.
A guy called Hamilton constructed a theory about this in 1964. This theory was constructed with Darwin's "survival of the fittest theory" as a basis.
Hamilton stated that kin selection can account for altruistic acts towards those who are genetically related to the do-gooder. It would 'pay' an individual (in terms of reproductive fitness) to die if in doing so a number of close relatives would live and reproduce. This is because the genes responsible for such altruistic behaviour are also likely to reside in the bodies of close relatives. Sacrificing oneself to save four siblings would pay greatly in terms of gene survival : since the genetic relatedness of siblings averages 50%, two genes would be saved for the price of one. To equate the loss of genes from a relative's death, more relatives must be saved than the reciprocal of the coefficient of genetic relatedness. (e.g. 1,5 = 2).
Such behaviors are therefor selected for because they benefit the performer's kin.Such kin selection accounts for, among other things, the high degree of altruism and self-sacrifice shown by parents towards offspring in both animals and humans.
Kin selection does not however explain why a human might do an altruistic act towards a stranger. That answer lies in the theory of reciprocal altruism, which says that it pays the individual to help save a stranger if the stranger will reciprocate this help in the future and save the life of the altruist. This assumes that the cost/benefit ratio is appropriate, that individuals are capable of recognising each other in the future and that they are likely to meet again. Of course, this strategy can give itself rise to "cheating"; acceptance of acts of altruism from others, but failing to reciprocate in the future.
In any case the individual is often placed in the dilemma whether to cooperate or whether to cheat. This was nicely illustrated by the game "the prisoners dilemma", but that would lead me too far. If somebody is actually interested in this then I will explain this game. It's quite fun actually.

And from there to the game theories of John Nash, et al., and then economic and political theory, landing us back where we started.

And from there to the game theories of John Nash, et al., and then economic and political theory, landing us back where we started.

Most likely yes. Then again, history does have a tendency to repeat itself quite often!

Bitt, Cuba is a good place to live? Ask the people in Miami about that. Hmm... I wonder why so many are hoping on rafts and floating to their deaths...

It seems that communism/socialism is only supported by "the people" when those people are living it utter poverty. Then, "just enough to get by" is more than they have. It's weird how after thousands of years of humanity, and hundreds of attempts at successful communist governments (with everyone here so far saying they don't work) several of you still have this vision in your heads that "maybe it'll work this time if...." It's so dreamy to think of a day when I won't be able to vote, express my opinion or practice religion! Sign me up!

Bonzi, the reason that communism is only faught from the outside is because it CAN"T be faught from within. Just ask the student uprisers in Chinese jails.

On another note: Someone said the concept of countries falling like dominoes to communism was a silly concept. Didn't they fall like dominoes to Democracy after the Berlin Wall fell? Looking back, it seems like another country was leaving communism to their history books each week back in the early 90's.

OK, I'm being a jerk about France (and I'm 1/2 French so maybe I feel I have to make up for some bad Karma), but I heard on NPR that France just made flag burning illegal and there is some law (not new) that you can't rip on their prime minister.... I'm not sure exactly what you can't do (surely you can print an editorial saying you don't like his policies) but a British mag. is being charged for printing a photo of the French Prime Minister's head on a body of a worm!

In any case the individual is often placed in the dilemma whether to cooperate or whether to cheat. This was nicely illustrated by the game "the prisoners dilemma", but that would lead me too far.

I googled on this. It's interesting how the problem of suboptimization, as found in the Prisoners' Dilemma, underlies some of the problems appearing in evolutionary ehtics.