Legacies of the cold war

[Herainestold]

It may have started out as defending abstract principles but the Cold War soon turned in to an us-against-them power struggle, where my enemy's enemy is my friend. If the result had been different and the Capitalist powers had collapsed, the world would be a much less perilous place today.

[Herainestold]

Two points. First, this is not an issue confined to the mists of the early cold war, because the US is refusing to help the Marshallese with the problem they created for them right now. Second, I agree with lpm that countries with good intentions are, in a manner of speaking, forced to do bad things when threatened by countries with bad intentions, but historically, in most countries the Communists were clearly on the right side of history on most issues. In the popular imagination, the Communists have a revolution and then immediately start killing everyone they disagree with, but outside of someone like Pol Pot, in reality it's more like, the Communists have a revolution, the traditional Imperial powers then fund and arm any opposition they can find, including actual fascists, the country slides into brutal civil war with all the associated atrocities. If the fascists win they get 'brought into the fold' with trade etc. If the Communists win they get isolated and embargoed, with ongoing assassination attempts against their leaders unless they are deemed too dangerous to mess with.

With respect to Pol Pot and the Khmer rouge regime, we must remember it was the American bombing of Kampuchea that brought Pol Pot to power. It was the communist regime of Vietnam that finally put an end to the crimes against humanity. The democracies didnt give a toss about genocide.

[Martin Y]

... If the result had been different and the Capitalist powers had collapsed, the world would be a much less perilous place today.

The world would already have had to be a different place in order for that to happen.

But it seems like a very odd assumption that the power vacuum left by the collapse of the US and its allies would result in a more peaceful world. What do you imagine? You don't foresee the remaining powers fighting over the very considerable spoils?

I mean, we're not talking about waving a magic wand and all the capitalist countries vanish. Consider the power vacuum left by just the collapse of the power structure in Iraq, and what a mad-c.nt-magnet that turned into. That shitshow is like a free sample compared to what the fall of capitalism would be like. Here's the thing: people are just people. If the opportunity presents to grab a slice of the action and you're not c.nty enough to take it, you can be damned sure some bigger c.nt will snap it up and soon they'll be a lot bigger and that's when they'll turn their eye on you.

[lpm]

It may have started out as defending abstract principles but the Cold War soon turned in to an us-against-them power struggle, where my enemy's enemy is my friend. If the result had been different and the Capitalist powers had collapsed, the world would be a much less perilous place today.

A boot stamping on a human face forever is certainly a form of stability. Secret Squirrel, the fact that you are saying similar things to this idiot should be a warning that you've left reality far, far behind.

[Woodchopper]

Whether and in what manner Conquest felt the Holodomor was deliberate is also to some extend besides the point, though of course I am responsible for bringing his name into the conversation. Lots of serious historians argue it was not deliberate. You don't have to agree with me, but the idea that I'm 'just making things up' is clearly not correct either.

Among the recent books by Western authors (Russian and Ukrainians tend to be a bit biased) on the subject we have the 2018 Red Famine by Anne Applebaum, 2012 Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder, and the 2010 Stalin's Genocides by Norman Naimark.

The books that I'm aware of that argue differently are Sheila Fitzpatrick's 1994 Stalin's Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village After Collectivization and Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft's 2004 The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933 (link in the post above).

As a minor point, I'd tend to put more weight in the newer books as historians discover new information from archives. More importantly, both Fitzpatrick (pp 69-79) and Davies and Wheatcroft (pp 431-441) argue that, in D&W's words "The fundamental cause of the deterioration of agriculture in 1928–33 was the unremitting state pressure on rural resources." Nevertheless both books argue that Stalin's actions were not motivated by an intention to cause mass starvation in the Ukraine. Instead Stalin wished to implement the five year plan which included collectivization, and famine was a consequence.

However, as Michael Ellman argues, even if one takes these arguments at face value, Stalin omitted to send grain to the areas affected by famine (including via importing grain from abroad which had occurred earlier in the history of the Soviet Union), and exacerbated the famine by extracting grain from the Ukraine and prevented starving Ukrainians from leaving the area. The last two actions would usually cross the legal threshold of murder, if they were done knowingly. I think that in his article Ellman makes a strong case that:

[...] he debate is about whether Stalin was guilty ‘only’ of (mass) manslaughter or whether he was guilty of (mass) murder. From a criminal-law point of view, the only way of defending Stalin from the charge of (mass) murder is to argue that he was ignorant of the consequences of his actions. Stalin was undoubtedly ignorant about many things, but was he really that ignorant? From the standpoint of contemporary international criminal law, a crime (or series of crimes) for which Team-Stalin was clearly guilty in 1930 – 34, is that of crime(s) against humanity.

[jimbob]

It may have started out as defending abstract principles but the Cold War soon turned in to an us-against-them power struggle, where my enemy's enemy is my friend. If the result had been different and the Capitalist powers had collapsed, the world would be a much less perilous place today.

Really?

There were pretty vicious power struggles within the Politbureau of Russia. Any system where those in power cannot be peaceably removed by those they rule is prone to dictatorship and tyranny.


And Secret Squirrel's argument seems to be "Stalin and Mao weren't that bad." (still has to gloss over the Khmer Rouge)

[Herainestold]

It may have started out as defending abstract principles but the Cold War soon turned in to an us-against-them power struggle, where my enemy's enemy is my friend. If the result had been different and the Capitalist powers had collapsed, the world would be a much less perilous place today.

Really?

There were pretty vicious power struggles within the Politbureau of Russia. Any system where those in power cannot be peaceably removed by those they rule is prone to dictatorship and tyranny.


And Secret Squirrel's argument seems to be "Stalin and Mao weren't that bad." (still has to gloss over the Khmer Rouge)

It had remarkable stability for decades, except when somebody died. The Chinese system appears to have better continuity. But yes, they lacked a good system for changing of the guard. Meanwhile the people enjoyed peace and modest prosperity, at least for a couple of generation s.

[Bird on a Fire]

Except for the ones who got killed, of course.

It gets a bit Miss Trunchbull - "My idea of a perfect school, Miss Honey, is one that has no children in it at all" - if you start claiming that killing all the troublemakers (plus collateral) is an acceptable route to peace and prosperity.

[Pishwish]

This thread is pretty depressing. At first, I thought some of the responses were parodies of tankies, but Poe's law strikes again. Looks like people on the left are vulnerable to the same sort of gullibility and cult-like thinking we see with Trump and QAnon supporters. No one reads books or newspapers anymore, they swim in the same self-affirming ecosystem of ideas. I guess the tankie revival was inevitable, as people die, history is forgotten, and contrarian views get amplified on social media.

[jimbob]

Except for the ones who got killed, of course.

It gets a bit Miss Trunchbull - "My idea of a perfect school, Miss Honey, is one that has no children in it at all" - if you start claiming that killing all the troublemakers (plus collateral) is an acceptable route to peace and prosperity.

And by "troublemakers" you include those who are born into the wrong ethnic group

[Herainestold]

Except for the ones who got killed, of course.

It gets a bit Miss Trunchbull - "My idea of a perfect school, Miss Honey, is one that has no children in it at all" - if you start claiming that killing all the troublemakers (plus collateral) is an acceptable route to peace and prosperity.

I'm not sure who is claiming that killing all the troublemakers is an acceptable route to peace and prosperity. Post Stalin Soviet Union and Post Mao China , were not in the wholesale slaughter business. There was more of an emphasis on reeducating miscreants, which maybe didnt work as well as envisioned, but in the long run was superior to letting people fester in ghettos, denied the basic rights to employment, education, health and proper shelter.

[jimbob]

Except for the ones who got killed, of course.

It gets a bit Miss Trunchbull - "My idea of a perfect school, Miss Honey, is one that has no children in it at all" - if you start claiming that killing all the troublemakers (plus collateral) is an acceptable route to peace and prosperity.

I'm not sure who is claiming that killing all the troublemakers is an acceptable route to peace and prosperity. Post Stalin Soviet Union and Post Mao China , were not in the wholesale slaughter business. There was more of an emphasis on reeducating miscreants, which maybe didnt work as well as envisioned, but in the long run was superior to letting people fester in ghettos, denied the basic rights to employment, education, health and proper shelter.

Reeducating.

[Bird on a Fire]

weird use of the past tense

[Herainestold]

Except for the ones who got killed, of course.

It gets a bit Miss Trunchbull - "My idea of a perfect school, Miss Honey, is one that has no children in it at all" - if you start claiming that killing all the troublemakers (plus collateral) is an acceptable route to peace and prosperity.

I'm not sure who is claiming that killing all the troublemakers is an acceptable route to peace and prosperity. Post Stalin Soviet Union and Post Mao China , were not in the wholesale slaughter business. There was more of an emphasis on reeducating miscreants, which maybe didnt work as well as envisioned, but in the long run was superior to letting people fester in ghettos, denied the basic rights to employment, education, health and proper shelter.

Reeducating.

Yes. Its better than killing and its better than a life in poverty on the margins of society.
Individualistic western society sees it as an affront to civil liberties, but from a societal point of view it is a reasonable response.

[lpm]

"You need reeducating in the value of peasant labour" is one of my favourite sayings, used whenever someone says something too intellectual.

[Pishwish]

Yes. Its better than killing and its better than a life in poverty on the margins of society.
Individualistic western society sees it as an affront to civil liberties, but from a societal point of view it is a reasonable response.

I bet the antebellum south made similar arguments for maintaining slavery.

[Herainestold]

"You need reeducating in the value of peasant labour" is one of my favourite sayings, used whenever someone says something too intellectual.

You'd be my first choice for head of the secret police.

[Pishwish]

I was sure that someone (EACLucifer?) wrote a detailed post about Cuba outlining the discrepancies between its claimed and actual healthcare achievements. I couldn't find the post (perhaps it was in the old place) but I did find a thread where one poster (and you'll never guess which one) disputed that his political hero wanted a nuclear dump in a disadvantaged area. Ironic, given the OP.

[Millennie Al]

This thread is pretty depressing. At first, I thought some of the responses were parodies of tankies, but Poe's law strikes again.

I think it is a manifestation of the tendency for people to think that everyone else is much more similar to them than they really are, so people who are not themselves homicidal maniacs have great difficulty imagining that those in power could be homicidal maniacs - or even sufficiently callous to let bad things happen that were avoidable. I don't know if you should feel that that is depressing (because it dooms us to bad goverance coming back repeatedly as we forget how bad it was) or not (because it means that people are to nice to understand the world).

[Woodchopper]

This thread is pretty depressing. At first, I thought some of the responses were parodies of tankies, but Poe's law strikes again.

I think it is a manifestation of the tendency for people to think that everyone else is much more similar to them than they really are, so people who are not themselves homicidal maniacs have great difficulty imagining that those in power could be homicidal maniacs - or even sufficiently callous to let bad things happen that were avoidable. I don't know if you should feel that that is depressing (because it dooms us to bad goverance coming back repeatedly as we forget how bad it was) or not (because it means that people are to nice to understand the world).

Having read biographies of both I don’t think that Stalin or Mao were homicidal maniacs. They didn’t personally take part in torture or executions (unlike Beria) and Stalin expressed sympathy when he saw the marks of torture on some of his victims after they’d been rehabilitated. Both just believed that the ends justified the means. But maybe a failure in imagination lies in an ability to conceive of how far people will go as long as they believe that they’re right.

[secret squirrel]

Among the recent books by Western authors (Russian and Ukrainians tend to be a bit biased) on the subject we have the 2018 Red Famine by Anne Applebaum, 2012 Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder, and the 2010 Stalin's Genocides by Norman Naimark.

The books that I'm aware of that argue differently are Sheila Fitzpatrick's 1994 Stalin's Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village After Collectivization and Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft's 2004 The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933 (link in the post above).

As a minor point, I'd tend to put more weight in the newer books as historians discover new information from archives. More importantly, both Fitzpatrick (pp 69-79) and Davies and Wheatcroft (pp 431-441) argue that, in D&W's words "The fundamental cause of the deterioration of agriculture in 1928–33 was the unremitting state pressure on rural resources." Nevertheless both books argue that Stalin's actions were not motivated by an intention to cause mass starvation in the Ukraine. Instead Stalin wished to implement the five year plan which included collectivization, and famine was a consequence.

However, as Michael Ellman argues, even if one takes these arguments at face value, Stalin omitted to send grain to the areas affected by famine (including via importing grain from abroad which had occurred earlier in the history of the Soviet Union), and exacerbated the famine by extracting grain from the Ukraine and prevented starving Ukrainians from leaving the area. The last two actions would usually cross the legal threshold of murder, if they were done knowingly. I think that in his article Ellman makes a strong case that:

[...] he debate is about whether Stalin was guilty ‘only’ of (mass) manslaughter or whether he was guilty of (mass) murder. From a criminal-law point of view, the only way of defending Stalin from the charge of (mass) murder is to argue that he was ignorant of the consequences of his actions. Stalin was undoubtedly ignorant about many things, but was he really that ignorant? From the standpoint of contemporary international criminal law, a crime (or series of crimes) for which Team-Stalin was clearly guilty in 1930 – 34, is that of crime(s) against humanity.

Well, obviously Western writers have their own biases, but ultimately I think what you say here is a fair take. Stalin viewed the Ukraine and some other places as troublesome fringe regions to be exploited and sacrificed for the good of the Soviet empire, as were the peasantry in general. The Holodomor is of course an example of this, as were the various mass deportations. He had legitimate reasons for his rapid industrialization policy, and he was not particularly concerned about the massive human suffering it caused, or human suffering in general. Specifically in the case of the Holodomor, he arguably viewed the starvation as a bonus, but it was not the primary reason for his coercive agricultural policy in the region. So I think our specific disagreement here comes down mainly to different interpretations of the word ‘deliberate’ and its scope. And also my characterization of the evolution of Conquest’s opinions, but I accept I was likely mistaken about that.

[Herainestold]

Having read biographies of both I don’t think that Stalin or Mao were homicidal maniacs. They didn’t personally take part in torture or executions (unlike Beria) and Stalin expressed sympathy when he saw the marks of torture on some of his victims after they’d been rehabilitated. Both just believed that the ends justified the means. But maybe a failure in imagination lies in an ability to conceive of how far people will go as long as they believe that they’re right.

I think it is more a propensity of human societies rather than individual people. It appears that it is not that difficult to convince the populace that utopia awaits if we just eliminate those people.

[JQH]

During the Cold War the West did have a habit of labelling liberation movements as "communist" whether they were or not. ANC was a classic case but I don't recall their mass nationalisations when they finally took power,

[Martin Y]

During the Cold War the West did have a habit of labelling liberation movements as "communist" whether they were or not. ANC was a classic case but I don't recall their mass nationalisations when they finally took power,

I think the traditional label "freedom fighters" was available if they were anti-communist.

[Herainestold]

During the Cold War the West did have a habit of labelling liberation movements as "communist" whether they were or not. ANC was a classic case but I don't recall their mass nationalisations when they finally took power,

I think the traditional label "freedom fighters" was available if they were anti-communist.

When in reality it was the anti-fascist forces that were the true freedom fighters.