Soviet and US Economy

Charles Brown CharlesB at
Mon Jul 20 09:41:47 PDT 1998

I don't know about "only" benefits, but after fascism became so widespread in Eastern Europe, and the Nazis invaded the USSR and killed 20 million and destroyed a huge fraction of the economy and society, the Soviets sort of had to put the source of this holocaust on ice a bit. I mean wouldn't you have ? Would you have just defeated them and left, creating the chance that fascism would rise up again and annihilate you ? So, a "benefit" was the defeat of fascism. 95% of the Nazis casualties were inflicted by the Red Army.

Also, "imperialism" is not the correct term to describe the Soviet presence. They were not exploiting Eastern Europe in the way that the powerful capitalist nations exploit colonies and neo-colonies. The Soviets never initiated any aggression against imperialism. Imperialism was the initiator of the blockade and war on the new SU. It was the invader in WW II and imperialism started and initiated all escalations of the nuclear arms race. The Soviets urged abolition of nuclear weapons after the U.S. dropped the bomb on Japan.

Charles Brown

>>> Brad De Long <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> 07/18 5:38 PM >>>
>The reason for doing so is consistency and concern for the welfare of
>workers, East and West. Some on this list agonize over US imperialism in
>Latin America but see only benefits with USSR imperialism in Eastern

Who on this list sees *only* benefits from USSR imperialism from Eastern Europe?

(The only places where I see net benefits from USSR imperialism are Afghanistan (Najibullah better than Taliban), Angola (Jonas Savimibi is bad news), and Mozambique (almost anyone better than RENAMO). Everywhere else, I think the people would have been better off if the rulers of the USSR had simply never heard of the place...)

Brad DeLong

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list