1. American, and more broadly capitalist imperialism, has a bloody record, particularly abroad, but also against the Indians and blacks at home, while at the same time:
2. offering a great deal of formal political freedom, formerly to white men, then to whites in general, and more recently, extending this to minority groups; and
3. the stability of capitalist rule in America and the other advanced capitalsit country depends large on real consent and not on repression and force.
4. The former USSR under Stalin (in particular) was a bloody dictatorship under which millions of innocent Soviets were either murdered by the secret police, left to starve on the ruins of their own farms, or sent to labor camps to suffer and, in many cases, die. How many millions died or were imprisoned is debatbale, but a few million more or less cannot make a real difference in our appraisal of the regime;
5. Abroad, the former USSR was a far more benign influence than the US has been, even under Stalin--which isn't saying much--although not in a particularly internationalist way; it was rather than the USSR's interests drove it to ally more often than not with the victims of imperialism. Nearby in its own "sphere of influence," its policy was more aggressive and repressive, but, while the Latvians or Ples might not see the difference, they were better off being oppressed by the Soiets than, say, the Nicaraguans or Haitians were being exploited by the Americans.
I think that with qualifications the above propositons are obviosu and incontrovertible. I think everyone agrees with them, although Charles, say, might grumble about the blunness of my characterization of the Stalinist USSR and Brad might think I have overstated the bruality of capitalsim imperialism.
Be that as it may. What is thsi discussion supposed to accomplish? Doug, Carl, and I do not want to defend capitalism or US imperialism; I should hope that Charles would not want to defend Stalinism--at least, he bridled when I called him a Stalinist, which I meant as a characterization and not an insult. (I come out of a political tradition where people did call themselves Stalinists,a lthough I always though as I did about the old butcher.) So unless wewant to replay the boring debates of the late 40s that finally sent Max Schachtman off the rails, let's give it a rest, eh?
--jks
In a message dated Tue, 2 May 2000 9:51:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:
<< How about the good ole American, "the only good injun is a dead injun."
I know these are not Americans thinking they are not tied for the lead as the biggest mass murdering nation , with despotic murdering leaders like Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Truman, Jackson, McKinley, Wilson, Colin Powell.
"Lets punish Saddam Hussein by killing a few million Iraqi children. Yea, that's democracy American style.
CB
>>> Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> 05/01/00 05:47PM >>>
Carl Remick wrote:
> I'd say that line is beat easily by his ultimate thigh-slapper, "One death
> is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic."
I believe the version of this coined by someone in this country was, "One death is a tragedy, 10,000 is a problem in sanitation." Variations pop up all over. Anyone know of any dependable ascriptions?
Around 90 years ago, to the New York Times 3 deaths (by lynching in the south) was neither a statistic nor a tragedy but an occasion for editorial humor.
Carrol
>>