-----Mensagem original----- De: lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org]Em nome de Luke Benjamin Weiger Enviada em: terça-feira, 1 de julho de 2003 14:47 Para: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Assunto: RE: [lbo-talk] A Call from the Maoists of Iran
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Chris Doss wrote:
> Well, that opinion is rather widespread in Russia. You can make a
perfectly
> rational cost-benefit analysis and argue that Stalin was good for the
> country (note that you cannot do so with Hitler).
Only because the Germans lost the war. There are plenty of plausible alternate histories in which Nazi Germany fights a less ambitious version of WWII and wins.
-- Luke
-Nazism is, unlike communism, an inherently agressive doctrine. It was not -by coincidence that Hitler lost the war. He started it. And he started it -because the very program of economic recovery he followed only made sense -if he had the intention of going to war, otherwise, he would have led -Germany to bankrupcy. When you start agression wars you take much more risks -than those who don´t. On the other hand, Stalin´s industriaization program -not only achieved significant improvements in USSR living standards, but -also didn´t relied on war to kepp economic gains, quite the opposite, -USSR could have won a lot in a "no war scenario". -On living standards improvement from 1928-40, look at:
http://www.arts.ubc.ca/econ/dp9718.pdf
Alexandre Fenelon --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/03