On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:33 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Matthias Wasser
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > CB: And it grew faster than the capitalist West had when it first
> > grew. And after the Nazis-destruction, they had to "start over" ,
> > almost. The Nazis didn't just kill people. They destroyed the economy.
> >
> > So , the Soviet socialist republic , Stalinism even, was a very
> > powerful development model. Just think if they hadn't had to fight off
> > and defend against the biggest war attacks and war threats in the
> > history of humanity.
> >
>
>
> 1) Was there any reason for them to retain their conventional arms
> superiority other than the domination of central Europe?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> CB: Imperialism , capitalism, in the form of Nazism had invaded and
> murder 27 million Soviets, and destroyed much much much. Think about
> it comrade. If 27 million of your people had been murdered ( and how
> many casualties ?) wouldn't you have a responsibility to build up your
> defenses to prevent another holocaust ? Come on motherfucker. Not
> only that. "Central Europe" had lots of fascists who joined the Nazis
> in the invasion. Get motherfucking real, dude.
>
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
>
> 2) Isn't it easier to grow quickly after widespread destruction?
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> CB: Not necessarily. After major destruction you might be just beat
> down. You are thinking like a capitalist. "Creative" destruction.
> Disgusting. But anyway they grew really fast before the major
> destruction. They grew fast before major destruction and after major
> destruction.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> 3) Has anyone done any models of how they would have grown if they
> hadn't thrown all that money into conventional arms? Quick napkin math
> makes it seem like, if investment to growth in the non-military sector
> were held constant, they could have continued to outgrow the West, but
> that doesn't factor in diminishing returns, civilian spillage from
> military research, or any economic benefits of maintaining central
> Europe
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: What are you thinking ? This was the biggest slaughter in the
> history of humanity . That is not an exaggeration. It is precise,
> truth. Name a bigger slaughter you insensitive whatever. 27 million
> people killed. How many more were casualties ? How the motherfuck
> wouldn't you put resources in defense to prevent another annihilation
> of your mothers, sisters, brotheres, uncles, fathers, your whole
> goddamn family ? You have to survive to grow the goddamn economy. And
> then you've got nuclear weapons pointed at you after that. Americans ,
> Westerners can't even conceive of the horror of the circumstance the
> Soviets were in. Get the fuck out of my face .
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>