Trade freedom for security?

[NotNow]

OK, first off Adam is right when he says that there were a myriad of factors which led to the fall of the USSR.  He is wrong when he refers to the Reagan administration as "a Bunch of psychos".   The Reagan administration had some impressive successes and as I previously stated President Reagan is one of the most revered recent presidents by MOST Americans.  I did not agree with every decision, especially with the gift of hindsight.  But I don't agree with every decision of ANY president. 

As for Dare! and his most excellent adventure into make believe;

I appreciate your research into religious monasteries.  I am not sure how the existence of these religious institutions equates to "successful communism".   The occupants of these religious institutions are bound by their religion to shun property and to help others for a number of reasons.  Is it your intent to compare this to state communism?  Really?  I would say that the religious institutions that you are referencing survive not because of communal living conditions, but the religious faith of their occupants.  What you have made is a strong argument for faith and what it can accomplish.  I appreciate that, but your post conveys no legitimacy to the communist system. 

"Communism" in whatever form tried in any country had been an abject failure in every experiment for the peoples of that country.  Can we agree on that?  If not, what communist country would you posit as successful in improving the lives and living conditions of the common people?   I can think of several that have been put forward in the past, but in every case the general dissatisfaction of the people with their lack of freedom inherent in such a system along with other factors easily challenge the argument.  This is the same argument that I would pose to your statement about "communism was good for Eastern Europeans and Russians."   Those populations were always dissatisfied with their lack of freedoms, and despite any improvements in lifestyle, were always outpaced by the Democratized nations.  This only added to the frustrations and eventually this was one of the major factors leading to the dissolution of the Soviet empire.  Of course the corruption and government incompetence added to the dissatisfactions.   So "communism" has never worked as a state system.  I don't think that it can for a number of reasons but we don't have the room here to go into this subject in depth. 
Of course, my argument leaves open the question "What system DOES work then?".  There are a number of ways to run a state, and there are infinite ways of hybridising systems.  As our technology progresses, especially our instant communications, I believe that we will be challenged to make our governmental systems continue to satisfactorily meet the needs of the citizens.  Also a subject that can not be covered here because of length.  Bottom line for all of my wordiness:

Communism is a defunct system.  Let's move on.

Now that we have established that there is no proof for your claims that President GHW Bush was involved in any way, let's establish other "facts".  For the benefit of all, the "Iranian Hostage Crisis" was the mob assault on the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979.  The "students", actually a group that called themselves "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line" took hostage 66 American citizens.  Some women, african-Americans, and a sick man were released over the following months but 52 of the hostages were not released until January 20th, 1981, just minutes after President Reagan was sworn into office.  Some reasons for the timing of the release should also include the death of the former Shah and the start of the Iran-Iraq war.   The release was negotiated in the "Algiers Accords".  The US and Iran agreed essentially to a civil agreement over money and the US agreed not to "interfere" in Iran or press claims related to the Embassy takeover or hostage taking.

The "Iran-Contra Affair" or "Arms for Hostages" actually began in 1985, more than four years after the Iran Hostage Crisis and into President Reagan's second term.  After some years of war Iran was interested in American weapons, most notably anti tank systems and anti air systems.  A "deal" was negotiated in which Israel would ship TOW anti tank weapons and HAWK anti air weapons to Iran and Israel would be reimbursed.  The stated purpose was to reach out to "moderate" Iranians and obtain their influence with hostage takers in Lebanon to release their American hostages. The US had already covertly aided both countries with non US weapons in an effort to keep the combatants at each other.  The plan later morphed into adding a percentage onto the sales that was diverted to the "Contras" fighting in Nicaragua.  Not surprisingly, the sales and diversion of funds was discovered and publicized.  President Reagan admitted authorizing the Iranian arms sales in order to make contacts with moderate Iranians, but disavowed trading arms for hostages or knowledge of the diversion of profits from the Iranian arms sales to the contras.  Several persons in his administration were fired and/or indicted.

It is disingenuous to conflate the two incidents.  There is no evidence of any sales of "weapons of mass destruction" to Iran, even if StephenDare! wishes to make up his own definition of what weapons of mass destruction are. 

President Carter's mishandling of the Iranian Hostage Crises is a lesson in how not to lead.  He took the wrong actions leading up to the crisis, mishandled the response, and perhaps most damaging, made concession after concession to several Iranian offers only to be stood up by the Iranian Ayatolah.  The deal to release the hostages was finally reached by an Iran which had a war on its hands, no Shah to object to, and desperately in need of hard currency.  MY OPINION, and the opinion of most historians, is that Iran realized that after more than a year of immobilizing the US Government, and publicly humiliating President Carter several times, the same tactics would be ineffective with an increasingly impatient American public and a new President who had campaigned on a platform of "Peace through Strength". 

I am not "accusing" you of anything StephenDare!.  I am simply pointing out that despite your constant reference to being a "Reagan Republican" in your youth, in the seven or eight years that I have observed your posts you take every opportunity to knock capitalism and Republicans and have defended communism at every turn.  I am glad that you now claim to prefer capitalism and I take you at your word.  I hope that we can agree that "capitalism" in some form is the only system that will work as a state system in the modern world.  By "work" I mean meet the needs of the citizens.

[Adam W]

OK, first off Adam is right when he says that there were a myriad of factors which led to the fall of the USSR.  He is wrong when he refers to the Reagan administration as "a buch of psychos".   The Reagan admiinistration had some impressive successes and as I previously stated President Reagan is one of the most revered recent presidents by MOST Americans.  I did not agree with every decision, especially with the gift of hindsight.  But I don't agree with every decision of ANY president. 

As for Dare! and his most excellent adventure into make believe;

I appreciate your research into religious monastaries.  I am not sure how the existience of these religious institutions equates to "successful communism".   The occupants of these religious institutions are bound by their religion to shun property and to help others for a number of reasons.  Is it your intent to compare this to state communism?  Really?  I would say that the religious institutions that you are referencing survive not because of communal living conditions, but the religious faith of their occupants.  What you have made is a strong argument for faith and what it can accomplish.  I appreciate that, but your post conveys no legitimacy to the communist system. 

"Communism" in whatever form tried in any country had been an abject failure in every experiment for the peoples of that country.  Can we agree on that?  If not, what communist country would you posit as successful in improving the lives and living conditions of the common people?   I can think of several that have been put forward in the past, but in every case the general dissatisfaction of the people with their lack of freedom inherent in such a system along with other factors easily challenge the argument.  This is the same argument that I would pose to your statement about "communism was good for Eastern Europeans and Russians."   Those populations were always dissatisfied with their lack of freedoms, and despite any improvements in lifestyle, were always outpaced by the Democratized nations.  This only added to the frustrations and eventually this was one of the major factors leading to the dissolution of the Soviet empire.  Of course the corruption and government incompetence added to the dissatisfactions.   So "communism" has never worked as a state system.  I don't think that it can for a number of reasons but we don't have the room here to go into this subject in depth. 
Of course, my argument leaves open the question "What system DOES work then?".  There are a number of ways to run a state, and there are infinite ways of hybriding systems.  As our technology progresses, especially our instant communications, I believe that we will be challenged to make our governmental systems continue to satisfactorily meet the needs of the citizens.  Also a subject that can not be covered here because of length.  Bottom line for all of my wordiness:

Communism is a defunct system.  Let's move on.

Now that we have established that there is no proof for your claims that President GHW Bush was involved in any way, let's establish another "fact".  For the benefit of all, the "Iranian Hostage Crisis" was the mob assault on the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979.  The "students", actually a group that called themselves "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line" took hostage 66 American citizens.  Some women, african-Americans, and a sick man were released over the following months but 52 of the hostages were not released until January 20th, 1981, just minutes after President Reagan was sworn into office.  Some reasons for the timing of the release should also include the death of the former Shah and the start of the Iran-Iraq war.   The release was negotiated in the "Algiers Accords".  The US and Iran agreed essentially to a civil agreement over money and the US agreed not to "interfere" in Iran or press claims related to the Embasy takeover or hostage taking.

The "Iran-Contra Affair" or "Arms for Hostages" actually began in 1985, more than four years after the Iran Hostage Crisis and into President Reagan's second term.  After some years of war Iran was interested in American weapons, most notably anti tank systems and anti air systems.  A "deal" was negotiated in which Israel would ship TOW anti tank weapons and HAWK anti air weapons to Iran and israel would be reimbursed.  The stated purpose was to reach out to "moderate" Iranians and obtain their influence with hostage takers in Lebanon to release their American hostages. The US had already covertly aided both countries with non US weapons in an effort to keep the combatants at each other.  The plan later motphed into adding a percentage onto the sales that was diverted to the "Contras" fighting in Nicaragua.  Not surprisingly, the sales and diversion of funds was discovered and publicized.  President Reagan admitted authorizing the Iranian arms sales in order to make contacts with moderate Iranians, but disavowed trading arms for hostages or knowledge of the diversion of profits from the Iranian arms sales to the contras.  Several persons in his administration were fired and/or indicted.

It is disingenuous to conflate the two incidents.  There is no evidence of any sales of "weapons of mass destruction" to Iran, even if StephenDare! wishes to make up his own definition of what weapons of mass destruction are. 

I am not "accusing" you of anything StephenDare!.  I am simply pointing out that despite your constant reference to being a "Reagan Republican" in your youth, in the seven or eight years that I have observed your posts you take every opportunity to knock capitalism and Republicans and have defended communism at every turn.  I am glad that you now claim to prefer capitalism and I take you at your word.  I hope that we can agree that "capitalism" in some form is the only system that will work as a state system in the modern world.  By "work" I mean meet the needs of the citizens.

I only accept that communism is a failure if by "communism" you mean Marxism-Leninism.

[NotNow]

I mean "communism", as a state system.  Where has it been successful? 

[ben says]

People often get this confused...

Marxism-Leninism is a farce. There is only Leninism, then Stalinism, etc. Marxism is a whole different beast.

If you read Marx, one quickly finds out that Marx never said "you should do this" or "you should do that"....there is no "blueprint", so to speak, of what Communism should look like or how to attain it.

Marx, especially Capital I-III, is an ANALYSIS of contemporary economics. That's it...it's an economics book. Seriously people, read it. It in no way/shape/form proscribes what the world should look like under "Communism"

Ergo, whatever form "Communism" took in Soviet Russia had little if any relationship to what Marx was talking about in Capital and the Economic Manuscripts...

I'd be shocked if anyone on this forum, or anyone in general, read Capital and didn't say "holy shit, this is exactly what's going on right now!!!" It's prophetic to say the least.

I just wish people would stop intermingling Marx's name with that of 20th century politicians acting under the guise of "Marxism"...nowhere in Marx is there a mention of gulags, mass murder, political oppression, etc...

So, alas, when people talk about the failures of Russia in the 20th century, let's be clear...20th century Soviet Russia was NOT a Marxism state. It was a Communist state. A Communist state that had little if any bearing to what Marx said or did.

PS--it's too easy to say "X" caused the downfall of the USSR....anyone who thinks its that simple has not done their due diligence.

I mean "communism", as a state system.  Where has it been successful? 

OK, I'll bite...

I think if you take away the past 50 years of US's harassment of Cuba, it's embargoes, it's propaganda, it's trade barriers...Cuba has done a fine job in the face of Western imperialism. Yeah, it could be better, but so could the US. Cuba never had a fair shot...if it did, I bet they'd be a fully realized, successful nationstate. Don't forget: they have more PhDs per capita and one of the best health systems in the world. Their people don't go hungry. They have ZERO environmental degradation. Etc etc...

Also don't forget, no matter what mutant form they've taken, China is still, technically, a Communist country...as is Vietnam..etc

What's our poverty level at again? 1 in 6? Healthcare? Education?

[Dog Walker]

Without our harassment, embargoes, propaganda, trade barriers, the Castro brothers and their whole government would be long gone.  WE have kept them in power with our stupid policies.

[NotNow]

This discussion had reminded me of the lessons learned that relate to the current problems our country faces.  While it is no secret that I am not an Obama supporter, like any President he has had successes and failures and he has been effective in some areas and ineffective in others.  He would be well advised to heed the lessons learned in the Iranian Hostage Crisis.  It is not enough to be a powerful nation.  It is the the wise use of that power that is the measure of a President.  Today, as American embassies, consulates, and business are besieged in various countries across the world by radical Islamist, President Obama's response to these insults to American life, property, and pride will have great effect not only on the election, but his legacy as well.  While I hope for the defeat of Obama in this upcoming election, for the sake of our country I hope he successfully engages the forces that currently besiege our peoples.  His performance thus far does not give me great confidence.

[NotNow]

Ben says,

I agree with your assessment of Marx and his studies.  It is not the "Communism" as a state system we see today.  I hope that we can agree that the idea that a central state control of all means of production, with a centrally mandated system of reward and privilege, can never work.  Especially in to days world.  I have never claimed that any single thing caused the fall of the USSR.  I simply pointed out that the policies and activities of the Reagan administration contributed to it.

Let's look at Cuba.  Yes, the US has maintained a trade embargo, but it is open to the rest of the world, is it not?  Are you saying that only trade with the United States is holding back this bastion of economic activity?  Of course not, that is silly.  So why did the island nation only survive on Soviet handouts for years?  And "modify" its communist economic system once that support disappeared?  More Phd's per capita does not directly serve the needs and wants of the public.  "One of the best health care systems in the world"?  Really?  Does Michael Moore travel to Cuba for his health care?  Danny Glover?  Sean Penn?  I won't argue that Cuba has not established a credible health care system.  But it is not, by far, one of the best in the world.  I have never been to Cuba (other than Gitmo).  But I have several friends who have been there on humanitarian trips.  They describe a very different Cuba than you do.  Serious poverty, shortages of many products including food.  And polluted ground and water.  As a matter of fact, pure water production was the purpose of at least one of those trips.  I can't help but point out the constant stream of refugees that risk life to cross to the US.  Why do you think they do that?  Please read the loooonnnggg list of writings by Cuban refugees.  Their description of life in Cuba far outstrips anything that I could say.  It is indeed a beautiful country, and a wonderful people.  But I don't believe that the Cuban people have been well served by communism.

By the way, Fidel is a self described 'Marxist-Leninist".

China, Vietnam.  Would you state that the people of those countries are "better off" than if they were living in a capitalist system?  The Hong Kong experiment would argue against such an idea.  Hong Kong remained capitalist for almost one hundred years and its economy and living standards FAR outstripped that of mainland China.  Taiwan, despite it's own embargos and foreign relations challenges, also has outperformed its mainland cousin by a large margin.  Vietnam, a more recent member of the club, has adopted a very capitalistic view of communism.  I will stick to my theory that communism can not thrive in this case as well though.  As a system, the central control of production and reward limits the freedoms, hopes, and dreams of its citizens.  Because of this, even without the human constants of corruption and greed, the system will not work.  People will always want to make their own choices in life.  Where to live, what profession, family decisions, and all of the choices that we in America can make for ourselves (so far). 

Of course it is complicated.  And the system we use here in the US is constantly changing and it is not perfect either.  But I stand by my assertion that capitalism in some form is the best in the modern world for meeting the needs of it citizens.  The United States system and its government is another discussion altogether.

[Adam W]

People often get this confused...

Marxism-Leninism is a farce. There is only Leninism, then Stalinism, etc. Marxism is a whole different beast.

If you read Marx, one quickly finds out that Marx never said "you should do this" or "you should do that"....there is no "blueprint", so to speak, of what Communism should look like or how to attain it.

Ben -

Marxism-Leninism = Leninism. And by extension, one could argue Trotskyism and Stalinism. I appreciate how an orthodox Marxist (or any student of Marx who didn't prescribe to Leninism or its various offshoots) may take exception to the use of Marxism in the term Marxism-Leninism. But the Leninism was not an original theory - it was a "refinement" of Marxist theory and certainly not possible without the work of Marx and Engels.

I'm not a fan of Lenin's approach. And I reject the notion that what existed in the USSR was socialism or communism.

I don't think it's fair to say communism can't or won't work. Who knows. I don't think the failure of one particular, very flawed approach is proof positive. Most people who make claims like that really don't know what they're talking about, because they haven't really studied the subject much at all.

That's not to say I think a communist society is necessarily possible.

[ben says]

People often get this confused...

Marxism-Leninism is a farce. There is only Leninism, then Stalinism, etc. Marxism is a whole different beast.

If you read Marx, one quickly finds out that Marx never said "you should do this" or "you should do that"....there is no "blueprint", so to speak, of what Communism should look like or how to attain it.

Ben -

Marxism-Leninism = Leninism. And by extension, one could argue Trotskyism and Stalinism. I appreciate how an orthodox Marxist (or any student of Marx who didn't prescribe to Leninism or its various offshoots) may take exception to the use of Marxism in the term Marxism-Leninism. But the Leninism was not an original theory - it was a "refinement" of Marxist theory and certainly not possible without the work of Marx and Engels.

I'm not a fan of Lenin's approach. And I reject the notion that what existed in the USSR was socialism or communism.

I don't think it's fair to say communism can't or won't work. Who knows. I don't think the failure of one particular, very flawed approach is proof positive. Most people who make claims like that really don't know what they're talking about, because they haven't really studied the subject much at all.

That's not to say I think a communist society is necessarily possible.

K, I guess we're on the same page. I agree w/ your assessment.....albeit I'm not sure how "refined" Leninism was over orthodox Marxism

[NotNow]

I'll concede that I am not a student of communism or Marx.  I'm just a schmuck in Jacksonville.  But I can see.  It hasn't worked (in my mind) anywhere.  Discussing the finer points of Marxism doesn't change life for the average Chinese citizen.  We are free to disagree.  It just seems obvious to me that if you control the production and livelyhood of another you have created a totalitarian environment.  Which will never be accepted in the long run.

[Adam W]

I'll concede that I am not a student of communism or Marx.  I'm just a schmuck in Jacksonville.  But I can see.  It hasn't worked (in my mind) anywhere.  Discussing the finer points of Marxism doesn't change life for the average Chinese citizen.  We are free to disagree.  It just seems obvious to me that if you control the production and livelyhood of another you have created a totalitarian environment.  Which will never be accepted in the long run.

NotNow - I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I personally get the impression that you're quite well-read or whatever. Probably moreso than I, to be honest.

[NotNow]

Thanks Adam.  I enjoy a reasonble discussion and I always seem to learn something.  Keep me honest, I appreciate it.

[NotNow]

LOL, you ARE a funny guy StephenDare!  Have you read the thread at all?  I don't have to "prove" anything.  The facts are on my side.  Any observation of the time line results in an obvious conclusion.  The negotiations to release the hostages persisted throughout 1980.  The idea that the Iranians brokered a "deal" with a non-elected candidate (not to mention the logistical issues; how and where they met, etc.) is ludicris. And what did the Iranians get in return?  Why would they do such a thing?  It is a stupid idea.  Bani-Sadr has never released any documents that he said he had.  If this had actually happened, don't you think the Iranians would have publicized it at their convenience?  Even now, if there was proof of such activity, why would the Iranians sit on evidence of it?   This has been investigated and refuted many times by different government and non-government entities.  If you wish to believe and forward this conspiracy theory that is your decision.  Don't expect the rest of us to buy into unsubstatiated crap. 

And yes, we really went to the moon too.

Religious monasteries do not communism make...please feel free to use them as an argument that "communism works".  You will continue to just get a chuckle out of me.  (I don't admit that "the communist lifestyle seems to work" for them.  At all.  It is not "communism" at all.)

I have answered the question about China, Cuba, and any other "examples" of "communism works" that you wish to bring forth.  I think that the proposition is laughable, but you are welcome to believe what you want to.  I don't see the communist faithful flocking to these countries though, do you?  There is no "Native American Society" that claims to be using a communist system that I know of, which ones are you referring to?

And yes StephenDare!, the United States government is, in fact, a "republic", more correctly a "Constitutional Republic" although there are many actively working to change that.

How's them "factual facts"?

[NotNow]

Dare!,

Your starting to sound  nuttier than usual.  When I say the facts are on my side, I mean recorded history.  The Carter administration negotiated the Algiers Accords.  The timetable was based on many things, but largely a transfer of gold.  I know you were young at the time, but you weren't that young.  The American public had a belly full of appeasement from Carter.  Reagan's forceful campaigning had made it clear that his policies would be completely different, and much more forceful.  The Iranians had milked the thing and were ready to settle it as they had other problems...like a war for survival.  The Algerian negotiations began before the 1980 Presidential election.   You have no evidence of any weapons transfers as a result of this.  As I pointed out in a previous post, your statement that Iran-Contra was 11 months after this was completely wrong...it was over 4 years and into President Reagan's second term.  Over a completely different situation at a completely different time.  As for Bani-Sadr, he made no "sworn" statement.  He wrote a book in 1991.  He had been impeached in Iran and failed in his political activities in Paris.  He was broke and needed money.  Who wanted to buy a book about an 11 year old incident from a minor player?  Suddenly, Bani-Sadr "knew of" your conspiracy.  The documents he claimed to have never appeared.  He disappeared.  Until StephenDare! decided that his word is the key to the conspiracy!  No, Dare!, he is just another loser that had to sell a book. 

Government investigations and media investigations have all agreed with my point of view.  Hmmm...Media with a chance to embarrass Reagan?  And yet....

And why have the Iranians not released any record of this?  They have looked to embarrass the US for years and yet only YOU seem to believe it.  Sorry, but it's just another nutty conspiracy theory that doesn't stand the light of day. 

[NotNow]

Ok, StephenDare!, I have done the best I can.  You have offered up two versions of history:

The fall of the Soviet Union was due to Chernobel because Gorbachev says so.

President Reagan engineered a "hostage for arms" deal as a Presidential candidate and as President-Elect because Bani-Sadr says so.  (I did forget to mention that Bani-Sadr's claim was in his 1991 book.)

I have spent pages and pages going over various factors that led to the fall of the USSR and the Iranians release of the hostages.  I posit that Reagan's policy and leadership was a factor in both.  That is what recorded history says.  I have listed much more information.  It is obvious that YOU are convinced.  Doesn't take a lot of "awesomeness" on my part to see a silly conspiracy theory here, but...um...ok, you believe what you want and I will believe what I want.  Have a good evening.