Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Communism as historical tragedy
Message-ID: <364@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 20:04:59 EST
Article-I.D.: ubvax.364
Posted: Tue Nov 19 20:04:59 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:59:01 EST
References: <28200256@inmet.UUCP> <28200260@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 56

In article <28200260@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>Though hypotheses in "alternative history" are unverifiable,
>it is quite likely that, without Communism, the Russian empire
>would have fallen apart. All the others did (count:
>Austro-Hungary, Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal,
>Spain...). This one survived, and spread, and keeps spreading.

If the "Russian empire" had fallen apart and not industrialized
rapidly, Nazism and not communism would rule Eastern Europe today.
German developments did not depend on the Russian empire.

The power of the USSR is in its huge land size, population, and
natural resources, combined with a level of economic development
which has let its size advantages make a difference.  Britain
and the other empires Jan lists ruled at a time of history when
size was not convertable into political and economic influence.
Their demise was inevitable.  Russia's was not.

Lenin said communism equaled electrification -- and that's what
communism did for the USSR.  It industrialized the USSR to the
point where it could become a world power.  It did so at high
costs to the political system, which has only advanced slowly
since.  And it left gaps in industrial development, especially
in consumer goods.

But that's still a big accomplishment.  It defeated Nazi Germany.

>Communism provided it (1) with an incomparable machinery 
>of power and (2) with a supranational, internationalist
>ideology, acceptable to the ruling class of subject lands.
>It also (3) made economic gain secondary to power gain, so
>the empire needn't be cost effective to exist.
>
>		Jan Wasilewsky

What incomparable machinery of power?  Military force isn't
anything new.  What does communism have to do with it?  And
how is communist internationalist ideology acceptable to the
ruling class of subject lands, any more so than another
colonialist ideology imposed on a subject land?

As far as economic gain goes, only the historically nearsighted
would call Communism a failure.  As an economic system, its flaws
only began to stick out in the late 1960s-1980s.  They may
not persist.  If Chinese development succeeds, it will be another
success for Communism as a means for nations with large domestic
economies to industrialize.

I think Jan is just confusing the impact of WWII and the Cold War
with the impact of Communism.  Does he think the USSR would have
invaded Eastern Europe if not for WWII?  There's no evidence I
know of for that.  Would he prefer that Eastern Europe be under
the Nazis or the Tsars?

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw