Re: Soviet balance sheet

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:26 a.m. 3/29/98 -0500, boddhisatva wrote:
>	Okay, I suppose that having a threat tends to put a nation in a more
Keynesian frame of mind, but I think it was the expansionism of the S.U.
rather than the socialism of the S.U. that was the principal motivator. In
America the year with the most strikes was 1946, as I remember.  I think
post-war stability was the main interest.<

The expansionism of the SU has been much exaggerated, as part of Cold War
agitprop. People forget that the SU had been attacked by the Nazis and had
to attack back through Poland and neighboring countries in order to win (as
US Army strategic doctrine used to say, "the best defense is a good
offense"). Churchill was willing to accept this until the Cold War got
intense. I can't put forth a brief for Stalin and how his armies treated
the areas occupied by the "Red" Army, but the history I read indicated that
in the early period after WW2, the SU was willing to accept any regime --
including non-"socialist" ones -- as long as they had friendly foreign
policies toward the SU.

Social stability was indeed very important to the US elite, as there was a
strike wave in the US and elsewhere. The cold warriors also were concerned
with the fact that CP-influenced anti-Nazi movements (and those not
influenced by the CP) had a big role in France, Italy, and elsewhere. The
architects of the post-WW2 order couldn't have the idea that people not
under their control would have an impact in Europe. I would bet that Stalin
also had a lot of second thoughts about allowing independent movements in
E. Europe, even before the tensions with the US started. He was not one to
favor grassroots movements (as seen during the Spanish Civil War, among
other places). It's hard to tell, of course, since Hiroshima seems to have
been the first shot of the Cold War, a message to Moscow as it were. The
US/SU battle started before the previous war was over.

As for the progressive impact of the SU on US internal politics (e.g., the
elite's openness toward the Civil Rights movement), it seems that
competition from the Nazis encouraged a similar effect to competition from
the SU. A. Phillip Randolph and his Sleeping Car Porters Union were able to
say, in effect, that without civil rights for blacks, the US would look
bad. This continued after WW2, with leaders evoking "looking bad in
comparison to the SU." A Political Scientist friend of mine suggests that
it's war that helps domestic progressive policies to bloom. I would add
"under capitalism (or other class societies)."

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine
jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx & http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html