Re: Re: Reparations and capitalist progress.

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Brad De Long <delong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 02/14/00 04:13PM >>>
>
>They lie who deny that
>
>>The USSR had to keep pace with the militarist U.S. to protect itself
>>from another holocaust as committed by  "NATO" 1919 and the
>>capitalist Nazi army in the 1940's.,
>
>which is what you were responding to.
>
>CB

Brad:

But if you are on the global offensive, the claim that your
hypertrophied military budget is forced on you by *necessity* is
rather weak...

&&&&&&&&&&

CB: The revolutions and national liberations in the period were throwing usurping imperialists out. It is a law of revolution and liberation that the ruling sectors will launch counter-revolutions. Both the initial revolutions and the defenses against the counterrevolutions are very much situations in which the imperialists/ruling class FORCE upon the revolutionaries and liberators their military budgets.

With respect to the Soviet hyprtrophied military budget specifiically  , it was completely forced upon it. As I said initially, given the invasion of armies from several imperialist countries in 1919, the Nazis capitalist invasion of WWII, and the U.S. escalation of nuclear arms, the Soviets were FORCED to spend way too much on the military, or risk being conquered by imperialism.

&&&&&&&&&&&&

Brad:
But you and Louis can dispute whether really-existing-socialism was
the aggressive wave of the future on the march between 1945 and 1980,
or hunkering down with massive defensive armaments out of fear that
U.S. tanks would any day appear on the outskirts of Smolensk.

&&&&&&&&

CB: We don't have to debate anything, because we haven't disagreed on what you say.

Socialism as  "The aggressive wave of the future " is your continuous falsehood alone, here. It's the same misrepresentation you've been making throughout: socialism was about military aggression.  In other words, you merely repeat here the imperialist, anti-communist big lie of the Cold War, pretending that it was not U.S. imperialism that the was the military aggressor throughout.

As analogy, you would call a woman who gets hold of a gun while being raped as on the aggressive offensive, when she shoots her attacker. Socialism , in the SU and around the world, was like the woman. The U.S. and imperialism was like the rapist. You don't understand the concept of self-defense. You equate it with aggression and offense.

Socialism was on the peaceful, social, economic and political advance, not the military offensive.


CB