4 ms·

So, what was the first Red Scare, Sacco and Vanzetti, or the Scopes Trial in the 20s about then? Many of the things you attribute to the Cold War-era were prese

So, what was the first Red Scare, Sacco and Vanzetti, or the Scopes Trial in the 20s about then? Many of the things you attribute to the Cold War-era were present in the 1920s USA. The biggest difference was isolation.

losteric 9y ago
What's the difference? The first Red Scare was 3 years of isolated domestic violent agitation, and public response was largely focused on those agitators. The second Red Scare was a 50-year ideological war that saturated the nation, a generation raised demonizing concepts as "un-American" before becoming the teachers and politicians of their children. It takes time heal from that dogma.
- taway_1212 9y ago
  You seem to be overlooking the fact that, thanks to "that dogma", America is not a part of the Soviet Union today.
  - taway_1212 9y ago
    Can anyone explain the downvotes? I am not saying that the pro-American propaganda was the only factor that decided that in the end US prevailed over USSR, but it's undeniable that it did contribute.
    - losteric 9y ago
      Down votes are meant to self-moderate against non-contributing content (shitposts), up votes are for content that inspires discussion, and not voting is for everything in between. Immature people can't debate, so they express disagreement with down votes. Reddit was ruined by this, I'm sad to see civil immaturity spreading to HN. I suppose down votes could be replaced with a "flag post", and a consensus driven moderation pool... or maybe reducing the weight of a down vote based on the voter's ratio of votes to posts (penalizing the non-contribution judgement of non-contributors).
  - losteric 9y ago
    Are you familiar with the phrase "cutting off the nose to spite the face"? Dogmatism is a fear-induced lobotomy, intentionally unlearning and stigmatizing certain solutions to problems... if dogma fatally poisoned American democratic capitalism, then our victory was pyrrhic at best. In fact, dogma is antithetical to both capitalism and democracy, which assume an ideal rational populace. A rational society strives for improvements. They would have invested in more socratic education, deeper rational thinking, and an open fair evaluation of ideas. Ideas that pass rigorous evaluation hold merit and warrant experimentation. If aspects of communism could improve parts of our society, we should use them. Dogma is indefensible, and I feel like that point should be self-evident on HN. Successful startups don't copy history. We solve problems by forming rational strategies based on data and logic, chasing "impossible" ideas because they are good and work. We understand that processes and technology are tools, a means to an end... why would socioeconomic theory be any different? And anyway, America was never even close to becoming part of the Soviet Union. Nuclear annihilation was the big risk, but dogma does not work against ICBMs.
    - taway_1212 9y ago
      > And anyway, America was never even close to becoming part of the Soviet Union. Nuclear annihilation was the big risk, but dogma does not work against ICBMs. Not necessarily. The communist ideology was so appealing to the people (and the USSR so good at spreading it world-wide, via various channels) that, if not for the radical anti-communist steps, it's not impossible that USA would have its own communist revolution (orchestrated from Moscow and led by the local "useful idiots"), like so many other countries. More broadly, I don't think that being in an open conflict with a world super power is the best time for rational reflection. Notice how democratic countries suspend most of its values during the war (i.e. they can take your property if it'll help the war effort, they'll put you to jail if you refuse to fight etc.) - they're just impractical when under attack.
      - losteric 9y ago
        Why do you think communism was so appealing? Years of hostile discussions left both business owners and laborers at odds. Greedy companies refused to lower profits, and labor felt they deserved an equal share - especially after the world wars. Ultimately, it's American business owners that were responsible for the rise of revolutionaries in the US. Early on, corporations restricted the political rights of labor unions while buying their own politicians. When laborers demanded fairer working hours, better working conditions, and fairer wages, businesses refused to compromise. When peace fails, people are left with the choice of abandoning hope or fighting towards revolution as a last resort. The USSR simply amplified existing legitimate anger. I want to point out that the mainstream labor resistance was not about communism; citizens were fighting for equality and fairness within capitalism. The press always misuses scary words like "communism", in truth social ownership was secondary to being treated humanely. The government could have easily kicked out the USSR by stepping in as a mediator between business owners and employees. > More broadly, I don't think that being in an open conflict with a world super power is the best time for rational reflection. Notice how democratic countries suspend most of its values during the war (i.e. they can take your property if it'll help the war effort, they'll put you to jail if you refuse to fight etc.) - they're just impractical when under attack. Hahah, what? We don't suspend our values during war. Drafts fall under the social contract, all citizens are expected to defend the nation if called upon. The IRS always seizes property due to tax evasion. Industries always remain in private hands, we set production quotas because profit is not a right. We have interned people during war, but that's an artifact of ignorance rather than an intentional suspension of values. Why do you think war isn't a good time for rational reflection? The battlefront requires action, but there's no reason for civilians to worry during a superpower proxy war. The US is massive and our enemies are oceans away.

losteric 9y ago

What's the difference? The first Red Scare was 3 years of isolated domestic violent agitation, and public response was largely focused on those agitators. The second Red Scare was a 50-year ideological war that saturated the nation, a generation raised demonizing concepts as "un-American" before becoming the teachers and politicians of their children. It takes time heal from that dogma.

taway_1212 9y ago
You seem to be overlooking the fact that, thanks to "that dogma", America is not a part of the Soviet Union today.
- taway_1212 9y ago
  Can anyone explain the downvotes? I am not saying that the pro-American propaganda was the only factor that decided that in the end US prevailed over USSR, but it's undeniable that it did contribute.
  - losteric 9y ago
    Down votes are meant to self-moderate against non-contributing content (shitposts), up votes are for content that inspires discussion, and not voting is for everything in between. Immature people can't debate, so they express disagreement with down votes. Reddit was ruined by this, I'm sad to see civil immaturity spreading to HN. I suppose down votes could be replaced with a "flag post", and a consensus driven moderation pool... or maybe reducing the weight of a down vote based on the voter's ratio of votes to posts (penalizing the non-contribution judgement of non-contributors).
- losteric 9y ago
  Are you familiar with the phrase "cutting off the nose to spite the face"? Dogmatism is a fear-induced lobotomy, intentionally unlearning and stigmatizing certain solutions to problems... if dogma fatally poisoned American democratic capitalism, then our victory was pyrrhic at best. In fact, dogma is antithetical to both capitalism and democracy, which assume an ideal rational populace. A rational society strives for improvements. They would have invested in more socratic education, deeper rational thinking, and an open fair evaluation of ideas. Ideas that pass rigorous evaluation hold merit and warrant experimentation. If aspects of communism could improve parts of our society, we should use them. Dogma is indefensible, and I feel like that point should be self-evident on HN. Successful startups don't copy history. We solve problems by forming rational strategies based on data and logic, chasing "impossible" ideas because they are good and work. We understand that processes and technology are tools, a means to an end... why would socioeconomic theory be any different? And anyway, America was never even close to becoming part of the Soviet Union. Nuclear annihilation was the big risk, but dogma does not work against ICBMs.
  - taway_1212 9y ago
    > And anyway, America was never even close to becoming part of the Soviet Union. Nuclear annihilation was the big risk, but dogma does not work against ICBMs. Not necessarily. The communist ideology was so appealing to the people (and the USSR so good at spreading it world-wide, via various channels) that, if not for the radical anti-communist steps, it's not impossible that USA would have its own communist revolution (orchestrated from Moscow and led by the local "useful idiots"), like so many other countries. More broadly, I don't think that being in an open conflict with a world super power is the best time for rational reflection. Notice how democratic countries suspend most of its values during the war (i.e. they can take your property if it'll help the war effort, they'll put you to jail if you refuse to fight etc.) - they're just impractical when under attack.
    - losteric 9y ago
      Why do you think communism was so appealing? Years of hostile discussions left both business owners and laborers at odds. Greedy companies refused to lower profits, and labor felt they deserved an equal share - especially after the world wars. Ultimately, it's American business owners that were responsible for the rise of revolutionaries in the US. Early on, corporations restricted the political rights of labor unions while buying their own politicians. When laborers demanded fairer working hours, better working conditions, and fairer wages, businesses refused to compromise. When peace fails, people are left with the choice of abandoning hope or fighting towards revolution as a last resort. The USSR simply amplified existing legitimate anger. I want to point out that the mainstream labor resistance was not about communism; citizens were fighting for equality and fairness within capitalism. The press always misuses scary words like "communism", in truth social ownership was secondary to being treated humanely. The government could have easily kicked out the USSR by stepping in as a mediator between business owners and employees. > More broadly, I don't think that being in an open conflict with a world super power is the best time for rational reflection. Notice how democratic countries suspend most of its values during the war (i.e. they can take your property if it'll help the war effort, they'll put you to jail if you refuse to fight etc.) - they're just impractical when under attack. Hahah, what? We don't suspend our values during war. Drafts fall under the social contract, all citizens are expected to defend the nation if called upon. The IRS always seizes property due to tax evasion. Industries always remain in private hands, we set production quotas because profit is not a right. We have interned people during war, but that's an artifact of ignorance rather than an intentional suspension of values. Why do you think war isn't a good time for rational reflection? The battlefront requires action, but there's no reason for civilians to worry during a superpower proxy war. The US is massive and our enemies are oceans away.