4 ms·

> the most compelling of which was that America represented a far more moral, humanitarian, and tolerant society, especially compared to the unfree, amoral, and

> the most compelling of which was that America represented a far more moral, humanitarian, and tolerant society, especially compared to the unfree, amoral, and atheist superpower. > far more moral In what sense? As a nation, US conducted equally atrocious things inside and outside of its country. Korean war Vietnam Cuba invasion Capitalism exploitation on south American > humanitarian See above. > tolerant society Sure Aside tolerance, there isn't much superiority in USA from cold war.

trasz 5y ago
There is one huge point that you both missed: after World War II, USSR was a mess. It lost half of its industrial infrastructure, IIRC. Meanwhile, the US profited greatly. This means the starting point for both was very different.
- justicezyx 5y ago
  Same for China. KMT moved majority of the intellectuals and wealth into Taiwan, and left the mainland with rubbish. If China and Russia chose a different route than what they did already, are there a plausible pathway for them to reach similar economic prosperity (let's put aside the political well being for a bit). My so far limited conclusion is: NO. There has no plausible path for Russia and China to achieve their economical growth without the brutality and sacrifices. The rapid industrialization requires centralized wealth. Those are not collected through the immoral and brutal colonization by the modern industrial nations. Those were not possible at the time when Russia and China start their industrialization. They unfortunately have to turn their brutality towards their own people.
  - trasz 5y ago
    I agree, but I'd argue it's even more interesting why we even bother with this question in case of China and Russia, but never with USA, which was built in equally immoral way, by killing off the natives, stealing their land, and then kidnapping slaves to work it.
    - justicezyx 5y ago
      It's emotionally hard for one to accept their own identified group's wrongdoings. For this, I always start with the history of China and then followed by pointers to US histories, if the conversation flow allows. There is also a persistent danger that this flow eventually leads to political nihilism where there is no meaning in trying to dissecting the historical facts, and everyone is as bad as everyone else. That effectively moves the discussion back to the starting point, i.e., one has to look for something else to settle the original discussion anyway.

trasz 5y ago

There is one huge point that you both missed: after World War II, USSR was a mess. It lost half of its industrial infrastructure, IIRC. Meanwhile, the US profited greatly. This means the starting point for both was very different.

justicezyx 5y ago
Same for China. KMT moved majority of the intellectuals and wealth into Taiwan, and left the mainland with rubbish. If China and Russia chose a different route than what they did already, are there a plausible pathway for them to reach similar economic prosperity (let's put aside the political well being for a bit). My so far limited conclusion is: NO. There has no plausible path for Russia and China to achieve their economical growth without the brutality and sacrifices. The rapid industrialization requires centralized wealth. Those are not collected through the immoral and brutal colonization by the modern industrial nations. Those were not possible at the time when Russia and China start their industrialization. They unfortunately have to turn their brutality towards their own people.
- trasz 5y ago
  I agree, but I'd argue it's even more interesting why we even bother with this question in case of China and Russia, but never with USA, which was built in equally immoral way, by killing off the natives, stealing their land, and then kidnapping slaves to work it.
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    It's emotionally hard for one to accept their own identified group's wrongdoings. For this, I always start with the history of China and then followed by pointers to US histories, if the conversation flow allows. There is also a persistent danger that this flow eventually leads to political nihilism where there is no meaning in trying to dissecting the historical facts, and everyone is as bad as everyone else. That effectively moves the discussion back to the starting point, i.e., one has to look for something else to settle the original discussion anyway.