There is just too much leftover COMMUNISM = BAD propaganda from the Cold War days here in people's minds. And it seems the propaganda has been very effective. It also doesn't help that conservatives are spending tons of money even today, unleashing their propaganda on people's minds. Yes, in order to live in the USA and know the truth, you have to do your own research and ignore all the BS.

Then again if you actually check some sources, there was such a thing called the Marshall plan, and countries like Poland wanted to accept it, but the USSR forced otherwise.

Also it wasn't the capitalist countries raising this thing called the Iron Courtain and shooting people trying to cross it...

Basically some levels of historical revisionism are a little bit extreme. Please reconsider your opinions on what you just said because Cuba was indeed blockaded by the USA, but to invert responsibility and try to say it was the USA, rather than the USSR that was responsible for curtailing of trade between NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War is just ridiculous. Especially considering there was a pretty big world out there of so called Non Aligned nations that traded with whoever they wanted.
There's also a lot of leftover CAPITALISM = BAD propgaanda left from the Cold War days in people's minds. It was indeed very effective because if there was one think the USSR was very good at it was precisely propaganda and espionage.

And now I guess this is well and truly derailed. But really... certain levels of historical revisionism are just... I don't know... I'm shaking my head here...

Not as much propaganda and espionage as I would think? How much do you think I think happened? Read at least some history that goes against your bias mate... there's enough facts around and physical evidence in plenty.

You're right about one thing, everything else you said is another topic indeed. Quite the non sequitur / strawman since I never denied anti soviet propaganda, nor denied Soviet contributions to WW2 victory. You're the one implicitly denying anti Capitalist propaganda - and I did include espionage in there or did you miss that keyword?

You know, there is a reason USSR counts the beginning of WW2, sorry Great Patriotic War - way to be nationalist that - from 1941 like the US. Here in Europe at least a lot more people actually know about things like Molotoff-Ribentropp pact, the Winter War, and Katyn for an example close to Polish national conscience - so to speak.

Other than the obvious ideological bias, that contributed to hide earlier stuff like the 30s Ukrainian famine until Robert Conquest came around - well let's be honest, even today a lot of people refuse to face the evidence of intent on that one - when Germany invaded the USSR the western allies basically whitewashed a lot of things in the interest of expediency. Not to mention the personal sympathy Roosevelt had for Uncle Joe. And the fact a lot of Western intelligence was infiltrated by communist spies.

One could make a case the overreaction of anti communism in the US was partially caused by the misguided trust placed on the Soviet Union during WW2. Trust which was not obviously shared by everyone, but nonetheless was the mainstream view, and needed stuff like the Berlin blockade to be truly shaken off. Trust which was betrayed, as should have been obvious to anyone, even before the war was over.

Bottom line. Anyone like you that doubles down on being overcritical of the US and undercritical of the Soviet Union, more likely than not is a perfect example of the lasting influence of anti capitalist propaganda. As is the specificity of focus on the Cold War, when looking just a little bit further back to say 1939 is quite the eye opener.

But I'm the ethics and philosophy asshole right? So other than historical realities, the thing that really pops out to me is the lasting stigma capitalism has as an ideology of selfishness, when in fact it is responsible for the largest reduction of poverty in the history of mankind - that in itself is a large enough example to show how ingrained the propaganda was and is. Of course the stigma also owes a lot to co-opting anti-semitic tropes. Also of course, a lot of capitalist supporters do believe capitalism is about selfishness - wrongly, just like a lot of communist supporters do believe communism is not inherently authoritarian - wrongly. But those popular opinions say nothing of the underlying truth.

You know, when I argue with folks like you, I always wish deep inside that you're trolling. But you never are. I'll stop here before I get an aneurysm.

To put things in perspective, I don't think the folks who point out issues with capitalism and the way it's practiced, particularly in the US, are doing so because of cold war propaganda. What folks on the left are usually arguing for is still capitalism...salaries and prices are still, for the most part, determined by the individual companies and the market, rather than by a government operated planning bureau and companies are still in private hands rather than owned by the government or the community. They're simply arguing for a different flavor of capitalism that contains some additional checks to prevent society from slipping into the very circumstances that lead to the invention of communism to begin with.

Folks like Limbaugh (since he was mentioned in the OP) have the tendency to shout COMMUNISM every time someone brings up Healthcare systems, minimum wages that people can actually live on or abolishment of existing tax cuts, resulting in an environment where people believe there are only two systems of governing a country that are set in stone and cannot be finetuned to address their inherent imperfections. It's also resulted in "communism" changing from "a system of government where all means of production are controlled by the state" to "stuff I don't like".

But when people point out that the US scores above just about all other western nations in terms of income inequality and below just about all other western nations in terms of social mobility, they're not repeating decades old propaganda, but rather simple numbers.

You say potayto, I say potahto. Propaganda is subtle. Communism's ideological fingerprints are in many places since the 19th century so for Europe particularly I'll grant you soviet propaganda is likely not the main factor. But if you consider countries like India or Brazil? The Cold War context was hugely influential and anyone denying that the US focused on trade economic aspects whereas the USSR focused on academic ideological aspects is in my opinion in denial - that is other than the military focus of both of course.

Also see what I bolded for you. Do you see why that there might immediately be skewing the whole thing? Monkey talked about the US, but in my reply I made sure to drop any such qualifier. Folks on the left outside of the US - which let me remind you, is still the huge majority of the world's population - are exactly the ones that were anyway more susceptible to communist propaganda, because in the US the reaction to the context of WW2 end was virulent and vicious... kind of like they also reacted to Pearl Harbour - if there is one thing the americans have is a really mean streak when their optimist trusting nature / naive gullible idealism gets crossed (in their perception obviously).

Folks like you and me in Europe, or more realistically given our likely ages folks of our parents generations, which had their formative experiences in the 60s and 70s. Are who I have in mind. Anti capitalist propaganda was widespread and it's still too recent to discount its consequences. Heck, the shock and surprise of most, including its enemies, at the USSR collapse in 89 is itself a nice evidence point for the huge success of soviet propaganda.

That's partly true, and it can be turned the other way around as well. People on the left are quick to blame all of society's problems on greedy corporations, but if it wasn't for government and the power of the lobbying group, then corporations themselves would have to sink or swim based purely on their market practices rather than using the engine of government to get by regulations, taxes; or in some cases have regulations and taxes levied on certain competition to keep the 'inside' corporations in power due to their relationship with the State.

Within the last 50 years we've seen the rise of the NGO (non-governmental organization) and the concept of public-private partnership. One had washes the other. Look at the Stock Market. Whenever the Fed opens it mouth and attempts to set policy of QE or interest rates, the markets go berserk. Everyone on Wall St. are free market libertarians when it comes to wealth and profit, but they're suddenly government loving socialists when it comes to bailouts and subsidies.

There's another name we call the integration of the public and private corporate sectors. We call it fascism. That's what we have, and that's what diehards on both sides are casually ignoring. We don't have true socialism or true capitalism. We have a global fascist control grid put in place by people who are in both the government AND corporate sector. In a sense, it's what we've always had and probably always will.

Catastrophic doesn't imply fast. However by convention though if something is really slow you move out of the way. Which doesn't work so well if you're stuck on the planet and it destroys the whole atmosphere.

Kind of reminds me of Dante's peak. Worst evil villain evar.

I agree with this post. What we have now is not only a nightmare for socialists but also a nightmare for people who love capitalism. What we have now is a rigged game and everyone loses except the elite.

Depends on your definition of loses. But yeah. People have no power in comparison to large corporations. Otherwise some things would just not be.

Im sorry if you get all bent out of shape, but you're doing exactly what I said most of you would do and that is add your conservative/capitalistic bias. You automatically go on the attack like you did something wrong, like you're defending something that needs defending. Capitalism doesn't need defending. It should stand on its own merit, but it doesn't.

I NEVER said the USSR didn't do terrible fucking things. Never. And no, I never said those famines weren't Russias problems. I said that Russias problems sure were not HELPED by the capitalist nations, during the 20/30s and then after the war.

Unfortunately the propaganda seems to have gotten far too rooted. I really hope that people are willing to move past the RAH RAH merica thing but you keep veiling it in " THE USSR IS WRONG SO EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS WRONG" and it shows your true colours.

The USSR was evil. Communism itself is evil. Capitalism is evil. The US is evil.
Let's all agree that all of these systems themselves are fucked and try to find a compromise.

I already once in this thread went to the effort of combing each post to prove who started with the ideological demonization and aggressiveness. It's post 92. It wasn't the "socialist wienies" insult in post 60 that set the tone, nor was it me later. It was you among others, almost from the start. So please knock off on the victimization. You dish it out, so have the decency to also roll with the punches. I'm not even aiming below the belt...

As to adding my bias. Well, of course! That's precisely what I intended: I think vigorous defenses of classic liberal laissez-faire are very much needed especially because of the rising level of fascism I see around.

Going on the attack does not imply having done something wrong. Defending something does not imply it is weak. You say my defending capitalism implies capitalism is bad and/or unworthy of defense, as if capitalism didn't have enemies.

Which is very ironic. I guess that's also what surprised you when I mentioned anti-capitalist propaganda and you were like: "there's not that much" well... you would say that wouldn't you :) For does a fish notice the water? Do you really see this as a personal attack? I assumed you would be proud to identify as anti-capitalist...

So nope. I don't agree capitalism is evil. But what compromise do you have in mind?

So you just admitted to yourself that you have a bias, and that you are defending that bias. I think I see the same types of fascism around, but I don't see it driven by communism. I see it driven by a corporate culture that has co-opted our government to run with their agendas of putting all the power of law and order into their hands. The hands of a very few. Capitalism is just the cloak they use to deceive people into forking over more money for this product or that service and slowly taking away the human rights many people have fought for years to defend.

I don't necessarily agree that Communism is the way to go, but Capitalism is, in itself, not an answer. Pursuing a policy of complete and utter slavery to the people of the US, while other countries reap the benefits, is the end game. There is only one end game to capitalism and that is monopoly.

Your starting sentence there is puzzling. Are you used to only dealing with dishonest people? :) Why wouldn't I admit to the preferences / biases I know I have? And why wouldn't I defend them? This isn't journalism or scientific research where objectivity and impartiality is (or rather should be) king and therefore my biases would be something to avoid, control or repress. This is a political debate, ergo a popularity contest - assuming we both accept democratic principles. I happen to believe honesty is more effective than dissimulation - for the most part, and certainly over the long term.

Anyway, it's not communism per se that I see as mainly responsible for fascism, if you got that idea... Communism is only one of many political systems which is fundamentally authoritarian, or totalitarian, and therefore actively abusive. So in a way, I could even say I agree with you about "corporate culture" having invaded government. Because I understand what you mean by that: a culture of irresponsible short term decision making where growth is privileged. Right? But historically the direction is the opposite, that bureaucratic and impersonal type of government was born of the state, as a more effective alternative to much more personal forms of administration, and only spread into broader economic areas later, eventually contributing to give birth to modern corporations.

Anyway, to continue using your terminology, that corporatization of political government in itself would IMO not be so detrimental (absolutism did brings us the enlightenment for example), if it was not for the associated XXth century cultural / ideological trend which I do blame partially at communism's doorstep, and of which socialism is the inheritor - that of granting central government the charter and power to try and achieve social welfare outcomes rather than work through bottoms up collectives (maybe corporations, maybe other types of groups) for those social goods.