Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Communism's Appeal to the Third World & Russia prior to post-WWII New Capitalism that Allowed Greater Participation of the Non-West

Craig Nelson's Comments are highlighted in Yellow:
Communism had its dark and evil side but also its uses as a weapon of resistance. It led to unification of Vietnam and independence of Cuba from American imperialism.
Correlation does not equal causation.

Back then, it seemed sensible for non-white thinkers, patriots, and leaders to consider communism as a viable option. For example, immediately upon victory, Bolsheviks in Russia were the first to denounce Western Imperialism and call for national liberation around the world. It’s no wonder even non-communist Sun Yat-Sen of China leaned toward the Soviets who seemed to treat Chinese as fellow brethren than as semi-colonial subjects as was the case with European Imperialists(and to lesser extent by the Americans). Also, keep in mind that one of the reasons for capitalism's failure in Russia was due to the role of the British Empire, the dominant player in world trade in the 19th century. Though Russia was allied with France and UK against Germany in World War I, the power that had done most to undermine Russian modernization and development had been the British Empire. Naturally, with the failure of capitalism and disaster of war, many Russians turned toward Bolsheviks who offered communism as the new hope. Just as Jewish-controlled West tries to undermine capitalism in today's Russia, the top capitalist power in the 19th century did all it could to sabotage Russia's move toward modernization. Capitalists don't necessarily help other capitalists if the latter threaten their hegemony.

It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.

So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.

But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.

Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.

That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.

Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.
In WWII, the totalist organizational methods of Stalinism allowed triumph over Nazi Germany.
So “totalist organizational methods” are unique to the communist? Further could not Russia have defeated Germany except under a whip?

Yes, the only truly totalitarian societies were communist. Benito Mussolini first used the term ‘totalitarian’, but he didn’t mean anything like Stalinist USSR or Hannah Arendt came to mean by 'totalitarianism'. He meant a society where all sectors would be linked and coordinated into an organic national whole. It wasn’t about total control of everything by the state but about the state as mediator of the totality of societal needs and interests. As for Nazi Germany, it was more authoritarian than Fascist Italy but still not totalitarian in the strict sense. Much of the economy was in private hands. Adolf Hitler had a hands-off policy on many issues. He let the Churches do their own thing. While National Socialist themes were at the forefront of politics and ideology, it was possible for most Germans to pursue personal interests without undue interference of the State.

It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.

And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.
Communism also shielded Eastern Europe from vagaries of the capitalist West.
I suppose, kinda in the same way the incarcerated are generally shielded from tax hikes.

If the sickness of the West has been just about excessive tax hikes(as some libertarians would have us believe), Craig Nelson's point would be valid. But the West, esp following the May 68 lunacy, has been about total racial and cultural extinction. It’s been about blind worship of Jewish supremacists and their Holocaustianity as the New Faith for the white race. It’s been about Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. It’s been about Homomania and other forms of degeneracy. Better to be incarcerated and healthy than be ‘free’ to get syphilis and hand over one’s house and spouse to African invaders and Muslims, or Jungle and Jihad. Better to be incarcerated and remain sober than be ‘free’ to turn alcoholic and blow one’s homeland in the Multi-Culti roulette in which the white man cannot win.

Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.

Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.
And in the Cold War, communism offered some kind of counterbalance against US hegemonism.
The depravity and bloodlust of the Bolshevik revolution, and all that followed, only served to strengthen American hegemony by offering such a repellent alternative.
The most contemptible human is the full-throated communist sympathizer. Especially now, when there really is no excuse.
Soviet Union after Stalin was repressive but no longer murderous on a massive scale. Also, the killings and repressions weren’t on the same level in all communist nations. Cambodia saw the worst kind of psycho-communism, but most Eastern European nations had death tolls in the 1,000s. They weren’t any worse than UK, France, Germany, or Sweden today where you are denounced as an extremist if you oppose mass-invasion and Great Replacement. Likewise, not all fascist regimes were equal in their degrees of repression. Nazi Germany went furthest in mayhem(at least with the onset of the wars), but Fascist Italy was rather mild. Spain's Franco, after ruthlessly punishing the Left after the Civil War, was a rather benign leader(though some will argue he wasn’t really fascist). Juan Peron was hardly a bloody despot. Just like fascist leaders varied from murderous to mild, so did communist regimes(though, on average, communism was more repressive than fascism).
Also, mass killings happened under all imperialist powers; neither communists nor communists hardly monopolized violence and repression in modern history. French and British did their share of killings around the world to maintain the empire. The US could be utterly ruthless in wars, some of which were near-genocidal. US also backed bloody regimes in Latin America that became notorious for their 'death squads'. And under Jewish-control, the US has destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and killed 100,000s by invasion and starvation and man-made famine. US human-rights record in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War is far worst than Soviet's from death of Stalin to the fall of Gorbachev.

Bolshevism now has to be remembered as a crime against humanity, but we have to see things in context. When the Bolsheviks came to power, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism, and most of the world was ruled by empires that resorted to ruthless violence to maintain hegemony. Back then, it's understandable why communism appealed to many peoples around the world for whom the main force denying them the right of national independence and sovereignty was the capitalist-imperialist West.

Stalin's Granddaughter. The product of Capitalist 'Freedom'.

No comments:

Post a Comment