Live data from Hacker News

On Moral Superiority

gatchev.info

1–10 of 67 posts

Re: On Moral Superiority

#2
America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the rhetoric and ignoring both our foreign policy (support for anti-democratic forces in Iran, Iraq, Central & South America, Africa) and our internal problems (civil rights, income inequality).

Re: On Moral Superiority

#3
Is this worth reading? I stopped after the ridiculous claim that "If you can pay peanuts, you can produce tanks and ICBMs that cost peanuts."

I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts. Likewise, the US had objectively more economic power than the USSR, and, assuming that the USSR had to maintain military parity with the US to remain stable, it would be quite possible for the US to beat the USSR by out-producing it. (I'm not enough of a student of history to know if this is actually what happened.) Yes, things can be misleading if you use straight exchange rates, but that doesn't mean it was logically impossible for the US to out-spend an authoritarian government.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#4
The whole idea that the USSR central planning policy result in economic decline is bunk?

I am suddenly reminded of Paul Samuelson and his economic textbook touting the idea that the Soviet economy will surpass the USA's economy. Of course, it never came true.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#5
As a Latin-American, I laugh at the notion that the US have any sort of moral authority. In fact, many communist movements in LA actually came to be in response to oppression administered from Washington; if you had a nasty dictator propped up by the US and the only people who would help were in Moscow, then your best bet would be to become a communist, just as the Croats cozied up to the Nazis in order to get rid of the Serbs.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#6
That was one heck of a good read. I wished more blogs had this kind of content.

I'm saddened that a lot of people will not read it because it is so long though.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#7

Is this worth reading? I stopped after the ridiculous claim that "If you can pay peanuts, you can produce tanks and ICBMs that cost peanuts." I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts. Likewise, the US had objectively more economic power than the USSR, and, assuming that the USSR had to…

I thought it was worth reading. Obviously his expressions and grammar mistakes show English is not his first language but the point he makes is worth spending the time.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#8

Is this worth reading? I stopped after the ridiculous claim that "If you can pay peanuts, you can produce tanks and ICBMs that cost peanuts." I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts. Likewise, the US had objectively more economic power than the USSR, and, assuming that the USSR had to…

> I mean, if a small band of hunter-gatherers is led by a single tribal leader with complete power, he can pay them nothing. But that doesn't mean he can make ICBMs for peanuts.

Why not? He captures or pays off someone from US who has the know-how, and if he has an industrial base, natural resources they sure can do it. That is what the soviets did.

A lot of their technology was pirated from the West. The atomic bomb, or most of the computer chips and operating systems (by the late 70s).

Re: On Moral Superiority

#9
Excellent read! My favorite paragraph:

The people from Western Europe would not go on a jihad. However, during the last decade their opinion on the USA plummeted, too. Twenty years ago, if you were an American in Berlin, you would be revered, and more honored than the Berliners around… Not anymore. Now, you can often hear: “The country that lied to the entire world about the Iraqi WMD? That created and still maintains the Guantanamo gulag? That ran Abu Graib? That bombed to destruction the civilians in Faluja? That shot the Italian hostage resque mission? That killed the BBC journalists in Baghdad? That photographs, fingerprints and tracks every visitor like a criminal? That created the ECHELON system? That is killing in Afghanistan maybe more civilians than terrorists?… If it is decent, then Stalin is, too. This country is a blemish to the humankind."

Although it's really hard to pick, you should just read the entire thing.

If you still prefer the reader's digest:

… Remember the great support Obama had among the ordinary people abroad before the president elections? Especially in Europe? There is a reason for this support. The ordinary people hoped that he will restore the US moral superiority, by bringing moral to the US politics… He failed to do it. The Guantanamo gulag stays. Some measures are taken to prevent the worst things the US Army does abroad – however, the “culture of concealment” is stronger than ever. Slowly, but surely one trend emerges and grows in the thinking of the people outside US. Namely, that this state has gone too far on the Evil Empire road. That it cannot be stopped anymore, even by a good-intended President. And that it is better late than never to say openly: “Things changed. This is not anymore the moral leader of the world – this is just another evil empire. One that the decent people must hate, loathe and oppose to.”

What will happen if this trend of thinking prevails? Easy guess. Al-Qaeda will grow and attract more and more people, and will probably obstruct more of the US activity abroad. In fact, it may gain enough support to carry its fight on American soil. The support for US in Europe and the rest of the world will gradually diminish, to the extent that even the pro-US politicians will have to become blind and deaf to the USA needs. And very surely there will be new “cold wars” – economic, cultural etc. – between USA and some other countries, but it will not be possible anymore to win them through moral superiority.

[.. snip ..]

To preserve moral superiority, the US must first learn what is the correct move in situations like the current one. Whether Wikileaks is its enemy, or the best friend they can find – one that is brave enough to tell you you have a nasty problem, and to press on you to solve it on time. And whether people like Mike Mullen are its best servants, or its best enemies – the ones that tell you “There is no problem, continue this way, people will never learn of the crimes, truth never comes out”.

If you are still not sure which is the correct position, ask one truly outstanding soldier – Gen. David Petraeus. He will surely be able to tell you the truth… Actually, you can tell it yourself, by using his simple principle – which action decreases the number of your enemies, and increases the number of your friends.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#10
post #2

America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the rhetoric and ignoring both our foreign policy (support for anti-democratic forces in Iran, Iraq, Central & South America, Africa) and our internal problems (civil rights, income inequality).

> America's supposed moral superiority depended quite a bit on believing the rhetoric...

That is one thing that America excels at -- propaganda. Along with some other so called "democracies", it can at the same time install brutal regimes, kill and start wars all over the world _and_ somehow mentain its relatively stable propaganda image as a "peacemaker", "example of democracy", "human rights advocate" and so on.

Anyone who studies history or is seriously interested in the current world affairs will recognize the propaganda for what it is. But interestingly enough, very few Americans do. A lot of them have a very skewed image about their own country, they believe in "moral supperiority" that US has over any other country in the world.

The level of self-censorship and delusion even among "educated" intellectuals, the media, the majority of the population is astounding.

In the ex-Soviet Union, we knew propaganda was propaganda. Except for some really crazy people, nobody believed in the system. Even those at the top. For example, it was interesting to observe how ex KGB agents, supposedly the ones most devoted to the communist cause, became uber-capatillists practically overnight in the quick grab of power and resources after the collapse.

Post reply on HN