Soviet Union... an Evil Empire?

[Ice]

I want to here some of your opinions on weather the former CCCP (USSR) was an evil empire or was it a legitamate country?

I personally thing the communist country was crap, but I'm eager to hear what others think.

[Byzantine Prince]

What is this evil you speak of? ~:confused:

[Ice]

What is this evil you speak of? ~:confused:

Mass murder and opperssion of their citizens is what i speak of.

[IrishMike]

Hmmm...... were gonna have to be careful with this one being in the Monastery.

But overall I think they did more evil things than good. While communism isn't evil, some of their policies were. So yup, I'd say they were an evil empire, maybe not the worst around, but not the best.

[Pindar]

This is academic. The USSR was illegitimate by definition. It slaughtered tens of millions of its own people and oppressed millions of others. It was a dark force.

[Byzantine Prince]

I agree that they did some criminal things, sometimes through negligence and sometimes through their own will to survive. I wouldn't call any of it evil.

[sharrukin]

I voted for evil because it was most definitely that, but it was also a legitimate country. Why can't it be both?

[edyzmedieval]

Keep in mind that Mr. Iosif Vissarionovici Stalin killed 36 million people officially.... Many more were killed unoficially....

[Pindar]

... but it was also a legitimate country. Why can't it be both?

Legitimacy is a category whose meaning is tied up with notions of justice. Justice is not only concerned with right judgment, but also the right to governance. Governance can only be justified by and through popular sovereignty. A totalitarian regime lacks popular consent. It is therefore illegitimate and has no rights to govern. The USSR was totalitarian and thus illegitimate.

[DukeofSerbia]

Of course that was evel "empire" - King of Serbs, Croats and Slovens Alexander I (and later king of Yugoslavia) never establish diplomatic contact with Soviets. He even maintined ambassador in Belgrade from Russian Empire. He rejected to accept Soviet ambassador and he opened borders for Russian refugees.

[cegorach]

OF COURSE !!!!
Millions of people dead - often starved to death, occupation of other countries, agressive and criminal foreign policy, destruction of cultural heritage of other countries and its own, enourmous destruction of nature in SU and above - literally everything including intentional annihilation of graveyards according to atheist policy of this rotten cancer-state.

One of the greatest mistakes in human history - along with the Third Reich, but it lasted longer and even some fools believe it was 'progress'... :furious3:

IT WAS THE ULTIMATE EVIL !

[Meneldil]

I'm fairly sure the world would be much better now if the bolcheviks got their asses kicked in the late 10's.

And it was not a legitimate country on a legal basis, since it has been establish through violence and repression against its own people.

[Colovion]

bad leadership

evil leadership even

but not an evil empire, that's just ridiculous

[King Henry V]

The leadership was at the beginning cruel and wanted to propogate communism to the entire world (Lenin would have been as bad as Stalin had he lived long enough). Yet the whole post-war "the commies are out to get you" was just plain nonsense.

[Shadow]

I voted yes but I feel that the evil leaders of the Soviet Union are the ones that make the Soviet Union an evil empire.

[Abokasee]

an evil empire would be on world domanation and would bring back slavery :cry: :whip: luckily they didn't but they killed millions of there own!!

:help: :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: :help: :help: :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: :help: :embarassed: :embarassed: :help: :rifle:

which means it was an evil nation...not an empire

[Quietus]

which means it was an evil nation...not an empire

Russia/USSR was an Empire. It's made of many, many countries. Chechnya is current example of another trying to break off.

[The Wizard]

Communism is evil. It's simple really.



~Wiz

[ShadesPanther]

The soviet union was made up of "republics" eg Ukraine and Azerbajan

The Russian federation is made up of Russia. Chechnya is part of the federation that wants to leave. although Russia is frightningly more and more like a dictatorship.

I would count The soviet union as an evil empire. The Gulags, Great purges and terror. I have heard some reports that if people werent executed under stalin the Population would be double what it is today.

I would also count the Peoples "Republic" of China an evil empire.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ask some eastern Europeans if the USSR was an empire or just a nation.

[GoreBag]

I voted no, and everyone knows why.

[Byzantine Prince]

Ask some eastern Europeans if the USSR was an empire or just a nation.
It's just a nation. ~:)

[ShadesPanther]

Greece was never allied to the Soviet Union though. I think he means Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Poland as well as Romania and Bulgaria and Albania although Yugoslavia was different.

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

Is Usa evil? It have killed millions of indians and have stolen their lands. Is Spain evil? It have killed even more indians than Usa. Is Germany evi?...

I'am trying to say that nations aren't persons, they can't be evil. Only peoples can.
Stalin was evil, there is no daubs about that. But you can't blame whole Ussr for his murders.
So for the most of time Ussr wasn't evil.

[Colovion]

Is Usa evil? It have killed millions of indians and have stolen their lands. Is Spain evil? It have killed even more indians than Usa. Is Germany evi?...

I'am trying to say that nations aren't persons, they can't be evil. Only peoples can.
Stalin was evil, there is no daubs about that. But you can't blame whole Ussr for his murders.
So for the most of time Ussr wasn't evil.

the losing side is evil

the winning side is righteous

history repeats itself that way everytime

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The Leaders, yes, the people, no. Stalin had 3 of my German family members excecuted, 2 before the war, 1 after. The 1 after was a civilian too.

[Kagemusha]

I couldnt say from any country is it good or evil.Its just matter what benefits the purposes of that country. :bow:

[cegorach]

For all who vote 'no' - so was Nazi Germany a good empire as well ? :duel:

[Kagemusha]

In 1940´s .The Dictatorical leaders of both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were madmen but i could not blame every single citicen of those countries from beeing evil. :bow:

[Petrus]

I do not think the soviet empire was evil.

It is not a question of ideology, you just need to read Dostoyevsky or Tolstoi, for example, to find the same elements that were used later by the soviets in the times of the tsars.

Considering soviet union as evil upon those bases would mean considering ancient russia as evil : the bases were the same.

Stalin was a paranoid dictator without scruple(?), Lenin or Trotsky were ready to submit and sacrifice anyone and anything to their personnal objectives so it is different for them, but i do not see soviet union as something evil.

[Ice]

\
Stalin was a paranoid dictator without scruple(?), Lenin or Trotsky were ready to submit and sacrifice anyone and anything to their personnal objectives .

Have you read/heard about any of Lenin's works? The guy was nuts. I think he once said that 1/3 of the world's population needed to be killed in order to insure the rebellion would be a sucess. He was insane. He would hvae most likely killed close to Stalin if he would have not died of a stroke at the age of around 50.

[Colovion]

For all who vote 'no' - so was Nazi Germany a good empire as well ? :duel:

The No option just demostrates that people don't believe that the Soviet Union was evil. You're jumping to a rather absurd conclusion in that those who do not buy into the demonization of an entire nation because of the questionable leadership believe that the nation is 'Good'.

bollocks

[Red Harvest]

The Soviet Union was indeed an evil empire. It need not have been so, but that is what it became. This isn't a condemnation of the Russian or soviet citizenry, but of the government that ruled it with an iron fist. It is very important to realize that once a single party system was locked in place, the Russian citizens were at its mercy.

The Soviets oppressed hundred's of millions under their yoke. Stalin had tens of millions of his own citizens killed. It was a system that consumed its own citizenry in purges. How could it not be evil? The only case for it reforming is when Gorbachev finally allowed it to split apart. Since it almost immediately fell apart it is hard to say that the Soviet system was anything but evil and oppressive to the vast majority of its subjects.

And here is the clincher, since "evil" most often has religious implications, any completely atheistic government (not neutral, agnostic, or tolerant, but atheistic at the core) is by definition "evil" to any religion.

It was a "legitimate country" however...not sure what you were going for there since it was obviously both.

[Byzantine Prince]

For all who vote 'no' - so was Nazi Germany a good empire as well ? :duel:
I don't believe in 'good' either. Regardless, you are simple supposing that people who don't think Soviet Socialist Republics is evil, think it's actually good. :dizzy2:

Well 'good' does not exist, 'evil' does not exist, and future generations will make fun of us for even using such silly words.

[Red Harvest]

The No option just demostrates that people don't believe that the Soviet Union was evil. You're jumping to a rather absurd conclusion in that those who do not buy into the demonization of an entire nation because of the questionable leadership believe that the nation is 'Good'.


I think you have it backwards. The Soviet Union was essentially an empire, a govt. This is not a condemnation of the nation/people of Russia, or Ukraine, etc. It is a condemnation of the Soviet Union as a govt.: a single party, non-representative force answerable only to itself that oppressed hundreds of millions of people and killed them at will to maintain its position and extend its power. How you could not define this as "evil" is beyond me. I would prefer to stick to terms like oppressive and all, but evil fits here, much as with Nazi Germany or WW2 Japan. If you want to go to "technical grounds" then since it was atheistic and actively suppressed religion, most if not all religions would define that as "evil"--which is in essense a religious moral distinction. I can't see any way to legitimately deny the Soviet Union (govt) was evil.

Did the Soviet Union have some larger benefit attached to it that clearly outweighed its oppression of its citizens and threat to the whole world? I can't think of any. It set its own peoples back by decades while those in the West flourished.

Had the title been, "Russia--an Evil Empire?" then your arguement would have merit and I would have voted differently.

[Red Harvest]

Well 'good' does not exist, 'evil' does not exist, and future generations will make fun of us for even using such silly words.

Nonsense. There is plenty of gray area, but there are many acts that can easily be defined as good/bad/evil. If I don't know you, walk up to you, punch you in the nose/stab you/ kill you/insult you/spit on you/steal your wallet/ etc. That is bad/evil/wrong. If I walk up to you and offer you a beer, food, help with something, etc. then that is in essense good (assuming there is not some sort of special hidden motive...yada, yada, yada.) There is a difference, and it is obvious in many instances. Classifying people, groups, motives, and such is a grayer area.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Nonsense. There is plenty of gray area, but there are many acts that can easily be defined as good/bad/evil. If I don't know you, walk up to you, punch you in the nose/stab you/ kill you/insult you/spit on you/steal your wallet/ etc. That is bad/evil/wrong. If I walk up to you and offer you a beer, food, help with something, etc. then that is in essense good (assuming there is not some sort of special hidden motive...yada, yada, yada.) There is a difference, and it is obvious in many instances. Classifying people, groups, motives, and such is a grayer area.

Interesting. You argue for absolute moral values attached to certain actions, and then concede that circumstances can affect this moral value.

Examples of evil: Do they cease to be morally wrong if there are special circumstances? Stealing is generally considered "wrong". How about stealing bread to feed a starving family? Killing is considered wrong. What about with provocation? Or for survival?

I would venture that you only consider these values absolute because that is the culture you have been brought up in. Every society has different values, although certain values are necessary IMO for the continuation and success of a society, values which keep harmony between the different parties, perfectly embodied by the 10 commandments, which detail rules which allow societies to work together and function, without it breaking apart (after all, how can you live in a tribe, the fundamental living group of human existance and quite possibly a reason for our evolutionary success and advantages, if you kill them or steal their possessions?).

In this way, it seems difficult to define these values as "right", but they are certainly necessary for the maintenance of complex human civilisations and societies which benefit us, and so are evolutionarily advantageous. We can observe that in many societies world-wide, a set of rules is in effect with broad themes that follow common principles close to what many people would consider as morally righteous, ie killing, stealing etc.

I digress, and apologise for going off-topic, but there is a link, however tenuous ~:) to the main discussion. The totalitarian principles of the Soviet Union were, in many ways, harmful to the relationship of the individual and the state, they took as much power over the ordinary citizen as they could. They expected subservience from the ordinary citizen, however the government failed in their goal as the state by allowing terrible famine often, and worse massacring its own population.

Because this unspoken pact between the state and the people was broken, as the USSR often failed to protect the citizens under its command, I believe that it was doomed to fail, and would eventually be defeated by the power of the individuals when they realised that they were not receiving the protection promised to them.

So, I believe the question "Was the USSR an Evil Empire?" is entirely a judgement call, based on shifting and individual morals, but the entire system of government upon which it was based was fundamentally flawed.

[Idomeneas]

In USSR there wasnt only oppression and poverty (though those characteristics stand out). They had a great educational system wich was for ALL people not just rich or middle class. They had a great medical system wich also was free. You could be a nobody and become really kick ass scientist if you were willing to study. Ive been several times in east Ukraine, i have many friends there, i even got close to get married with my girlfriend. I talked with many people olf and young and i can say that first time in my life i saw so educated middle and lower class people. The practices the russian-soviets followed imo reflect in a small bit(and i mean it) the mentallity of the people. The prefer straight ahead aproach even in a stubborn manner some times than beating around the bush and caring about public opinion. So the reason why we think USSR as the evil empire (apart the nato propaganda efforts) is imo always that they didnt really care to hide their dirts under the carpet the way many respectable countries did. I mean killing people in cold blood is surely a crime but creating the drugs that killed millions by today and going on isnt crime also? And if you wonder what i mean about try to find out how LSD and other ''nice'' stuff were invented and for what reason. :bow:

[Watchman]

Evil ? Bah. Heavy-handed, brutal, terminally incompetent and prone to trying to cover up the fact with more brutality ? Definitely, although they did rather mellow out after Stalin.

The thing is, the whole apparatus was built on some rather shaky grounds starting with the decaying agrarian hulk of Russia (not exactly what Marx envisioned as the future nucleus of World Revolution, but then he was always a better economician anyway) and its traditionally inept adminstration prone of doing things the most expensive way as far as human lives go. The brutal civil war through which the Bolsheviks eventually came to power certainly didn't help any, not in the least in the way it ensured general ruthlessness would be a common trait in the new leadership.

As a side note, how many have heard of the Königsberg uprising ? That was when the marines, a group that had long been at the forefront of the Revolution against the Czar's regime, of the sea-fortress before St. Petersburg revolted when they realized the Bolsheviks were seizing power and turning the whole thing into another autocratic system. Well, the uprising was squashed with predictable bloodiness...

And then there was Stalin. Lenin may have been utterly ruthless and more than slightly misguided in his choice of methods, but at least he wasn't an opportunistic, brutal paranoid. Stalin wasn't mad, though, not by a longshot save perhaps during his last years; obscene as the casualty numbers are there was a cynical rationality behind them, as Stalin used terror as a tool to secure his own power. If one wants to look for reasonably decent traits in the man, at least in comparision to a certain Adolf, it is that he didn't have people killed just because they were of an ethnic group he didn't like; he persecuted rather equallly everyone he saw as a threat in a sensible if rather disturbing fashion.

I've incidentally heard that Lenin quite explicitly demanded in his will Stalin be *not* allowed to have power; should that have been actually done, and had Trotsky or whoever came to power instead been a marked improvement, is pure contrafactual speculation.

You could view the USSR as a case study of why you should not pull off a milleniarian revolution and then go and invest all the power in one man. That never ends well, and very few capable revolutionaires have turned out to be competent or even decent rulers.

Still, the USSR wasn't all bad. It was, after all, a misbegotten child of Marx's ideas which drew heavily upon the emancipating ideals of Enlightenement, not unlike the liberal democracy that came to be followed in the West but taking the other way around, and did make some honest efforts in realising those ideals. When it finally could muster the resources for it after building the infrastructure virtually from scratch (as there wasn't much left after the Civil War) around the cusp of Twenties and Thirties and before Stalin started going bad, and then after old Josif was out of the picture, it seriosuly tried to provide its citizenry with universal education, healthcare, security and so on and so on, goals that while can certainly disagreed with (as economic liberalists do) are difficult to term anything other than well-meaning. That's actually something most Communist states seriously tried, save some of those with genuine nuts at the helm like Albania or North Korea (at least after Kim Jr. took over; I know little of how things were under his dad).

It's just that they took such brutal, repressive and ultimately contrafinal methods in going about it to rather devalue those honest attempts at creating something akin to a better world. It's really tragic how such noble if quite possibly very misguided projects to bring happiness and a better tomorrow to the masses, which inspired huge numbers of people to kill and die if need be to build that new world, in the end turned into such dystopian nightmares that by and large collapsed upon their own failures, their main achievements frightfully ravaged environments, cowed populaces and absurd numbers of people dead supposedly for the sake of greater good but rather more commonly due to the paranoia, heavy-handedness or rank incompetence of their leaders.

The Great Communist Experiment may have been a brave one and not without its merits, but was it absolutely necessary to take the route that was built over mass graves ? One does suspect there were alternatives.

[Ice]

[QUOTE You could be a nobody and become really kick ass scientist if you were willing to study. :bow:[/QUOTE]

You can do that in most non communtries also...

[Marquis of Roland]

uhhh....define evil.

While you're at it define good as well.

Really, the Nazis were no more evil than the United States. United States was no more evil than Great Britain. Great Britain was no more evil than the Soviet Union.

America and Britain killed for money. Stalin and Mao killed for national solidarity. Frankly I think Stalin and Mao's reasons for killing are better than killing for money.

There's plenty of times when countries kill and rape thousands if not millions of innocents. We are an aggressive species, it is in our nature to do these things.

Its not like Americans didn't persecute minorities in the past (and still do to a certain degree buts its been a lot better lately). The British forced others to become their colonies. Whats the big difference.

The strong and influential will always be right and good. The weak with no influence will always be wrong and evil.

In fact America has been trying to take over ther world for the past couple decades already. We have been focusing on attacking other people's cultures, and we have had a lot of success with that. McDonald's, Coke, and other American cultural icons deserve the congressional medal of honor.

Besides, people's minds are so fickle, you get the media to say America or whatever country is the "evil empire" everyone would believe it anyways.

Its ironic how we will fight and die for an ideal we hardly exercise.

And if we're gonna go with this good and evil thing, I'll go ahead and say that objectively Christianity is by far the most evil of all major religions, and I'm catholic. Never has another major religion been so oppressive on free thought, so greedy in its thirst for wealth and territory, and so bloody in its actions towards others (and used so extensively as a pawn and tool of the powerful).

[Red Harvest]

Really, the Nazis were no more evil than the United States. United States was no more evil than Great Britain. Great Britain was no more evil than the Soviet Union.

In fact America has been trying to take over ther world for the past couple decades already.


Sheesh, what a load of horse excrement.

[Watchman]

Word. I may not like the US of A or its hegemonic ambitions, but I draw the line somewhere.

As far as nasty people go, the Nazis have to be about the worst. Not really for trying to take over half to world by force of arms; that's been tried before, and aside the fact that war is a generally nasty and unwholesome business that's not a particularly vicious ambition.

No, it's the way the massacred millions of people for no better reason than for what they were. Most mass murderers have at least had some reasonably rational reason to get umpteen people killed, some ends for which the killing is a means. But the Nazis just hated.

Mind you, Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge are then on about the same level. What they pulled was loony, excessively brutal and pointless by *any* standards.

[Pindar]

Really, the Nazis were no more evil than the United States. United States was no more evil than Great Britain. Great Britain was no more evil than the Soviet Union.



This type of moral myopia reminds me of Toynbee's quote:

"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder."


God save us from the enlightened ignorant.

[Proletariat]

uhhh....define evil.

While you're at it define good as well.

Really, the Nazis were no more evil than the United States. United States was no more evil than Great Britain. Great Britain was no more evil than the Soviet Union.
------------------------------------
There's plenty of times when countries kill and rape thousands if not millions of innocents. We are an aggressive species, it is in our nature to do these things.
------------------------------------
And if we're gonna go with this good and evil thing, I'll go ahead and say that objectively Christianity is by far the most evil of all major religions, and I'm catholic. Never has another major religion been so oppressive on free thought, so greedy in its thirst for wealth and territory, and so bloody in its actions towards others (and used so extensively as a pawn and tool of the powerful).

People believe this stuff? I always figured this point of view was a fictitious one that was just the height of strawman against moral relativism.

You learn something new everyday! ...But really, wow.

[Byzantine Prince]

=Red Harvest
Nonsense. There is plenty of gray area, but there are many acts that can easily be defined as good/bad/evil.
Well I don't think it's any definition for anything. It's a way of thinking, it's not a template for every brain to think that way, it's influence from others that makes us believe taht evil and good exist. I like extreme philosophy so the people that influence me the most are people like Hume and Nitzsche, and so I like to think I have moved on from the norm most people adhere. That's not to say you have to like any of those philosophers to think the way I and some others here do, that is something that can come from personal discovery.

If I don't know you, walk up to you, punch you in the nose/stab you/ kill you/insult you/spit on you/steal your wallet/ etc. That is bad/evil/wrong.
Sure you could do all those things to anyone. Its perfectly plausible. The question isn't wether that is good or evil, the question is why you would want to do all those things to me. The answer to that question is all that is matters; all that is 'real'.


I don't think this belings in the Monastery, it's more of a backroom topic.

[PittBull260]

Keep in mind that Mr. Iosif Vissarionovici Stalin killed 36 million people officially.... Many more were killed unoficially....
36 million..........holy crap i thought it was just 6million...

[Gregoshi]

I'm not liking the direction this is going in. The thread is heading towards the Backroom or closure and the participants are taking the discussion to a personal level. Simply state your point or refute another's point. If you are unable to or unwilling to put forth the necessary effort, then also refrain from making comments about your fellow thread participants or tossing out mean spirited one-liners. Thank you.

[Aurelian]

I would say that the Soviet Union was an evil empire, but it was certainly not a historically unique example of evil.

Why was the Soviet Union evil? Because it was an authoritarian police state... highly militarized, and prone to using torture, disappearances, and gulags to control domestic dissent, and dissent in its empire.

The Soviet Union was an evil empire in the same way that the Third Reich, ancient Sparta, Chin China, or imperial Rome was evil. Focusing on the "communist" or "socialist" nature of the Soviet Union as the source of its evil is misleading, because authoritarian autocracy can show up in any economic system.

[Gregoshi]

I don't think this belings in the Monastery, it's more of a backroom topic.

I said above that this thread was heading towards being a Backroom thread. Now that I've read BP's comment, he's absolutely right. It was a Backroom thread from the very beginning.~:doh: Sorry Monasterians, I was being a bit thickheaded. Off this thread goes to the Backroom.

[Ser Clegane]

Off this thread goes to the Backroom.

Uhm ... thanks :brood:

[Samurai Waki]

I really don't believe in the black and white ideologies... Communism is evil... Capitalism is evil... Socialism is Evil... Faschism is evil... anarchy is Very Evil. You can't poke and prod the USSR and call them evil for mistreating countries and killing millions of people, if that were true, than the USA is too a much lesser extent evil as well, how about the constant blood bath Contra wars going on between Capitalist and Communist forces in Central and South America? weren't the Contra forces supported by the USA? these wars led to losing thousands of lives... same goes for Africa. I think both sides were mutually responsible for the Cold War... and the atrocities committed. Was the USSR responsible for the Vietnam war? the Korean War? the Communist China takeover? Somewhat, but not legitametly, it was more so Karl Marx. Was Karl Marx and evil man for designing the ground work for Communism? No. That would be like saying Henry David Thoreau was a bad man because he was essentially the father of Transcendentalism (basically Communism). The USSR wasn't an evil empire... Stalin was an evil dictator... Kruschev wasn't terribly evil either... Gorbi' wasn't all that bad either. People wake Up, Communism is dead, it was dead the instant Lenin took power... the Russian Revolution the fight for Communism was lost on behalf oh it's selfish leaders. However, I must also digress... had Stalin not taken power... I am sure that Russia would not have been able to sustain itself against the Nazi war machine. I would rather live in a world with Communism as a major political power, than Faschism as a major political power...

[cegorach]

I don't understand people who believe that the SU can't be called evil because its people were not evil - rubbish !
This way NONE form of government can be called good or bad. :dizzy2:
I know the world isn't black and white, but there are limits !

You can say that even Hitler was good because he built so good motorways... ~;) .

THe outcome doesn't justify the means especially in such extreme cases like the SU and Nazi Germany. IN fact where is the result which justified killing so many people in the SU ? WHERE ?
Do you really think so that it was necessary, that there was no other way. In fact WITHOUT the SU the world would be a better place for everybody including the Russians who lost so many people FOR NOTHING !

The SU was a militaristic state which gave nothing good, which did nothing useful in the end...

[Watchman]

I don't think anyone ever claimed the massive death toll the USSR managed, nevermind Stalin's paranoid purging sprees, to be justified. That'd take a whole new level of fairly purebred (ie. extreme and dogmatic) moral relativism, for which a concept of justification is likely rather alien anyway, or a really determined (ie. extreme and dogmatic) Stalinist apologist.

IMHO what barely saves them from the categorization "evil" (aside from the fact that I generally dislike that slogan-like term) is the fact that in its own way it really did try to "do good" - just with about all the wrong methods and ending in a rather utter failure. However there does seem to have a shortage of genuine malice involved - rather it appears to have been more of a case of rank incompetence and willingness to turn to brutality and terror when stumped.

It's rather ironic that at least the two main Communist states, China and the USSR, and presumably also most of the smaller ones, ended up with even greater differences in quality of living and about anything else between the "haves" (there meaning Party bigshots and similar folks) and "have-nots" (pretty much all the rest) than came to be the case in the Western "reformed" capitalism. For something that started out trying to eradicate class differences and secure reasonable equality for everyone that's a pretty sure sign of general failure.

[bmolsson]

USSR lost, therefore it's evil. The victor writes the history......

[A.Saturnus]

Marquis of Roland, unlike others I`m not going to belittle your opinion or get personal. I think it is an interesting comment that deserves discussion. Saying that an opinion is preposterious is easy and it never serves the discours.

I am maybe the biggest advocate of ethical relativism on this forum and I made a challenge out of it to convince people of it. That`s why I take objections at your post.
You have correctly asked to define good and evil. The question whether the Soviet Union was evil is of course dependent on the definition of the term 'evil'. So much should be obvious. But I note that you do not provide a clear definition of evil as well. Yet, you make evaluative claims. That seems to be an inconsistence in your position.
Ethical relativism allows evaluative statements if the moral assumptions of the discours are explicited or equivocale. Neither is the case for your position.
Your post seems to imply that you handle an implicit definition of evil, since you refer to actions that would be irrelvant unless taken as examples of evil. It is rather weak to criticize others for not explicitating their definitions, when you don`t do it yourself.
However, the bigger problem with your implicit definitions is that they don`t seem to be common. Since your arguments are enthymemes, others have a hard time to follow your reasoning. For example you say:
"Really, the Nazis were no more evil than the United States. United States was no more evil than Great Britain. Great Britain was no more evil than the Soviet Union. "
It`s not clear how you come to this conclusion. You correctly name acts done by these entities that can be seen as evil under a common implicit definition, but the common definition would also entail that there are degrees of evil. Thus, the fact that GB and the US have done evil does not imply that they are just as evil as the Soviet Union or the nazis. Rather under the implicit understanding of evil I would use, these examples provide room for the Soviet Union and the nazis to be much more evil. Influencing other people`s culture seems to be a lesser evil to the systematical marginalization and extermination of millions of people. If your reasoning is correct under the premise of your implicit definition of evil, it is still unclear how that is possible. Ethical systems under which MacDonalds is as evil as concentration camps may be conceivable, but they are hardly widely used.
So in general, your position is either wrong or it depends heavily on premises you do not explicitate.

I also have to note that you make not a single point that would indicate that the Soviet Union was NOT evil. All your points about the US, GB or Christianity are ignoratio elenchi, as their evilness and that of the Soviet Union can be seen as independent. So I would like to restate the question: was the Soviet Union in your opinion evil and if not, why not?

The way you phrase your argument makes it seem as if what you say follows from ethical relativism or at least from the openness of the question how evil is to be defined. I would like to remind everyone here to note that this is certainly not the case.

[Gregoshi]

Uhm ... thanks :brood:

As the saying goes, it is better to give than receive.~;) Sorry Ser. It was probably an evil thing to do, but seeing as there is some question in this thread about "good" and "evil", maybe my thread move wasn't so bad after all... ~:confused: Does that even make any sense? :dizzy2: Too much Backroom philosophizing for simple ol' me.

[Ser Clegane]

As the saying goes, it is better to give than receive.~;) Sorry Ser.

But I would rather have nice and fluffy threads next time :daisy: :love: ~:grouphug: ~;)

[Ice]

USSR lost, therefore it's evil. The victor writes the history......

That saying really doesn't apply to modern times when every event is MOSTLY accuratly recorded.

[Blodrast]

I truly wish I had a bit more time to elaborate my opinion on this, and there have been a few very good analyses by posters above. I will say this (without any grudge or any evil feelings intended) to those claiming SU was not evil:

if half of the daily basket necessities were rationalized, and the other half inexistant in that country;

if you had to wait for hours on end in long lines (sometimes throughout the entire night, before they brought them in next morning) just to buy basic products, of really poor quality (because _something_ is still better than nothing);

if you couldn't find certain medicinal products for your kid(s), because they were evil capitalist products;

if you had some of your close relatives arrested, tortured, and never heard from again, simply because one of your neighbors thought he might make a bit of money by "turning them in" as enemy of the state and of the Party;

if you only had 1 national newspaper, and 1 national TV post, running for only 3 hours a day - and I'll let you guess what kind of material was in both of them;

if you and/or your close relatives suffered in various ways simply because you had other relatives "abroad" (I won't go into details; you _should_ know what I'm talking about if you can make the claims you're making);

if you only had running water a few hours a day - hot water only every other day, for a few hours a day;

if electricity went out for several hours every day, or at least very often, simply "to save more money for the country/Party/repay national debt/whatever";

and I could go on like this for a VERY long time, believe you me.

If all these things were true for YOU, do you think you'd still have the luxury to debate whether this was good or bad, on a _philosophical_ level ?
It is oh so easy to say "Well, yeah, they were a bit uncomfortable every now and then, but it was all for the greater good, and really, it was not that bad at all - people are simply exaggerating.... Now let's enjoy our exotic fruit/house/SUV/freedom of speech/thought....".

[the tokai]

Evil is a term describing that which is regarded as morally bad, intrinsically corrupt, wantonly destructive, inhumane, selfish, or wicked. In most cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which are thought to (either directly or causally) bring about withering and death —the opposite of life.
Notice the underlined parts.

also:

Theories of Value ask 'What sorts of things are good?' Or: 'What does "good" mean?'

"If we had to give the most general, catch-all description of good things, then what would that description be?"

When that question is answered with "God", this is called "Summum bonum".

Many people believe that value theory is the most important area of philosophy. All religions and most philosophical movements have been concerned with it to some degree. It can define "good" and "bad" for a community or society. It affects everyone's life - maybe all life on Earth.

Goodness and value theory affects political economy, which sets relative valuations on factors of production. When governments decide what is good and to be encouraged, they cut taxes on those activities, remove regulations or laws, and provide subsidies. However, when they decide what is bad and to be discouraged, they pass laws to make it illegal and enforce them with violence, monopolize it to limit or control it, and make stern speeches on television.

[Don Corleone]

Is Usa evil? It have killed millions of indians and have stolen their lands. Is Spain evil? It have killed even more indians than Usa. Is Germany evi?...

I'am trying to say that nations aren't persons, they can't be evil. Only peoples can.
Stalin was evil, there is no daubs about that. But you can't blame whole Ussr for his murders.
So for the most of time Ussr wasn't evil.

My sentiments exactly. There were evil people in charge at times, but you can't call an entire nation, or an empire for that matter, 'evil'. The Soviet people weren't evil. The land wasn't evil. The culture and the history weren't evil. These are all part of the 'Soviet Union'. Generally speaking, I resist anthropomorphizing an abstract concept like a nation.

[Pindar]

Generally speaking, I resist anthropomorphizing an abstract concept like a nation.

So you would disagree with categorizing abstract concepts like: Nazism as evil, or rape as evil, or disco as evil? Any common noun can be a concept.

I'm not sure how you understand 'abstract concept', but a government is as 'real' as it gets insofar as it has power to impose force and impact people's lives. In the USSR's case this included the slaughter of tens of millions of people.

If you believe that evil exists and people are moral agents, why then can't the values of moral agents be categorized along moral lines?

Government is the institutionalizing of a value system.

[Don Corleone]

Aaaah, but we didn't say government. The question was if the CCCP was evil. I said a country cannot be evil, but it's government sure can, and in the case of Stalin, Kruschev and to a lesser extent Breshnev & Andropov, yeah, they were pretty evil.

Nazism is an idea and yes, of course ideas can be evil. I would definitely categorize nazism as evil.

Rape is an act, and above anything else, actions can certainly be evil, and this is one of the most.

Disco is an art form (and granted, it's REALLY stretching the definition), so i'd have say that as revolting, sick and twisted as I find it, I cannot describe it as evil.

[Steppe Merc]

What Don said. Certaintly some of the leaders were evil, but I don't think the whole country was...

[Pindar]

Aaaah, but we didn't say government. The question was if the CCCP was evil.


CCCP is the governement.


I said a country cannot be evil, but it's government sure can...

Nazism is an idea and yes, of course ideas can be evil. I would definitely categorize nazism as evil.

So you agree concepts can be evil?


Rape is an act, and above anything else, actions can certainly be evil, and this is one of the most.

Rape is an act. It is also a concept.


Disco is an art form (and granted, it's REALLY stretching the definition), so i'd have say that as revolting, sick and twisted as I find it, I cannot describe it as evil.

Disco not evil? Get thee behind me Satan! Evil spirits come out! I command thee!

( You didn't mention Country Music so there was probably one spirit. Now go lie down. The darkness should pass)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In 1940´s .The Dictatorical leaders of both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were madmen but i could not blame every single citicen of those countries from beeing evil. :bow:
Exactly.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nazism is an idea and yes, of course ideas can be evil. I would definitely categorize nazism as evil.

Socialism is evil? No, I wouldn't say that. I would say most socialists that the world has seen are evil or twisted. The idea, even of nazism, is fine. But when put into motion, Hitler's nazism was one of the most sick, twisted, and evil things ever to curse the Earth. I'm glad Germany has utterly rejected the Nazi party. Though it still exists, the government tunes it down and keeps it from power. I applaud my leaders for that.

[bmolsson]

That saying really doesn't apply to modern times when every event is MOSTLY accuratly recorded.

Well, assume that Japan would have beaten US in WWII. How do you think the atomic bombs would have been seen in history ??

[Ice]

Well, assume that Japan would have beaten US in WWII. How do you think the atomic bombs would have been seen in history ??

By the Japanese, who brain washed their citizens, as bad of course. Now, by the United States, who was beaten, a good effort to try to end the war.

[bmolsson]

Rape is an act. It is also a concept.


Please elaborate.....

[Proletariat]

Please elaborate.....

No funny lawsuit joke can be applied here as well?

[Byzantine Prince]

=Proletariat
No funny lawsuit joke can be applied here as well?
Rape is never a laughing matter, unless you're raping a clown. ~:joker:

[bmolsson]

[QUOTE=Proletariat]
No funny lawsuit joke can be applied here as well?[
/QUOTE]

Working on it. I am happy that you like the concept.... ~;)

[bmolsson]

By the Japanese, who brain washed their citizens, as bad of course. Now, by the United States, who was beaten, a good effort to try to end the war.

The concept of brain washing it's citizen can easily be put on more or less any nation in the world. The preception of US by it's citizen isn't always based on logic and rationality. This perception is created by media and educational system. US is not evil, but it's not as good as many tries to tell you.......

[Ice]

The concept of brain washing it's citizen can easily be put on more or less any nation in the world. The preception of US by it's citizen isn't always based on logic and rationality. This perception is created by media and educational system. US is not evil, but it's not as good as many tries to tell you.......

Hmm, I think not. I know the facts, although I am slightly biased seeing that I was born here, but I still think the US does not brainwash. People are intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions.

[Spetulhu]

Hmm, I think not. I know the facts, although I am slightly biased seeing that I was born here, but I still think the US does not brainwash. People are intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions.

People might not come to any conclusions at all, or even care about it. There's so many news outlets available that you get sick of it after a while.

And on the subject of many news outlets, everyone gives their own version. People know that one of the stories must be true and select the one they like best.

The old KGB is said to have been green with envy at how easy governments in the west had it. Every Soviet citizen knew the Pravda was full of lies, but in the west everyone could select some news to believe in.

[Red Harvest]

but you can't call an entire nation, or an empire for that matter, 'evil'. The Soviet people weren't evil. The land wasn't evil. The culture and the history weren't evil. These are all part of the 'Soviet Union'. Generally speaking, I resist anthropomorphizing an abstract concept like a nation.

Do any peoples actually identify themselves as Soviet? To my knowledge, they are Russian, Ukrainian, etc, not "Soviet." They were "Soviets" only while ruled by the CCCP. (Would be interested to hear what the Easterners have to say on that specific point.) The "Evil Empire" was the Soviet Union/CCCP, not its constituent peoples. That seems obvious to me. I still see it as false argument to say this is a ruling on the peoples--calling them evil--same as it would be to defend Nazi Germany by saying that calling the Nazi govt evil would be equivalent to calling the German people evil.

Since we are discussing the govt as itself we are weighing what good it did vs. the bad. If you look far enough into the past of any modern nations you will find sustained periods of what are considered today evil acts (and they were often condemned internally at the time as well.) However, govts. and nations adapt and generally advance. Did the CCCP advance on the whole? I would argue that it regressed mightily under Stalin. It failed to really advance from his rule until it dissolved. It stopped committing some of his excesses against itself, but he had set the tone--one that ended up defining it.

And I don't find the bolshevik revolution itself to be "evil." It was a political/military uprising against an existing oppressive monarchy. When it ruled what it transformed into was an equally (or perhaps more) oppressive autocracy that was also an aggressive expansionist...and one that failed to advance its people at a pace similar to the rest of the world. The regime was far more bad than good, hence evil.

Much of this comes down to "what defines the govt/system" under discussion. Look at the U.S. for comparison. Overall, most would have trouble saying it has been oppressive to its citizens on average. Are there exceptions? You bet: slavery and the wars vs. the Indians are prime examples. Both of these are acknowledged as great evils today. However, do those define America? No, they were not central to what the nation was (and is) despite their large impact on her history.

[Red Harvest]

The old KGB is said to have been green with envy at how easy governments in the west had it. Every Soviet citizen knew the Pravda was full of lies, but in the west everyone could select some news to believe in.

Yes, but from reading comments by Russian citizens over the past years I've noticed a disturbing trend on one hand to say they couldn't believe anything the ex-Soviet govt. told them (and Pravda) but in the current time still accepting completely unsupported anti-west nonsense that was indistinguishable from old propaganda. :dizzy2: I'm not sure if it is just hard to shake some of the "old mental programming", or they want to believe it, or if it is simply a case of relative inexperience picking through various forms of mass media to make their own judgements of what is credible. I lean towards this latter explanation, but it is just a guess. And a fourth explanation would be that they had been isolated from the West for long enough that it was an unknown quantity, and therefore harder for them to know when a report was credible or not compared to more local matters/leaders.

Reminds me of Arabs who believed the Iraqi information minister about the progress of the invasion. When he disappeared as the regime collapsed, I lost count of how many times I saw interviews of various Arabs who were disgusted at being fooled by the Arab press in the matter. (It spoke well of the individuals to me that they didn't just shrug it off, and were instead angry.)

[A.Saturnus]

Generally speaking, I resist anthropomorphizing an abstract concept like a nation.

I don`t think it`s an anthropomorphism. A state is an organisation and if we say that it has intentions, we`re not really making a metaphore. Rather the intentions of an organisation are a weighted sum of those individuals who hold power in that organisation. And when an organisation can have intentions, it also can be evil. I don`t think the statement "the SU was an evil empire" should be understood to imply that all people living there were evil. But as an organisation, as an entity that can be the carrier of intentional behaviour, it was something evil.

BTW, I think some words better remain unverbed.

[cegorach]

And I don't find the bolshevik revolution itself to be "evil." It was a political/military uprising against an existing oppressive monarchy.

I respect your opinion and I agree with most of this, but even you seem to be biased about the 'revolution' - simply there was no monarchy at that time and the military coup ( sp ?) which was indeed this 'revolution' not only overthrown the existing quite democratic government, but in fact erased all treces of democracy which was beeing born.
The Bolshevics thrown away, shot the representatives sent from all around the country to create the new constitution months later after the 'revolution' and saized power guarding it against ANYBODY who challenged their power - in fact 'anybody' meant all others and some of their own people ultimately. THeir reign was never legitimate and they would lose the power in a fair election EXACTLY like almost all other communistic governments all around the word.
The SU was in fact a military dictatorship, even if some of their number were not wearing uniforms. :book:

Regards Cegorach :bow:

[Divinus Arma]

Dictatorships are evil by nature. The country survives only to serve the needs of the leader and the leader only allows those to live that serve his purposes.

[bmolsson]

Hmm, I think not. I know the facts, although I am slightly biased seeing that I was born here, but I still think the US does not brainwash. People are intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions.

It's not about being intelligent or not, neither is it about US being evil or not. The fact is that from birth you are educated to have a certain base as a reference for everything you do. Your conclusions are then based on this. The problem arrives when large parts of society needs to change for the societies own survival. In the history of every country you have dark chapters and most in a time of change.
In the case of US, the racism is a very good example. Our current definition of a racist is a large evil redneck in a white hood. In reality it was hard working people with families just like anyone else. During their childhood and education they where taught that their race was superior with the known results.
The brain washing I am talking about here (maybe a strong word with negative tone) are something absolutely necessary in a functional democractic society. It creates stability and with that prosperity. One of the keys to US success story is actually the brain washing in to the American way.........

[IliaDN]

This is academic. The USSR was illegitimate by definition. It slaughtered tens of millions of its own people and oppressed millions of others. It was a dark force.
Dark force? ... Oh s#@t another damn jedi ~:)
I don't understand what is the meaning of the definition " evil empire " - was it evil for itself or for other nations?

[cegorach]

I don't understand what is the meaning of the definition " evil empire " - was it evil for itself or for other nations?[/QUOTE]

When it comes to the SU - BOTH !

Russia for example is in terrible condition now - the Russians are literally dying out and it is because of the SU. :book:

[Radier]

Sorry, but whta´s SU?

[Samurai Waki]

:jawdrop: By God man! SU= Soviet Union...

[Radier]

Ah stupid me!

Well I voted yes, they were evil. I hate communists and their thought of forced solidarity :furious3:

[IliaDN]

I don't understand what is the meaning of the definition " evil empire " - was it evil for itself or for other nations?

When it comes to the SU - BOTH !

Russia for example is in terrible condition now - the Russians are literally dying out and it is because of the SU. :book:[/QUOTE]
Well , russians are NOT dying because of the USSR , there is hard situation ( demography ) for many white people all over the world , problem of russians is the stupid goverment which came after destruction of the USSR ...

[Ice]

Well , russians are NOT dying because of the USSR , there is hard situation ( demography ) for many white people all over the world , problem of russians is the stupid goverment which came after destruction of the USSR ...[/QUOTE]


Oh I know, democracy is a terrible thing!!!!

Would someone PLEASE THINK OF THE WORKERS!!!!!!

[cegorach]

QUOTE=IliaDN]When it comes to the SU - BOTH !

Russia for example is in terrible condition now - the Russians are literally dying out and it is because of the SU. :book:[/QUOTE]
Well , russians are NOT dying because of the USSR , there is hard situation ( demography ) for many white people all over the world , problem of russians is the stupid goverment which came after destruction of the USSR ...[/QUOTE]

Yes they do - the demographic problems started with the reign of Stalin - now you can see the effects of the decisions made many years ago + the destruction of ecology doesn't help a little ... :book: