[malachi151]

Well all know that "moral outrage" that "conservatives" have towards the Communist development of the USSR, and I share many of the criticisms of Stalinism with them in fact, but there are two major issues with the general line of argument put forward by anti-Soviets: 1) Being the lack of historical perspective and understanding of the general Russian situation, 2) being the lack of acknowledgement of Amerian development.

Here are a few bits of info about early America:

1) By 1790 20% of the population was black, virtually all of these being slaves.
2) In the early American colonies there was forced labor, and centralized allocation of tasks. Those who did not work could be imprisoned and even hanged, and this of course was done.
3) Asside from slavery, indentured servitude was a major factor in early America, into the 1800s all throughout New England. Though slavery was abolished in New England shortly after the Revolution, indentured servitude lasted many years, and was actually deemed to be more cost effective because after the prime years of employment (it lasted to age 28 ) the workers could be discarded.
4) By 1850 60% of America's expoerts were cotton products, meaning that over half of America's exports were the products of slave labor.
5) 86% of cotton was gown on slave plantations
6) By 1850 nearly 40% of the population of the South were slaves.
7) Wages were fixed by local authorities, and children could be taken from families to be made apprentaces of some trademaster if it was deemed that there parents were providing them a proper upbringing.
8 ) In 1860 25% of Southern families owned slaves, and these constituted the wealthies segment of Southern society by far.

These are conditions that existed in some cases only for periods, from the 1500s through to 1865 in America and formed the basis for the American economy. Roughly speaking, we could say that these types of conditions existed over a perior of about 200 years in earnest, as compared to the Soviet conditions of abuse, which lasted from roughly the 1920s through the 1950s, some 30 years.

So we have 30 years of Soviet exploitation vs 200 years of American exploitation.

I agree that the Soviet system was generally corrupt and poor at providing the the people, and an all around bad system in terms of effeciency, but what is being discussed here is actual major exploitation and harm against people done in ways that provided economic benefit for a developing country.

In other words American own economic development is no less troubling that the Soviet development and reflects similar general tendacies for developing economic systems. Certianly to call many of the aspects of Salinism the result of "Communism" is quite silly, as we can see these same exact qualities expressed in many other societies. It actually had less to do with Communism and more to do simply with the same factors that early Americans faced, the need to quickly develop resources.

[Captain Hat]

While your facts are correct for the most part, I have to disagree with your conclusions. You compare the America of ca. 1500 - 1865 with the Soviet Union of 1927-1953 and you have put in any historical factors.

While the slave system was a blight on Spirit of 1776, you have to take it in historical perspective. In the 16th, 17th, and through most of the 18th Century, the majority of Americans would not have bat an eye over slavery. It wasn't an issue. Slavery was a way of life and it wasn't until the Revolution that slavery began to be questioned. (In 1790, President Washington asked Congress to create a plan to abolish slavery in 50 to 100 years)

However, the tactics and policies of Stalin, exercised during the 20th Century were of course deemed barbaric, because most nations at that time had not practiced the kind of policies Stalin was practicing for over 100 years! Basic Human rights had come along way from the 18th Century, and the way that those rights were being abused in the USSR under Stalin created the "moral outrage" against Stalinism.

[malachi151]

I disagree. Many people opposed slavery from the outset. Thomas Paine for example was opposed to slavery.

Actually the real first democracy in the Americas was in the Bahamas in the 1500s, established by a Puritan group. They specifically outlawed slavery. The Bahamas is unique in the region as one of the only places that never had slavery.

The British were working on outlawing slavery and promised to free all the slaves if they won the war. The British outlawed slavery in Europe in 1772 and they outlawed the slave trade before America did.

In 1860 the South went to war in efforts to preserve slavery.

The difference in time between 1865 and 1920 is just 80 years, yet Russia was developmentally 200 years behind the west. All civilizations do not advance equally.

The USSrR never even had slavery, they just had prison labor camps, where the majority of people in the labor camps were there on outright crimes, such as murder or theft, etc. Some 20% to 30% were there for political "crimes", but nevertheless there was no slavery, and no one was born into the forced labor system.

[Captain Hat]

I disagree. Many people opposed slavery from the outset. Thomas Paine for example was opposed to slavery.

That was where I was getting at. Opposition to slavery never occured until the Revolution (which includes, obviously, Thomas Paine)

The Bahamas is unique in the region as one of the only places that never had slavery.

Sure, when the Puritans were in charge, but many nations overran the Bahamas (Spain among them) and slavery was eventually introduced to the Bahamas.

The British were working on outlawing slavery and promised to free all the slaves if they won the war.

What's never talked about is what happened to the slaves that fought for the British - Most of them were sold back into slavery in the West Indies.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but I would also like to add that a lot can happen 80 years.

[Todd D.]

1) By 1790 20% of the population was black, virtually all of these being slaves.

Compare this with the British West Indies, whose population was over 70 percent black....also almost all slaves.

2) In the early American colonies there was forced labor, and centralized allocation of tasks. Those who did not work could be imprisoned and even hanged, and this of course was done.

You are referring to American colonies under British, French, or Spanish rule, not colonies governed by either the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution.

3) Asside from slavery, indentured servitude was a major factor in early America, into the 1800s all throughout New England. Though slavery was abolished in New England shortly after the Revolution, indentured servitude lasted many years, and was actually deemed to be more cost effective because after the prime years of employment (it lasted to age 28 ) the workers could be discarded.

Indentured Servitude cannot be compared to slavery by anyone with half a brain. Slaves were property, indentured servants weren't. Slaves had no say where they worked, Indentured Servants did, the list of differences goes on and on.

Indentured Servitude was initially much cheaper than Slavery actually, and is one of the major reasons that slavery didn't catch on in the North the same way that it did in the South.

4) By 1850 60% of America's expoerts were cotton products, meaning that over half of America's exports were the products of slave labor.

No different than British enumeration in the late 18th century from the West Indies, Jamaica, etc. I dare say that Sugar exports from those colonies represented much more than 60 percent as well.

5) 86% of cotton was gown on slave plantations

So?

6) By 1850 nearly 40% of the population of the South were slaves.

Again, so? The South was a harsh climate, and unless you were filthy rich, there were better economic opportunities and a greater chance of survival in the north. The result was that free labor tended to migrate to the northern states.

7) Wages were fixed by local authorities, and children could be taken from families to be made apprentaces of some trademaster if it was deemed that there parents were providing them a proper upbringing.

Morally bankrupt, but I've never heard of this occurring once the US Government was set up.

8 ) In 1860 25% of Southern families owned slaves, and these constituted the wealthies segment of Southern society by far.

That's becaue adjusted for the price index, slaves cost over 300,000 dollars in today's money, and that does not include maintenence costs. We have this idea that people bought slaves like they would buy groceries, when that's really not the case. Slaves were expensive, so of course only the richest of the rich in the south would be able to buy them.

So we have 30 years of Soviet exploitation vs 200 years of American exploitation

Firstly, America became a country in 1783, Slavery was completely abolished in 1865, that's 82 years, not 200. Secondly, the era of Soviet exploitation existed in a time when the culture promoted individualism and liberty. The era of American slavery took place during a time period when slavery was an accepted part of world culture. Comparing the two would be like condoning me taking a slave for a year, killing him, and then saying "Well, I only did it for a year, America did it for 200 years!". You have to judge individual actions against the culture of the times.

[Pablo]

I got halfaway through this thread and thought, where are these people getting their historical 'facts' from? Full of innacuracies. Let alone the interpretation of history here, which is cruddy to say the least.