steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (09/17/84)
Ever noticed how a criticism of a Western Government often gets met with a remark like "Try saying that behind the Iron Curtain, and see how far you get!" This to me is a giant non-sequitur, on a par with name-calling. It seems to be based on the assumptions that a criticism of the West is automatically pro-Soviet, and because the USSR is so much worse than the West it's wrong to criticise. There are plenty of countries, West, East and non-aligned, where you're not allowed to criticise the government, and that's precisely why I think Piet's right to disagree with US foreign policy should be defended.
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (09/18/84)
[] >Ever noticed how a criticism of a Western Government often gets met with a >remark like "Try saying that behind the Iron Curtain, and see how far you >get!" Truism 1: Criticism of the Soviet Government by a Soviet citizen, in the U.S.S.R. is personally dangerous. Truism 2: Criticism of the U.S. Government by a U.S. citizen, quite apart from it being a method of governing here, is not personally dangerous. However, to the extent that such criticism is congruent to Soviet policy and aims, it is dangerous to the U.S.; certainly it is not the same degree of danger for the Soviet critic in the U.S.S.R., because the U.S. is big enough to absorb and with- stand alot of abuse. But criticisms based on Soviet propaganda, or criticism believed to have been produced independently of Kremlin machinations yet nonetheless friendly to the Soviet point of view, undermines the ability of the West to survive. So it is that the above quoted remark is used in an attempt to bring some sense of personal responsibility to the "useful idiots" who even unwittingly parrot the Kremlin line. >It seems to >be based on the assumptions that a criticism of the West is automatically >pro-Soviet, and because the USSR is so much worse than the West it's wrong >to criticise. Not all criticism of the West is pro-Soviet, but a lot of it is. It is more a general suspicion than an assumption, which is reasonable, given the methods and ends of the Bolshevik regime. To realize the U.S.S.R. is "so much worse" than the West is perhaps a step in the right direction, but a faltering one. It is implying a moral relativism wherein the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. are mirror images of each other. This belief is one the Kremlin bureaucrats spend some considerable time nurturing in the West. An abominable regime, what someone once referred to with uncanny accuracy as an evil empire, need do nothing more to legitimize it's existence than by destroying the very moral standards civilized men and women use to condemn it. Very clever, I say, but it doesn't wash here.
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (09/20/84)
> "Try saying that behind the Iron Curtain, and see how far you get!"
Try saying it in the US, and see how many assholes say, "Try saying
that behind the Iron Curtain, and see how far you get!"
--
Alan S. Driscoll
AT&T Bell Laboratoriesrch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell) (09/23/84)
>> Try saying that behind the Iron Curtain, and see how far you get! > Try saying it in the US, and see how many assholes say, "Try saying that being the Iron Curtain, and see how far you get!" Brilliant response! Such subtlety! Such wit! Really probes the deep issues. I don't know about the rest of you, but as far as I'm concerned, that really nails it down. I was confused about all of this before, but now Alan Driscoll has *really* convinced me of his point of view. Amazing. Rich Yampell
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/24/84)
>From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) >Truism 1: Criticism of the Soviet Government by a Soviet citizen, >in the U.S.S.R. is personally dangerous. Truism 2: Criticism of >the U.S. Government by a U.S. citizen, quite apart from it being >a method of governing here, is not personally dangerous. > >However, to the extent that such criticism is congruent to >Soviet policy and aims, it is dangerous to the U.S.; certainly >it is not the same degree of danger for the Soviet critic in >the U.S.S.R., because the U.S. is big enough to absorb and with- >stand alot of abuse. But criticisms based on Soviet propaganda, >or criticism believed to have been produced independently of >Kremlin machinations yet nonetheless friendly to the Soviet >point of view, undermines the ability of the West to survive. >So it is that the above quoted remark is used in an attempt >to bring some sense of personal responsibility to the "useful >idiots" who even unwittingly parrot the Kremlin line. It is odd that some of those who most fervently defend the U.S. show such a profound lack of understanding of what the U.S. is really all about. It is as if they think the U.S. is good only because it lets them buy all the dishwashers, microwaves and cars they want. The fact that there is no such thing as "acceptable" and "unacceptable" dissent seems to them an afterthought, something willingly sacrificed for the dishwasher. Your theory, Scott, would qualify you for a high position within the politburo. You even make the reference to "idiots"; in the USSR, though, the term is "criminally insane". Perhaps that's really what you meant, hmm? Mike Kelly
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (10/03/84)
The problem with this flaming across the ocean is that the
mentality in the US is still that everyone who isn't with
them must be against them.
I am *NOT* in favor of the US government, but that doesn't
mean that I'm in favor of the USSR!!
If you can only flame at people who critisize you, I think
there is something terribly wrong with *your own* faith
in that system. Otherwise you could have used some *real*
arguments.........
Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack
or ...!vu44!htsa!jackalan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (10/03/84)
>>> Try saying that behind the Iron Curtain, and see how far you get! >> Try saying it in the US, and see how many assholes say, "Try saying >> that being the Iron Curtain, and see how far you get!" [Me] > Brilliant response! Such subtlety! Such wit! Really probes the deep > issues. I don't know about the rest of you, but as far as I'm concerned, > that really nails it down. I was confused about all of this before, but > now Alan Driscoll has *really* convinced me of his point of view. > Amazing. [Rich Yampell] Huh? Here we have a short, witty article, which doesn't address the deeper issues, criticizing short, witty articles, which don't address the deeper issues. Maybe the ":-)" fell off in transit. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories