Reinventing collapse: the Soviet example and American prospects
this is a book in which i like and helps my point.
Housing
Soviet: Owned by the state, free rent, accessible by public transportation, stay during collapse
U.S.: Mortgages owned by banks, foreclosures/evictions, private vehicles needed
Transportation
Soviet: Public, continues to run, already in-place in populated areas
U.S.: Private cars/trucks, requires fuel distribution
Families
Soviet: Three generations under one roof, clustered geographically, used to hardship
U.S.: Nuclear families, spread out, entitlement
Employment
Soviet: Mostly public, salaries delayed, access to large stockpiles, people still show up a work
U.S.: Mostly private, shutdowns, layoffs, just-in-time inventory / shortages
Currency
Soviet: Token value, shared among friends, not essential
U.S.: Essential for survival, loaned not shared, critical
Food
Soviet: Kitchen gardens, public food stockpiles, home cooking
U.S.: Supermarkets, shipped by truck (no warehousing), fast food culture
Energy
Soviet: Vast oil and gas supplies, exports, government owned
U.S.: Oil imports
Soviet backwardness and disregard for personal freedoms make it more resilient to its economic collapse.
Orlov claims that the Soviet collapse was not because of communist ideology, or because of anything America did. (vii) In reality, the collapse came after years of military build up in direct reaction to decades of U.S. military build up, especially in reaction to Reagan and citizens discontent at their standard of living, largely caused by the problems of communist ideology.
He claims that the U.S., is a country that enjoys bombing other countries, but that Soviets, having been bombed in WWII, think twice about inflicting that experience on others. (pg. 36) Unless they happen to be Chechen, or course.
According to Orlov, the U.S. military could not defeat North Korea or the North Vietnamese. (pg. 37) In the first case, North Korea, the claim is entirely false; the U.S. and allied forces defeated the North Korean military quickly this is a fact. Then China threw millions of troops into the fray, and the Soviets also directly assisted the North Koreans. The U.S. wary of nuclear war with Russia, did not press and settled for a ceasefire. The decision to leave Vietnam to lose was a political one, not based on U.S. military capability, which was clearly restrained. In both cases the possibility of nuclear war with the Soviet Union was a real concern.
Illogically, Orlov insists in linking the U.S. invasion of Iraq to the need to extract that countrys oil, and, again, speaks of a U.S. military failure. (pg. 41) The key here is that a military failure or victory is not the same as anti-insurgency or nation building. The U.S. military victory in Iraq was complete and stunning, and took only 21 days (and BTW defeated a lot of Soviet equipment). Orlov is wrong on the military count due to an apples-to-oranges comparison. And Iraqi oil? Obviously the U.S. did not invade to take that.
He faults the U.S. for jailing such a large percentage of the population, and notes it far surpasses anything the Soviets did, while mentioning the gulags and political prisoners incidentally. Context is everything. I agree the U.S. jails too many people, but hey have had a fair trial in the vast majority of cases, unlike Russian counterparts. More importantly, no one is disappeared in the middle of the night for political reasons, and most importantly U.S. prisons are not concentration camps (Gulags were) where millions died due to conditions. See moral equivalence.
Orlov sees hypocrisy in the U.S. calling for the Berlin Wall to come down, yet erecting a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. (pg. 47) I dont pretend to understand how an educated person can honestly make such an unmatched comparison. The Berlin Wall was akin to a prison wall, keeping oppressed people in. The wall (several fences in different locations, actually) on the U.S.-Mexico border is to keep illegal immigrants and drug dealers out of the U.S.
Dredging up the tired old example of Bushs mission accomplished speech, Orlov (pg. 49), like many on the left, takes the banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln out of the actual context;
The banner stating Mission Accomplished was a focal point of controversy and criticism. Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carriers 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew.
Orlov states as a matter of fact that most coal reserves, have already been excavated and burned. (pg. 104) This is the theory of one Dave Rutledge, chair of Caltechs engineering and applied sciences division, whos estimates on this are presented as accepted fact by Orlov.
I could go on and on, but there is no point.
America had more debt at the end of WW2 as a percentage of GNP than it does now, so it is not in that bad of shape right now.
