Do you think the end of the Cold War increased narcissism?

Post Reply New Topic

Since there was no longer a check on Americanization, consumerism and hyper-individualism that communism created, do you think the collapse of communism has caused narcissistic behavior to grow globally? For example I've heard the younger generation of Chinese people are incredibly self-centered compared to their parents and older siblings, the people born after Tiananmen

A part of me actually wishes the communists won, or it remained a stalemate because I think in a lot of ways the existence of an ideology that competed with capitalism kept us in check. Now I'm worried that since the American way has reigned supreme globally for 20 years, we're gonna totally destroy our environment with unchecked consumerism, not only that but all the cultures that are non-American/Western that have existed so many years will die?

I'm in complete agreement. The end of the communist "menace" as a kind of competitor is a total disaster and I knew it at the time.

I agree.

Its better to be challenged militarily by a nation so that all of our budget can go to defense spending as a % of GDP?

The existence of the USSR was immoral. The only thing that kept them in competition with the US was nuclear capability, and not much else. That a walking corpse of a country exist merely to compete, compelled by communist ideology, all the while their people died of starvation is not a moral thing to wish for.

The russian soul was depressed for too long, it is a nation building project Europe should have undertook as the Soviets sacrificed more lives and manpower in bringing down Hitler then any country from the West. Europe paid America back for our marshall plan by not going to war with others in the continent anymore, but Western Europe still had a debt of gratitude to repay to the soviets, and if there was ever a time for it, was at the end of its communist run. Its actions in Eastern Europe were not moral or justified, but the fall of the system was a chance for a new beginning, and it would have been in Europe's interest.

The Russian Soul was depressed for centuries under Tsarist rule while condemned all but a decadent, self-indulgent, unscrupulous, apathetic elite to a life of misery and hardship. The 1917 revolution was the best thing that ever happened to that country and 70 years of communism eradicated many social ills...........And now Putin is trying bring back Tsarism by enabling the most vile christian institution, the Russian orthodox church, to play a role in society and politics. More and more Russians want communism back and are opposed to their country moving closer to Europe. There is no need for nation building in Russia! They already have a nation that has survived for over 1000 years and neither need nor want any help from the West.

We can only hope that Mother Russia returns to a place of importance in the international stage.

Might I humbly point out that the cold war nearly resulted in the complete destruction of mankind?

Who would have started it? Both sides were reaping the benefits of a propaganda machine to sell to their people for them to stay in line, be productive and sign up for the service.

There were a few tense moments, yes, but mankind was safe.
1- If ever there had been a nuclear war, only NATO or Warsaw Pact countries would have been in danger. Mankind it ain't.
2- There would never have been such a war, because everyone agreed that it was not beneficial to either party.


Aspierogue answered brillantly for part of the nonsense, but there is some dispelling left to do.

The USSR was "in competition" because of its industrial capacities. That's what allowed it to win the Second World War almost by itself.

Maybe what happened in Eastern Europe was wrong. However, the US (and/or the British) did mostly the same in Vietnam and in all South East Asia, in Greece, in Central and Southern America (although that was before the Cold War as well), etc. Oh, and West Germany. The Marshall Plan had the effect of expanding the markets of American products, and it happened because the Americans felt a strong Europe was it their interest (a changed method from the post-Great War dollar cycle).

Wars in Europe stopped because the Soviet Union was too big to be defeated militarily y the Western Allies, while the Soviet Union feared the American nuclear bomb. When nuclear capability was achieved by both side, see "mutually assured destruction".

Anyway...

The Cold War's end is also the end of competing ideologies. Nowadays, we trick ourselves into believing we have a choice between a set of political options, but there are no such options. The only extant system, the only one from which one can draw political opinions, is mixed capitalism topped by liberal democracy. Various parties have slightly differing opinions on this, especially concerning the "mixed capitalism" ingredient, but propanganda aside, it's the same thing all over. Before, there was this recipe of liberal democracy and mixed capitalism, but there was also another one: popular democracy and communism. This created tensions and forced government to care vaguely about their citizens, or else they would (horror of horrors!) change the system -- just as car companies care about customer satisfaction because there are other car companies. If there is only one political system or car company, the people can choose, so satisfaction is irrelevent.

She already has.

The unchecked consumerism and materialism is not the product of western/US capitalism. Every society in history displays the same passion for wealth, luxuries and such.

The difference is that the capitalist system enables almost the entire population to have access to it in some form or another.

In contrast, Chinese/Soviet communism is almost a mirror image of the medieval feudal system: The few up top have access to it all in absurd quantities and the bulk of the populace below are given enough table scraps to get by. Feudalism was a rigid social structure where the people in the bottom rungs of the ladder cannot move up... and what communism did to that feudal system was to eliminate a lot of the rungs between bottom and top and replaced it with a very wide 'bottom' rung and a very narrow 'top' rung.


Personally I do not believe capitalism is a good system. It is an unsustainable system. I find the system some European nations use to be far more effective. A mix of socialism and capitalism and ecological stewardship.

Actually, military spending has increased substantially and US society has become more militarised as a result of the so-called end of the cold war. This is partly due to the repression required to implement nasty neoliberal reforms.

It is easy to claim that mankind is safe in retrospect.

1. Nuclear Winter does not respect national boundaries. The problem isn't just the blasts themselves, but also the massive amounts of smoke and soot catapulted into the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

2. That is a gross simplification of the dynamics of the cold war. Might I recommend The Strategy of Conflict by Thomas C. Schelling?

Or reviewing these articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

I think the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence. I think consumerism and hyper-individualism is a somewhat modern bastardization of western values. The more important values are openness and freedom of expression. The really hard-core militant communism of the Cold War era was an angry ideological reaction to the gross injustice of 19th century capitalism. We have to come to some kind of balance in the modern world or history is doomed to repeat itself. Global capitalism will have to find a more balanced and sustainable model to prevent upheaval and violence from repeating itself.

Yes, but I think we all agree that the Tsarist days were immoral, and not an era we want to return to. I think where we disagree is on whether communist Russia is as romantic model to return, or a horrific one never to repeat.

The process of eradicating certain ills created new ills, in lives lost the maniacs who ran this supposed communism social achievements do not, and should not matter. Stalin was directly responsible for the 27 million lives lost in WWII. He was directly responsible for all the Soviet lives lost in Russia that was not associated with the war effort. Stalin was directly responsible for the systematic starvation of 3 million Ukrainians, and another 3 million in Belarus, Poland, and the Baltic States.

Nation Building is not appropriate now, and the nation building I am speaking of is not in the traditional sense, I am referring to when communism came undone.

The Russian Orthodox Church is not the issue. Putin is. His efforts in removing political, checks and balances, destroying the independence of the Judiciary, shutting down the press, and doing away with free elections makes Putin enemy #1 to Russia's modernity, respect of basic human rights, freedom of the press, and improved economic conditions.