Re: [sixties-l] Re: Bill Mandel's view

Date: Tue Jul 18 2000 - 21:18:09 CUT

  • Next message: Joe McDonald: "[sixties-l] Vietnam War Draft"

    [modr8r note: I am letting this post through, but it's the last one on
    this thread. nothing personal to any list members, but I am going to try
    and keep the list focused on the 60s/Vietnam/activism. I do find Bill's
    insights on the Soviet Union/America/socialism/capitalism interesting, but
    i feel it is outside the parameters of this list. those interested in
    continuing this thread, please take it off-list or persuade Mr. Mandel to
    start a separate list. thx!]

    Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:02:16 -0400
    Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Re: Bill Mandel's view
    From: "Elmer Lightman" <>

    Once again your unparalled knowledge of the Soviet Union clarifies an issue.
     I can't understand why you aren't continued, not merely on KPFA, but
    nationally on National Public Radio. Have you prospected the various ways
    programming reaches them or is syndicated to independent stations? There's
    college radio. There are other networks. Perhaps a new program with
    yourself and a partner to carry the programming, vary it, intensify it for
    today's concerns. If you teamed up with someone with additional credits,
    there's a lot of possiblities, to make an offer station's "couldn't refuse."
    I changed the subject line on the discussion to focus beyond the
    interminable concern with what one Horrowitz said a month ago to the
    material we have learned from you which the discussion has centered upon.
    1) Could you supply some insight into my question regarding the Soviet
    Union's practice or lack of regarding conservation of resources?
    2) Also, were the geological resources the only ones that mattered in the
    economic race between the U.S. and the USSR? Didn't we get other important
    resources from third world countries that USSR couldn't? Wasn't that most
    of what the cold war was about--stopping them from those resources and
    3) Have we fallen into an error in referring to the fall of "socialism" when
    we mean communism and even more specifically, totalitarian style communism.
    Isn't it vital to be careful of terms, especially in this case, and I
    realize I led off making the error in my post.
    Elmer Lightman
    >From: William Mandel <>
    >Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Re: Bill Mandel's view
    >Date: Sun, Jul 16, 2000, 11:14 PM

    > One of the very wise things the Soviet government did, from
    >its earliest years, was to reason that if the USSR covered
    >one-sixth of the earth's last surface, it should have something
    >like one-sixth of the natural resources. In consequence, a superb
    >system of training on geology and in prospecting was put in place
    >and maintained throughout. The result was the discovery of damned
    >near everything. To this day, U.S. subs and aircraft are largely
    >made of light metals imported from the USSR!
    > So lack of resources had nothing whatever to do with the
    >collapse of socialism.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 18 2000 - 21:22:14 CUT