The Cold War is often characterized as a struggle between two great ideas: Communism and Capitalism. The accepted narrative is that Capitalism - with its love of freedom, apple pie and Mom - was inevitably going to triumph, and now we live in the best of all possible worlds.
Isn't that depressing? That THIS is the best we can muster?
The triumph of Capitalism has definitely been reaffirmed time and time again over the past thirty years or so. The Left has become a withered husk, horrified at the thought of being labelled 'Socialist'. The Right has become eager to become ever more extreme, so long as 'extreme' means slashing all barriers to the accumulation of wealth.
Societies are defined by what they stand for. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the credit was given to those hard-working industrial capitalists whose Free Market Spirit crushed the Reds and their authoritarian regime. In the aftermath of that, it became downright irresponsible to stop these paragons of virtue from doing whatever they wanted with their hard-won capital.
The main virtue in our world isn't freedom; it is profit.
In some parts of the world, profit is pursued under democracies. In other parts of the world, dictatorships. If you're on the international stage, though, you're really on the international marketplace. We've allowed them to convince us that, in the post-war world, politics is really economics. We've even allowed them to get away with the claim that this is somehow indicative of human nature; that greed is what motivates us all.
Do you believe that? Really?
Most people know that money isn't everything; that the accumulation of wealth isn't a good enough reason to live your life. Most people know that the value of a life has nothing at all to do with how much stuff that person managed to get hold of.
Profit is what drives us to feel helpless in the face of environmental catastrophes (it isn't 'realistic' to expect companies to become environmentally friendly; think of their profit margins!) and it is profit that sees us stand silent in the face of brutal dictatorships and religious extremism (seriously - Saudi Arabia has far more to do with the spread of islamic fundamentalism than any of the countries we've bombed since 9/11).
Our drive for profit is selling the human race down the river.
Shouldn't we pick a better reason to live?
:mittens:
AMEN.
:motorcycle:
I'd like to ask if it's really greed or if greed is a symptom of something even greater, the zeal for feeling superior to others or the desire of power over others and being able to do with others as if they were puppets?
Quote from: The Johnny on July 07, 2015, 09:02:08 PM
I'd like to ask if it's really greed or if greed is a symptom of something even greater, the zeal for feeling superior to others or the desire of power over others and being able to do with others as if they were puppets?
In my opinion, what it is is simply how we have decided to symbolize social status. The desire for social status is inherent, and when we decided that social status would be symbolized with the hoarding of resources, we doomed ourselves to annihilation by greed.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 08, 2015, 03:58:21 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 07, 2015, 09:02:08 PM
I'd like to ask if it's really greed or if greed is a symptom of something even greater, the zeal for feeling superior to others or the desire of power over others and being able to do with others as if they were puppets?
In my opinion, what it is is simply how we have decided to symbolize social status. The desire for social status is inherent, and when we decided that social status would be symbolized with the hoarding of resources, we doomed ourselves to annihilation by greed.
Yeah, I think this is on the money. (No pun intended)
Social status and one's 'good character' used to be tied to the good you did for society. Money has never been
completely unimportant as such, but the accumulation of wealth was never seen as an inherently worthy pursuit; it was the things you did with that money which determined whether people thought you were a good person worthy of respect, or a foolish miser who nobody would mourn.
Now, you see the profit motive brought up in areas where it would have been completely unthinkable a hundred years ago. How much money will this art make? What is the return of investment in your research?
It used to be that the rich and wealthy would be patrons of the arts and sciences as a way of giving back to society; now we demand that the arts and sciences give back to their patrons because Profit is the highest value.
I live in one of the richest regions on the entire planet, not in terms of money but in terms of real, practical wealth; food production. This is a region so absurdly rich that the previous inhabitants never developed agriculture because they didn't have to. Food is practically throwing itself into your mouth from the moment you go outside in the morning. Nobody was in fear of starving. The climate is mild and trees are abundant, so shelter is not a big worry. They had a lot of time on their hands, which they filled mostly with art and sports. For social status, they cultivated the idea that the more parties you had and the more stuff you gave to other people, the higher your status was, and also giving good advice increased your social status. So people spent all their free time making cool stuff to give away, and tried to only give advice that would actually be useful.
So, basically the exact opposite of the America of today.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 08, 2015, 08:53:19 PM
I live in one of the richest regions on the entire planet, not in terms of money but in terms of real, practical wealth; food production. This is a region so absurdly rich that the previous inhabitants never developed agriculture because they didn't have to. Food is practically throwing itself into your mouth from the moment you go outside in the morning. Nobody was in fear of starving. The climate is mild and trees are abundant, so shelter is not a big worry. They had a lot of time on their hands, which they filled mostly with art and sports. For social status, they cultivated the idea that the more parties you had and the more stuff you gave to other people, the higher your status was, and also giving good advice increased your social status. So people spent all their free time making cool stuff to give away, and tried to only give advice that would actually be useful.
So, basically the exact opposite of the America of today.
Goddamn, that sounds wonderful.
This rant was partly inspired by the eco discussion we had elsewhere, but also by a radio programme where a Professor of physics was talking about how our obsession with 'marketable' science is holding us back in all sorts of areas. It is very difficult to build a rounded knowledge base, he was saying, because if you only focus on short term 'quick return' studies, you don't open the field to the kind of 'blind' research that has generated a lot of our most exciting developments in the past.
His basic argument was that life is better when you focus on what you want to learn, not what will make a quick buck. That resonated with me.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on July 08, 2015, 09:27:22 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 08, 2015, 08:53:19 PM
I live in one of the richest regions on the entire planet, not in terms of money but in terms of real, practical wealth; food production. This is a region so absurdly rich that the previous inhabitants never developed agriculture because they didn't have to. Food is practically throwing itself into your mouth from the moment you go outside in the morning. Nobody was in fear of starving. The climate is mild and trees are abundant, so shelter is not a big worry. They had a lot of time on their hands, which they filled mostly with art and sports. For social status, they cultivated the idea that the more parties you had and the more stuff you gave to other people, the higher your status was, and also giving good advice increased your social status. So people spent all their free time making cool stuff to give away, and tried to only give advice that would actually be useful.
So, basically the exact opposite of the America of today.
Goddamn, that sounds wonderful.
This rant was partly inspired by the eco discussion we had elsewhere, but also by a radio programme where a Professor of physics was talking about how our obsession with 'marketable' science is holding us back in all sorts of areas. It is very difficult to build a rounded knowledge base, he was saying, because if you only focus on short term 'quick return' studies, you don't open the field to the kind of 'blind' research that has generated a lot of our most exciting developments in the past.
His basic argument was that life is better when you focus on what you want to learn, not what will make a quick buck. That resonated with me.
I completely agree with that. Human beings have a drive to be productive, and by defining that as "making money", we are really limiting what form our productivity takes.
The Cold War is basically a strawman argument. Russia was a shitty place to live before the Soviet Union and it's still kind of a crummy place to live now.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 11, 2015, 08:45:49 AM
The Cold War is basically a strawman argument. Russia was a shitty place to live before the Soviet Union and it's still kind of a crummy place to live now.
I can see several ways of interpreting that statement.
Could you expand on it a bit?
Here is the Straw man structure.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manThe straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
When you say the Cold War is a straw man argument: Who is person 1, what is their proposition, who is person 2, what is their false proposition?
Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/rjE84 (http://m.imgur.com/gallery/rjE84)
Just found today, may prove useful. May just start some shit. :)
I get pretty fed up with "ethical greed", especially things like "prosperity ministry" of the sort that implies that your sins must be why you're poor. God help you if you don't throw down in the plate or decide that you don't require excess cash to love God and your neighbor correctly. Or suggest a charity that's "out of network", read not Christian enough, is more worthy and effective. That will get one badmouthed if not "politely asked to leave". Tell them they're thralls to Mammon for a REAL response. Made a pentecostal pastor spittake with that one. :) good times!
Quote from: Demolition Squid on July 07, 2015, 08:47:45 AM
The Cold War is often characterized as a struggle between two great ideas: Communism and Capitalism. The accepted narrative is that Capitalism - with its love of freedom, apple pie and Mom - was inevitably going to triumph, and now we live in the best of all possible worlds.
Isn't that depressing? That THIS is the best we can muster?
The triumph of Capitalism has definitely been reaffirmed time and time again over the past thirty years or so. The Left has become a withered husk, horrified at the thought of being labelled 'Socialist'. The Right has become eager to become ever more extreme, so long as 'extreme' means slashing all barriers to the accumulation of wealth.
Societies are defined by what they stand for. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the credit was given to those hard-working industrial capitalists whose Free Market Spirit crushed the Reds and their authoritarian regime. In the aftermath of that, it became downright irresponsible to stop these paragons of virtue from doing whatever they wanted with their hard-won capital.
The main virtue in our world isn't freedom; it is profit.
In some parts of the world, profit is pursued under democracies. In other parts of the world, dictatorships. If you're on the international stage, though, you're really on the international marketplace. We've allowed them to convince us that, in the post-war world, politics is really economics. We've even allowed them to get away with the claim that this is somehow indicative of human nature; that greed is what motivates us all.
Do you believe that? Really?
Most people know that money isn't everything; that the accumulation of wealth isn't a good enough reason to live your life. Most people know that the value of a life has nothing at all to do with how much stuff that person managed to get hold of.
Profit is what drives us to feel helpless in the face of environmental catastrophes (it isn't 'realistic' to expect companies to become environmentally friendly; think of their profit margins!) and it is profit that sees us stand silent in the face of brutal dictatorships and religious extremism (seriously - Saudi Arabia has far more to do with the spread of islamic fundamentalism than any of the countries we've bombed since 9/11).
Our drive for profit is selling the human race down the river.
Shouldn't we pick a better reason to live?
Can I Big Words this whole thing?
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 12, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA
Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?
I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 13, 2015, 01:00:01 AM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on July 07, 2015, 08:47:45 AM
The Cold War is often characterized as a struggle between two great ideas: Communism and Capitalism. The accepted narrative is that Capitalism - with its love of freedom, apple pie and Mom - was inevitably going to triumph, and now we live in the best of all possible worlds.
Isn't that depressing? That THIS is the best we can muster?
The triumph of Capitalism has definitely been reaffirmed time and time again over the past thirty years or so. The Left has become a withered husk, horrified at the thought of being labelled 'Socialist'. The Right has become eager to become ever more extreme, so long as 'extreme' means slashing all barriers to the accumulation of wealth.
Societies are defined by what they stand for. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the credit was given to those hard-working industrial capitalists whose Free Market Spirit crushed the Reds and their authoritarian regime. In the aftermath of that, it became downright irresponsible to stop these paragons of virtue from doing whatever they wanted with their hard-won capital.
The main virtue in our world isn't freedom; it is profit.
In some parts of the world, profit is pursued under democracies. In other parts of the world, dictatorships. If you're on the international stage, though, you're really on the international marketplace. We've allowed them to convince us that, in the post-war world, politics is really economics. We've even allowed them to get away with the claim that this is somehow indicative of human nature; that greed is what motivates us all.
Do you believe that? Really?
Most people know that money isn't everything; that the accumulation of wealth isn't a good enough reason to live your life. Most people know that the value of a life has nothing at all to do with how much stuff that person managed to get hold of.
Profit is what drives us to feel helpless in the face of environmental catastrophes (it isn't 'realistic' to expect companies to become environmentally friendly; think of their profit margins!) and it is profit that sees us stand silent in the face of brutal dictatorships and religious extremism (seriously - Saudi Arabia has far more to do with the spread of islamic fundamentalism than any of the countries we've bombed since 9/11).
Our drive for profit is selling the human race down the river.
Shouldn't we pick a better reason to live?
Can I Big Words this whole thing?
Go for it! :)
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 13, 2015, 08:04:48 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 12, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA
Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?
I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.
I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.
There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)
EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on July 07, 2015, 08:47:45 AM
and it is profit that sees us stand silent in the face of brutal dictatorships and religious extremism (seriously - Saudi Arabia has far more to do with the spread of islamic fundamentalism than any of the countries we've bombed since 9/11).
To be fair, rampant anti-imperialism in combination with anti-government sentiment, historically unsusal levels of compassion, and the Russians and the Chinese are also partly at fault, as it is the combination of these factors that forces us to negotiate with Saudi Arabia instead using our Nuclear Arsenal (Send ye prayers on him, and salute him with all respect) to intimidate them into giving us whatever we want.
What?
Are you suggesting use of nukes on Saudi arabia because they totally don't have them? Or is it Russia and China you think we should be intimidating?
Are you actually insane?
What I'm saying is that we could simply get all of Saudi Arabia's oil via extortion if it were not for two things:
1.) Unlike in most former periods of history people today are actually inclined to care about gow immoral that would be
and
2.) It could cascade into a WWI style clusterfuck that might ultimately result in China or Russia nuking us. We would have to secure the permission of these other major powers before trying to extort anything from anyone with the threat of Nuclear annihilation.
(http://www.propertybankevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/no.png)
Daaamn!!!
And I thought I knew how to pull a worldview out of MY ass... clearly I am yet but a tadpole in a vast pool of bullshit beyond my ken.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 14, 2015, 06:58:23 PM
What I'm saying is that we could simply get all of Saudi Arabia's oil via extortion if it were not for two things:
1.) Unlike in most former periods of history people today are actually inclined to care about gow immoral that would be
and
2.) It could cascade into a WWI style clusterfuck that might ultimately result in China or Russia nuking us. We would have to secure the permission of these other major powers before trying to extort anything from anyone with the threat of Nuclear annihilation.
The USA could threaten to nuke itself because its ashamed its not anti-homo like Russia and force Saudi Arabia to give up all of its oil for free, because reasons and geo-politics.
I kind of envy Shandor, because I haven't been wrong on such a widescale and consistent level in a long time.
If there weren't any other major Nuclear powers we'd have unrestricted power to do whatever we wanted to. Who could stop us?
Remember the Star Trek episode with the evil alternate universe version of the federation threatening to wipe out the Halkans unless handed over all their dilithium crystals, we could be them if there were no other Nuclear powers.
I'm by no means an expert on warfare, but, regardless if the argument of "WWII was won by nukes" is true or false, it doesnt have a direct translation to present day tactics and strategy.
1. Nowadays theres are dozens of countermeasures to nullify nuclear weapons, reducing their efficiency.
2. Tactics and Strategy doesnt seem to revolve around large concentrations of units and resources on a clearly defined battlefront, but rather large ammounts of small separated groups that are highly communicated and coordinated.
Theres tons of other reasons im sure, but why bother researching them if you force analogies and examples comparing ficticious scenarios to real life.
Option 1: The United States makes good on its threat and obliterates all who oppose it. They then have to move in and secure the (surviving) resources with their conventional military, against a surviving population which views them as horrific monsters on a scale unrealized in human history. How has that worked out for them in comparable situations today?
Option 2: The United States doesn't make good on its threat and looks weak on the international stage. It is forced to come to the bargaining table, humiliated, to secure the resources it needs to continue running its economy. At best, it gets a less favourable deal than it would if it didn't threaten to murder millions of people and alienates its allies for even contemplating it out loud. At worst, no deal is reached and a long, protracted and brutal guerilla campaign to take those resources by force without the use of nuclear weapons is launched, resulting in a situation much like option 1 but with less radiation (and thus, more usable resources)
Option 3: The United States doesn't act like a complete fucking idiot and realizes it needs the cooperation of the people on the ground - or at the least, the elites who rule them - in order to sustain itself in the long term. Negotiations are made which put the interests of the elites of all sides at the forefront - that is, the profit motive - and we wind up in a situation much like we have today anyway.
Which one of these three options seems most likely to you?
Option 4: every other threshold and actual nuclear power, outraged at an unprovoked attack and occupation of a sovereign nation, immediately sets about economically, diplomatically and military isolating the USA and building nuclear arms to counter American aggression.
Option 5: surviving elements of the House of Saud utilise their links with the Pakistani military and Islamist militants to arm groups like Jabhat al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda in Yemen for revenge attacks.
Option 6: the bottom falls out of the London economy as Middle Eastern oil revenues disappear. The Eurozone goes into an economic crisis and several major NATO governments fall to either left-wing anti-American parties or right wing anti-Euro nationalists.
Option 7: Elements within the American military and intelligence community, appalled at such a decision, mount a coup in order to prevent it. America descends into civil war.
Option 8: the collapse of the Saudi government leads to a power vacuum in the Middle East which is filled by an Iran. Declaring a need for nuclear weapons to defend against American aggression, Iran converts its nuclear power program into a weapon program, and quickly establishes itself as the major military power in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Egypt and Turkey declare war on Iran and its allies.
Option 9: Shandor is a moron.
Option 9 sounds legit.
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on July 15, 2015, 01:55:32 AM
Option 9 sounds legit.
This. But it's nice to see the other options available! :lulz:
Quote from: The Johnny on July 14, 2015, 11:15:22 PM
I'm by no means an expert on warfare, but, regardless if the argument of "WWII was won by nukes" is true or false, it doesnt have a direct translation to present day tactics and strategy.
1. Nowadays theres are dozens of countermeasures to nullify nuclear weapons, reducing their efficiency.
2. Tactics and Strategy doesnt seem to revolve around large concentrations of units and resources on a clearly defined battlefront, but rather large ammounts of small separated groups that are highly communicated and coordinated.
Theres tons of other reasons im sure, but why bother researching them if you force analogies and examples comparing ficticious scenarios to real life.
When there's enough people will probably no longer be afraid to fight WW3, unmanned warfare and all that. WW1 was fought to expand foreign markets + territory in practice, they had a very complex network of alliances just like in today's times and a recession called "the panic" before it happened. Many superpowers got extinguished. WW3 will most likely be fought for the exact same intentions as WW1 in mind but different tech. What will the next game of super-powers be like and outcome?
In WW1 they invented landships(Tanks) against machine guns. In WW3 they will have unmanned warfare against any nukes.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on July 14, 2015, 11:26:15 PM
Option 1: The United States makes good on its threat and obliterates all who oppose it. They then have to move in and secure the (surviving) resources with their conventional military, against a surviving population which views them as horrific monsters on a scale unrealized in human history. How has that worked out for them in comparable situations today?
Option 2: The United States doesn't make good on its threat and looks weak on the international stage. It is forced to come to the bargaining table, humiliated, to secure the resources it needs to continue running its economy. At best, it gets a less favourable deal than it would if it didn't threaten to murder millions of people and alienates its allies for even contemplating it out loud. At worst, no deal is reached and a long, protracted and brutal guerilla campaign to take those resources by force without the use of nuclear weapons is launched, resulting in a situation much like option 1 but with less radiation (and thus, more usable resources)
Option 3: The United States doesn't act like a complete fucking idiot and realizes it needs the cooperation of the people on the ground - or at the least, the elites who rule them - in order to sustain itself in the long term. Negotiations are made which put the interests of the elites of all sides at the forefront - that is, the profit motive - and we wind up in a situation much like we have today anyway.
Which one of these three options seems most likely to you?
Would be more fun if it fell as a power, what is going to take its place? Since China and it are dependent on each other? The United States' corporations have caused millions to die from famine and preventable diseases in third/second world countries through corporate globalization aka cheap labour, cheap food production and resource allocation. They have bad conditions and lower minimum wages so people in it and the countries similar will not care about freedom or revolt, they are pacified cause of it. It is keeping order through giving people sheep mentality.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 14, 2015, 04:50:48 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 13, 2015, 08:04:48 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 12, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA
Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?
I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.
I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.
There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)
EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.
Communists(Marxists) want to achieve a stateless society by making people go through Socialism first(Unless they are Anarcho-Communist) with belief that humans in general are products of the conditions they grew up in, it was based off of the Paris Commune in 1871's system originally. "Classes" refers to classes of power, for example bosses/corporate CEOs are a class in that they have legal/economic power over their employees in all workplaces and can lobby to control politics. Apparently Eris/Discordia also dislikes them because of many being so controlling.
The "Communist"(Using Socialism as a means unless Anarcho-Communist) path to abolition of the state is slower, the Anarchist path is quick and immediate. That is the different between Anarchists and Communists.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 14, 2015, 10:23:29 PM
If there weren't any other major Nuclear powers we'd have unrestricted power to do whatever we wanted to. Who could stop us?
Remember the Star Trek episode with the evil alternate universe version of the federation threatening to wipe out the Halkans unless handed over all their dilithium crystals, we could be them if there were no other Nuclear powers.
Star Trek is a great place to learn geopolitics.
Quote from: ChaosAdvocate on September 09, 2015, 10:59:00 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 14, 2015, 04:50:48 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 13, 2015, 08:04:48 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 12, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA
Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?
I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.
I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.
There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)
EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.
Communists(Marxists) want to achieve a stateless society by making people go through Socialism first(Unless they are Anarcho-Communist) with belief that humans in general are products of the conditions they grew up in, it was based off of the Paris Commune in 1871's system originally. "Classes" refers to classes of power, for example bosses/corporate CEOs are a class in that they have legal/economic power over their employees in all workplaces and can lobby to control politics. Apparently Eris/Discordia also dislikes them because of many being so controlling.
The "Communist"(Using Socialism as a means unless Anarcho-Communist) path to abolition of the state is slower, the Anarchist path is quick and immediate. That is the different between Anarchists and Communists.
I truly question how much Marxist and anarchist philosophy you have read, if you have come to these conclusions.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Cain on September 09, 2015, 06:36:43 PM
Quote from: ChaosAdvocate on September 09, 2015, 10:59:00 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 14, 2015, 04:50:48 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 13, 2015, 08:04:48 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 12, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA
Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?
I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.
I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.
There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)
EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.
Communists(Marxists) want to achieve a stateless society by making people go through Socialism first(Unless they are Anarcho-Communist) with belief that humans in general are products of the conditions they grew up in, it was based off of the Paris Commune in 1871's system originally. "Classes" refers to classes of power, for example bosses/corporate CEOs are a class in that they have legal/economic power over their employees in all workplaces and can lobby to control politics. Apparently Eris/Discordia also dislikes them because of many being so controlling.
The "Communist"(Using Socialism as a means unless Anarcho-Communist) path to abolition of the state is slower, the Anarchist path is quick and immediate. That is the different between Anarchists and Communists.
I truly question how much Marxist and anarchist philosophy you have read, if you have come to these conclusions.
I mean in simplified terms. One wants to abolish the state by having civilization evolve through Socialism(Primitive statelessness/communism > slavery/aristocracy > feudalism > capitalism > mutation into corporate feudalism/crony-system then revolution eventually > socialism > communism). The other wants to do it right on the spot.
In any case the communist version is just stupid.
Quote from: ChaosAdvocate on September 11, 2015, 02:39:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 09, 2015, 06:36:43 PM
Quote from: ChaosAdvocate on September 09, 2015, 10:59:00 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 14, 2015, 04:50:48 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 13, 2015, 08:04:48 AM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 12, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
Well, instead of comparing Russia during communism to Russia before and after communism to determine the effect of communism on russia's quality of life they instead compare Russia under communism to a completely unrelated country, ie. the USA
Thanks, that clears up what the propositions are.
Now, who are the persons?
I'm still not clear if you are commenting on Demolition Squid vs. the Capitalism/Communism debate or on Capitalism vs Communism.
Or maybe you mean Common sense vs Capitalism? I just can't tell.
I'm commenting on capitalism vs. communism itself, and specifically how it is portrayed in western propaganda.
There are also elements of cherrypicking and post hoc ergo propter hoc to the standard narrative which essentially states that "Russia was a terrible place to live during communism therefore communism was responsible for everything that was bad about Russia was due to communism" but this narrative is wrong because Russia was a very bad place to live prior to communism and continues to be a very bad place to live decades after communism, therefore communism only accounts for the relatively difference between bad and terrible. (and furthermore, all of this is ignoring the fact that the USSR (all communist countries in fact) was communist in name only; they were neither classless nor stateless)
EDIT:
While I'm on the topic of strawman arguments and stateless communist societies, I just thought of a great argument to troll neocons with; simply tell them that their opposition to big goverment means they are in favor of a stateless society and therefore a communist.
Communists(Marxists) want to achieve a stateless society by making people go through Socialism first(Unless they are Anarcho-Communist) with belief that humans in general are products of the conditions they grew up in, it was based off of the Paris Commune in 1871's system originally. "Classes" refers to classes of power, for example bosses/corporate CEOs are a class in that they have legal/economic power over their employees in all workplaces and can lobby to control politics. Apparently Eris/Discordia also dislikes them because of many being so controlling.
The "Communist"(Using Socialism as a means unless Anarcho-Communist) path to abolition of the state is slower, the Anarchist path is quick and immediate. That is the different between Anarchists and Communists.
I truly question how much Marxist and anarchist philosophy you have read, if you have come to these conclusions.
I mean in simplified terms.
Well if that's the only shoe you can fit to...
I mean that's not backtracking at all, clearly. :roll:
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on September 11, 2015, 03:26:17 PM
In any case the communist version is just stupid.
It was apparently built on the premise that the Paris Commune in 1871's attempts to abolish the state on the spot did not work out(They lost and got massacred).
Many of their movements did believe though that the old must be demolished to be replaced by something new.
(http://i.imgur.com/lTU8YFI.jpg)