Wow.
I did not know modern Russian education was about brainwashing.
I did not know modern Russian education was about brainwashing.
Amercians, anti-communist/socialist?
- Thread starter Starseeker
- Start date
WillisPDunlevey
Mildly Dipped
Radiated Heinz said:
Im not declaring that they should be killed by the state. I am declaring that the should be allowed to kill themselves through their own actions.
But they are. There are some law saying: "its prohibited to any radical leftist fall on a clearly deep hole and break his neck"?
Apart from that way, I dont see how his political immaturity/radicalism can kill him (unless you are on a civil war of course).
Apart from that way, I dont see how his political immaturity/radicalism can kill him (unless you are on a civil war of course).
The problem is everyone thinks of Socialism as Soviet Style State Socialism. I'm a Libertarian Socialist, meaning I think we need direct democracy, and workplace democracy, and some other things. I don't believe it's possible to create a worker state, and I hate Soviet Style Socialism. " Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy"
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNwAZSBMb0[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNwAZSBMb0[/youtube]
Right. I know what that red/black banner means.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
forgot it
thats the problem with libertarian socialism: it sounds beautiful, but unfortunately, if the "anarchists" wanna to be taken seriously, they should organize themselfs, and offer some theorics of what them think. Modern "libertarian socialists" are small groups, and dont really spread their ideas neither say how they'll apply them in the modern society. Unfortunately, they are disorganized, and thus, can't really accomplish many things neither mobilize people.
'60s Soviet Russia was nowhere near current Western European societies in (relative) level of either standards of living, GDP per capita or personal freedom. The comparison is moot, and the fact that the Soviet system collapsed has little bearing on the future of western Europe.pipboy-x11 said:
Ah yes, social darwinism. Like we haven't seen enough horrible consequences of social Darwinism to discount that theory as a valid system to base your life and society on.pipboyx-11 said:
Ehm, yeah, I never said anything remotely similar.pipboyx-11 said:
Radiated Heinz said:
Well, radicals haven't been mobilized for a long time, it will take a while for us to rize up again. I thank Corporate Media. You have left wing Corporate Media like MSNBC which is the champion of Government, and Right Wing Faux Noise which is the champion of Private Industry. It will take something major to happen in order for radicals to organize, if things get as bad as some say, a lot of radicals will organize. At least my version of Libertarian Socialism isn't being organized, check out thezeitgeistmovement.com to see a more extreme version of Libertarian Socialism being organized, I believe they have about 300,000 members now.
shihonage
Made in USSR
Sander, with all due respect, I could keep replying to your posts, but I'm learning that nobody's opinion can be changed on the Internet, unless we're talking about kittens, diapers, or videogame systems.
I keep making the mistake of cutting into political discussions on gaming forums, which ends up alienating people I otherwise respect. So I'll bow out of this one (and any future ones) before things get inflamed any further.
I keep making the mistake of cutting into political discussions on gaming forums, which ends up alienating people I otherwise respect. So I'll bow out of this one (and any future ones) before things get inflamed any further.
pipboy-x11 said:
...What?
Look, it depends on who you ask, some historians will argue there is a continuation from the Russian Empire to the Soviet Union that consists of an unresolved "nationalities problem" (see for example Suny's Revenge of the Past. Matlock would tell you it was external pressure, others would say economic or political internal problems.
But your casual remark is well-researched since Yurchak's seminal work Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation, which is about the Long 70s and indeed the lack of awareness of impending collapse.
Here's where it gets interesting: so when did the collapse begin? This is a really odd question because it ignores several realities of the Soviet issue: the Nationalities Problem or Affirmative Action Empire experiment was there since the beginning, the Soviet Experiment itself never came to fruition in any form it should have.
Economic collapse? The economic growth under Stalin was never of a viable model, based on a planned economy that did not produce by valid consumer-based ideas (specifically, quantity over quality). A workable long-term political system? Already by 1961 it was clear that the system was too open for flaws, specifically by comrade Khrushev's famous secret speech at the 20th party congress (1956). The nebulous and controversial "fourth element" (external pressure) is harder to gage, it's clear the US never let up, but it's unclear how much the Long 70s changed this and what a turn in events Reagan's presidency represents.
The obvious open question is what to do with all these accrued and growing information on the Soviet Union and why it collapsed. Some, like you, notice people at the time did not predict its collapse, and then by extension conclude that you can not predict any collapse and thus any collapse can happen at any time. This is a rather direct if not simplistic approach.
On the other hand, we can realize that the USSR was never really doing great, not even during its explosion of economic productivity, but everyone simply lacked the information to see as much; neither the Western people nor the Soviet populace getting any real data on the state of the Russian economy, political system or social stability. Question then is if you can ever have such full information. I don't think so, but still, the Soviet experiment is a rather unique case, with four major problems that are hard to identify in any major Western power at this time.
Using it as a base model of nation-building is ludicrous for several reasons:
1. Its political system is not used in any Western state.
2. Its economic system is not used in any Western state.
3. The nationalities problem is the inheritance of the multi-ethnic empire. The last representative of that in the West died with Austro-Hungary in 1918, and Western states are based on the growing nation-states of the 19th century, not the "empirical" model of Russia and the Soviet Union.
Oh, and one thing should be clear, the idea that everything started collapsing heading into the long 70s (1964-1985) is archaic and no longer accepted by historians. Problems existed beforehand and simply continued, all the long 70s did was put off the hour at which the Soviet Union would collapse. It did not itself cause the collapse, as all the problems ultimately responsibly for the SU's collapse were there when Stalin died in 1953.
pipboy-x11 said:
So is the point here "states decline and collapse"? Yeah they do, they always have, it's how our state system evolves, it's why so many people are better off than ever in history (and quite a few worse off).
pipboy-x11 said:
Oh, what a wonderful way of looking at things. It may be convenient to glaze over the nature of the Russian Civil War and pretend that it was a unified uprising against the Bolshewisks and thus pro Tsarist Russia, but that would hardly be accurate, now would it? The Whites, loose amalgamation of shifting alliances that they were, had a diaspora of reasons to fight the Bolshewisks.
When it comes to the privileged classes the reasoning is easy to construe: they were the enemy of the Reds by definition.
When it comes to the growing national consciousness the issue is interesting and muddled: many of the multi-ethnic Empire saw the revolution as a chance to create their own state, to cast off the perceived Russocentric mold of old. The question was where your best chances of this were, with the Reds or Whites. Particularly early on many sided with the Whites, but in the end the Bolshewiks coopted the issue, under the guidance of the wily Stalin. You point to the Caucasus, I ask you: is there any point in Russian history when the Caucasus wasn't fed up with Russian domination and trying to cast out great Russians?
Also needless romanticizing of Cossacks will not be necessary.
Anyway, so, the farmers? Is it really odd that many stood up against the Soviet experiment? It was centered on industry and armies right from the get-go, remember Trotsky's remark that the revolution was born in the capital and spread to the countryside. It was never a rural revolution, and until the NEP the communist approach to the countryside was clumsy at best. After the land grab, what choice is there but to rise up?
None of this is proof of quality of life prior to the revolution, anyone with historical knowledge will recall that the 1905 revolution was one of the lower populace, and will also be aware of repeated cases of unrest in national minorities from 1905-1916, which only burst out during the revolution.
So to picture that as if there was some concerted effort to "preserve" the Russian life of pre-1917 is rather misguided.
Youre making really funny jokes. Funny person you are indeedpipboy-x11 said:
Tell me exactly when did things ever in the USSR really went well. Next probably is some chinese nationlist trying to explain us how Maos Great Leap Forward pushed the Chinese in the right direction.
pipboy-x11 said:
Interesting that this thougts are from a Russian ( I guess you are ) ... cause you know it reminds to the ideas from another relatively unkown personality.
It's not like the healthcare bill will crush the United States' already fragile economy. People who insult it are focusing at the wrong problem: It's not healthcare or social reforms alone that will crush the economy; it's irresponsible government expenditure.
Let's take Greece as a counter-example: spending since Athens Olympic Games (a China-like demonstration of status), now having to maintain all that unused infrastructure. Giving fat raises to whole categories of workers, ample fat benefits.... That's irresponsible spending because money eventually ends and they didn't plan a way to return to pre-spending level. And all those workers are now striking, as they refuse to return to the living standard of 2002. The politicians gave them a new living standard and they think it's their right: they oughtn't be blamed.
The point is, healthcare won't kill the US unless they don't plan how to raise revenue in other areas.
Let's take Greece as a counter-example: spending since Athens Olympic Games (a China-like demonstration of status), now having to maintain all that unused infrastructure. Giving fat raises to whole categories of workers, ample fat benefits.... That's irresponsible spending because money eventually ends and they didn't plan a way to return to pre-spending level. And all those workers are now striking, as they refuse to return to the living standard of 2002. The politicians gave them a new living standard and they think it's their right: they oughtn't be blamed.
The point is, healthcare won't kill the US unless they don't plan how to raise revenue in other areas.
Professor Danger!
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
cogar66 said:
Like the immense taxation going on now?
Never going to happen. American Idol is on.
pipboy-x11 said:
Haha Social darwinism pressed with an argument that is bullshit. I come from an area where the wolves are exterminated. same with the wolves. My dear old grand uncle was amongst those who went around in the thirties and fourties and shot all the bear. You know his argument? "Cause we had more deer with no bear!" There are deer everywhere around our house. During spring they trash the trees in our garden. Oh some will be born weak and die. They are most definetly not gone.
Yep. Same here with the deers and moose. Pipboy x-11 has a very poor understanding of "Darwinism". Ever wonder why there are so many humans?
Overall, his idea to regress to a feudal society is sickening. Ironically, society as a whole would be far better off if he was removed from it.
Overall, his idea to regress to a feudal society is sickening. Ironically, society as a whole would be far better off if he was removed from it.
Loxley said:
Please, people wipe out wolf and bear populations out of fear and misunderstanding. The real factors that limit deer population is irresponsible hunting, destruction of habitat and harsh winters.
Bears and wolves are awesome. Fuck deer and fuck mankind.