Amercians, anti-communist/socialist?

[pipboy-x11]

" 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"

"Libertarian socialism"? Sounds like a new brand of alcohol-less beer to me.

 

[pipboy-x11]

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.

What kind of crap is THAT? Cossacks ARE Russians. Those who moved to free of feudal lords parts of the country. And they are a big part of the local population on the Caucasus. Europe has had its frontier in the New World and Russian frontier was the Caucasus and Siberia, so what's that nonsense with "needless romanticizing"? I'm describing facts. And they were the ones who caused the biggest trouble to Bolsheviks in the region, not some small nations.

And I just don't understand why you apparently argue with someone trying to prove that Soviet state was fucked up and doomed anyway in the rest of your message. Like I don't make the same point.

 

[pipboy-x11]

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.

Even worse - I'm ethnically about 25% Jew. Plus Polish ancestry, plus Chechen blood. As far as I know. Calling me a "Russian nationalist" (or any other kind of nationalists) is as stupid as it may get.

And using Hitler as an argument is an EPIC FAIL.

 

[Brother None]

When replying to multiple posts, use the edit button, x11, don't use a separate post for every reply.

And they are a big part of the local population on the Caucasus.

They became a big part of the "local" population after the ethnic cleansing of the mid-19th century under Miliutin. Or is that something you skip in history class?

Europe has had its frontier in the New World and Russian frontier was the Caucasus and Siberia, so what's that nonsense with "needless romanticizing"?

This makes no sense. And that's coming from someone whose MA paper is on Frontierist theories in 19th century Russia.

I'm describing facts. And they were the ones who caused the biggest trouble to Bolsheviks in the region, not some small nations.

You've got your facts wrong. The Cossacks were a big part in the war-plans of the Whites and hence a troubled point for the Red Army, with only one-fifth of the Cossack nation fighting for the Bolsheviks. Similar divides were seen elsewhere, but there's not in the Cossacks themselves that made them a problem point.

The interesting nature of the politics here is that it was also actively tied up in food requisitioning, and a lot of the balance in Cossack politics shifted due to the White's clinging to Russocentrism.

If you want to learn about Cossacks, I'd advise Peter Holquist's A Russian Vendee: The Practice of Revolutionary Politics in the Don Countryside, 1917-1921, he's written much on the general problems and policies of the fin de siecle in Imperial Russia moving into Soviet Russia, and one of his more well-argued points is that there's a lot of continuation from Imperial to Soviet Russia nationality policies in the Caucasus. See his To count, to extract, and to exterminate: population statistics and population politics in late Imperial and Soviet Russia for more.

And I just don't understand why you apparently argue with someone trying to prove that Soviet state was fucked up and doomed anyway in the rest of your message. Like I don't make the same point.

It's not odd that you don't get what I'm saying when you seemingly ignore the major part of my post.

I'm saying the Soviet Union fell apart for specific, identifiable reasons that were a constant in its history either as inherited from Imperial Russia (nationalities problem, external pressure) or created by faulty systems and in existence from the 30s to 50s onwards (political and economics problems). That means using the Soviet Union as a basis for arguments on failed states is misguided, since its specific subset of problems has rarely been duplicated (Communist China might be the only one that comes close).

I'm saying your view of the USSR as perfect and stable in the 1960s is misguided. I'm saying your view of Imperial Russia right before the revolution is misguided. Everything that could go wrong was going wrong, whether you focus on the 2/3rd illiteracy rate, the 51 billion rubles foreign debt, and even ignoring major wars the country was strewn with tragedies, from the Khodynka tragedy to the Lena Massacre, to the Great Famine of 1891-1892.

The Soviets didn't have the answers, that doesn't mean the questions weren't there.

 

[pipboy-x11]

They became a big part of the "local" population after the ethnic cleansing of the mid-19th century under Miliutin. Or is that something you skip in history class?

Would you kindly replace these attempts to impress everyone around with your mighty knowledge with... you know... making a point?

I'm saying the Soviet Union fell apart for specific, identifiable reasons that were a constant in its history either as inherited from Imperial Russia (nationalities problem, external pressure) or created by faulty systems and in existence from the 30s to 50s onwards (political and economics problems).

And.. again... the point is? Like Europe doesn't have absolutely any problems? Like there are no national tensions (Paris 2007, anyone?). There are no economical problems in EU either?

I'm saying your view of the USSR as perfect and stable in the 1960s is misguided.

No. I was saying that USSR looked perfect on the surface. And this somehow has triggered this fight with your own shadow.

 

[Brother None]

Would you kindly replace these attempts to impress everyone around with your mighty knowledge with... you know... making a point?

The point there is to slot in the nationalities politics of the 19th century with the overall argument vis-a-vis the nationalities problem of the Soviet Union. Your selective quoting breaks up the argument, but it's still there, no matter how much you ignore it.

In fact, I'd like to point out here that selectively quoting from posts and ignoring those parts inconvenient to your argument - like, for instance, my entire bit on the Cossacks - is no way to debate. Just saying.

Like Europe doesn't have absolutely any problems? Like there are no national tensions (Paris 2007, anyone?). There are no economical problems in EU either?

Not at all. In fact, I already stated that "states have problems" is a universal truth, in part of my post in the previous game you opted to ignore:
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).

The point is that there is nothing analogues about the Soviet Union and modern Western European states, other than "we all have problems". Any basis for comparison stops there, which was exactly the point of much of my post on the previous page. Your entire argument throughout this thread seems to hinge on both a comparative basis between Europe and the USSR that does not exist, and an idealization of pre-Revolutionary Russia that is somewhat too easy to deconstruct.

No. I was saying that USSR looked perfect on the surface.

No you weren't: Well, the USSR was doing great too until 1960s - somewhere around those years everything has started collapsing.

But if you changed your mind now, that's great.

 

[pipboy-x11]

In fact, I'd like to point out here that selectively quoting from posts and ignoring those parts inconvenient to your argument - like, for instance, my entire bit on the Cossacks - is no way to debate. Just saying.

And adding tons of noise is a way to debate or a way to waste someone else's time? We can start debating about national structure of the Caucasus since 15th century, but what's the point? "Soviet Union failed because Russians are evil"? Or what exactly - in the context of the discussion?

Not at all. In fact, I already stated that "states have problems" is a universal truth, in part of my post in the previous game you opted to ignore:
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).

The point is that there is nothing analogues about the Soviet Union and modern Western European states, other than "we all have problems". Any basis for comparison stops there, which was exactly the point of much of my post on the previous page.

There are analogies, as I said. Like Socialism. You may close your eyes and ears, and repeat "la-la-la!" loudly - bit it's still there. Like other red flags you've helped me to mention.

No. I was saying that USSR looked perfect on the surface.

No you weren't: Well, the USSR was doing great too until 1960s - somewhere around those years everything has started collapsing.

But if you changed your mind now, that's great.

Huh? "Doing great" doesn't mean that there are no problems which may lead to the crash at some point. It is easy to look back and say "hey, that's why we've failed". Looking forward and foreseeing crash is much more difficult. Like Russians say - "знал бы где упаду, соломку бы подстелил" ("If I'd know where I'd fall in advance, I'd spread some straw over there" - I hope the heavy irony doesn't get lost in translation).

 

[jero cvmi]

*sigh* i tried really hard not to take part in this discussion that's coming from the 18th century (seriously people? there's an argument against public healthcare? jesus. I hope there's no argument against the invention of the wheel too, but, i don't know, they say everything goes in america right?)

BUT. this here struck a nerve.

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.

What. Seriously, who told you that. Unless you count government councellors, bankers and CEOs as workers, the raises we've gotten since 2002 are laughable. Like, one tenth of the amount the cost of living has increased since then.

There was irresponsible spending for sure: Craploads of government money was spent in arms, security, tax relief for businesses, govenrment loans with absurd interest rates and ridiculously overpriced contracts for public works. The point is that people here strike and protest the fact that we didn't get our cut of the profits all these years, not because we refuse to give it back.

Sorry for the off-topicness, continue argueing public healthcare, and when you're done with it, maybe you should pass on to that filthy communist 15 years age limit for work.

 

[cogar66]

" 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"

"Libertarian socialism"? Sounds like a new brand of alcohol-less beer to me.

If you consider authoritarianism alcohol then I suppose it is.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And using Hitler as an argument is an EPIC FAIL.

why? cause he had the same twisted perverted idea about darwinism like you sir ?

 

[Hausen]

*sigh* i tried really hard not to take part in this discussion that's coming from the 18th century (seriously people? there's an argument against public healthcare? jesus. I hope there's no argument against the invention of the wheel too, but, i don't know, they say everything goes in america right?)

BUT. this here struck a nerve.

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.

What. Seriously, who told you that. Unless you count government councellors, bankers and CEOs as workers, the raises we've gotten since 2002 are laughable. Like, one tenth of the amount the cost of living has increased since then.

There was irresponsible spending for sure: Craploads of government money was spent in arms, security, tax relief for businesses, govenrment loans with absurd interest rates and ridiculously overpriced contracts for public works. The point is that people here strike and protest the fact that we didn't get our cut of the profits all these years, not because we refuse to give it back.

Sorry for the off-topicness, continue argueing public healthcare, and when you're done with it, maybe you should pass on to that filthy communist 15 years age limit for work.

I probably meant government officers, it was too late in the night to know. Either way my point remains, public expenditure and the lack of a decent, planned economic policy, are the factors that can aggravate the healthcare spending. I'll reply more by PM.

 

[pipboy-x11]

"Libertarian socialism"? Sounds like a new brand of alcohol-less beer to me.

If you consider authoritarianism alcohol then I suppose it is.

"Libertarian" is an alcohol. Adding socialism to it means removing anything libertarian.

And using Hitler as an argument is an EPIC FAIL.

why? cause he had the same twisted perverted idea about darwinism like you sir ?

Because it demonstrates your oversimplified knee-jerk reactions that have replaced a cognitive process in some particular areas.

 

[Dragula]

How about Всероссийское общественное патриотическое движение instead of Hitler then?

 

[Crni Vuk]

And using Hitler as an argument is an EPIC FAIL.

why? cause he had the same twisted perverted idea about darwinism like you sir ?

Because it demonstrates your oversimplified knee-jerk reactions that have replaced a cognitive process in some particular areas.

Thats why its called irony.

Seriously just accept that BN intelectualy screwed you.

 

[pipboy-x11]

Thats why its called irony.

You've got a lot to learn before you even come close to irony, then. Calling someone "Hitler" is as close to irony as shitting on your pants - to a good joke.

Seriously just accept that BN intelectualy screwed you.

That's why he is hiding having nothing to say?

 

[Sander]

And adding tons of noise is a way to debate or a way to waste someone else's time? We can start debating about national structure of the Caucasus since 15th century, but what's the point? "Soviet Union failed because Russians are evil"? Or what exactly - in the context of the discussion?

Did you really just write off his entire post filled with examples and explanations as 'noise'?

There are analogies, as I said. Like Socialism.

So you really think the current western welfare state is similar in either economic form or political form to the Soviet system?
The democracy and a lack of a planned economy don't mean much to you?

Also Crni, stop trolling.

 

[Brother None]

And adding tons of noise is a way to debate or a way to waste someone else's time?

You would figure that, being Russian, you would understand you can't really debate any part of Russian history as if it exists an sich. I can not explain why or how the nationalities problem was a key to the fall of the SU without glancing at its nature in the 19th century. Besides, such factoids as one fourth of the Cossacks fighting on the Red's sides or the fact that the nature of the struggle there was food-policy based serves to undermine your point that the Cossacks were fighting against the Communists because pre-Revolutionary Russia was so great.

"Soviet Union failed because Russians are evil"? Or what exactly - in the context of the discussion?

The "Russian nature is to (...)" debate has been left behind ages ago, and was always a weak excuse of an analysis for why Russia is what it is right now.

In the context of this discussion, the point is that you're trying to throw up atificial barriers between Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation that simply do not exist. There is no way to analyze what ails Russia now purely by pointing to the Soviet Union, because many of the problems the Soviet Union had were not of its own making. Similarly, the Russian Federation inherited it all as states are wont to, and that is both issues from the Soviet Union and from Imperial Russia.

There are analogies, as I said.

Yes, you've said. And I pointed out why it's impossible to draw comparisons that directly. Trying to predict the future by use of history is dangerous at the best of times, but it is completely useless if done in such a hamfisted manner of simply stating there are "problems" in general. The fact that the problems are similar in nature, such as being economic or problems with national minorities, far from means you can draw a direct comparison.
Especially since the roots of the modern Western Welfare state can be seen as far back as the Dutch Child Labour Law of Van Houten, in 1874. The welfare state existed before the Soviet Union, and stems from Enlightenment tradition, inherently different from the combination of state protectionism and planned economy of the Soviet state.

Simply repeating what you already said is not really adding to your point.

"Doing great" doesn't mean that there are no problems which may lead to the crash at some point.

Doing great and then saying "somewhere around those years everything has started collapsing" means exactly that: up to that point they were doing great, and something happened by which they started collapsing.

Look, I appreciate that you regret your statement and wish to retract it, but please don't pretend you said something other than what you did.

 

[pipboy-x11]

In the context of this discussion, the point is that you're trying to throw up atificial barriers between Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation that simply do not exist.

HUH?

Where exactly? WTF you're talking about?

This is a cheesy way. You're twisting my words on a constant basis, pretending that "you've said this" and then start arguing with your own words. You are just full of shit, Brother None. Just start making your own points or fuck off.

So you really think the current western welfare state is similar in either economic form or political form to the Soviet system?
The democracy and a lack of a planned economy don't mean much to you?

I look at the results

GDP and other dings and whistles do over-complicate the picture. Like a noise, like a fog that someone here is adding to discussion. There is a very simple and still a reliable indicator. Pure numbers - population growth. If the population can replicate itself - the system works well enough. If it shrinks, if it can not replicate itself - the society is a failing one. When population reaches some critical mass at the bottom - game over.

And here Russia and Western Europe both have a lot of similarities. Face it - we are dying out. Immigration is a temporal quick fix, nothing else, and it does create tensions, problems and so on - it's obvious, you can call me a "nationalist" or whatever... it's just a fact. And I do blame socialism for that. Russian Empire before the revolution - positive population growth. We're just adding socialism to that, fast forward 70 years - here is a dying nation. The impact is heavier on Russia by the only reason - here socialism has been longer. European welfare system in its current state is younger and the slow poison of socialism did not have such a lethal impact yet.

I'm ok with dying for both WE and Russia, shit happens. But lets not at least take the US with us. They have positive growth so far.

 

[Brother None]

Where exactly?

That's what a prolonged exposure to communist/socialist ideas does to once prosperous nations. Good luck with your path.

Dichotomy: once prosperous nation, now fucked because of prolonged exposure to Communism. This is a hard divide in three periods that is not an accurate representation of history, either in all problems of modern-day Russia being due to the Soviet Union or in Imperial Russia being a "prosperous nation".

I can't make anything else out of it. If you meant something else, as you claim you did with "doing great" as well, perhaps you need to articulate your points more clearly.

Also, please keep your good manners, no need to lose your temper. And please consider my suggestion of not ignoring the majority of my posts when replying, it is not polite to do so especially when I'm clearly putting effort into my posts.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Interesting discussion going, though it strayed quite far away from the origin, so I don't feel like joining.

One thing I have to say though - I may have missed it skimming the thread, but it seems like you people have been trying to argue about socialism before establishing what it even means in your context. Without a working definition, the argument fails before starting, because "socialism" is as vague a concept as it can get.