Amercians, anti-communist/socialist?

[pipboy-x11]

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.

Hmm... Does a phrase "look what a prolonged exposure to radiation does to once healthy people" means that we're talking about two different persons?

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.

Look, BN, no one owes you for the lengthy posts. You're clearly do it for your own pleasure. I hope you have one. You could just as well consider stop putting words in someone else mouth as a preferred way of having discussion instead of complaining that the opponent has lost his temper over such offense. There are other ways of having discussions, you may start learning them too.

 

[Brother None]

Hmm... Does a phrase "look what a prolonged exposure to radiation does to once healthy people" means that we're talking about two different persons?

Absolutely not, but you just showed by analogy exactly where your logic falls apart: a healthy person exposed to radiation becomes unhealthy purely because of the radiation. Imperial Russia was no such healthy person, with Communism being the radiation. Rather, the ensuing illness stems from both Communism and Imperial Russia; there was no "once healthy" person to speak of. The three-way divide (healthy, radiation, unhealthy) is false.

Look, BN, no one owes you for the lengthy posts. You're clearly do it for your own pleasure.

For someone who just got upset at me for putting words in your mouth, you sure seem to have no problem simply assuming things on other people in broad strokes.

Also, no one owes me anything, nope, but what's the point of your replying if you're just going to ignore the parts inconvenient to your argument?

You could just as well consider stop putting words in someone else mouth

Oddly enough, even though you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, each time I can point directly to quotes of yours. How am I putting words in your mouth if I am simply replying directly to things you said? And - again this strikes me as odd - if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, you'd expect you would rephrase it more clearly, or phrase your view in a way that shows it is different from my interpretation. Instead, you ignore when I point out how your phrasing clearly points one way, and instead just repeat accusations of strawmanning ad nauseam.
Simply repeating that over and over does not make it true. Not when each time I can point to a quote indicating what I'm replying to.

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.

The USSR always had a growing population - though interrupted by catastrophes at times - so according to you that proves "the system works well enough". Here's what's funny about your point, when you say Russian Empire before the revolution - positive population growth. We're just adding socialism to that, fast forward 70 years - here is a dying nation, are you honestly ignoring the population growth during the Soviet Union?

Population growth rate and replacement level population statistics are way more complex than that; they are always an interplay of economic and social growth, and existing population pressures, and it is far from true that once it starts declining it keeps declining. The Netherlands does not have an enormous positive population growth rate because it shouldn't, the country isn't made to sustain a population much larger than it does now. Any "clash of cultures" thinking on this topic tends to overdraw the need to always grow, something which stems - amusingly enough - from raw capitalism.

There is no inherent need to always grow. There is no direct connection in history between a country's population declining and its imminent collapse.

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.

Excluding immigration, no they don't.

 

[pipboy-x11]

Absolutely not, but you just showed by analogy exactly where your logic falls apart: a healthy person exposed to radiation becomes unhealthy purely because of the radiation. Imperial Russia was no such healthy person, with Communism being the radiation. Rather, the ensuing illness stems from both Communism and Imperial Russia; there was no "once healthy" person to speak of.

Russian Empire's population was growing.

Look, it's just as easy as with any other species. Population grows - everything works good. Population shrinks - bad, something is wrong. Not a rocket science, I think. Why is it so hard to comprehend that?

Look, BN, no one owes you for the lengthy posts. You're clearly do it for your own pleasure.

For someone who just got upset at me for putting words in your mouth, you sure seem to have no problem simply assuming things on other people in broad strokes.

Uh... sorry, I didn't realize that people may post on the forum for some other reasons than having a pleasure. If you're getting paid for it or consider yourself a sort of messiah - please, have my apology.

You could just as well consider stop putting words in someone else mouth

Oddly enough, even though you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, each time I can point directly to quotes of yours. How am I putting words in your mouth if I am simply replying directly to things you said? And - again this strikes me as odd - if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, you'd expect you would rephrase it more clearly, or phrase your view in a way that shows it is different from my interpretation. Instead, you ignore when I point out how your phrasing clearly points one way, and instead just repeat accusations of strawmanning ad nauseam.
Simply repeating that over and over does not make it true. Not when each time I can point to a quote indicating what I'm replying to.

You could start making your own points, for example. This helps discussion a lot.

The USSR always had a growing population - though interrupted by catastrophes at times - so according to you that proves "the system works well enough". Here's what's funny about your point, when you say Russian Empire before the revolution - positive population growth. We're just adding socialism to that, fast forward 70 years - here is a dying nation, are you honestly ignoring the population growth during the Soviet Union?

To get a complete picture, you've got to dig a bit deeper than looking at a single questionable graph from Wikipedia.

Any research on a demographic situation in USSR will show you exactly that - the situation has started to change around 1960s. Gorbachev's anti-alcohol campaign was actually planned in late 1970s and aimed exactly at that - do something about the grim demographic situation.

Population growth rate and replacement level population statistics are way more complex than that; they are always an interplay of economic and social growth, and existing population pressures, and it is far from true that once it starts declining it keeps declining. The Netherlands does not have an enormous positive population growth rate because it shouldn't, the country isn't made to sustain a population much larger than it does now. Any "clash of cultures" thinking on this topic tends to overdraw the need to always grow, something which stems - amusingly enough - from raw capitalism.

So... I suppose the immigration has stopped already? All places are taken, after all? The country don't need new people and such...?

I have a better explanation here - the country imports a workforce because it can't produce its own one.

There is no inherent need to always grow. There is no direct connection in history between a country's population declining and its imminent collapse.

You mean - a country can exist without a population?

Give me a break. All fallen civilizations in history have had this syndrome. A declining population. Those who succeed at breeding, just take the place, and that's all. Happens all the time.

… The Empire had come to depend on the enrollment of barbarians, in large numbers, in the army, and … it was necessary to render the service attractive to them by the prospect of power and wealth. This was, of course, a consequence of the decline in military spirit, and of depopulation, in the old civilised Mediterranean countries.

And, by the way...

I've never thought about this before, but if you check Google, there are a lot of those who point at socialism (an invention of Christians) as the source of Roman Empire fall. Including Edward Gibbon, an English historian of 18th century.

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.

Excluding immigration, no they don't.

Still they have a better picture then most.

The United States has one of the highest natural growth rates (0.7%) of any industrialized country in the world. For comparison, the United Kingdom's natural increase is one quarter the rate of the U.S. at 0.2%, while Germany's natural increase is 0

 

[Crni Vuk]

Look, it's just as easy as with any other species. Population grows - everything works good. Population shrinks - bad, something is wrong. Not a rocket science, I think. Why is it so hard to comprehend that?

I doubt that counts for many African states. Or China. Or India. Or a few others.

Growth in population is not equal to wealth.

I've never thought about this before, but if you check Google, there are a lot of those who point at socialism (an invention of Christians) as the source of Roman Empire fall. Including Edward Gibbon, an English historian of 18th century.

There are many reasons why the roman empire was falling. Note the signs for it can be seen from a historic point of view already long before the christian religion rised to any substancial size.

The christian idelogoy and relgion might have played a role. But it definetly was not the cause, but I am just saying. The Roman coulture and empire very much relied on growth, expansion and most important slave labors. Only a small part of the Roman Empire have been real Roman citizens with the rights of such that would allow them to eventualy choose the members of their senate and only members of the roman nobleness would be allowed for a long time to choose the direction of roman foreign and internal affairs. Of course its much more complex. But still the apearance of so called barbaric forces in the Roman army for example began long before any christian ideology or religion started to show up in the Roman Culture and sphere.

To talk about the Roman culture or Empire would probably need a topic on its own and its probably best to leave that out of any comparision with the USSR and the form of socilism that was applied there after the Russian Empire. Particularly since I am not sure how much one can really compare the Christian Ideology from its begining in the Roman Empire with the socialism that was used by the Bolschewiki. Sounds for me to much like pseudo-historian science.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Indeed. The most effective single predictor of how well a country is doing is the infant mortality.

Population growth is actually a pretty poor predictor. Not to mention that it could be argued back and forth as to whether it is good or not. Too high a population growth can be trouble, too. While there's consensus that a high negative growth is a bad thing, it's arguable as to what constitutes "good" population growth. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that low growth around 0% is the best way to go at this point, since the world isn't made of rubber.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Actualy I would even go so far to say that a large growth in population in a very short time can be even a sign of negative changes. As Brother None already said very nicely its a very complex topic where you have to keep culture, economy and the political situation in mind. Quite enough of the african nations with bad or non existant education tend to have a big and growing population as the people eventualy dont see the reason of control and savety regarding the issues around AIDS for example that is realy a very known problem by now. Mortality rate of infants is I guess in general a good indicator.

Another example is the age. For quite some time many believed that in the past the population had a young age in general compared to today where the average maxium age for Germany is around 70-80 years with people here in Europe either in the medieval age or renaissance dieing with a very young age (around their 30s or 40s eventualy). What many ignored though is the very high mortality rate of infants and countless wars that put an unatural end to a population, for example alone the thirty years war from the 15 century caused the dieing of aprox. 20-25% (numbers vary) of the German population with areas and cities that lost almost all of their population even, Nuermberg as a quite big town which exists still today loost almost 70% of its population. Of course its all just very rough numbers but the knowledge about the harsh conditions tell at least that it must have been many. Anyway many might think the age as average was very low when in fact people would reach in peacefull times or as member of groups with wealth 50 or 60 and sometimes the age of 70 years. Friedrich Barbarossa returned from Rome to Germany with the age of 70 for example

 

[CloudlessDruid]

Population Growth is a SO delicate matter for measuring how well a country is going. Its completely relative. Here in Brazil we recently achieved a very low Population Growth Rate, and everyone thought this is great. So population growth its not an absolute statistic to measure development of nations. HDI together with the Geni index in my opinion, its the most accurate method to define how well a country is going.

 

[Dead Guy]

Listen to this guy for example:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w[/youtube]

He's a character this guy, fun to see the whole thing, but the relevant part is around 3 minutes and onward, regarding population growth vs life expectancy, in relation to economic factors also iirc a bit later on.

 

[cogar66]

"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.

Uh, no. Please see this chart:

Unless you consider "Libertarian" as the American Political Party then you are extremely wrong. Socialism is as follows: "Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources." I agree that public ownership(aka Government ownership) destroys freedom, but direct worker ownership frees humanity.

 

[pipboy-x11]

I doubt that counts for many African states. Or China. Or India. Or a few others.

Growth in population is not equal to wealth.

And wealth is not equal to success or being alive. When a population reaches critical mass at the bottom - it's absolutely irrelevant how wealthy it was. Like when you're dead - it doesn't matter how rich you are, you're just dead. Others - like it was with Romans and dirty, living in goat shit barbarians - take your place.

To talk about the Roman culture or Empire would probably need a topic on its own and its probably best to leave that out of any comparision with the USSR and the form of socilism that was applied there after the Russian Empire. Particularly since I am not sure how much one can really compare the Christian Ideology from its begining in the Roman Empire with the socialism that was used by the Bolschewiki. Sounds for me to much like pseudo-historian science.

Why? Socialism clearly has its roots in the Christian principles. It is possible to come up with many parallels, cite references and so on, but you are right, there is no point since it will at least 50% speculation. Frankly, I'm tired already of this thread, I've made my point as clear as I could and if someone wants to come and beat it to shit, I couldn't care less. Thanks to all involved, though, it was fun. Sorry for being rough sometimes.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Why? Socialism clearly has its roots in the Christian principles. It is possible to come up with many parallels, cite references and so on, but you are right, there is no point since it will at least 50% speculation. Frankly, I'm tired already of this thread, I've made my point as clear as I could and if someone wants to come and beat it to shit, I couldn't care less. Thanks to all involved, though, it was fun. Sorry for being rough sometimes.

The celts had a very social society long before the christians or compared to the romans which for example on a regular basis disposed handicaped children on the scrapheap which was not common for the celts they would usualy help each other and had rules how to deal with sick and old people. Recently there has been a biger focus on research about the celtic culture before the Roman invasion as they are still today one of the main sources for many about the celts since well the Romans have not left much from them but its clear that the Roman view on them is tainted just like the Greek have seen the Persian empire always inherently inferior (or all cultures except their own one). There are signs that there have been even females in ruling positions in the celtic society which was very uncommon for the Roman culture which was a very male dominated society. The Celts had here a much more balanced system. Not comparable with the equal rights females have today but still much better then compared to the Romans.

The political idea of socialism today is definetly not the same what people have seen as social 2000 or 3000 years in the past. Hence why it cant be simply compared. But I really have no clue how far such political idelogies can be really traced to the past and I doubt there are many real historians around this board with a real knowledge about that topic. We all simply just put on pants on one leg at time.

And wealth is not equal to success or being alive. When a population reaches critical mass at the bottom - it's absolutely irrelevant how wealthy it was. Like when you're dead - it doesn't matter how rich you are, you're just dead. Others - like it was with Romans and dirty, living in goat shit barbarians - take your place.

I have no clue what you want to say. Sorry.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

And wealth is not equal to success or being alive. When a population reaches critical mass at the bottom - it's absolutely irrelevant how wealthy it was. Like when you're dead - it doesn't matter how rich you are, you're just dead. Others - like it was with Romans and dirty, living in goat shit barbarians - take your place.

...and if I was leaving at the peak of Roman Empire I'd sure as hell enjoy the experience. Also, you make it sound like the Empire collapsed because of insufficient population growth, which is hardly a major reason.

Why? Socialism clearly has its roots in the Christian principles. It is possible to come up with many parallels, cite references and so on, but you are right, there is no point since it will at least 50% speculation.

What do you define as "socialism" though. In a broader meaning, it has roots in about every major culture in the world. It's all speculation and thus useless.

Honestly, you started off well, but been throwing inconsistencies and purely ignorant statements lately, like for example the "population growth as a primary gauge for a country's well-being" joke.

 

[pipboy-x11]

...and if I was leaving at the peak of Roman Empire I'd sure as hell enjoy the experience. Also, you make it sound like the Empire collapsed because of insufficient population growth, which is hardly a major reason.

"Hardly"? So much for a strong argument.

Honestly, you started off well, but been throwing inconsistencies and purely ignorant statements lately, like for example the "population growth as a primary gauge for a country's well-being" joke.

It's either my "inconsistencies and purely ignorant statements" or your lack of abstract thinking and tendency to confuse your own full stomach with the rise or fall of the whole civilization. But who cares anyway, right?

Crni - celts are fucking dead too

BTW, cogar66 - may I be a bit rough for the last time in this thread? Just wanted to say that a "direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy" is the biggest piece of rubbish anyone heard since 1917 (bolsheviks aimed exactly at that originally, but even them have dropped the idea quickly). Also, I'd like to quote R.A.Heinlein - "A committee is the only known form of life with a hundred bellies and no brain". Thank you for your attention.

I also agree that I probably treat the word "libertarian" in an American way, but it looks more consistent to me - since those axes on your graph are not orthogonal IRL. Socialism means taking a lot from those who work and earn - by force, if needed. This is hardly a "liberty".

 

[Santoka]

It's either my "inconsistencies and purely ignorant statements" or your lack of abstract thinking and tendency to confuse your own full stomach with the rise or fall of the whole civilization. But who cares anyway, right?

The former I believe.
Have you even taken the time check out the results of your google "roman empire socialism" search? I have and it's basically full of bs and not even hardly relevant to the conversation, your point or the search itself ; and it's not because people write stupid things that it can be used to back your opinion, and in the end, it's not because you have an opinion that it's scientific truth.
Your inconsistencies have been proven, for example, by your claim that Population growth is the ultimate way to judge a nation's health (btw, you play to much Civ games), and when pointed to those stats to prove you wrong and in the same time stating how retarded such a claim is because the problem is far more complex, you just deny it saying "To get a complete picture, you've got to dig a bit deeper than looking at a single questionable graph from Wikipedia", and in the process linking to a Russian page in the middle of a argument taking place in English. That's a joke right ? Someone criticizes your way of thinking but then takes the time to prove you wrong using your very own retarded methodology, then you have the nerve to question that and asking for deeper examination? And to back you you bring references in a language hardly 10% of the people here will be able to read?
What are you looking for ? YOU clearly have an opinion, but also you clearly have no point, you've been proven wrong again and again and you still come up with trollish responses such as :

Crni - celts are fucking dead too

 

[CloudlessDruid]

Crni - celts are fucking dead too

And THAT is lack of "abstract thinking"

 

[pipboy-x11]

The former I believe.
Have you even taken the time check out the results of your google "roman empire socialism" search? I have and it's basically full of bs and not even hardly relevant to the conversation, your point or the search itself ; and it's not because people write stupid things that it can be used to back your opinion, and in the end, it's not because you have an opinion that it's scientific truth.
Your inconsistencies have been proven, for example, by your claim that Population growth is the ultimate way to judge a nation's health (btw, you play to much Civ games), and when pointed to those stats to prove you wrong and in the same time stating how retarded such a claim is because the problem is far more complex, you just deny it saying "To get a complete picture, you've got to dig a bit deeper than looking at a single questionable graph from Wikipedia", and in the process linking to a Russian page in the middle of a argument taking place in English. What are you looking for ? YOU clearly have an opinion, but also you clearly have no point, you've been proven wrong again and again and you still come up with trollish responses such as :

Crni - celts are fucking dead too

Surprise - sometimes in order to make a research on some culture or a country one needs to read the language. If one claims some deep knowledge of Russian history and argues like he has a clue with a someone who was born and lives here... and still can't read Russian at the same time, can't read a single document - he is just full of shit. How ridiculously would *I* look, judging about US by what I read in a local newspaper? "Look, you've had slavery until recently and still treat blacks poorly, filthy racists!!". To get to BN level completely I'd need to link the Great Depression to extermination of some Native American tribes or something else like that.

I've never said that the decline of the Roman Empire has an "absolutely scientifically proven explanation" that can be attributed to socialism. But yet it *is* a possible factor. You can just dismiss those theories as "bs" - this is something you are good at.

Should I answer the rest of the emotional garbage you threw into the discussion? Otherwise it seems I've just answered your post.

Ah... Concerning what I've said to Crni - he values irony as he said just 2 pages ago.

 

[Santoka]

Surprise - sometimes in order to make a research on some culture or a country one needs to read the language. If one claims some deep knowledge of Russian history and argues like he has a clue with a someone who was born and lives here... and still can't read Russian at the same time, can't read a single document - he is just full of shit.

True, but again, it's hardly relevant : Russia is not the subject, it's an example. (you know "abstract thinking"... ) Or then I guess you speak and read perfect French, having used the Paris 2007 example, and Latin, ancient Greek and most other languages of the late Roman Empire for having used the Roman Empire example...

And what I called BS was the result of your google search, I went through a lot of the pages and none were relevant, to the discussion or the search it self.

 

[pipboy-x11]

True, but again, it's hardly relevant : Russia is not the subject, it's an example. (you know "abstract thinking"... )

Yes. An example that I've brought. An example of what can happen to a country, exposed to socialism for 70 years. That *was* the point.

Or then I guess you speak and read perfect French, having used the Paris 2007 example, and Latin, ancient Greek and most other languages of the late Roman Empire for having used the Roman Empire example...

No. BUT - if someone from the Ancient Rome would be here and told me about its history, I would just listen. Or at least I wouldn't tell him "shit up, I know your history better"

As to Paris 2007 - again, if you are from there, just enlighten me, please, if you have some facts. I'll correct my position. I judge the events by what I know mostly from russians who live there, blogs etc. Official media in any country is usually full of shite when describing events like this one.

 

[Sander]

Keep this civil, people.

And pipboy-x11 - stop posting just to insult people's knowledge or intelligence. If you have a retort to someone's argument, then post it without insulting people every other sources. If you don't have a retort, then don't post at all. Throughout this thread you've alternated arguments with pure ad-hominem attacks to try to bring people down. Stop it.



Anyway, population growth as a means and measure of sense is nonsensical. It's incredibly simplistic to hang the success of a society on one such measure, and there have been plenty of succesful societies throughout history with little native population growth (immigration almost always picks up, though).

Lastly, socialism as a reason the Roman empire 'fell' (it never really fell, much of it continued on under the later medieval kingdoms) is a gross misrepresentation of the problems facing the Roman empire.
An inefficient system of taxation which limited income, an overstretched empire that could not be properly defended or ruled, constant power struggles, external pressures of aggressive new peoples trying to get in on the Roman wealth, major increases in army wages instated to guarantee individuals the support of said army to remain in power (which led to economic problems as inflation set in) were all major contributors. But a socialist system? No. Nothing coming close to a welfare state was ever in existence in the Roman world, and the only thing that may have come close were the supplies of grain to Roman citizens - that had been in place for centuries already.

No. BUT - if someone from the Ancient Rome would be here and told me about its history, I would just listen. Or at least I wouldn't tell him "shit up, I know your history better"

Oftentimes external people with no agenda can see things more clearly than people inside the system.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

It's either my "inconsistencies and purely ignorant statements" or your lack of abstract thinking and tendency to confuse your own full stomach with the rise or fall of the whole civilization. But who cares anyway, right?

There's no need for much abstract thinking in sociology, it bases itself on facts and research. Fantasizing about things isn't much of an argument. You're trying to start a discussion about socialism w/o a working definition thereof, and ignore already existing research. So I doubt there's a problem with my lack of "abstract thinking".

In addition, the point of sociological studies is to learn to give people a full stomach and a happy existence. A "great civilization" on an empty stomach is pointless, if at all possible, not to mention that people's stomachs can directly or indirectly affect the "rise and fall" of civilization you're so concerned about. So yeah, "abstract thinking" becomes useless when it's too abstract and loses sight of original purpose.

Also, again, population growth is an ill-suited variable to use for general statements about the state of a country's affairs.

"Hardly"? So much for a strong argument.

Too long ago, no factual information. Saying one way or another is baseless guessing. At least I don't try to pretend that the suggestions I'm putting forward are facts. The commonly accepted notion that the Empire fell apart because of poor governance and too slow communication between the far-away parts of the Empire seems a lot more plausible to me than population issues. It's not like it fell apart on its own - it was crushed in military conquest. Although if you do want a link to USSR - the dissolution of authority of the government may have been another reason.

Also, loving this one:

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

Implying that Russian empire was ever prosperous. It's hard to say if the place was more fucked before or after the October revolution.