|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 11 2018 18:01 Silvanel wrote:
@Amui
Well, the idea is the increased price will lead to greater competitiveness of local products and thus in long run lead to local producers replacing foreign ones. I dont think think 10% is enough though in regards to China-US work/material costs. Not to mention it still might be cheaper to import from third country.
But tariffs will definitely hurt China, its just the question of how much and who and when blinks.
Tariffs that might not even be around in a year are not incentive for the hundreds of millions of dollars or billions it would take to even set up supply chains/fabs/etc to compete in a lot of cases.
I mean yeah it hurts China, but unless the local guy can find a replacement for cheaper than China(often can't), local guy just has to eat it.
|
On July 11 2018 17:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 17:15 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? On July 11 2018 03:44 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. Hilary is definitively less bad than Lenin. You can say conclusively she wouldn't oversee the wholesale murder of entire segments of the population. I have to presume this is an exclusively domestically focused position. Surely she would do little to nothing to slow (would have probably increased) the civilian casualties around the world from explosive ordinance to say nothing of the cost of life resulting from capitalism concentrating wealth to such degrees people have yachts with boats and helicopters on them while people working 40 hours a week are still under the poverty line. So the argument is that brutal treatment of the bourgeoisie would be worse than the type of bombing that leads to 9 out of 10 of the people you kill not being the target or whatever other atrocities you want to pick from the Obama administration and amplify (no doubt she was more hawkish than Obama) then? I want to make sure I understand it before I go into detail about why I disagree EDIT: I should add P6's point about "the wrong people" being lumped in with the bourgeoisie Domestically focused, yes. I would say the first job of a leader is to not kill their own people. The bourgeoisie could have been depowered without being murdered, and killing them all set the groundwork for it all to go to hell, same as it did for the French Revolution. And of course, the sphere of 'people we have to kill' expanded and expanded. I'll let Lenin off the hook for Stalin, as I prefer to judge leaders on their own merits/demerits. Same as I don't judge Thatcher for Blair or Obama for Trump or will blame Trump for whoever comes after him. I think the first job of a leader is to not kill innocent civilians. I don't think killing "other" people is better just because they are "others". On that count he has the company of pretty much every US president and plenty of other leaders around the world as far as killing loads of civilians to pursue their political ambitions.
You're flatly incorrect.
Yes, that's preferable, but the leader of a country's duty is to protect their own citizens. There is nothing in that job description that means they have to worry about someone else's citizens. They weren't elected/inherited the crown to protect the citizens of the next country over.
It's fine to be an idealist, but don't be so idealistic you try to warp reality.
It's like complaining that the manager of a factory isn't worrying about the bottom line of a competing factory next door. Of course he doesn't care. They're not his people, not providing him with money.
That's why global trade evolved as a political peace system; it means everyone is invested in not going to war with one another, because their next door neighbours - all potential enemies - are actually contributing to their country's - and therefore their people's - prosperity.
You can't contribute much meaningful discussion if you literally don't understand what the actual job of a country's leader is.
|
On July 11 2018 18:35 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 17:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 17:15 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? On July 11 2018 03:44 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:06 xDaunt wrote:
When I was talking about enjoying the exposure of GH's Bolshevism a few days ago, I thought I was just joking. I didn't realize it was quite literal. It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. Hilary is definitively less bad than Lenin. You can say conclusively she wouldn't oversee the wholesale murder of entire segments of the population. I have to presume this is an exclusively domestically focused position. Surely she would do little to nothing to slow (would have probably increased) the civilian casualties around the world from explosive ordinance to say nothing of the cost of life resulting from capitalism concentrating wealth to such degrees people have yachts with boats and helicopters on them while people working 40 hours a week are still under the poverty line. So the argument is that brutal treatment of the bourgeoisie would be worse than the type of bombing that leads to 9 out of 10 of the people you kill not being the target or whatever other atrocities you want to pick from the Obama administration and amplify (no doubt she was more hawkish than Obama) then? I want to make sure I understand it before I go into detail about why I disagree EDIT: I should add P6's point about "the wrong people" being lumped in with the bourgeoisie Domestically focused, yes. I would say the first job of a leader is to not kill their own people. The bourgeoisie could have been depowered without being murdered, and killing them all set the groundwork for it all to go to hell, same as it did for the French Revolution. And of course, the sphere of 'people we have to kill' expanded and expanded. I'll let Lenin off the hook for Stalin, as I prefer to judge leaders on their own merits/demerits. Same as I don't judge Thatcher for Blair or Obama for Trump or will blame Trump for whoever comes after him. I think the first job of a leader is to not kill innocent civilians. I don't think killing "other" people is better just because they are "others". On that count he has the company of pretty much every US president and plenty of other leaders around the world as far as killing loads of civilians to pursue their political ambitions. You're flatly incorrect. Yes, that's preferable, but the leader of a country's duty is to protect their own citizens. There is nothing in that job description that means they have to worry about someone else's citizens. They weren't elected/inherited the crown to protect the citizens of the next country over. It's fine to be an idealist, but don't be so idealistic you try to warp reality. It's like complaining that the manager of a factory isn't worrying about the bottom line of a competing factory next door. Of course he doesn't care. They're not his people, not providing him with money. That's why global trade evolved as a political peace system; it means everyone is invested in not going to war with one another, because their next door neighbours - all potential enemies - are actually contributing to their country's - and therefore their people's - prosperity. You can't contribute much meaningful discussion if you literally don't understand what the actual job of a country's leader is.
Not caring about anyone but "your own" is kinda like the impulse to forcibly take women to me, it's something that our frontal lobe is here to allow us to move past. Perhaps you would have made the case that too was an insurmountable hurdle for humanity to overcome.
|
On July 11 2018 18:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 18:35 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 17:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 17:15 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? On July 11 2018 03:44 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. Hilary is definitively less bad than Lenin. You can say conclusively she wouldn't oversee the wholesale murder of entire segments of the population. I have to presume this is an exclusively domestically focused position. Surely she would do little to nothing to slow (would have probably increased) the civilian casualties around the world from explosive ordinance to say nothing of the cost of life resulting from capitalism concentrating wealth to such degrees people have yachts with boats and helicopters on them while people working 40 hours a week are still under the poverty line. So the argument is that brutal treatment of the bourgeoisie would be worse than the type of bombing that leads to 9 out of 10 of the people you kill not being the target or whatever other atrocities you want to pick from the Obama administration and amplify (no doubt she was more hawkish than Obama) then? I want to make sure I understand it before I go into detail about why I disagree EDIT: I should add P6's point about "the wrong people" being lumped in with the bourgeoisie Domestically focused, yes. I would say the first job of a leader is to not kill their own people. The bourgeoisie could have been depowered without being murdered, and killing them all set the groundwork for it all to go to hell, same as it did for the French Revolution. And of course, the sphere of 'people we have to kill' expanded and expanded. I'll let Lenin off the hook for Stalin, as I prefer to judge leaders on their own merits/demerits. Same as I don't judge Thatcher for Blair or Obama for Trump or will blame Trump for whoever comes after him. I think the first job of a leader is to not kill innocent civilians. I don't think killing "other" people is better just because they are "others". On that count he has the company of pretty much every US president and plenty of other leaders around the world as far as killing loads of civilians to pursue their political ambitions. You're flatly incorrect. Yes, that's preferable, but the leader of a country's duty is to protect their own citizens. There is nothing in that job description that means they have to worry about someone else's citizens. They weren't elected/inherited the crown to protect the citizens of the next country over. It's fine to be an idealist, but don't be so idealistic you try to warp reality. It's like complaining that the manager of a factory isn't worrying about the bottom line of a competing factory next door. Of course he doesn't care. They're not his people, not providing him with money. That's why global trade evolved as a political peace system; it means everyone is invested in not going to war with one another, because their next door neighbours - all potential enemies - are actually contributing to their country's - and therefore their people's - prosperity. You can't contribute much meaningful discussion if you literally don't understand what the actual job of a country's leader is. Not caring about anyone but "your own" is kinda like the impulse to forcibly take women to me, it's something that our frontal lobe is here to allow us to move past. Perhaps you would have made the case that too was an insurmountable hurdle for humanity to overcome.
I mean, you've made it clear that you value some ideal of fighting corporate imperialism over the lives of North Koreans (and I guess Russians now as well), so I guess proof is in the pudding?
|
On July 11 2018 18:27 Falling wrote:
Well, I suppose it depends on how radical you mean. If you mean to forcibly seize the means of production, then inevitably you must trample or ignore the limitations. How else can seize someone else's property except to destroy the institutions that protect the individual from the state and protect the state from itself? But, likely true if you aren't going about your changes forcibly.
I'm not sure about this because I don't know enough about the US system. When you say forcibly seizing the means of production, I would assume that simply nationalizing some industries such as healthcare, power, transport etc. would be more what you are looking at.
So yeah, I'm talking about radical compared to the last 60-70 years in the US, not radical compared to status quo of the EU (for example).
|
On July 11 2018 18:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 18:35 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 17:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 17:15 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? On July 11 2018 03:44 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence? I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. Hilary is definitively less bad than Lenin. You can say conclusively she wouldn't oversee the wholesale murder of entire segments of the population. I have to presume this is an exclusively domestically focused position. Surely she would do little to nothing to slow (would have probably increased) the civilian casualties around the world from explosive ordinance to say nothing of the cost of life resulting from capitalism concentrating wealth to such degrees people have yachts with boats and helicopters on them while people working 40 hours a week are still under the poverty line. So the argument is that brutal treatment of the bourgeoisie would be worse than the type of bombing that leads to 9 out of 10 of the people you kill not being the target or whatever other atrocities you want to pick from the Obama administration and amplify (no doubt she was more hawkish than Obama) then? I want to make sure I understand it before I go into detail about why I disagree EDIT: I should add P6's point about "the wrong people" being lumped in with the bourgeoisie Domestically focused, yes. I would say the first job of a leader is to not kill their own people. The bourgeoisie could have been depowered without being murdered, and killing them all set the groundwork for it all to go to hell, same as it did for the French Revolution. And of course, the sphere of 'people we have to kill' expanded and expanded. I'll let Lenin off the hook for Stalin, as I prefer to judge leaders on their own merits/demerits. Same as I don't judge Thatcher for Blair or Obama for Trump or will blame Trump for whoever comes after him. I think the first job of a leader is to not kill innocent civilians. I don't think killing "other" people is better just because they are "others". On that count he has the company of pretty much every US president and plenty of other leaders around the world as far as killing loads of civilians to pursue their political ambitions. You're flatly incorrect. Yes, that's preferable, but the leader of a country's duty is to protect their own citizens. There is nothing in that job description that means they have to worry about someone else's citizens. They weren't elected/inherited the crown to protect the citizens of the next country over. It's fine to be an idealist, but don't be so idealistic you try to warp reality. It's like complaining that the manager of a factory isn't worrying about the bottom line of a competing factory next door. Of course he doesn't care. They're not his people, not providing him with money. That's why global trade evolved as a political peace system; it means everyone is invested in not going to war with one another, because their next door neighbours - all potential enemies - are actually contributing to their country's - and therefore their people's - prosperity. You can't contribute much meaningful discussion if you literally don't understand what the actual job of a country's leader is. Not caring about anyone but "your own" is kinda like the impulse to forcibly take women to me, it's something that our frontal lobe is here to allow us to move past. Perhaps you would have made the case that too was an insurmountable hurdle for humanity to overcome.
A leader's literal job is to care about their own. If you can't understand that basic point, GH, it kind of throws everything you say into a very harsh spotlight, and suggests you're not just an idealist, but someone who doesn't understand the basic fundamentals of how politics, or even humanity, works.
Indeed, the entire reason why Trump's protectionism is stupid is because a leader's job is only to protect their own people. Once you've narrowed the borders and said nobody else can help, everyone else in the entire world is either the enemy or a potential enemy. Hence, trade, to make sure that almost everybody is not just a potential friend but actively making the lives of your people better.
And yes, pretty clearly, humanity has not yet surmounted that hurdle.
See: people not giving up murderers because of fear for the safety of their families (one of the MAIN ways organised crime thrives, in fact, because even if they do give up the person responsible, his pals in the family will pay them a visit), people literally letting other families die so their own are safe, and millions of other, less consequential acts of familial selfishness within society.
It's fine to be an idealist. Even admirable. But there's a line between idealism and delusion, and you increasingly sound like you do jumping jacks on it.
|
On July 11 2018 19:21 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 18:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 18:35 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 17:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 17:15 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence?
I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. I'm trying to figure out if your value system is skewed by ignorance of Lenin, or extreme worship of anyone connected to socialist beliefs. So where does Stalin fit on you Trump/Clinton/Lenin scale? Why don't we establish what about Lenin makes it so obvious that president Hillary would be demonstrably better, and for whom? On July 11 2018 03:44 iamthedave wrote:On July 11 2018 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 03:21 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Surely, you could point out an example of this lackluster understanding of world history rather than just assert it with overwhelming confidence?
I don’t think I’m going to be teaching you a 200 level 20th century Russian history courses for free just to prove that you would really not prefer Lenin over Clinton. Not really sure what I get out of it given your general attitude during this entire discussion. It appears you wont be teaching anyone anything and merely relying on your declaration of Lenin being one of the worst people of the 20th century along with all of his contemporary peers and the presumption of the ongoing theme that Hillary is less bad, which we would disagree on, even ignoring that Lenin lived in a different time and place. Hilary is definitively less bad than Lenin. You can say conclusively she wouldn't oversee the wholesale murder of entire segments of the population. I have to presume this is an exclusively domestically focused position. Surely she would do little to nothing to slow (would have probably increased) the civilian casualties around the world from explosive ordinance to say nothing of the cost of life resulting from capitalism concentrating wealth to such degrees people have yachts with boats and helicopters on them while people working 40 hours a week are still under the poverty line. So the argument is that brutal treatment of the bourgeoisie would be worse than the type of bombing that leads to 9 out of 10 of the people you kill not being the target or whatever other atrocities you want to pick from the Obama administration and amplify (no doubt she was more hawkish than Obama) then? I want to make sure I understand it before I go into detail about why I disagree EDIT: I should add P6's point about "the wrong people" being lumped in with the bourgeoisie Domestically focused, yes. I would say the first job of a leader is to not kill their own people. The bourgeoisie could have been depowered without being murdered, and killing them all set the groundwork for it all to go to hell, same as it did for the French Revolution. And of course, the sphere of 'people we have to kill' expanded and expanded. I'll let Lenin off the hook for Stalin, as I prefer to judge leaders on their own merits/demerits. Same as I don't judge Thatcher for Blair or Obama for Trump or will blame Trump for whoever comes after him. I think the first job of a leader is to not kill innocent civilians. I don't think killing "other" people is better just because they are "others". On that count he has the company of pretty much every US president and plenty of other leaders around the world as far as killing loads of civilians to pursue their political ambitions. You're flatly incorrect. Yes, that's preferable, but the leader of a country's duty is to protect their own citizens. There is nothing in that job description that means they have to worry about someone else's citizens. They weren't elected/inherited the crown to protect the citizens of the next country over. It's fine to be an idealist, but don't be so idealistic you try to warp reality. It's like complaining that the manager of a factory isn't worrying about the bottom line of a competing factory next door. Of course he doesn't care. They're not his people, not providing him with money. That's why global trade evolved as a political peace system; it means everyone is invested in not going to war with one another, because their next door neighbours - all potential enemies - are actually contributing to their country's - and therefore their people's - prosperity. You can't contribute much meaningful discussion if you literally don't understand what the actual job of a country's leader is. Not caring about anyone but "your own" is kinda like the impulse to forcibly take women to me, it's something that our frontal lobe is here to allow us to move past. Perhaps you would have made the case that too was an insurmountable hurdle for humanity to overcome. A leader's literal job is to care about their own. If you can't understand that basic point, GH, it kind of throws everything you say into a very harsh spotlight, and suggests you're not just an idealist, but someone who doesn't understand the basic fundamentals of how politics, or even humanity, works. Indeed, the entire reason why Trump's protectionism is stupid is because a leader's job is only to protect their own people. Once you've narrowed the borders and said nobody else can help, everyone else in the entire world is either the enemy or a potential enemy. Hence, trade, to make sure that almost everybody is not just a potential friend but actively making the lives of your people better. And yes, pretty clearly, humanity has not yet surmounted that hurdle. See: people not giving up murderers because of fear for the safety of their families (one of the MAIN ways organised crime thrives, in fact, because even if they do give up the person responsible, his pals in the family will pay them a visit), people literally letting other families die so their own are safe, and millions of other, less consequential acts of familial selfishness within society. It's fine to be an idealist. Even admirable. But there's a line between idealism and delusion, and you increasingly sound like you do jumping jacks on it.
It's not a new argument, it's basically the same one made for every group that wanted to exploit/oppress another group without feeling bad for it.
Like I said, I don't think it's any better than appealing to other "instincts" in order to defend other atrocious behavior.
I'd make a point that prioritization is a bit different (though plenty of overlap) than disregard and exploitation as well. If we're both gathering resources there's a significant difference between both of us going to a common source and bringing it back to our individual families and one of us going to the source and the other stealing the reserves while they are out getting more.
|
On July 11 2018 11:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 11:46 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 11:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 11:32 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 11:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 10:49 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 09:28 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 05:39 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 11 2018 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I meant remember as in you didn't just google that and copy paste it. Like you actually studied that history at some point before this conversation.
Because it doesn't seem like you did. It seems like you're oblivious that you're talking about a civil war or are completely unaware of how warfare was executed in the early 1900's. GH, I have read a lot about Russian history. From the Kievan Rus and the Rurikovich dynasty who ruled Muscovy right up until the Time of Troubles, to the Romanov dynasty and its two standouts, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, to the February Revolution, the October Revolution and Lenin's seizure of power. Lenin came to power in October of 1917. Lenin immediately established the Cheka on December 20, 1917. Cheka was the first iteration of the Soviet secret police, and it was led by the very weird Polish aristocrat Felix Dzerzhinsky. Dzerzhinsky was very open about what Cheka did, stating,
"We stand for organized terror—this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence."
Cheka's name was changed a lot in the 1920s and 1930s, eventually becoming the NKVD and then finally the KGB. But the organization never changed from being a bunch of fanatics and alcoholics in a chamber of horrors. Here are just some of the atrocities carried out by the organization that Lenin created immediately following his rise to power. "The methods included:[36] being skinned alive, scalped, "crowned" with barbed wire, impaled, crucified, hanged, stoned to death, tied to planks and pushed slowly into furnaces or tanks of boiling water, or rolled around naked in internally nail-studded barrels. Chekists reportedly poured water on naked prisoners in the winter-bound streets until they became living ice statues. Others reportedly beheaded their victims by twisting their necks until their heads could be torn off. The Cheka detachments stationed in Kiev reportedly would attach an iron tube to the torso of a bound victim and insert a rat in the tube closed off with wire netting, while the tube was held over a flame until the rat began gnawing through the victim's guts in an effort to escape.[36] Anton Denikin's investigation discovered corpses whose lungs, throats, and mouths had been packed with earth.[36][37]
Women and children were also victims of Cheka terror. Women would sometimes be tortured and raped before being shot. Children between the ages of 8 and 13 were imprisoned and occasionally executed.[38]" And yet you have the gall to claim that Lenin would have been better than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? In fact, you double down on praising Lenin when other people started to call you out on your ridiculous assertions. On July 11 2018 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Notwithstanding your characterization, you're list sounds pretty pointless if everyone is on it.
In the never-ending cycle of assholes overthrowing assholes he's one of the better ones, not making some list of (everyone) the worst. One of the better ones? You are one of the most aggressively ignorant individuals I have ever met. EDIT: I would like to award Plansix 50 points of awesomeness because this is the best description of GH I've read. On July 11 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is a combination of overwhelming confidence in his positions and a lackluster understanding of world history. It is both impressive and unassailable. French Republicans also had a reign of terror and yet that doesn't diminish republicanism. Sometimes you must pass through the terror of abstract universalism to realize the concrete version. There are such things as real enemies. Sometimes it is a life and death struggle. Yeah, all those Russia peasants they killed for not wanting to starve to death were enemies of the people. How is this a productive comment? You are collapsing a very complicated and thorny problem (food production and distribution) into a simple yay or nay on the October Revolution. It is about as productive as the stirring historical argument that rutherless rules must be overthrown by ruthless revolutionaries. A stirring insight of historical merit. Lenin was the son of a wealthly, but not aristocratic family, who went to overthrow the aristocracy of his country. And then immediately turned around and used violence against the remaining aristocracy and any memember of the poor, uneducated peasants that got in his way. His and his allies positions improved, while overthrowing some truly rotten aristocrats, but it was the half nots that suffered in the end. Nope sorry. You just throw in this jejune historical trivia without ever addressing the point. I'm not sure what you don't understand about "sometimes it is a life and death struggle." There have been a lot of life and death struggles throughout history. Are you attempting to argue that the Russian revolution has some unique quality that allows us to overlook the brutality of Lenin and his followers? What the fuck are you even talking about? "There have been a lot of life and death struggles throughout history?" What kind of non-sequitur is that? Is it a coincidence that you haven't mentioned the French Revolution despite that being integral to my first post on this subject or are you just a fortune cookie that spits out irrelevancies and then asks loaded questions? What I'm actually asking you to do is actually do some history, wrestle with all the facts, and then make an even-handed assessment of the October Revolution and Lenin in view of those facts. You act as if his opponents are the "good guys" from the start. Are you fucking kidding me? The Russian aristocracy where complete shit. Legitimate abusive authoritarian monsters that abused the peasantry and growing middle class. Lenin and his followers were the result of generations of abuse by the aristocracy. It is possible that two groups of assholes fight over power and one group of assholes comes out on top. That is a healthy number of conflicts in history. If you asked me which of those two groups would I rather be ruled by, given what I know, I’d risk exile.
This was at a time where we still kept colonies right? Think about it for a moment...
Russian commoners hadn't gotten to enjoy the relatively high levels of standards that commoners in the West had received. The West had been exploiting labor and resources from colonies and slaves, and our commoners were not exploited as badly.
That's why there was such a fierce response in Russia when universal suffrage was introduced, because they had no one "below" them to exploit.
|
On July 11 2018 17:16 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 13:41 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 12:50 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 12:42 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 12:30 Sermokala wrote:
I'm still baffled on how trump is anyway near as bad as lenin. Lenin actualy had peopled killed en mass as a matter of policy. Trump is a bumbiling con man whos just shitty to people.
Seperatring families is better than killing families. Its not good but for christs said he hasn't ordered the undocumented workers killed after they are rounded up. Trump is constrained by governmental institutions. He's an enfant terrible that is friends with mobsters. It's pure delusion to think that he would have any moral compunctions about killing and torturing people under different circumstances. Perhaps now would be a good time to explain to your leftist compatriots why the rule of law actually matters. There is a curious paradox where the (post)modern conservative asserts the primacy of the rule of law knowing full well that it is advocacy of order as such, the very form of order, as based in an unjustifiable (that is, ungrounded) decision. The concrete content of this order is arbitrary (although property rights seems to be popular these days). Carl Schmitt's decisionism is the basis for this conservatism which is a return to an unconditional authority that cannot be grounded in positive reasons, and is opposed to any traditionalist notion of organic community norms. So yes, the paradox here is that we cannot escape decisionism and the struggle for hegemony. Now the question is: why is Lenin a properly ethical actor? Because, of course, he is. So how can we distinguish the bolshevik imposition of a new hegemonic order, with its own arbitrary rule of law, from that arbitrary decisionism which grounds the US government and its Constitution? Isn't the terror itself the imposition of the necessary form of order as such? Why do the conservative revisionists in this thread insist on dismissing the events of 1917 as the criminal scheming of a few power-hungry monsters? Sorry to bother you, but I'm not versed in philosophy or many of the things that you spoke of. Could you explain what you just said? What I got was that laws are a way of attaching power to an order, whether it be your definition of "fair and just" or not, and changing what arbitrary orders are enshrined as "laws" (through revolution, in this case) is decisionism because it's choosing what orders and arbitrary shit gets power behind it? And because of this, advocating for rule of law doesn't really make sense because it's also advocating for revolutions against current law because decisions? I feel like something might be missing they're, but I'm not sure. Also, the fact that Lenin was supported by people enough to get to power in the first place is an interesting point, but then you cannot blame him for following through on his ideals that he espoused to his supporters. Where does the blame for all of those dead peasants who were decided to be enemies of the state fall? Can it fall on any one person, and if so, what makes that person solely responsible?
Advocating for rule of law is advocating for order. This can be a decent thing, where the order has legitimacy, and it can be regressive, where the order has lost its legitimacy. I'm fairly sure that xDaunt has previously made arguments that colonial rule in Africa was justified by the very order it brought. My point was that there was no transition from Tsar to Soviet Republic that wouldn't be bloody. There might have been times and ways that would have been less bloody, but once the revolution has occurred and the Tsar has fallen, appealing to "the rule of law" doesn't really make much sense: Lenin and the bolsheviks knew that the rule of law was essential, and that the revolution was threatened. Look at all their paranoid crimes beginning very shortly after gaining power. xDaunt always assumes the legitimacy of the law, which is fine under certain circumstances, but he (should) know as well as anyone that ultimately there is no positive "natural" content of modern sovereign order. It is always grounded in an abyssal free decision.
Does Lenin have blood on his hands? Obviously. But so does every American President going back to Washington. Does he have a lot of blood on his hands? Yes. But then again, it is hard to even imagine the situation he and his comrades were in. Consider that if the revolution failed, if the bolsheviks could not institute law and order from the chaos that was Russia, he and the others would almost certainly have been killed themselves. There were real enemies. Consider also how preposterous it sounds that Lenin actually willed or wanted a famine. But once a famine has come, deaths are inevitable. To what extent was the famine directly their fault and to what extent was some kind of famine going to happen anyway? I don't know the answer to that question. But permit me a follow up question: to what extent is a famine sufficient reason to abdicate power? It should be obvious that Lenin and the bolsheviks made plenty of terrible mistakes. But was the October Revolution itself a mistake? I say not.
|
This thread likes to talk pages about things that could be wrapped up in a mere sentence ("Tragedy of the Commons" would pretty well sum up the last 10 pages), while just totally ignoring current events.
I think that might be the point. Some posters revel in taking this thread anywhere but current events. Which is strange, because I'm pretty sure that's what this thread was for.
If you're all done discussing Vladimir fucking Lenin, the post-WW2 order is actually in need of some attention.
edit: next time one of you mods ban me, can you make it permanent please? Every time I come here I manage to lose more faith in humanity. This isn't a fucking contest over wannabe history professors. Discuss some fucking news, for a change.
|
On July 11 2018 22:47 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 11:56 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 11:46 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 11:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 11:32 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 11:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 10:49 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 09:28 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 05:39 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
GH, I have read a lot about Russian history. From the Kievan Rus and the Rurikovich dynasty who ruled Muscovy right up until the Time of Troubles, to the Romanov dynasty and its two standouts, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, to the February Revolution, the October Revolution and Lenin's seizure of power.
Lenin came to power in October of 1917. Lenin immediately established the Cheka on December 20, 1917. Cheka was the first iteration of the Soviet secret police, and it was led by the very weird Polish aristocrat Felix Dzerzhinsky. Dzerzhinsky was very open about what Cheka did, stating,
[quote] Cheka's name was changed a lot in the 1920s and 1930s, eventually becoming the NKVD and then finally the KGB. But the organization never changed from being a bunch of fanatics and alcoholics in a chamber of horrors. Here are just some of the atrocities carried out by the organization that Lenin created immediately following his rise to power.
[quote]
And yet you have the gall to claim that Lenin would have been better than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? In fact, you double down on praising Lenin when other people started to call you out on your ridiculous assertions.
[quote]
One of the better ones? You are one of the most aggressively ignorant individuals I have ever met.
EDIT: I would like to award Plansix 50 points of awesomeness because this is the best description of GH I've read.
[quote] French Republicans also had a reign of terror and yet that doesn't diminish republicanism. Sometimes you must pass through the terror of abstract universalism to realize the concrete version. There are such things as real enemies. Sometimes it is a life and death struggle. Yeah, all those Russia peasants they killed for not wanting to starve to death were enemies of the people. How is this a productive comment? You are collapsing a very complicated and thorny problem (food production and distribution) into a simple yay or nay on the October Revolution. It is about as productive as the stirring historical argument that rutherless rules must be overthrown by ruthless revolutionaries. A stirring insight of historical merit. Lenin was the son of a wealthly, but not aristocratic family, who went to overthrow the aristocracy of his country. And then immediately turned around and used violence against the remaining aristocracy and any memember of the poor, uneducated peasants that got in his way. His and his allies positions improved, while overthrowing some truly rotten aristocrats, but it was the half nots that suffered in the end. Nope sorry. You just throw in this jejune historical trivia without ever addressing the point. I'm not sure what you don't understand about "sometimes it is a life and death struggle." There have been a lot of life and death struggles throughout history. Are you attempting to argue that the Russian revolution has some unique quality that allows us to overlook the brutality of Lenin and his followers? What the fuck are you even talking about? "There have been a lot of life and death struggles throughout history?" What kind of non-sequitur is that? Is it a coincidence that you haven't mentioned the French Revolution despite that being integral to my first post on this subject or are you just a fortune cookie that spits out irrelevancies and then asks loaded questions? What I'm actually asking you to do is actually do some history, wrestle with all the facts, and then make an even-handed assessment of the October Revolution and Lenin in view of those facts. You act as if his opponents are the "good guys" from the start. Are you fucking kidding me? The Russian aristocracy where complete shit. Legitimate abusive authoritarian monsters that abused the peasantry and growing middle class. Lenin and his followers were the result of generations of abuse by the aristocracy. It is possible that two groups of assholes fight over power and one group of assholes comes out on top. That is a healthy number of conflicts in history. If you asked me which of those two groups would I rather be ruled by, given what I know, I’d risk exile. This was at a time where we still kept colonies right? Think about it for a moment... Russian commoners hadn't gotten to enjoy the relatively high levels of standards that commoners in the West had received. The West had been exploiting labor and resources from colonies and slaves, and our commoners were not exploited as badly. That's why there was such a fierce response in Russia when universal suffrage was introduced, because they had no one "below" them to exploit.
The definitions you are using are far to broad to discuss history of this(or any) era. What you are describing as “The West” in the modern day sense did not or barely had begun to exist in 1917. German wouldn’t be the country it is until 1918. The Ottoman Empire still existed. It is very hard to have that discussion and I'm not sure that anything productive will come out of it.
And this constant need to point out that America or the West was just as bad during these eras is tiresome. Of course that is true. There are no pure, good nations. All of our histories are stained with crimes against our fellow humans. Discussing history to dunk on one specific culture, people or nation is no better than discussing it to whitewash and glorify your own nation’s history.
|
On July 11 2018 22:47 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 11:56 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 11:46 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 11:42 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 11:32 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 11:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 10:49 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 09:28 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 05:39 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
GH, I have read a lot about Russian history. From the Kievan Rus and the Rurikovich dynasty who ruled Muscovy right up until the Time of Troubles, to the Romanov dynasty and its two standouts, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, to the February Revolution, the October Revolution and Lenin's seizure of power.
Lenin came to power in October of 1917. Lenin immediately established the Cheka on December 20, 1917. Cheka was the first iteration of the Soviet secret police, and it was led by the very weird Polish aristocrat Felix Dzerzhinsky. Dzerzhinsky was very open about what Cheka did, stating,
[quote] Cheka's name was changed a lot in the 1920s and 1930s, eventually becoming the NKVD and then finally the KGB. But the organization never changed from being a bunch of fanatics and alcoholics in a chamber of horrors. Here are just some of the atrocities carried out by the organization that Lenin created immediately following his rise to power.
[quote]
And yet you have the gall to claim that Lenin would have been better than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? In fact, you double down on praising Lenin when other people started to call you out on your ridiculous assertions.
[quote]
One of the better ones? You are one of the most aggressively ignorant individuals I have ever met.
EDIT: I would like to award Plansix 50 points of awesomeness because this is the best description of GH I've read.
[quote] French Republicans also had a reign of terror and yet that doesn't diminish republicanism. Sometimes you must pass through the terror of abstract universalism to realize the concrete version. There are such things as real enemies. Sometimes it is a life and death struggle. Yeah, all those Russia peasants they killed for not wanting to starve to death were enemies of the people. How is this a productive comment? You are collapsing a very complicated and thorny problem (food production and distribution) into a simple yay or nay on the October Revolution. It is about as productive as the stirring historical argument that rutherless rules must be overthrown by ruthless revolutionaries. A stirring insight of historical merit. Lenin was the son of a wealthly, but not aristocratic family, who went to overthrow the aristocracy of his country. And then immediately turned around and used violence against the remaining aristocracy and any memember of the poor, uneducated peasants that got in his way. His and his allies positions improved, while overthrowing some truly rotten aristocrats, but it was the half nots that suffered in the end. Nope sorry. You just throw in this jejune historical trivia without ever addressing the point. I'm not sure what you don't understand about "sometimes it is a life and death struggle." There have been a lot of life and death struggles throughout history. Are you attempting to argue that the Russian revolution has some unique quality that allows us to overlook the brutality of Lenin and his followers? What the fuck are you even talking about? "There have been a lot of life and death struggles throughout history?" What kind of non-sequitur is that? Is it a coincidence that you haven't mentioned the French Revolution despite that being integral to my first post on this subject or are you just a fortune cookie that spits out irrelevancies and then asks loaded questions? What I'm actually asking you to do is actually do some history, wrestle with all the facts, and then make an even-handed assessment of the October Revolution and Lenin in view of those facts. You act as if his opponents are the "good guys" from the start. Are you fucking kidding me? The Russian aristocracy where complete shit. Legitimate abusive authoritarian monsters that abused the peasantry and growing middle class. Lenin and his followers were the result of generations of abuse by the aristocracy. It is possible that two groups of assholes fight over power and one group of assholes comes out on top. That is a healthy number of conflicts in history. If you asked me which of those two groups would I rather be ruled by, given what I know, I’d risk exile. This was at a time where we still kept colonies right? Think about it for a moment... Russian commoners hadn't gotten to enjoy the relatively high levels of standards that commoners in the West had received. The West had been exploiting labor and resources from colonies and slaves, and our commoners were not exploited as badly. That's why there was such a fierce response in Russia when universal suffrage was introduced, because they had no one "below" them to exploit.
What? Siberia... hello. Was ripe full of natural resources that the Tsar's knew replaced any need for colonies, never mind the fact that they didn't have enough manpower to exploit Alaska. Then there was the great game in Asia.
Serfdom was finally abolished by Alexander II but his premature death didn't end the commoners being exploited as most didn't have the resources to buy land or even make into cities to find work. Then of course the working conditions.
|
On July 11 2018 23:10 Leporello wrote:
This thread likes to talk pages about things that could be wrapped up in a mere sentence ("Tragedy of the Commons" would pretty well sum up the last 10 pages), while just totally ignoring current events.
I think that might be the point. Some posters revel in taking this thread anywhere but current events. Which is strange, because I'm pretty sure that's what this thread was for.
If you're all done discussing Vladimir fucking Lenin, the post-WW2 order is actually in need of some attention.
edit: next time one of you mods ban me, can you make it permanent please? Every time I come here I manage to lose more faith in humanity. This isn't a fucking contest over wannabe history professors. Discuss some fucking news, for a change.
actually i think the discussion is about how history cannot be wrapped up in a tidy sentence (fragment) like, "tragedy of the commons." people who suggest as much tend to be pretty bad at analyzing "current events" as well. but i am guilty as charged when it comes to reveling in taking this thread to topics beyond the latest bullshit from trump's mouth.
|
It's not JUST about the resources themselves, but how you get them and how you treat the people who get them for you. If you don't pay those people what the resources are worth*, then you end up exploiting those people for your own gain. In the West, living standards were better because we were still exploiting others so the proletariat was not defunct enough to gather together for a communist revolution.
The aristocrats treated Russian commoners like trash, so they rebelled due to their terrible living conditions/situation. And then -- what is sometimes falsely referred to as a tragedy of the commons -- the newly installed elites in Russia started becoming the exploiters. In order to get the Siberian resources they put in place the gulags, did they not? Eg. exploitation. Not to mention what they did in Eastern Europe. It's all the same fundamental thing, just different ways of getting there.
*intrinsic worth, not "global market" worth
|
On July 11 2018 13:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 12:50 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 12:42 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 12:30 Sermokala wrote:
I'm still baffled on how trump is anyway near as bad as lenin. Lenin actualy had peopled killed en mass as a matter of policy. Trump is a bumbiling con man whos just shitty to people.
Seperatring families is better than killing families. Its not good but for christs said he hasn't ordered the undocumented workers killed after they are rounded up. Trump is constrained by governmental institutions. He's an enfant terrible that is friends with mobsters. It's pure delusion to think that he would have any moral compunctions about killing and torturing people under different circumstances. Perhaps now would be a good time to explain to your leftist compatriots why the rule of law actually matters. There is a curious paradox where the (post)modern conservative asserts the primacy of the rule of law knowing full well that it is advocacy of order as such, the very form of order, as based in an unjustifiable (that is, ungrounded) decision. The concrete content of this order is arbitrary (although property rights seems to be popular these days). Carl Schmitt's decisionism is the basis for this conservatism which is a return to an unconditional authority that cannot be grounded in positive reasons, and is opposed to any traditionalist notion of organic community norms. So yes, the paradox here is that we cannot escape decisionism and the struggle for hegemony. Now the question is: why is Lenin a properly ethical actor? Because, of course, he is. So how can we distinguish the bolshevik imposition of a new hegemonic order, with its own arbitrary rule of law, from that arbitrary decisionism which grounds the US government and its Constitution? Isn't the terror itself the imposition of the necessary form of order as such? Why do the conservative revisionists in this thread insist on dismissing the events of 1917 as the criminal scheming of a few power-hungry monsters?
Now, now, let's not get distracted from what you actually posted: Trump is essentially a monster who would do terrible things but for the "governmental institutions" that constrain him. I'm inviting you to discuss what those institutions are, how they work, and why they matter. And in particular, I'm inviting you to discuss why the rule of law matters in the efficacy of those institutions in constraining the Orange One.
|
On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:
Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant.
Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then?
I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans.
The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already.
edit:
I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter.
Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier.
If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries.
|
On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries.
Wouldn't a great way to get them to pay their fair share to be just cut our defense spending? Pull out and force them? Seems like we enable the world to piggyback off our crazy defense budget
|
On July 11 2018 23:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 13:41 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 12:50 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 12:42 IgnE wrote:On July 11 2018 12:30 Sermokala wrote:
I'm still baffled on how trump is anyway near as bad as lenin. Lenin actualy had peopled killed en mass as a matter of policy. Trump is a bumbiling con man whos just shitty to people.
Seperatring families is better than killing families. Its not good but for christs said he hasn't ordered the undocumented workers killed after they are rounded up. Trump is constrained by governmental institutions. He's an enfant terrible that is friends with mobsters. It's pure delusion to think that he would have any moral compunctions about killing and torturing people under different circumstances. Perhaps now would be a good time to explain to your leftist compatriots why the rule of law actually matters. There is a curious paradox where the (post)modern conservative asserts the primacy of the rule of law knowing full well that it is advocacy of order as such, the very form of order, as based in an unjustifiable (that is, ungrounded) decision. The concrete content of this order is arbitrary (although property rights seems to be popular these days). Carl Schmitt's decisionism is the basis for this conservatism which is a return to an unconditional authority that cannot be grounded in positive reasons, and is opposed to any traditionalist notion of organic community norms. So yes, the paradox here is that we cannot escape decisionism and the struggle for hegemony. Now the question is: why is Lenin a properly ethical actor? Because, of course, he is. So how can we distinguish the bolshevik imposition of a new hegemonic order, with its own arbitrary rule of law, from that arbitrary decisionism which grounds the US government and its Constitution? Isn't the terror itself the imposition of the necessary form of order as such? Why do the conservative revisionists in this thread insist on dismissing the events of 1917 as the criminal scheming of a few power-hungry monsters? Now, now, let's not get distracted from what you actually posted: Trump is essentially a monster who would do terrible things but for the "governmental institutions" that constrain him. I'm inviting you to discuss what those institutions are, how they work, and why they matter. And in particular, I'm inviting you to discuss why the rule of law matters in the efficacy of those institutions in constraining the Orange One.
you'll have to be more specific. i am not sure who (on the left) has claimed that its a bad thing that trump cannot do whatever he wants
|
On July 11 2018 23:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 17:20 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1016952343450046464Another year, another chance for Trump to show us how wrong we are, and that he is in fact a defender of democracy and not a Putin-plant. Oh, well, I guess there's next year? If NATO still exists by then? I bet Germany is really happy it sent all those soldiers to Afghanistan. When every other country was done, Germany was still there. My brother served other there with Germans. He never saw the French or English. Just the Germans. The most casualties Germany has faced since WW2 was this, Afghanistan, entirely for our sake and against the political-will of the German people. And this is the thanks we give them... Republicans are traitors to my country and to democracy, and I will treat them as such until they completely apologize for this shit. No civil war. I just pretend you're all dead already. edit: https://twitter.com/GarthDerby/status/1016955906523783168I mean, that sums it up, but the guy makes the tiresome mistake of acting like this is all just dumbfuckery, and not malicious intent. At this point, it is clearly the latter. Trump doesn't need to "read history" (his voters certainly fucking do) he needs to be bayoneted by a ghost of a WW2 soldier. If the Europeans really cared about NATO, they'd meet their defense funding obligations. Instead, they're freeloading on America's defense spending. Now, I'm just going to go out on a limb here and presume that you're someone who doesn't like the US spending as much as it does on defense. Surely you're not on board with the idea that the US should be subsidizing the national defense of foreign, wealthy countries.
Although that is true, the way Trump is handling that topic is like that of a petulant 5 year old being told he can’t have what he wants. It is a basic rule of civility that you don’t fight in front of your party guests. Trumps efforts to publicly shun world leaders only creates more work behind the scenes to reassure our allies that care about NATO. And it makes it harder for those leaders to obtain the funds back home.
But it does score points with folks back home who are really into publicly dunking on EU leaders because its feels good. A crowd pleaser with little substance behind it, much like a reality show.
|
On July 11 2018 23:32 a_flayer wrote:
It's not JUST about the resources themselves, but how you get them and how you treat the people who get them for you. If you don't pay those people what the resources are worth*, then you end up exploiting those people for your own gain. In the West, living standards were better because we were still exploiting others so the proletariat was not defunct enough to gather together for a communist revolution.
The aristocrats treated Russian commoners like trash, so they rebelled due to their terrible living conditions/situation. And then -- what is sometimes falsely referred to as a tragedy of the commons -- the newly installed elites in Russia started becoming the exploiters. In order to get the Siberian resources they put in place the gulags, did they not? Eg. exploitation. Not to mention what they did in Eastern Europe. It's all the same fundamental thing, just different ways of getting there.
*intrinsic worth, not "global market" worth
That could be in part due to geography, Russia never experienced the Reformation and only a small portion of the Renaissance, whereas Europe had access to Humanism and so on. Russia was still stuck in the clutch of the Byzantine church. Even if neighboring countries such as Poland saw immense growth due to the Renaissance, Russia never had a chance not only due to being many differing territories at the time but the vast distances and few if any connections to the outside world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
