|
SedanChair posted:Who wouldn't be proud of America? Quakers, jazz, MLK, etc. Do Americans think the Society of Friends has its origins in the colonies or something?
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
davidb posted:sure if your a natural shitter Well, you're Prussian, so you would say this, wouldn't you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
davidb posted:you cant give a straight answer can you? are all countries evil incarnate? If not then which country do you think has been a more positive influence on the world? If you cant answer that then why are you arguing America isnt that country? You must have an alternate option or else your just wasting time Sorry the real world is more complex than "and then we blowed up the bad guys and got the girl and did barrel rolls into the sunset and then all the Muslims found Jesus the next day"
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:People bringing up that the USSR did much good for the world do not mean they did it directly, but by the mere existence of Communism being an alternative to Capitalism which lead the West to adopting many of the policies that lifted up and made life better (for first world) workers and with it's decline and fall we have seen those gains reversed and destroyed. Also they did it directly. Rent caps at 5% of income and averaging at 3% 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:People bringing up that the USSR did much good for the world do not mean they did it directly, but by the mere existence of Communism being an alternative to Capitalism which lead the West to adopting many of the policies that lifted up and made life better (for first world) workers and with it's decline and fall we have seen those gains reversed and destroyed. That seems like a really forgiving narrative for the communists. The existence of Communism did not provide (e.g.) massive government assistance to rebuild Europe, except in the sense that it provided an existential threat that Europeans had to overcome quickly. Most of the "left" policies adopted by the West were either due to "poo poo we need to rebuild fast, and central planning lets you do that easily (up to a point)" or "poo poo we have tons of money and literally no one can oppose us, free money for everyone". I mean remember that the Interstate system in the US had to be billed as a military project just to get it to pass, despite the objective benefits it provided in other fields. computer parts fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
It's also worth working out that Europe had social democratic traditions before Soviet Communism emerged, and was already well on the path to welfare reforms without it. If anything, the USSR became a stick to beat socialists with both then and now. Stalin was the gravedigger of communism, nobody did more damage to the left in the 20th century than him (this is a view common amongst 20th and 21st century communists).
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That seems like a really forgiving narrative for the communists. The existence of Communism did not provide (e.g.) massive government assistance to rebuild Europe, except in the sense that it provided an existential threat that Europeans had to overcome quickly. The existence of the USSR provided a really nice argument for various Social Democrats to get the bourgeoise to play ball in the first place. Basically if the capitalists didn't work with the Social Democrats the alternative was the communists mobilizing the working classes, and the USSR showed why avoiding this was in the best interest of the capitalist class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:42
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The existence of the USSR provided a really nice argument for various Social Democrats to get the bourgeoise to play ball in the first place. Basically if the capitalists didn't work with the Social Democrats the alternative was the communists mobilizing the working classes, and the USSR showed why avoiding this was in the best interest of the capitalist class. No. The existence of the radical left did this, not the existence of the USSR. You are treating the two as interchangeable in a highly problematic way. Bismarck didn't implement social programs in Germany in the 1870's (very generous policies, too) because of a country that didn't exist yet. He did it because he was bricking it because of the Paris Commune. Britain's initial drive towards social welfare pre-USSR came in the early 1900's (again, pre-USSR) with the twin rise of the Labour Party, and with Britain's failures in the Boer War; Britain had tremendous problems finding large numbers of able-bodied recruits, which created a tremendous impetus towards improving living standards. Likewise, the further development of the welfare state in the 1940's in Britain was not driven by fear of the USSR. Communism was not a political threat in Britain. It was mostly driven by political conviction and the widespread suffering of war. Fear of the USSR actually drove a pushback against social democratic and socialist ideals in a lot of countries, and the jacobin nadir of Stalinism has also resulted in a wholesale discrediting of the far left in the eyes of many people, wrongly or rightly. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:44
|
|
computer parts posted:That seems like a really forgiving narrative for the communists. The existence of Communism did not provide (e.g.) massive government assistance to rebuild Europe, except in the sense that it provided an existential threat that Europeans had to overcome quickly. I'm sure endogenous left-wing groups had nothing to do with it, since the USA delaying its further development of the welfare state to the 1960s and the high-tide of radicalism is easily explainable.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No. The existence of the radical left did this, not the existence of the USSR. You are treating the two as interchangeable in a highly problematic way. You might want to read what I wrote again, with a special eye towards the distinction I make between the example of what might happen (i.e. the USSR) and the people who might make that happen (i.e. the indigenous revolutionary labour movement).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You might want to read what I wrote again, with a special eye towards the distinction I make between the example of what might happen (i.e. the USSR) and the people who might make that happen (i.e. the indigenous revolutionary labour movement). The USSR showed why the people in general wouldn't want to support a Communist revolution, not just the people in power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The USSR showed why the people in general wouldn't want to support a Communist revolution, not just the people in power. Sure, if you have a child's understanding of early to mid 20th century labour movements. EDIT: And a child's reading comprehension, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:52
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You might want to read what I wrote again, with a special eye towards the distinction I make between the example of what might happen (i.e. the USSR) and the people who might make that happen (i.e. the indigenous revolutionary labour movement). That still doesn't explain a lot of European cases where communism was never really a viable domestic political threat. Some countries just had a successful, more moderate socialist movement, or were beneficiaries of conservative ideas of Christian paternalism to some degree. You don't need a revolutionary labour movement (just a normal labour movement can be sufficient).
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Sure, if you have a child's understanding of early to mid 20th century labour movements. Your post was: Cerebral Bore posted:The existence of the USSR provided a really nice argument for various Social Democrats to get the bourgeoise to play ball in the first place. Basically if the capitalists didn't work with the Social Democrats the alternative was the communists mobilizing the working classes, and the USSR showed why avoiding this was in the best interest of the capitalist class. The USSR by the mid to late 40s was also a noted shithole run by an authoritarian (that's why 1984 was penned by a socialist!).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That still doesn't explain a lot of European cases where communism was never really a viable domestic political threat. Some countries just had a successful, more moderate socialist movement. Yes, specifically in cases the moderate socialist movements could get positive results for the working class through corporativist class cooperation. The question is why they could show results, and a large part of that answer is because the captialist class feared that if the moderates couldn't, then the working class would be driven into the hands of the radical revolutionary movements. Therefore the capitalists were forced to give concessions in return for keeping the working class content. The USSR, especially in the 1920s and 1930s was actually seen as a viable alternative to capitalist society, not only by workers but also by the capitalist class, and this lent even more credence to the revolutionary left as a boogeyman. Contrast to today, where all criticism of neoliberal capitalism can be dismissed because There Is No Alternative. computer parts posted:Your post was: Sure, if you have a child's understanding of early to mid 20th century labour movements and the concept of examples. Because when it comes to warning examples, the important thing isn't really what they actually are, but rather what they're percieved as.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Your post was: 1984 wasn't about socialism, George Orwell was actually quite a bit of a dang socialist himself. You Americans just get taught that reading because it's useful as propaganda if misinterpreted in a certain way. e: misread your post But still, mid to late 1940's USSR was no more or less a shithole than anywhere else than anywhere else in Europe that had seen fighting. If it was worse, if was because the fighting it had seen was worse, and it did more to save the world from naziism BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:1984 wasn't about socialism, George Orwell was actually quite a bit of a dang socialist himself. You Americans just get taught that reading because it's useful as propaganda if misinterpreted in a certain way. Yes, 1984 was about authoritarianism. The thing that lots of people want to avoid, regardless of political persuasion. I even literally said that Orwell was a socialist. Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
I would say the USSR was a shithole, but that's really because of the backwardness of the Russian Empire. The communist party were busy making it more industrialized so they can't really be blamed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Possibly they might be blamed for killing shitloads of people. That seems like a thing you can blame people for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Possibly they might be blamed for killing shitloads of people. That seems like a thing you can blame people for. Can't blame people for famines, that's up to nature. Unless you mean nazis, in which case you should be licking their balls for saving the world. Personally, I don't consider nazis to be human.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Yeah, the idea that Stalin was just doing an inevitably bloody process of industrialisation is one of the more poo poo-eating forms of revisionism going.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yeah, the idea that Stalin was just doing an inevitably bloody process of industrialisation is one of the more poo poo-eating forms of revisionism going. Guess you prefer a Nazi Europe to a brutal industrialization process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
I must have forgotten about that whole war against the nazis that ran from 1945 to 1989.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Back To 99 posted:Guess you prefer a Nazi Europe to a brutal industrialization process. Does the industrialization come before or after the gulags?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
davidb posted:you cant give a straight answer can you? are all countries evil incarnate? If not then which country do you think has been a more positive influence on the world? If you cant answer that then why are you arguing America isnt that country? You must have an alternate option or else your just wasting time You do realize that it's entirely possible to believe that there is no such thing as a "good" powerful country, right? What does it accomplish to try and figure out which one is the least bad? What in the world is accomplished by talking about how much better the US (or any other country for that matter) is than other powerful nations? I can think of countless things that are accomplished by being critical of nation-states, but not a single one that is accomplished by jacking off about how one is "number 1."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:29
|
|
Back To 99 posted:Guess you prefer a Nazi Europe to a brutal industrialization process. This can only be a troll. But by all means, let's all thank comrade Lysenko for defeating Hitler for us. And Stalin, for far-sightedly predicting Nazism in Europe when he started the first five year plan in 1928. I'm sure gulags and intentional mass starvation for decades were the only way we could have got to V-day. Go read a book.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I can think of countless things that are accomplished by being critical of nation-states, but not a single one that is accomplished by jacking off about how one is "number 1." Just one example: there's an a in the middle, a w at the start, and it ends on an r.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Can't blame people for famines, that's up to nature. Your subtle posting style devoid of any sense of facts, figures or thought would be perfect in GBS. Become what you were born to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This can only be a troll. Read one yourself. Or preferably the post you are replying to. I never supported gulags. And yes, it seems like prioritizing industry while allowing for the risk of a famine was the only way the USSR could keep up with the west. If you knew anything about the USSR you would know that an invasion from the west were their primary concern from its conception until the cold war. Note: I don't support the death penalty, genocide, dictatorships, authoritarianism or anything else you associate with Stalin or Stalin himself. He was power-hungry murderer. I still think you are going too far in your rabid anti-communism to not say the industrialization was necessary for victory, or a great achievement in itself. Party In My Diapee fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:36
|
|
Back To 99 posted:Read one yourself. This could have been achieved without killing so many millions of people. It flatly could have. Putting aside the fact some of the deaths by famine were intentional. Industrialisation a la Stalin was a process of mass murder as well as a process of increasing productivity. I don't have to thank Stalin for killing a lot of people unnecessarily, both murderously and through negligence, when results could have been achieved in other ways. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
The Bolsheviks won in Russia because of their dominance in the Army which is fairly unique in terms of socialism. Attempts to do similar things in central Europe failed because the army was a right wing death squad which is the norm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Do Americans think the Society of Friends has its origins in the colonies or something? I thought about it, thought about you complaining and posted it anyway. If'n you chase 'em off we get to claim 'em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 15:20
|
|
Disinterested posted:This could have been achieved without killing so many millions of people. It flatly could have. Putting aside the fact some of the deaths by famine were intentional. Stalin's explicit reasoning for abandoning the right wing of the Bolsheviks and embracing forced collectivization was in order to arm the country against a possible invasion. Not specifically against the Nazis, but it wasn't hard to see by 1928 that between the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, the USSR had a lot of enemies, all of whom were better-armed and more industrialized than they. So it's not so much "could they have industrialized" as "could they have achieved the crash, militarizable industrialization necessary without the use of force", which is a much thornier and probably unanswerable question.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 15:28
|
|
Effectronica posted:Stalin's explicit reasoning for abandoning the right wing of the Bolsheviks and embracing forced collectivization was in order to arm the country against a possible invasion. Not specifically against the Nazis, but it wasn't hard to see by 1928 that between the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, the USSR had a lot of enemies, all of whom were better-armed and more industrialized than they. I didn't say re-armament wasn't a factor, but to say 'good on Stalin for doing it or we'd have to be speaking German' applies a totally ahistorical moral judgement to the decision to industrialise. "could they have achieved the crash, militarizable industrialization necessary without the use of force" is the question I am asking. Some force inevitable. The desolation of Stalinism - not necessary.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:Cuba, they don't do much bad and do a lot of good, at least in this millenium, Sure they funded some shady groups in the past, but they have moved away from that and if we are going by net good there is a real case to be made for them versus America. the question was which country has been the most positive influence on the world. Cuba has been almost no influence on the world other than getting sanctioned. You cant just name a country that might or might not have done less bad than good. It needs to be a country that has influenced in the world in a positive or negative way. So you cant get away with naming non active states like switzerland or norway which do nothing. Ytlaya posted:You do realize that it's entirely possible to believe that there is no such thing as a "good" powerful country, right? What does it accomplish to try and figure out which one is the least bad? its possible to believe that. For sure all the purist neckbeards have standards for nation states un attainable in reality. Even though all the cool kids on the internet are contrarian. And its very chic to poo poo on america because it did something. Its naive to think America isnt good and #1. the simple reasons are 1) the most peaceful era of humanity is due to one nation(america) having the one, dominating army so powerful that the rest of the world has demilitarized(for the most part) and the few that still have militaries are so outclassed they just sit at home doing nothing. 2) while they did help put a stop to germany and japan, their more important role was putting the brakes on the soviet union long enough for them to collapse. sparing and freeing countless countries from the rule of the iron curtain. 3) the role model for democracy and capitalism. And because America is so dominant and so #1 other countries try to emulate them. Something that wouldnt happen just because lets say.... britain has democracy, capitalism, thats just not as pursuasive an example to follow. Besides being a role model it also takes active steps to promote democracy/capitalism whatever complaints we may have against America those 3 things puts the US firmly in the most influential, good, #1 nation in all of history davidb fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
davidb posted:Cuba has been almost no influence on the world other than getting sanctioned. Cuba, the country which every time there is a natural disaster or epidemic breakout has more doctors on the ground than any other nation, and whose doctors stay there for longer. No influence on the world. None whatsoever. Wow. Also: 1) Citation needed 2) Contradicts itself. 3) i) America's role model is Ancient Rome. Therefore it follows that anyone who you assume is following America's lead is actually following Ancient Rome's lead, meaning your admiration is misplaced. You worship Ancient Rome, face it. Paganism is cooler than Christianity anyway, and Rome only started sucking and being boring when it got Christian. ii) You keep making this claim about spreading democracy, when in fact all America really exports is dictatorship and torture. Pinochet, The Shah - in fact, let's c/p from wikipedia here. Latin America Presidents Emílio G. Médici (left) and Richard Nixon, December 1971. A hardliner, Médici sponsored the greatest human rights abuses of Brazil's military regime. During his government, persecution and torture of dissidents, harassment against journalists and press censorship became ubiquitous. A 2014 report by Brazil's National Truth Commission states that the United States was involved with teaching the Brazilian military regime torture techniques.[10] U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger shaking hands with Augusto Pinochet in 1976. Porfirio Díaz (Mexico) (1876–1911)[11][12] Institutional Revolutionary Party (Mexico) (1929–2000)[13] Juan Vicente Gómez (Venezuela) (1908–35)[14] Manuel Estrada Cabrera (Guatemala) (1898–1920)[15] Jorge Ubico (Guatemala) (1931–44)[15] Fulgencio Batista (Cuba) (1952–59)[16] Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic) (1930–61)[17] Efraín Ríos Montt and the rest of the military junta in Guatemala (1954–86)[18][19] Revolutionary Government Junta of El Salvador (1979–82)[20] Hugo Banzer (Bolivia) (1971–78)[21] National Reorganization Process (Argentina) (1976–83)[22] Brazilian military government (1964–85)[10][23] Somoza family (Nicaragua) (1936–79)[24] François Duvalier (Haiti) (1957–71)[25] Jean-Claude Duvalier (Haiti) (1971–86)[25] Omar Torrijos (Panama) (1968–81)[26] Manuel Noriega (Panama) (1983–89)[26] Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay) (1954–89)[27] Augusto Pinochet (Chile) (1973–90)[28] Asia Current president Barack Obama and First Lady with Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow of Turkmenistan, September 2009, one of the most repressive regimes in the world,[29] supported with millions of dollars in military aid. Middle East special envoy Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein on 19–20 December 1983. Syngman Rhee (South Korea) (1948–60)[31] Park Chung-hee (South Korea) (1961–79)[32] Chun Doo-Hwan (South Korea) (1979–88)[33] Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnam) (1955–63)[34] Lon Nol (Cambodia) (1970–75)[35] Yahya Khan (Pakistan) (1971)[36][37] Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran) (1941–79)[38][39] Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines) (1965–86)[40][41] Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (Pakistan) (1978–88)[42] Saddam Hussein (Iraq) (1982–90)[43] Suharto (Indonesia) (1967–98)[44] Truong Tan Sang (Vietnam) (2011–present)[45] Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan) (1990–present)[45] Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan) (1999–2008)[46] Ali Abdullah Saleh (Yemen) (1990–2012)[47] Emomalii Rahmon (Tajikistan) (1994–present)[45] Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow (Turkmenistan) (2006–present)[45] House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) (1945–present)[48][49][50] Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa (Bahrain) (1999–present)[51] Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (Qatar) (1995-2013)[52] Qaboos bin Said al Said (Oman)[50] Africa Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., 1973. King Hassan II, predecessors and successors (Morocco) (1777–present)[53] Gaafar Nimeiry (Sudan) (1969–85)[54] Samuel Doe (Liberia) (1980–90)[55] Apartheid South Africa (1948–94)[56] Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia) (1991–2012)[45] Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (Equatorial Guinea) (1979–present)[45] Mobutu Sese Seko (Democratic Republic of the Congo) (1965–97)[57][58] Hissène Habré (Chad) (1982–90)[59] Hosni Mubarak (Egypt) (1981-2011)[60] Idriss Déby (Chad) (1990–present)[61] Yoweri Museveni (Uganda) (1986–present)[62] Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (Tunisia) (1987–2010) [63] Paul Kagame (Rwanda) (2000–present)[64] Europe Francisco Franco (Francoist Spain) (supported from 1959 to 1975).[65] Greek military junta of 1967–74[66] António de Oliveira Salazar (Portugal) (from 1932 to 1975)[67] Turkish millitary junta (Turkey)(1980-1991)[68] e: Also, note how these days, when not under Soviet rule, everyone is fleeing Poland in droves because it has become such a lovely place to live. Can't walk down the street without meeting a pole in most of England, for example. People were much happier in Poland during the days of the USSR, which is evident in how few of them were fleeing BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:People were much happier in Poland during the days of the USSR, which is evident in how few of them were fleeing Effectronica posted:Stalin's explicit reasoning for abandoning the right wing of the Bolsheviks and embracing forced collectivization was in order to arm the country against a possible invasion. Not specifically against the Nazis, but it wasn't hard to see by 1928 that between the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, the USSR had a lot of enemies, all of whom were better-armed and more industrialized than they.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
You guys are still arguing with someone who legit saysquote:the most influential, good, #1 nation in all of history This is something like a 3rd grader would say after reciting the pledge of allegiance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
A lot of that is working and trading with totalitarian regimes. I suppose it's fair to criticize the US for doing so but the same is true of most other first world countries. The EU is happily trading with Vietnam for instance. The Soviets literally had to wall their people in because they were leaving. Of course you're right more people are leaving now than when they couldn't leave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Cuba, the country which every time there is a natural disaster or epidemic breakout has more doctors on the ground than any other nation, and whose doctors stay there for longer. No influence on the world. None whatsoever. You're wrong about all of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 17:29
|
|
