|
Ardennes posted:If anything in the last 60 years the working class and unions have been pretty much demolished and the middle class has been shrinking for decades. It is more difficult to crow about a system that starts to retreat on its gains when it doesn't face entrenched competition.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:If anything in the last 60 years the working class and unions have been pretty much demolished and the middle class has been shrinking for decades. It is more difficult to crow about a system that starts to retreat on its gains when it doesn't face entrenched competition. I would argue the loss of middle class and worker rights has more to do with globalization of capitalism. When asians are doing the job for pennies its impossible to maintain 1950s level of middleclass and workers rights As the standard of living goes up in other parts of the world wages will climb and jobs will move back to locally. Which is what were starting to see already davidb fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
davidb posted:Your a confused little thing arent you, its so cute watching the dumb ones struggle. It's pretty rich when somebody who can't distinguish between were and we're, you're and your, or their, they're and there thinks that someone else is dumb. That's not just typographical errata, it's a legitimate reading comprehension shortfall which most people have overcome by the time they finish grade school. Is also funny when somebody who lies about their skin colour calls somebody else confused. Mods, ban this sick filth. BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I hate to break it to you but Germany had a democracy before the US showed up. If it wasnt for america germany and japan would be under soviet control. So yes their democracy is thanks to america
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes? The Romans were gigantic cocks, what are you talking about. Their existence propelled human development, flow of culture ideas across the mediteranean. For being so bad their collapse signaled the start of the dark ages Being cocks by your wilting flower standards means being a good thing for humanity as a whole by academic standards By your standards no human institution measures up. Yet here we are, a world better now than its ever been. davidb fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes? The Romans were gigantic cocks, what are you talking about. The Romans conquered and pilliaged in an era when that was a season sport. Granted they tried a little harder than was "cool" at the time but they basically played the same game better (as opposed to say ghengis khan who wholesale murdered cities, this wasn't rome's style). Meanwhile barbarian tribes were often knocking on the gates asking in to Rome and when incorporated, roman citizens lived in greater peace and prosperity than their outsider counterparts (for a couple centuries at least). Rome was also a republic for a time. So there's that too. So yeah, this is what I'm calling "lazy postmodern BS".
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
davidb posted:If it wasnt for america germany and japan would be under soviet control. So yes their democracy is thanks to america Why would Japan be under Soviet control? The USSR and Japan had a nonaggression pact, and the Soviets only agreed they would attack Japan at America's urging. The Soviets didn't give a poo poo about Japan overruning the colonies of the capitalist powers that had spent the previous decades trying to destroy the USSR. And what Pacific fleet are the Soviets using to blockade and invade Japan in this America-free counter-history? Why do all the biggest jingoists never know dick about history? asdf32 posted:The Romans conquered and pilliaged in an era when that was a season sport. Granted they tried a little harder than was "cool" at the time but they basically played the same game better (as opposed to say ghengis khan who wholesale murdered cities, this wasn't rome's style). Carthage and Corinth would like to have a word with you. And since the discussion we're having is nationalism in a postmodern world, it's not "postmodern BS" to say that nationalism and empire are bad and we know better now. Bringing up Rome of all things to defend colonialism in 2015 is some dumb poo poo. We have better ways of organizing society. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Hey, this empire is a majestic force for order and human development. Everyone has their place OK? Your place is getting raped to death by a donkey in an arena.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The Romans conquered and pilliaged in an era when that was a season sport. Granted they tried a little harder than was "cool" at the time but they basically played the same game better lol rome was scrub tier compared to the mongols
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:31
|
|
B-but it's so hard being white! Waaaaaagh!
|
SedanChair posted:Let's work together to suppress the forces of anarchy. Yes. A boot on the back of every neck. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey, this empire is a majestic force for order and human development. Everyone has their place OK? Your place is getting raped to death by a donkey in an arena. As long as one good thing happened in an empire, it was worth it. Except for the USSR, they don't get credit for defeating Hitler because Stalin didn't know Hitler was coming when he let millions starve to industrialize the country. But when Mummius sold the whole city of Corinth into slavery he was totally thinking of the Greek and Latin scientific texts that would be passed down through the ages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:the Greek and Latin scientific texts
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Vaginapocalypse posted:lol rome was scrub tier compared to the mongols
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
You know how the Mediterranean used to be dominated by Hellenistic culture after Megas Alexandros killed everybody? This is what the US did to Europe after WW2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Oh my, what would modern society be without the staunch defender of liberty and democracy that is Plato. There's an interesting parallel between modern-day justifications for segregation and Plato's Noble Lie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:As long as one good thing happened in an empire, it was worth it. The USSR did plenty of good things. Why is empire bad again? Leftist revolution for example is active and aggressive state action to reshape society which are essential elements of empire. I think some people hold incompatible ideals of Facebook era individual liberation and collective leftist reform. The ideology that sits most comfortably alongside the anti-imperialist sentiment here is libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:They were creatEd in the first place. Third world gains in East Asia while other regions have been languishing, and if anything the lack of balance of regional development has lead to greater instability. Also, it is looking like growth is slowing dramatically in China and that economic conditions there are possibly worst than their government admits. However, the "creation in the first place" is in a big part due to unions and government protection of them which leads back to the birth pangs of the Cold War. Cingulate posted:% of people in extreme poverty has gone down, life expectancy up, % dictatorships down, median income up. A good % of those dictatorships were ones we supported, especially in Latin America, and largely existed because of the Cold War. Furthermore, there is growing indications that the decline of poverty of the third world was dependent on a middle class in the first world which is continuing to disintegrate. If anything the argument is it is unsustainable, just very likely as "American era peace" looks is it might be. If anything the 1980s to 2008 might be considered a great bubble of growth depended on the middle class, but it didn't necessarily result in a third world middle class to replace it and if jobs return to the first world, they will be the ones with the most minimal pay and thus far reduced ability to spend on consumer products. Basically, the system is being squeezed dry. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Third world gains in East Asia while other regions have been languishing, and if anything the lack of balance of regional development has lead to greater instability. Also, it is looking like growth is slowing dramatically in China and that economic conditions there are possibly worst than their government admits. Sure, the question of sustainability is a heavy one. But our doubts about the future do not make the prosperity of the present disappear. After a terrible depression in the 90s, Africa has improved as the rest of the world has - at faster rates than the west, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The USSR did plenty of good things. You want democratic government and social justice, but you don't want to murder the darker races for their land and oil? Does not compute. ILLOGICAL. ILLOGICAL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:A lot of this is irrelevant, wrong, or not in direct contradiction to the original statement - that, as you agree, the world has improved, tremendously, continuously. You probably should specific what is "irrelevant or wrong" then, and as for the world improving, it depends on who you ask. If you ask for someone form most of the former Soviet Union, it has gotten far worse, as from someone in the satellite states, it most likely has gotten better. In China it has gotten better, in much of Africa it doesn't seem to have changed much. Incomes have risen as a whole, fine but it hasn't "risen all boats" quite the same way or at the same time. The "prosperity" of the present also can very well disappear especially for much of the have-nots of the world, as wealth if anything concentrates in ever fewer hands and the climate destabilizes, many will be left on the losing end. Africa still remains impoverished and destabilized, and higher growth that the West (which isn't too hard to achieve at the moment) isn't much of a place for solace considering they may have missed a period of growth that may not return and are already facing dramatic crises. To be honest, your arguments remind me a lot of what you see in George Friedman's "books" or in the Economist. asdf32 posted:The USSR did plenty of good things. Usually empires lead to abuses of power even if they have theoretically (once) good intentions, if anything it could be said that the "imperial" parts of Soviet policy are what lead to some of the deepest hatred of it especially in Western Ukraine and the satellite states. You are probably thinking of anarchism or anarchist-syndicalism btw not libertarianism. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You want democratic government and social justice, but you don't want to murder the darker races for their land and oil? Does not compute. ILLOGICAL. ILLOGICAL. Exactly because democracy doesn't automatically lead to social justice. Neither does pacifism. What's your opinion if for example a European democracy turns to fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I think some people hold incompatible ideals of Facebook era individual liberation and collective leftist reform. This of course depends on what you mean by collectivist reform. But I don't see many people supporting that the ownership over the means of production be turned over to the workers itt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You probably should specific what is "irrelevant or wrong" then, and as for the world improving, it depends on who you ask. If you ask for someone form most of the former Soviet Union, it has gotten far worse, as from someone in the satellite states, it most likely has gotten better. In China it has gotten better, in much of Africa it doesn't seem to have changed much. Yeah it basically has risen all boats. But let's hear more about how gains for poor people don't really matter and get back to focusing on the first world middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
I love the implicit assumption that there is no better way to help the global poor than to let the rich suck up all the money in this, The Best Of All Possible Worlds
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You probably should specific what is "irrelevant or wrong" then, and as for the world improving, it depends on who you ask. If you ask for someone form most of the former Soviet Union, it has gotten far worse, as from someone in the satellite states, it most likely has gotten better. In China it has gotten better, in much of Africa it doesn't seem to have changed much. We need to look at statistics, not stories. % in poverty, # of dictatorships, median life expectancy etc. Ardennes posted:Incomes have risen as a whole, fine but it hasn't "risen all boats" quite the same way or at the same time. Ardennes posted:The "prosperity" of the present also can very well disappear especially for much of the have-nots of the world, as wealth if anything concentrates in ever fewer hands and the climate destabilizes, many will be left on the losing end. Africa still remains impoverished and destabilized, and higher growth that the West (which isn't too hard to achieve at the moment) isn't much of a place for solace considering they may have missed a period of growth that may not return and are already facing dramatic crises. If we can, with all efforts, only maintain the current rate of progress in the face of climate change, growing inequality and the old enemies of racism etc., that would be something to be very thankful for. Ardennes posted:To be honest, your arguments remind me a lot of what you see in George Friedman's "books" or in the Economist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Progress is an illusion. Empiricism cannot prove that life has gotten better for a majority of people. If you have the stats to show it, please do. Eventually all empires will wither and the human race will go to extinct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Isn't it rather that almost the opposite is true - that general welfare (albeit not collectivist reform) and individual liberty only come together? I feel my freedom depends heavily on my neighbours' welfare. Collective in a general sense. A healthy society requires enforced self sacrifice for the collective good. It also requires sometimes aggressive defence of ideals. This is true for all functioning societies but certainly still true even if we move further left. The diving line between the realities of achieving this and some of the negative aspects of imperialism is not anywhere near as bright as some people think (consider the south trying to secede to maintain slavey, or federal actions during civil rights) This is incompatible with simplistic notions of individual liberation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yeah it basically has risen all boats. But let's hear more about how gains for poor people don't really matter and get back to focusing on the first world middle class. The issue is that growth came from the middle class in the first place, the middle class aren't important in a moral sense but an economic one. You need consumer consumption to support manufacturing. Cingulate posted:No. That's absolutely the wrong way of going about it. According to you, if anything I think it is better to break apart exactly what is going on. Those numbers on their own need to probably be explained by specific circumstances. Also # of dictatorships seems a pretty bogus criteria up to plenty of speculation. Median life expectancy is generally going to improve with medical technology and other technology. Median income and poverty are fine, but you probably need to talk about disparity of regions. quote:This is all true, and of course being realistic (optimistic) about the recent trend of the present always beating the past when it comes to humanist concerns must never keep us from being realistic (pessimistic) about the future. In a certain sense we will always "beat the past" unless we enter some type of technological dark age. Technology keeps on improving, it isn't a mystery in that sense. It is whether the current system can uniquely take credit for it, that is the question. If anything you could say that the "commercialization" of medical technology may be a net drag. quote:If we can, with all efforts, only maintain the current rate of progress in the face of climate change, growing inequality and the old enemies of racism etc., that would be something to be very thankful for. I think we already may have peaked in certain senses, technology will still improve but at the same time the "engines" of the global economy look like their are stalling again and it seems getting out of the shadow of the 2008 global downturn is complex. quote:Completely unfamiliar with either, but the relevant statistics are readily available. Really? Lucky you I guess, maybe give it 6 months?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Exactly because democracy doesn't automatically lead to social justice. Neither does pacifism. Anti-imperialism and pacificism aren't synonyms. This is lazy even for this thread. Has a fascist party ever won a democratic election? Ever? But okay, say one did. So what? Are you saying we should go conquer it or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:35
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anti-imperialism and pacificism aren't synonyms. This is lazy even for this thread. Fascism seldom keeps itself to itself, so you had better at least get ready to invade it, even if you don't invade it straight away.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I love the implicit assumption that there is no better way to help the global poor than to let the rich suck up all the money in this, The Best Of All Possible Worlds What helps the poor is less war and more globalization(higher wages, higher standard of living). Globalization also encourages less war because every economy depends on the others. And so the leaders of countries see that were all in this together. The world is hurtling towards world peace. With every year that all the economies integrate more and more. And its all possible because one country controls all the levers of military power...america. they keep the seas free/open and cow would be aggressors One day america will lose its stature as the worlds police force. But every year that they maintain that is one year more of globalization and one step closer to world peace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anti-imperialism and pacificism aren't synonyms. This is lazy even for this thread. Ok so why is Rome so obviously bad if it's not war alone. Also remember: in many cases the conquered ended up better off. Aggressive action wouldn't be out of the question. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Collective in a general sense. A healthy society requires enforced self sacrifice for the collective good. It also requires sometimes aggressive defence of ideals. This is true for all functioning societies but certainly still true even if we move further left. The diving line between the realities of achieving this and some of the negative aspects of imperialism is not anywhere near as bright as some people think (consider the south trying to secede to maintain slavey, or federal actions during civil rights) Ardennes posted:Really? Lucky you I guess, maybe give it 6 months? Generally, I agree with you technology was a major factor in the world-wide increase of welfare. But first, the extreme technological progress has factually happened under this system. Second, I think it's not the only one; if (and I think this quite likely) the capitalists have discovered it is more profitable to allow the 3rd world some basic development than to brutally oppress them with whip and bullet, and that a peaceful Europe is more profitable than a nationalist Europe, and that has caused a significant increase in well-being, then that is better than Stalinism, aristocracies, and every other way the world has so far been organised in. Is a better world possible? Surely. But you cannot argue for this better world by obfuscation and false claims. You can say, we wish for a better order because we are concerned the current one, as far as it has brought us, likely will not bring us further (and I am quite with you on that one). But you can't say it has not in the past greatly improved global well-being, more than any other system so far. I generally think there's a strange whiny delusion on the left that the world is OBVIOUSLY going to poo poo right now, this very second, and has been going to poo poo for the last X years. This is just what the conservatives say, and it's simply empirically false. The idea that western capitalist dominance has ruined SE Asia is about as false as the claim that islamism or immigration or ISIS are a realistic threat to the values of Europe. In the sense that people's lives are currently improving, the world is getting better, especially in the ways we are most concerned with (% in poverty, global peace etc). It may be false that it is getting better in the sense of being reliably able to sustain this trend. And yet, the trend exists. I even think it is the whiny delusional left that can be most proud of this - rather than being in denial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue is that growth came from the middle class in the first place, the middle class aren't important in a moral sense but an economic one. You need consumer consumption to support manufacturing. All the poor people in my family still manage to buy cars, tvs, playstations. Being poor isnt what it used to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue is that growth came from the middle class in the first place, the middle class aren't important in a moral sense but an economic one. You need consumer consumption to support manufacturing. This is the brain dead economic crap I argue against constantly in one of the most succinct forms I've seen. First, financial demand doesn't matter in the beg picture. But further, in a context where finances are being diverted from the first world middle class to the worlds poor (who will spend it at an higher rate) consumption isn't even going down. It's going up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok so is Rome so obviously bad if it's not war alone. Also remember: in many cases the conquered ended up better off. Ah yes, the white man's burden to conquer and raise up the benighted savages. Oh you won't mind harvesting rubber under the lash for your short lives, will you, considering how much better off you are now that you're conquered? Disinterested posted:Fascism seldom keeps itself to itself, so you had better at least get ready to invade it, even if you don't invade it straight away. Spain. Brazil. Greece. Portugal. Just a few fascist (or at least military juntas) that largely kept to themselves. How many wars do you want to start, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes, the white man's burden to conquer and raise up the benighted savages. Oh you won't mind harvesting rubber under the lash for your short lives, will you, considering how much better off you are now that you're conquered? Some combination of "my morals are better" or "it will make you better off, trust me" are the underlying justifications for say, federal action forcing un-cooperating states to end segregation, or potentially allow gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:57
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Spain. Brazil. Greece. Portugal. Just a few fascist (or at least military juntas) that largely kept to themselves. How many wars do you want to start, anyway? Spain gave some comfort to the Nazis. I mean, I think Spain and Portugal are a slightly different case because they became fascist around the same time as other fascisms in Europe got kerbstomped so there was an existential need to shut the gently caress up and keep to yourself. Also, ask yourself - why did they keep to themselves? It might be because of the vigilance of outsiders. I didn't say invade them (necessarily - although what level of treatment of their own citizens would be tolerable? Any level? Nobody has yet solved this problem satisfactorily). Disinterested fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Also, ask yourself - why did they keep to themselves? It might be because of the vigilance of outsiders Once again, there is a difference between anti-imperialism and pacificism. We've got a guy in here who can't seem to tell the difference between slavery in the Belgian Congo and the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Once again, there is a difference between anti-imperialism and pacificism. We've got a guy in here who can't seem to tell the difference between slavery in the Belgian Congo and the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. You.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:17
|
|