|
Are people pulling the racism card already? Also it's absolutely hilarious that we are questioning the validity of the opinions of dozens of observer organisations about North Korea in this thread. That's kinda like saying Russia banning non-governmental organisations because they might be spies for the West is a legitimate thing instead of a crackdown on human rights activists. Bulgogi Hoagie fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Jun 14, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Kavros posted:let me try asking you this question in a different way: if you had to start a new country from scratch, and you had the choice to base it on a juche tailored to the area's dominant ethnic makeup, or on the american constitution, which would you choose? Neither, because a new country would not be in the situation of either of those two countries, and would have to find it's own path. It's not even possible to speculate on what would work for a "new country" if it's left undefined in geography, demographics, international relations, starting level of development, etc. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Western media reports such reliable "facts" on North Korea as "North Korea claims to have found existence of unicorns", "North Koreans Think Kim Jong Il once played a perfect game of golf, then immediately retired rather than humiliate anyone else", and then there's the matter of all those stores of prominent members of North Korean society being executed... who then turn up alive and well in public events. Can we assume that you are a Korean speaker who has assiduously debunked all of these stories? The often-hilarious Korean Central News Agency is unfortunately down at the moment [undoubtedly the result of imperialist jamming], but one glance at their lead stories on any given day is enough to believe that they have reported 12 holes-in-one for Kim Jong-il on a single round of golf.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Can we assume that you are a Korean speaker who has assiduously debunked all of these stories? The often-hilarious Korean Central News Agency is unfortunately down at the moment [undoubtedly the result of imperialist jamming], but one glance at their lead stories on any given day is enough to believe that they have reported 12 holes-in-one for Kim Jong-il on a single round of golf. No mate, you have to actually prove that they have claimed this about his golf score. Nobody has ever found any evidence of the DPRK claiming this. Ever. It's just a thing tabloids claim and cite other tabloids as "proof". It's a myth. What you can find, rather easily, is more serious western sources specialising in North Korea who Debunk this kind of poo poo. You'll notice that this is a site that opposes the DPRK, so you can't even pretend it's Kim Jong Un's fanclub or whatever like you want to. These wacky tabloid fodder stories are simply not true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:You'll notice that this is a site that opposes the DPRK, so you can't even pretend it's Kim Jong Un's fanclub or whatever like you want to. This is Stalinist paranoia speaking. This site neither opposes nor supports anything or anyone. I am addressing you as a demonstrated fanboy of the Kim Dynasty. What I find curious is such naive credulity when it comes to broadsides from the most fringe sources with regards to the US or West in general, yet extreme skepticism when it comes to any sources (to wit, the vast majority of all reports) critical of Glorious Juche! Ideology. Do you dispute reports of famine from the DPRK in the 90s? How do you explain the marked difference in stature between today's young adults in RoK and DPRK? Are you Alejandro Cao?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This is Stalinist paranoia speaking. This site neither opposes nor supports anything or anyone. I am addressing you as a demonstrated fanboy of the Kim Dynasty. Then you are addressing a figment of your imagination, I can only speculate why you'd choose to do that instead of addressing me instead. Is it easier? TheImmigrant posted:What I find curious is such naive credulity when it comes to broadsides from the most fringe sources with regards to the US or West in general, yet extreme skepticism when it comes to any sources (to wit, the vast majority of all reports) critical of Glorious Juche! Ideology. Here's the deal. I pointed out that lots of easily disproved myths are pedalled about North Korea because they make good stories. I've even demonstrated this using the testimony of mainstream expert journalism in the subject. And you are really, really upset that the golf myth is a myth. The end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
'A famine happened in North Korea' is a very different sort of claim to 'North Korea says KJI shot twelve holes in one' tabloid-bait. Even Japan gets plenty of suspect Wacky Foreigners stories, a secretive country loudly opposed to the United States will be ground zero. Peel fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
North Korea kidnapped actors simply so they could act in their leader's own personal movies, I can't think of any more stories more outrageous than this...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
The golf story was born as an illustration of North Koreans' isolation from the world and lack of access to information. Considering what is known about contemporary CCP information rationing, or Soviet-era news practices, this shouldn't be controversial. Really, if you can't even concede something this innocent in the defense of Juche Ideal!, you're not worth taking seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The golf story was born as an illustration of North Koreans' isolation from the world and lack of access to information. Considering what is known about contemporary CCP information rationing, or Soviet-era news practices, this shouldn't be controversial. Really, if you can't even concede something this innocent in the defense of Juche Ideal!, you're not worth taking seriously. Earlier in this conversation I talked about how this story is a myth only found in non-NK media, and that non-NK media only cites other non-NK media as "proof" without an apparent origin. I bring up an academic site which confirms this. Your response is to link the stories I was talking about. At this point you are just using blind faith. You are a true believer in the golf myth. It is your personal religion, and any facts which contradict it only make you believe harder. Anyone who disagrees must be a pagan/heretic/north korea true believer. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
They also kidnapped a bunch of foreigners to act as language instructors. Also, according to the internal propaganda it's the North Koreans who bully the rest of the (racially inferior) world around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:How do you know this? Most western media is hilariously unreliable at best when reporting anything about North Korea. Aside from a preponderance of observer stories about north korea from people who successfully escaped, I have new in-laws (yay marriage season!) which include parents and one grandparent that managed to escape the nation into china and eventually find their way to safe haven. The tales they have to tell are unsettling, dystopic. I do not need to corroborate them with sensationalist newsmedia, though it's worth noting that there exists plenty of reputable accounts relayed by reputable media about the inside of the country. It is always easy to find lovely reporting about any country, but this is not to say that accurate accounts about the DPRK do not exist and cannot be read, so I tend to ignore people who say that I cannot possibly have a fair understanding of what the DPRK's present reality generally is. HorseLord posted:Neither, because a new country would not be in the situation of either of those two countries, and would have to find it's own path. It's not even possible to speculate on what would work for a "new country" if it's left undefined in geography, demographics, international relations, starting level of development, etc. Even if you are unwilling to take up the question as asked, perhaps homework explainer will. I can ask a different question of you, specifically: which do you think is a better governing policy or ethos: democracy or juche?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Even if you are unwilling to take up the question as asked, perhaps homework explainer will. I can ask a different question of you, specifically: which do you think is a better governing policy or ethos: democracy or juche? Certainly not what the American system claims is democracy, because they are lying, although an actually implemented democracy would be pretty sweet. I understand though that you're trying to ask "American system vs North Korean system" and the answer is again, neither. I don't like how the word "democracy" is misappropriated by the American political system (a system I hate very much). And my personal Knowledge of the structure of the North Korean system, my personal knowledge of the tenants of Juche ideology, is too little to have an informed opinion on it's worth. (No investigation, no right to speak.) What I have to reiterate is that when you're talking about a third country, you can't just import a system from another country wholesale. Every country is different to each other in various ways, that's why different systems naturally develop in each one. It's like trying to decide if it's better to fit a bicycle tire or a car tyre, and the vehicle in question is a snowmobile. You get what I'm trying to say?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Earlier in this conversation I talked about how this story is a myth only found in non-NK media, and that non-NK media only cites other non-NK media as "proof" without an apparent origin. I bring up an academic site which confirms this. Tell me which North Korean media you monitor, in any language.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:
If you visit north korea you've actively supporting the regime in a way unlike any of the rest so i guess thinking you naively believed it would be different was better than the alternative
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Isn't it entirely consistent with your thesis to say "yes, that's not very good, but..." and move on? Yes, that's correct. However, the two issues are also separate. One can hold a consistent position of "If horror story X is true, that is indefensible" while at the same time interrogating the factual status of X. It's a separate conceptual space. And considering the ease with which government agencies propagate slant or outright lies and disinformation against those deemed "enemies" (there are plenty of examples in recent history, but consider also the preponderance of Soviet history-writing of the last few decades that challenges or upturns Cold War-era conventional wisdom), it shouldn't come as a surprise that the State Dept narrative gets a jaundiced eye. Of course, this doesn't mean accepting another government's output uncritically, either. The Marxist program is, lest we forget, the "ruthless criticism of all that exists."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Since the topic of production of goods and services under authoritarian communist regimes. It is important to note that under an authoritarian communist regime the consumer of goods is the state versus under a democratic capitalist regime the consumer of goods is the people. The example of automobile production was brought up. None of these automobiles produced under these authoritarian regimes could compete against ones produced under capitalist democracies. They could not sell their cars outside of their own country because they could not complete. A good example is the dominance German, Japanese and American automobiles. Then to these authoritarian regimes the thinking was why produce automobiles when you can make tanks. This is why under authoritarian regimes often have disproportionately high spending on the military versus the consumer market. Having a nation where the consumer of goods is the state has a direct impact on the standard of living of its people. Save China which is slowly embracing capitalism and thus improving the standard of living of its people. Good examples of this are North Korea today and the USSR before the collapse of the soviet union where 50% of a countries GDP went towards the military meanwhile there were massive food shortages. Venezuela is becoming a modern example with its failing democracy allow its leaders to hoard the stocks of its reserve currency. The point I am getting at is the list of nations the OP is espousing want systems that only benefit the state and its elite allies at the expense of everyone else. The quality of living of the citizens of the US and its democratic capitalist allies never experienced the level of shortages since WW2 that these authoritarian regimes have which is the timeframe the OP brought up. The people need a say both with how they spend their money and with their ability to vote in order to keep the elite powerful few in check. There is no such thing as a benevolent leader though I can name a few that have come close. The fact that a leader says he's "Communist" and is "For the People" is a huge red flag because oftentimes the elite try to manipulate the masses. Just as much so as our Democratically elected officials promise things they cannot deliver. We need levers to keep these people in check and a capitalist democracy does that; 2 levers in fact. Now if we choose to use those levers properly that's is a whole different story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Even if you are unwilling to take up the question as asked, perhaps homework explainer will. I can ask a different question of you, specifically: which do you think is a better governing policy or ethos: democracy or juche? Are the two necessarily incompatible? Kim Il-Sung's philosophy of self-reliance wasn't bad itself, more his cult of personality, brutal suppression of dissidents and bizarre idea to cut Korea off from the world before actually becoming self-reliant. I think it's perfectly possible to have a juche democracy, even if NK really isn't an example of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
owDAWG posted:The example of automobile production was brought up. None of these automobiles produced under these authoritarian regimes could compete against ones produced under capitalist democracies. They could not sell their cars outside of their own country because they could not complete. A good example is the dominance German, Japanese and American automobiles. Except they did sell eastern bloc cars outside of their home countries, so your argument falls apart there. Ladas and Moskviches came to the UK and western Europe, along with Skodas, Polski Fiats, Wartburgs, and even diesel powered Volgas, although the latter were mostly used as minicabs. This wasn't a brief experiment, Lada left the UK market in 1997 when AutoVAZ's financial problems in the new Russian economy meant they didn't have the money to switch the 2107 to fuel injection for the new emissions standards. Polski Fiat folded back into italian Fiat, and Skoda are still here. They were, until Kia and Hyundai got going in the early 90s, the bread and butter of the budget segment. It was incredibly rare to see a brand new western car at the prices of a brand new eastern bloc one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
There absolutely is something contradictory about denouncing 'some' of China's aspects, as if they were excusable minor inconveniences, with pushing a program of global fairness and equality. These countries, these people are not your allies and never will be - maintaining that they still have your support, however 'critical' that support is (I'll return to this), just so long as if they're not the US, is granting them carte-blanche to act against your own (ostensible) professed values. You will not get 'reciprocal solidarity' for these governments, providing them anything is stupidity. The main thrust was not simple "what's in it for me", but "how does this advance the cause". Why is picking a side in the syrian civil war necessary or desirable, and if you have to pick a side, how is the cause advanced be picking the one that's not the US, out of some knee-jerk reaction? The refrain of 'well they're bad guys, but they're Not The US so it's a deal with devil' has the appearance of 'political realism' - you of course get to automatically Look Like The Serious Person when you say it - yet I'm not seeing any actual material, pragmatic reasons for these choices. In which case, isn't that presentation simply the post-hoc rationalization for a logic that is actually extremely idealistic, that the US is inherently (intrinsically even) the center of this capitalist hegemony, and that any opposition to this 'empire' is a-priori acceptable? And isn't that a conclusion that totally skips the material & systemic factors that lead to abuse of power in the first place? Which is why I don't buy this 'critical' support for one second. I'm not a fool, and neither are you I hope, so let us talk plainly - calling your support 'critical' is a way to simply dismiss objections to that support, on the grounds that making your support appear difficult to you at all changes the fact that that support is unconditional. You depersonalize your own horrible actions from yourself "Oh, I'm doing something horrible, but that's okay, because I know it's horrible and feel bad, that way, I get to do that horrible thing, and preserve my sense of self!" Taking responsibility for your actions would of course breach this barrier between your 'secret, good' inner self and your questionable actions. Would it matter if, deep down, Hitler was a nice guy? Nope, no one cares about your inner life rear end in a top hat. A more mature view is to return that conditionality - support people who are in the right, oppose those who are in the wrong, at the moments they are in the right and wrong. Sometimes, the US will be in the right. Sometimes, it will be in the wrong. Sometimes, it's hard to tell, but this is where theory feeds in. Applying theory is difficult, certainly much more difficult than mouthing the matra "US Bad" over and over again, but it works out better in the long term. People respect consistency, & they'll give nuance a chance, just as long as you're presenting yourself as someone approachable and reasonable. rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Which is why I don't buy this 'critical' support for one second. I'm not a fool, and neither are you I hope, so let us talk plainly - calling your support 'critical' is a way to simply dismiss objections to that support, on the grounds that making your support appear difficult to you at all changes the fact that that support is unconditional. Simply calling that support 'critical' is a way to depersonalize your own horrible actions from yourself "Oh, I'm doing something horrible, but that's okay, because I know it's horrible and feel bad, that way, I get to do that horrible thing, and preserve my sense of self!" Taking responsibility for your actions would of course breach this barrier between your 'secret, good' inner self and your questionable actions. Would it matter if, deep down, Hitler was a nice guy? Nope, no one cares about your inner life rear end in a top hat. No, it is critical support because it is temporary. Many sides who hate each other have teamed up to defeat an even bigger enemy. It happens on the really small scale in workplace politics. It's happened, historically, in war. The CPC and the KMT hated each other, but temporarily merged to expel foreign powers. The USA and USSR were on the same team in World War II, and they spoke very flatteringly of each other during that time. After the reason they teamed up was longer relevant, they stopped pretending to get along and got back at each others throats. If America vanished tomorrow, then you would see people with an eye to anti-imperialism turn their scorn to the lesser powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Homework Explainer: All right everyone, we're all gathered here to kill the corrupt mayor. You all know why, you've all suffered under his arrogance, his ruthlessness. Okay, let's go around the room and introduce ourselves. Short Pudgy Kid: I'm Kim Jong Un, I keep people in my basement, mining day in and day out. I don't let them speak to anyone outside, or each other very often. Also apparently some of them died of starvation, but that's not my fault. That corrupt mayor has said bad things about me, but I've got enough explosives in my house to blow up ourselves and the neighbors, so that mayor can't do anything! I'm defiant like that. Suited rear end in a top hat: I'm Xi Jinping, I have a big family which I keep busy with my export shop. Sadly, some of them have breathing problems, must be weak genes (certainly not mine!). The place is a real mess, but it's a money-maker. I've also branched out into other neighborhoods, where I buy out land from under the tenants, and get them working hard, harder than they ever have before. Apparently the locals there don't like me, but money talks louder than words, and I've got people there in just the right places to keep it all running. Weirdly Insecure Gym Rat: I'm Vladimir Putin, I hope there aren't gays here, because boy howdy do I hate gays. I'm all about returning strength, which is why I've funded other strong, powerful, anti-gay gangs all over this town, to return everyone to the strong, non-gay and definitely not homo-erotic days of yesteryear. Weedy Creep: I'm Bashir Al-Assad, I'm a chemist who's risen to power off enflaming ethnic tensions. By selectively killing the people who could come together and work towards peace, and therefore oppose me, I've made the desperate few flee to me for help - who I of course promise to protect against the people I've angered. Fortunately, I've refined many methods of slaughter, stockpiles of all sorts of nasties I've been building up over the years. Homework Explainer: *nods head* A strong line-up. I can see our plans to kill the mayor coming together, a plan which cannot possibly backfire. *pats everyone on the shoulder* Now I know you all have your problems, but I want you to know, you have my support. rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
If I were looking for explanations for high military spending in the USSR and North Korea, the most obvious one would be their facing wealthier and more powerful mortal enemies across land borders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:No, it is critical support because it is temporary. Many sides who hate each other have teamed up to defeat an even bigger enemy. It happens on the really small scale in workplace politics. It's happened, historically, in war. The CPC and the KMT hated each other, but temporarily merged to expel foreign powers. The USA and USSR were on the same team in World War II, and they spoke very flatteringly of each other during that time. After the reason they teamed up was longer relevant, they stopped pretending to get along and got back at each others throats. The objective for China is to expand their sphere of influence. The route for China is to bully their neighbors, in the hope of peeling them away from the US. The end-state of this process has simply changed who the imperial power is in these locations. This is contrary to the stated goals of anti-imperialism. Simply saying 'Well we'll shift our scorn' is a non-answer - where is the non-imperial end state, and how are you hoping to achieve that, and how does this at all advance that cause? It doesn't. It's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
You're asking for people's gameplan for after america is gone while America shows little sign of going anywhere.Peel posted:If I were looking for explanations for high military spending in the USSR and North Korea, the most obvious one would be their facing wealthier and more powerful mortal enemies across land borders. no but you see nobody bought ladas *the UK alone buys 350,000* uh uh ignore that
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
If you don't know what you're end-state is, you're running around in circles. You take down America, China takes its place. You take down China, India takes it's place. You take down India, Cyber-France takes it's place. You take down Cyber-France, Moon Nazis take their place, etc etc. Without a systematic understanding of what exactly you're trying to achieve, you cannot make a judgement of whether your not your plan of action is moving towards, away or tangential to that goal. It's stupidity to run around and make noise, just do what you think feels right, just because you feel you have to do something. What has that something actually done?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
I tried to indicate that you were misunderstanding me, and your response only confirms it, since you're still arguing against a position I disavowed. As a result, you're not representing what I'm saying very well. For that matter, you're not representing yourself very well, either — e.g., why denounce something only if it's "excusable"? This seems confused. At the very least, it confused me. Moreover, how could approving of a good policy and disapproving of a bad one possibly be contradictory? Would you similarly tell me that it's not possible to arrive at different evaluations of the Civil Rights Act as the Vietnam War? Or is this something you only do for China? This is especially puzzling since in the next breath you say, "support people who are in the right, oppose those who are in the wrong, at the moments they are in the right and wrong." So, instead of doing what I suggest, you argue we should instead do [the thing I suggested]. I've explained how anti-imperialism advances the cause — by supporting self-determination. The support for self-determination is, to my understanding, the only unconditional aspect of the position. If you are actually arguing that persistent domination by foreign powers is more conducive to building socialism than a national dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, then please, argue that. It would be much more interesting than this oddly aggressive misreading stuff. And no, I've nowhere claimed that the US is a priori bad. "Any opposition" to it is not good. That's a really dangerous road to walk, right there, and it's certainly not what I wrote. Contrary to your charges of idealism (the rooting out of which is always an ongoing process), all of the best works analyzing and critiquing imperialism also come from an explicitly materialist philosophical orientation; they focus on the substantive rather than the procedural, the real rather than the notional, etc. Class interests must be taken into account. Structure must be considered real and possessed of causal potency; an act is opposed to the extent that it is imperialist, and a structure (nation or the like) is opposed to the extent to which its generative mechanisms originate such acts. But conceptual lines are drawn before we risk stumbling from that aspect into some ephemeral and totalizing "essence" of the nation. poo poo, during WWII, an event that cost the USSR some 20 million lives and was sure to stir up more than a little anti-German fervor, even Stalin was arguing "it would be ludicrous to identify Hitler’s clique with the German people, with the German state," against exactly that sort of idealist condemnation en bloc. So yes, per your invitation, let's speak plainly: You're extremely wrong. I get that you've concocted a narrative you find compelling to accuse anti-imperialists of being deluded cretins. I could be a total turd and bounce those charges of self-serving dishonesty right back at you, or otherwise allege you've got an uninterrogated bias blinding you or whatever. Could you imagine how productive that would be? I can, and that's why I'm not going to pursue this line of thinking further. I urge you to consider the actual content of what I'm saying (see, e.g., "distilling it down..."), or else you're just going to continue to voice substantive agreement leading off with "no." rudatron posted:I'm Bashir Al-Assad, I'm a chemist I thought he was an ophthalmologist. Aeolius fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Homework Explainer: All right everyone, we're all gathered here to kill the corrupt mayor. You all know why, you've all suffered under his arrogance, his ruthlessness. Okay, let's go around the room and introduce ourselves. Please do not publish the minutes of my after-school club's meetings. Those were given to you in confidence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
If your policy of supporting self-determination means you end up supporting state structures that are themselves just as, if not more, capable of perpetrating the the acts you're condemning the hegemon for, all you're doing is shuffling deck chairs on the titanic. The emphasis of " denouncing 'some' of China's aspects, as if they were excusable minor inconveniences" is, you'll notice, on the some, not the denounce - the excuse comes from treating the objections as a kind of 'special exception' to your overall 'support', rather than just another valid part of the same system, which should be taken seriously. That's irresponsible. You seem to think sticking-it-to-uncle-sam automatically grants someone as being in the right, for which the the more inconvenient truths about the the people doing the sticking only distract from. I disagree, the only thing of value is how it impacts the lives of actual human beings, that's being materialist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If you don't know what you're end-state is, you're running around in circles. Well they think America is very unique. Thus if they defeat it the problems go away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You seem to think sticking-it-to-uncle-sam automatically grants someone as being in the right, for which the the more inconvenient truths about the the people doing the sticking only distract from. I don't, though, as I've taken great pains to spell out. If I still "seem" to be saying that in your eyes, this may well say more about your determinedly uncharitable reading of me. If for some reason you physically can't help doing this, then I will understand and wish you a good day. But I'm inclined to believe you're fully capable, albeit being a touch pigheaded. It's alright, it happens; no lasting judgment on you. Just please stop doing it. Okay? At any rate, you're more than welcome to reread what I wrote and take another swing at it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
It's fascinating the extent to which people beeline for left-wing opinions to attack, almost as though the crudest communist propaganda was true and liberalism is inherently imperialistic. Or, alternatively, opposition to the violation of liberal values by these states are merely a cudgel, or perhaps more fittingly a chisel, by which an attack may be made. For if we consider autonomy and democracy and all that to be a good, as we must do in accordance with liberal values, then assuredly imperialism is bad and American imperialism, by virtue of being the most successful, is the foremost target. Because if foreign policy and domestic economic policy are determined by the imposition of an external power, then the nation cannot be said to be free. Alternatively, people could be honest and admit they like the thought of Africans and Latin Americans as perpetual servants of whites.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
I apologize if this makes me sound dim-witted, but how would you identify your political beliefs? Preferably from your most important priorities to your least important one. Like for example, what would your utopian world looks like? Since I'm asking for an utopia we don't need to worry about realism here, I'm just asking for your ideal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If your policy of supporting self-determination means you end up supporting state structures that are themselves just as, if not more, capable of perpetrating the the acts you're condemning the hegemon for, all you're doing is shuffling deck chairs on the titanic. The emphasis of " denouncing 'some' of China's aspects, as if they were excusable minor inconveniences" is, you'll notice, on the some, not the denounce - the excuse comes from treating the objections as a kind of 'special exception' to your overall 'support', rather than just another valid part of the same system, which should be taken seriously. That's irresponsible. You seem to think sticking-it-to-uncle-sam automatically grants someone as being in the right, for which the the more inconvenient truths about the the people doing the sticking only distract from. I disagree, the only thing of value is how it impacts the lives of actual human beings, that's being materialist. Your insistent reading of the 'some' in 'denouncing some' as meaning implicit exceptions to broad support is difficult to sustain when it's explicitly paired with 'while nevertheless lauding others'. Aeolius is talking about the very particularism you're insisting on, he is agreeing with your theoretical structure. He states in is first post that the support is bounded, not 'over-all': Aeolius posted:Thus, a Marxist might be compelled to provisionally support the liberation struggle of a national bourgeoisie, even if their first allegiance is unquestionably to the proletariat, as the occupying power poses a greater threat to the rise of a workers' movement. This doesn't mean that said support would extend beyond the bounds of the bourgeoisie's anti-imperial praxis. As far as I can tell your actual disagreement is whether Chinese (or Iranian, or whoever) opposition to American hegemony is a thing (a particular thing) worth lauding. Whether it is better for the workers in a country to have their national bourgeoisie to fight, or overseas domination. Aeolius says that the one is better than the other and you seem to disagree and that's something you can have a material argument about rather than trying to make a gibbet from the phrase 'some aspects'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
The claim made by the OP is that the priority is self-determination, not ideology, economic form, local class structure, virtue, competence or anything else. Least alone simple anti-Americanism. This does seem rather weak given the list of regimes favored includes a lot of states which vary a lot on pretty much every one of those axes, including several that have levels of self-determination that must be in the bottom decile world-wide . Some of them are economic photocopies of the 19c Belgian Congo; export primary commodity in order to purchase arms to force the populace to extract that commodity at gunpoint, take some of the proceeds to buy a palace. Worse, and I think fatally for his case, it excludes those states that have high military-self determination, that America genuinely couldn't invade and occupy; the UK, Japan, France, German, Turkey, India, etc. You could argue how long that list is, but it is clearly non-empty, and might well have 30 countries on it. But what the OP contains is instead a list of states that have official propaganda that treats the US as an enemy. So you can see why people get the impression that is what things are about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
radmonger posted:The claim made by the OP is that the priority is self-determination, not ideology, economic form, local class structure, virtue, competence or anything else. Least alone simple anti-Americanism. There's no great mystery here, OP and his fellow travelers (looking at you, Horselord!) just really hate the US, to the degree that it leads to bad logic, and lining themselves up with some of the absolute worst governments around. I mean, anyone that would unironically defend North Korea or VZ's governments clearly is no friend of the working man, or anyone except the top 1/10 of 1% of those nations. I suppose there is some sort of irony in that, that Homework Explainer is a big fan of the 1%, at least the 1% in the third world, the exact people who are absolutely most responsible for the misery of their citizenry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
radmonger posted:The claim made by the OP is that the priority is self-determination, not ideology, economic form, local class structure, virtue, competence or anything else. Least alone simple anti-Americanism. Those states are all part of the American empire, however. If we use Lenin's definition of (modern) imperialism as focused around the financial exploitation, Western Europe and Japan are both highly complicit in the financial exploitation of the global south, especially sub-Saharan Africa. Turkey is a member of NATO. India has aligned itself within the US global order. I mean, in practical terms it's nuts to say that countries like Japan, the UK, and Germany where the US has a permanent large-scale military presence "couldn't be invaded and occupied" because, in a very real sense, they already are occupied. gobbagool posted:There's no great mystery here, OP and his fellow travelers (looking at you, Horselord!) just really hate the US, to the degree that it leads to bad logic, and lining themselves up with some of the absolute worst governments around. I mean, anyone that would unironically defend North Korea or VZ's governments clearly is no friend of the working man, or anyone except the top 1/10 of 1% of those nations. I suppose there is some sort of irony in that, that Homework Explainer is a big fan of the 1%, at least the 1% in the third world, the exact people who are absolutely most responsible for the misery of their citizenry. Congrats on not knowing what "fellow traveler" means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Those states are all part of the American empire, however. If we use Lenin's definition of (modern) imperialism as focused around the financial exploitation, Western Europe and Japan are both highly complicit in the financial exploitation of the global south, especially sub-Saharan Africa. Turkey is a member of NATO. India has aligned itself within the US global order. Someone who agrees with your political philosophy, but doesn't live in your country? I mean, I wasn't going for the PoliSci dissertation definition, but congrats on being a pedantic point misser.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Those states are all part of the American empire, however. If we use Lenin's definition of (modern) imperialism as focused around the financial exploitation This is obvious nonsense; Lenin would have had you shot for placing that interpretation on his words. You can't say nations matter nothing over here, and everything over here, according solely to the pattern of what rhetoric their elites find convenient this week. Financial exploitation through imperial monopolies is a thing, e.g it describes the us in Central America , France in parts of Africa, the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, etc. And I suppose the F35. But remember the claim by the OP is not that this is a thing, but that it is _the_ thing, bigger than racism, global warming, genocide, capitalism and, most relevantly, war. Which is something that really doesn't seem remotely supportable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
gobbagool posted:Someone who agrees with your political philosophy, but doesn't live in your country? I mean, I wasn't going for the PoliSci dissertation definition, but congrats on being a pedantic point misser. Well, thanks for providing your drool-stained idiot definition. The actual definition refers to people who were associated with communist parties and labor unions without being members, like Woody Guthrie. Then right-wingers started using it for anyone to the left of Bob Taft, leading finally to you. radmonger posted:This is obvious nonsense; Lenin would have had you shot for placing that interpretation on his words. You can't say nations matter nothing over here, and everything over here, according solely to the pattern of what rhetoric their elites find convenient this week. Your first paragraph is bullshit and nonsense. Your second paragraph is barely relevant. Your third paragraph is, like, what the actual gently caress? Anti-imperialism is an important part of anti-capitalist struggle unless you're one of those aberrant pseudo-fascist socialists or a Distributist. Brainiac Five fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 21:02
|
|