|
gobbagool posted:So the only thing that those countries in your OP have going for them is that they're somehow anti-imperialist, whatever you think that means. How does this in any way help the individuals in those nations lead a better life? I mean, for the most part they very obviously don't, and you very obviously don't care, or worse, actively enjoy what totalitarian states do to their people. Do you hate the US that much? Does what you've written make sense to you? The world built after the end of American imperialism has far greater potential than the world we live in now to be better for everyone. As I've said God knows how many times already, peaceful change in these countries can't take place with the imperialist world-system tainting the process. Korean unification won't happen as long as the United States plays war games and performs nuclear exercises on the border, Syrians can't build a better government while in a state of constant war exacerbated by American influence, the ayatollahs will continue to exploit anti-American sentiment to stay in power while the relationship remains tense, etc. Whatever problems we might have with these countries (and I have quite a few, despite the caricature people in this thread and elsewhere have painted of me), they won't be solved with greater imperialism.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:The world built after the end of American imperialism has far greater potential than the world we live in now to be better for everyone. As I've said God knows how many times already, peaceful change in these countries can't take place with the imperialist world-system tainting the process. Korean unification won't happen as long as the United States plays war games and performs nuclear exercises on the border, Syrians can't build a better government while in a state of constant war exacerbated by American influence, the ayatollahs will continue to exploit anti-American sentiment to stay in power while the relationship remains tense, etc. Whatever problems we might have with these countries (and I have quite a few, despite the caricature people in this thread and elsewhere have painted of me), they won't be solved with greater imperialism. Let's start small. What do you think should happen in Korea? Since you have listed North Korea as a darling in your new world order, do you believe that all of Korea should be run as the North? Simple question, yes or no
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
So the people the people of East Germany should have stuck around until they paid off their $100 bn war debt(and hoped one day in a distant future to reap the benefits of socialism) versus going to West Germany where US dollars were pouring in? Should the people of Madoro's Venezuela not be allowed to leave and instead be forced to work for the grand goal of fighting US Imperialism? HE your argument falls apart when you don't understand why people would want to escape a totally lovely situation to improve their own lives denying them the mechanism for escaping poverty. This makes you worse than the Imperialists you hope to defeat. You also never look at countries like modern day Germany which has one of the healthiest mixes of social welfare policies and private enterprise. Nor developing economies which judge their successes not based on GDP growth but based on new methods like the quality of life of its citizens. I could at least show you some respect if you took one of those positions. You place the goal of fighting US Imperialism above all other human rights. Marxist-Leninism often devolved into 20th century despotism; it just sounds prettier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Let's start small. What do you think should happen in Korea? Since you have listed North Korea as a darling in your new world order, do you believe that all of Korea should be run as the North? Simple question, yes or no I'd prefer a socialist Korea minus the worst aspects of the DPRK and ROK's systems. Maintaining and expanding the existing guarantees provided by the DPRK to its citizens for everyone in the "new Korea," absent the lopsided allocation of funds for military purposes — easier to do with American troops out of the peninsula! — while introducing the ROK's information technology to the unified nation. I'm one of those odd duck commies who thinks it is possible to have multi-party socialism in a workers' parliamentary system, but that's a bit pie-in-the-sky when you understand the present economy and geopolitical situation. However, if we're being hypothetical and assuming the US really does keep its hands off Korea, I wouldn't be opposed to trying it out. People forget that for the better part of the 20th century, the DPRK outperformed the ROK in terms of growth and development and the early years of the ROK were characterized by strong government influence in the economy (though of course private property was maintained there.) Speaking as a foreigner, I can only offer some ideas and back the hell off, but I believe if left to their own devices the Korean people will come to their own version of socialism that's best for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Maybe the North could try abolishing its imperialist policies so the South didn't have to be afraid of being attacked by its imperialist cousin, and thus they didn't have a need to keep the Americans around :-)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Since I've been mostly fielding questions here, I'd like to ask the thread something: At what point should a country cut off emigration? Is there a certain condition to be met, like literal civil war? Are there other times when it makes good sense to close one's borders? I'm genuinely curious, because to me it sounds like some of you have no line on the issue whatsoever and would be OK with, like, mass emigration from the Union to the Confederacy or some other wild hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:I'd prefer a socialist Korea minus the worst aspects of the DPRK and ROK's systems. Maintaining and expanding the existing guarantees provided by the DPRK to its citizens for everyone in the "new Korea," absent the lopsided allocation of funds for military purposes — easier to do with American troops out of the peninsula! — while introducing the ROK's information technology to the unified nation. I'm one of those odd duck commies who thinks it is possible to have multi-party socialism in a workers' parliamentary system, but that's a bit pie-in-the-sky when you understand the present economy and geopolitical situation. However, if we're being hypothetical and assuming the US really does keep its hands off Korea, I wouldn't be opposed to trying it out. That's a dodge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:That's a dodge. Why? The systems that have been adopted by either half of the peninsula are the ones which arose from specific conditions. The whole game changes after unification. Why would I rigidly argue for one system or another, when in all likelihood a new one would emerge? Hamfistedly fusing an existing system on a new nation or people is, incidentally, the kind of thing that's gotten colonialists and imperialists in a fair bit of trouble over the years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:Since I've been mostly fielding questions here, I'd like to ask the thread something: At what point should a country cut off emigration? Is there a certain condition to be met, like literal civil war? Are there other times when it makes good sense to close one's borders? I'm genuinely curious, because to me it sounds like some of you have no line on the issue whatsoever and would be OK with, like, mass emigration from the Union to the Confederacy or some other wild hypothetical. Countries should totally have a right to protect their borders. But if there's a problem with people emigrating en masse, they shouldn't unilaterally shut down the border under any circumstances, that is not legitimate, and constrains the human rights of the people living there. Instead the country should work with its neighbors to alleviate the problems that cause the outflow of people in the first place, while implementing a more humane, temporary multilateral border control policy with neutral observers in place to ensure fair play, possibly also comply with humanitarian aid requirements if the situation is really bad. If the said country is unwilling to address the issues that cause its citizens to become desperate and miserable, it does not deserve any sympathy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Countries should totally have a right to protect their borders. But if there's a problem with people emigrating en masse, they shouldn't unilaterally shut down the border under any circumstances, that is not legitimate, and constrains the human rights of the people living there. Instead the country should work with its neighbors to alleviate the problems that cause the outflow of people in the first place, while implementing a more humane, temporary multilateral border control policy with neutral observers in place to ensure fair play, possibly also comply with humanitarian aid requirements if the situation is really bad. If the said country is unwilling to address the issues that cause its citizens to become desperate and miserable, it does not deserve any sympathy. That's a reasonable position. But knowing what we know about the Cold War, how well do you think such negotiations would have gone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:Also, again, post-war rebuilding is more easily accomplished with the assistance of the richest countries on the planet acting as an anti-communist bloc than with the aid of a country which had just suffered the most loss of life and industry from any war in the history of the world. The Soviets had no way of matching the Marshall Plan when they needed to marshal (heh) as many resources as possible to restore their destroyed cityscapes and factories. These things don't happen in a vacuum. As someone else mentioned, the Soviets actively blocked the nations under their thumb from participating in the Marshall Plan. I don't know what argument you're making other than "East Germany wouldn't have been so terrible if the Soviets weren't so lovely." Not surprisingly, the socialist nation with arguably the best results, Yugoslavia, was in a position to tell Stalin to go gently caress himself, and did so. Homework Explainer posted:You folks seem to forget I'm examining these situations as they were, not as I'd like them to be. Proletarian internationalism should mean freedom of movement for everyone, but in the imperialist world-system I understand why that isn't seen as workable. Again, other countries have had emigration controls, but only the Bad Ones get the finger pointed their way. I can't think of a liberal polity with emigration controls remotely comparable to Eastern Bloc nations. It's no good to argue that socialist nations are only as bad as illiberal, tyrannical regimes in this sense, because your whole thesis is that socialist regimes are superior to those. It's a dead end from an argumentation point of view.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:The reasons for preventing mass exodus post-rev in countries which need skilled labor to hasten economic development, planning, industrialization, what have you should be obvious, though you then have to deal with the ideological and class motivations for members of a former gentry after socialist revolution. You know I never thought I'd see someone actually try and justify the Communist regimes' penchant to force their citizens to stay in their country by force as a good thing, but holy poo poo your ideological dedication to Soviet apologism is horrifying. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Also loving lol if you think that this sort of polemic is convincing to anyone not already in the metaphorical choir. Did you write this? It hits all the same notes as your posts. "Things were actually great in the GDR, except when they weren't, and inasmuch as they weren't it was all the fault of the Western powers." Ooh, and some good old whataboutism: "From 1961 to 1989, 756 East German escapees, an average of 30 per year, were either shot, drown, blown apart by mines or committed suicide after being captured. By comparison, hundreds of Mexicans die every year trying to escape poor Mexico into the far wealthier United States." The US
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Also loving lol if you think that this sort of polemic is convincing to anyone not already in the metaphorical choir. Did you write this? It hits all the same notes as your posts. "Things were actually great in the GDR, except when they weren't, and inasmuch as they weren't it was all the fault of the Western powers." "Whataboutism" is a really cool way to dismiss any and all attempts at evaluative symmetry. And you can check the sources cited, and check the sources of those sources. It's polemical but not inaccurate; par for the course when hunting for information about these countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:"Whataboutism" is a really cool way to dismiss any and all attempts at evaluative symmetry. I mean, I am really cool, and thus anything I do is really cool by necessity, so agreed. But this line is wholly irrelevant because there is no symmetry. If you think there is, man, lay it on me. e: I will check out some sources if you can give me your word that there are no Grover Furr citations in any of them. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Mans posted:Cuba has problems with giving proper working conditions to their social stratus that has high qualifications. Mexico is arguably more developed than Cuba, certainly in the industrial sense. Cuba only has a very slight edge in life expectancy as well despite all the violence from drug trafficking and rebellion in Southern Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I mean, I am really cool, and thus anything I do is really cool by necessity, so agreed. But this line is wholly irrelevant because there is no symmetry. If you think there is, man, lay it on me. I will admit the analogy is a stretch, yes. That was more an expression of general disdain for the term. I don't think anyone cites Furr in the documents listed. Somewhat relatedly, I use Furr's books as more a collection of citations that I can check personally than as a source in itself. Unfortunately I don't speak Russian, so checking absolutely everything is impossible. As with most Soviet historiography, anti-communist and "revisionist" alike, some of the "lies" Furr finds really are misrepresentations of the facts which have entered public perception, and others are, shall we say, "generous" interpretations of state documents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:Since I've been mostly fielding questions here, I'd like to ask the thread something: At what point should a country cut off emigration? Is there a certain condition to be met, like literal civil war? Are there other times when it makes good sense to close one's borders? I'm genuinely curious, because to me it sounds like some of you have no line on the issue whatsoever and would be OK with, like, mass emigration from the Union to the Confederacy or some other wild hypothetical. Absolutely never. Full stop. If someone wants to leave your country, and there is someone out there willing to take them, you let them go. If there's too many of them, you work on whatever hosed up poo poo is happening in your country that encourages people to leave. Immigration really sucks, ask anyone who's done it, heck, even I, merely "immigrating" to my birth country, had a really hard time to adjust, and still haven't fully recovered my social circle. I can't imagine talking to someone who has found some way of getting a work visa somewhere else and telling them "uh.. actually, we want you here." They're citizens, not conscripts. Why are people mass emigrating from the Union to the Confederacy a wild hypothetical? The truth is that the Confederacy sucked, it was clear to anyone involved that it sucked, and even the most racist and pro-slavery factions in the North (like those involved in the New York riots) wanted to send less Northerners Southwards as troops, not escape the North. African Americans obviously weren't held back by bluecoats from going down there. On the off chance that someone was so enamored with slavery that they wanted to leave, heck, if there were tens of thousands of them, why on earth would you keep them against their will? Let them go and at least have clearer lines for the war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Even if there is symmetry, how do you know that I don't, for example, feel just as strongly about the killing of people trying to enter the US as I do about the killing of people trying to leave East Germany? If I say that a particular murder is horrible, surely I don't need to mention every other murder since Cain and Abel to maintain moral credibility. But hell, I'll turn your question around a bit. Is there anything that, say, an ideal socialist state, shouldn't do if the alternative is certain collapse? Is the survival of the state paramount over every moral consideration? ("Adopt capitalism" is not an acceptable answer.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:"Whataboutism" is a really cool way to dismiss any and all attempts at evaluative symmetry. Also, either the author simply never gets around to substantiating his thesis that the GDR was more democratic than the FRG, or he's making a smug etymological argument: that since basic necessities were guaranteed by the government, the "people" had more "power," even if this didn't translate to political power. Speaking as a smug jerk with an interest in etymology, this is still a bit of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
docbeard posted:Even if there is symmetry, how do you know that I don't, for example, feel just as strongly about the killing of people trying to enter the US as I do about the killing of people trying to leave East Germany? If I say that a particular murder is horrible, surely I don't need to mention every other murder since Cain and Abel to maintain moral credibility. I think you're assuming the stability and development of a state and the welfare of its people are mutually exclusive, which is an odd premise, especially for countries which guaranteed housing, education, health care, employment, etc. Jack of Hearts posted:As someone else mentioned, the Soviets actively blocked the nations under their thumb from participating in the Marshall Plan. I don't know what argument you're making other than "East Germany wouldn't have been so terrible if the Soviets weren't so lovely." Not surprisingly, the socialist nation with arguably the best results, Yugoslavia, was in a position to tell Stalin to go gently caress himself, and did so. The Americans knew there wasn't a chance in hell of Congress approving the plan for the USSR, and the conditions set out for the Eastern Bloc were deliberately intended to antagonize the Soviets. Stalin himself was open to the idea until he got all the details.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:I think you're assuming the stability and development of a state and the welfare of its people are mutually exclusive, which is an odd premise, especially for countries which guaranteed housing, education, health care, employment, etc. I think I'm assuming that the argument for restricting emigration is because that emigration poses an existential threat to the nation. Since, you know, that's what people said it was. For that matter, what country doesn't justify the horrible things it does as necessary for the greater good? So I'm wondering where the limits of that argument are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:The Americans knew there wasn't a chance in hell of Congress approving the plan for the USSR, and the conditions set out for the Eastern Bloc were deliberately intended to antagonize the Soviets. Stalin himself was open to the idea until he got all the details. That...doesn't address my comment, at all? Socialist regimes were eligible for the Marshall Plan, but the Soviets decided that their imperialist aims were more important than the well-being of the Eastern Bloc. Your argument was "well, of course West Germany was more prosperous, it was heavily subsidized by the US." East Germany could have gotten similar subsidies, but Stalin was too "antagonized" to permit it. I guess that this is the anti-imperialist thread, and you've made a pretty good case that imperialism is terrible through cunning use of the Soviet example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Also, either the author simply never gets around to substantiating his thesis that the GDR was more democratic than the FRG, or he's making a smug etymological argument: that since basic necessities were guaranteed by the government, the "people" had more "power," even if this didn't translate to political power. Speaking as a smug jerk with an interest in etymology, this is still a bit of a stretch. Some more details on that front are here. Gowans mentions the East Germans ratified their constitutions in '49 and '68 but doesn't go into detail like this guy does, who is a historian and not a commie as far as I can tell. Contrast with the FRG constitution, put into effect merely with the Allies' signature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:"Whataboutism" is a really cool way to dismiss any and all attempts at evaluative symmetry. Please do stick to your principle of comparing countries to their neighbours, and do not try to say that the GDR was cool and awesome because Mexico is worse in some ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:Some more details on that front are here. Gowans mentions the East Germans ratified their constitutions in '49 and '68 but doesn't go into detail like this guy does, who is a historian and not a commie as far as I can tell. Contrast with the FRG constitution, put into effect merely with the Allies' signature. Homework Explainer looking at a report of the German constitution approved by 95% of all citizens: "Nothing fishy here, no siree"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:Some more details on that front are here. Gowans mentions the East Germans ratified their constitutions in '49 and '68 but doesn't go into detail like this guy does, who is a historian and not a commie as far as I can tell. Contrast with the FRG constitution, put into effect merely with the Allies' signature. I read the link. Not gonna lie, I'm pretty impressed. Whether it's automobiles or Potemkin democracy as a means of social control, German engineering is next to none. Russians or Americans could never come up with anything so subtle. e: That 1968 constitution seems only slightly more democratic than the constitution of the French Empire, which was approved in a plebiscite by similar margins. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Homework Explainer looking at a report of the German constitution approved by 95% of all citizens: "Nothing fishy here, no siree" Can't imagine him being any different about DPRK voting numbers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Homework Explainer looking at a report of the German constitution approved by 95% of all citizens: "Nothing fishy here, no siree" Reminder Homework Explainer posted:they (the USSR) had lots and lots of votes and elections — council elections, workplace votes, referenda — but because they weren't the beep boop parliamentary elections we're all familiar with in bourgeois politics they get called undemocratic or whatever
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:The reasons for preventing mass exodus post-rev in countries which need skilled labor to hasten economic development, planning, industrialization, what have you should be obvious, though you then have to deal with the ideological and class motivations for members of a former gentry after socialist revolution. The second your ideology starts having to excuse the mass imprisonment of the people inside its borders, because the people want to escape and you need to stop them by force or the entire system will assuredly implode, it has already failed. It has voided any claim to what is morally necessary in the pursuit of hypothetical future functionality, especially when we're talking about an ideology with a track record of ultimately never delivering. I have the wonderful opportunity to have as part of my family, through marriage, some of the kindest human beings I have ever known, and they fled North Korea understanding that they would be executed, or tortured then executed, if they were caught. Not everyone made it. After listening to their stories, it is powerfully telling to hear people describe in any way why the countries like North Korea should ever have their border lockdown policies excused, for the sake of the State, in any way you are doing if even incidentally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Kavros posted:The second your ideology starts having to excuse the mass imprisonment of the people inside its borders, because the people want to escape and you need to stop them by force or the entire system will assuredly implode, it has already failed. I'm not even backing Homework Explainer here, but this kind of comment just makes me remember how many people the US jails for smoking the wrong kind of vegetation. The economy may not depend on it, but it sure as hell benefits from it to a ridiculous degree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm not even backing Homework Explainer here, but this kind of comment just makes me remember how many people the US jails for smoking the wrong kind of vegetation. Yeah, and the war on drugs, beyond its direct and indirect moral repugnance, is an abysmal failure. Which is why no sane leftist supports it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm not even backing Homework Explainer here, but this kind of comment just makes me remember how many people the US jails for smoking the wrong kind of vegetation. Yeah that's exactly like a whole country being imprisoned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yeah that's exactly like a whole country being imprisoned. You've basically got four Luxembourgs incarcerated in the USA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yeah that's exactly like a whole country being imprisoned. Clearly by noting a failure of 'justice' in the United States I have therefore said every other country in history has only ever been moral and never done anything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Obviously the Berlin Wall is indefensible on moral grounds, but perhaps it can be defended on the basis that "Heroes" was a really good song?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm not even backing Homework Explainer here, but this kind of comment just makes me remember how many people the US jails for smoking the wrong kind of vegetation. You do actually see some right wingers making the same general sorts of arguments in favor of the war on drugs, with apologia expressly saying that it is a perfectly acceptable practice as it is used to protect the nation from threats against stability and the morally ordered nature of the country. They are equally banal. Well, maybe not equally, as I don't see a coterie of leftists adopting a worldview excusing it because of the harsh acknowledgements that the history of communism forces upon the practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:If you are starting an economic and political system from scratch and want your country to survive a dangerous and uncertain post-revolutionary process, where the people who have the resources to emigrate are the ones who benefited most from the previous economic order and would be most beneficial for rapid development, you need to keep them around. Except that their being able to leave the country for another one is a basic human right, unless you're going to charge them with a crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
I guess what HE is saying is that the beatings will continue till Morale improves is a perfectly rational policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
gobbagool posted:The simple preference of "the many" versus the individual. That's what is so crazy here. We have HE and a few stray fellow travelers really giving us a peek under the kimono of how they as Stalinists/Maoists/Maduroistas, whatever the hell they call themselves this week, think about things. To them, individual preferences or desires do not matter, all is in service to the State, which after some indeterminate amount of time, will result in better conditions for the individual? Maybe? Im not even sure, maybe they just like the idea of the individual being crushed? But then that kind of sounds like Imperialism but on a national rather than international scale? You know, I am starting to think that HE and Horselord and the rest haven't actually thought this through all the way! No, it is totally different. Because only the wishes of the whole class or the whole nation matter, a community of about 200 heads of state doing what they want while totally ignoring any and all needs and desires of their respective population is actually cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 08:40
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!