|
Typo posted:if the only people who got shot were ex-aristocrats you might have a point And so were Jacobins. What's your point?
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Which is the liberal model for modern industrialization? you're saying that liberalism and communism are actually... the same? woah dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:you're saying that liberalism and communism are actually... the same? It's more like the process of industrialization is inherently violent, and can't be achieved without major social upheaval and significant suffering among the dispossessed classes who are tapped to form the proletariat. Not to mention the ruthless exploitation of agricultural laborers in the hinterlands to generate the necessary capital and inputs. Western powers also had tens of millions of colonial subjects they could exploit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
Urgh this thread is triggering me now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:And so were Jacobins. What's your point? Yes, Jacobinism and M-Lism are particularly awful in this regard, as revolutionary ideologies go. This is a mark against them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
A leftist who defends the purges is a leftist who will cheerfully stick a knife into their comrades' backs if and when the revolution ever comes. Which is to say that this thread makes me glad that the revolution ain't coming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:A leftist who defends the purges is a leftist who will cheerfully stick a knife into their comrades' backs if and when the revolution ever comes. I don't actually think they'd be cheerful about it. Which, you might say, who cares, the knife is still there in one's back, but then it's not really worth specifying to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I don't actually think they'd be cheerful about it. Which, you might say, who cares, the knife is still there in one's back, but then it's not really worth specifying to begin with. It may be mild hyperbole in some cases, but on the other hand, Effectronica and HorseLord.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Yes, Jacobinism and M-Lism are particularly awful in this regard, as revolutionary ideologies go. This is a mark against them. Most communist revolutions didn't have post-revolutionary purges though. It's almost as if none of us have been defending the purges, but were rather contextualizing them historically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Most communist revolutions didn't have post-revolutionary purges though. Granted. I made the same point contra Typo within the last few pages. Painting M-Lism with such a broad brush was a clear error. My question to you is, what gets the benefit of historical context? Why is it that you hold that the rules for admittance to US presidential debates are "wrong," based on some principles you've chosen to adopt, while your response to Soviet purges and ethnic cleansing is "poo poo happens mang"? When you condemn the US for its history, are you making the case that America's history was in some sense particularly bad, or are you simply pointing out that all historically all empires have been terrible, so liberals should be going easier on Stalin itt?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Granted. I made the same point contra Typo within the last few pages. Painting M-Lism with such a broad brush was a clear error. The issue wrt the American presidential debates is more relevant to harp on, because it's an ongoing process that we're dealing with right now. It's an injustice that is being carried out right now and likely will into the near future. By comparison, getting sanctimonious about crimes that were carried out before any of us were even born is ridiculous, especially when they're being contrasted with other examples that aren't really comparable. Whether or not a country's history is particularly bad is, sort of, the point that I'm trying to make. Every country's history is particularly bad, because no two states share the same histories. Even where there may be some general patterns that are comparable, the outcomes may be dramatically different for a number of reasons. As for all empires being terrible, yeah that's true. It's absurd to see liberals act as if the Soviet Union was uniquely terrible for its industrializing process, when the industrialization in liberal and western states was carried out with similar brutality. This gets harped on over and over again as a cudgel against communists, but none of us ITT are proposing a return to the Soviet model any more than liberals are advocating a return to colonialism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I don't actually think they'd be cheerful about it. Which, you might say, who cares, the knife is still there in one's back, but then it's not really worth specifying to begin with. Problem with this viewpoint is, with revolutionaries being humans (and therefore inherently self-interested to some degree), personal ambition and old grudges inevitably come into play. Things like the Great Purge can't just be explained by broad social forces like paranoia of external and internal counterrevolutionary forces. Bukharin and Tukhashevsky didn't die just because Stalin et al. were afraid of foreign invasion. They died because Stalin was a power-mad shitlord. So I'm pretty sure that there was some glee in putting the knives in, in a lot of cases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Problem with this viewpoint is, with revolutionaries being humans (and therefore inherently self-interested to some degree), personal ambition and old grudges inevitably come into play. Things like the Great Purge can't just be explained by broad social forces like paranoia of external and internal counterrevolutionary forces. Bukharin and Tukhashevsky didn't die just because Stalin et al. were afraid of foreign invasion. They died because Stalin was a power-mad shitlord. So I'm pretty sure that there was some glee in putting the knives in, in a lot of cases. This doesn't actually justify a categorical statement about any leftist offering any kind of defense of purges from historical context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This doesn't actually justify a categorical statement about any leftist offering any kind of defense of purges from historical context. Never said it did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Problem with this viewpoint is, with revolutionaries being humans (and therefore inherently self-interested to some degree), personal ambition and old grudges inevitably come into play. Things like the Great Purge can't just be explained by broad social forces like paranoia of external and internal counterrevolutionary forces. Bukharin and Tukhashevsky didn't die just because Stalin et al. were afraid of foreign invasion. They died because Stalin was a power-mad shitlord. So I'm pretty sure that there was some glee in putting the knives in, in a lot of cases. You can't reduce the growing pains of a post-revolutionary society to something as simple as "material forces." The true, smart and Nuanced answer is Josef "Howlin' Mad" Stalin's frothing madness and lust for Slav blood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:By comparison, getting sanctimonious about crimes that were carried out before any of us were even born is ridiculous, especially when they're being contrasted with other examples that aren't really comparable. I largely agree with the whole of this post, and in particular I agree with the above. Using historical crimes as a rhetorical cudgel is flat out tedious. But that's not the only reason something like the Great Purge arises in these conversations. I see myself as a
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:You can't reduce the growing pains of a post-revolutionary society to something as simple as "material forces." This but unironically
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Never said it did. Never said you said it did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:You can't reduce the growing pains of a post-revolutionary society to something as simple as "material forces." On the contrary, you can reduce literally everything to "material forces." We live in a mostly deterministic universe. Given the initial conditions within our solar system a hundred thousand years ago, there was only one way things could have possibly unfolded, which is exactly as they have. Free will simply does not exist; you were always going to make this post, and I was always going to reply to it in this manner. (OK, this isn't exactly true, since we can now, for instance, use such things as quantum random number generators. Free will still doesn't exist though.) Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:On the contrary, you can reduce literally everything to "material forces." We live in a mostly deterministic universe. Given the initial conditions within our solar system a hundred thousand years ago, there was only one way things could have possibly unfolded, which is exactly as they have. Free will simply does not exist; you were always going to make this post, and I was always going to reply to it in this manner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqjK6EZPFZc&t=35s
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Socialism: is free will real or not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:On the contrary, you can reduce literally everything to "material forces." yes i know i was making fun of majorian's bad post
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
I wanna have a word with whoever set the initial conditions. Pretty hosed up that I was destined to spend this part of my day posting in the tankie thread on a dying comedy forum. Pretty hosed up that I was destined to think about how pretty hosed up that is. Pretty fu...
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:yes i know i was making fun of majorian's bad post I'm pretty sure I was making fun of your bad post. Either go all-in on determinism or don't bother, because middle-ground determinism is philosophically barren while having zero explanatory power. It's just hand-wavy bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:I'm pretty sure I was making fun of your bad post. Either go all-in on determinism or don't bother, because middle-ground determinism is philosophically barren while having zero explanatory power. It's just hand-wavy bullshit. materialism isn't determinism though i can't say i'm surprised your dumb rear end has come to this conclusion
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:You can't reduce the growing pains of a post-revolutionary society to something as simple as "material forces." The true, smart and Nuanced answer is Josef "Howlin' Mad" Stalin's frothing madness and lust for Slav blood. Nah, part of the explanation is that world leaders tend to be pretty ambitious and power-hungry. The personality and goals of the individual who took power and carried out these purges played a fairly significant role in it, and it's pretty dumb to pretend like it was an historic inevitability. e: material forces played a role, no question, but it's a "necessary but not sufficient" variable. There needed to be more for the Purges to happen. You're the one being reductivist, hate to tell ya. e2: also stalin lusted mostly for non-slav blood. dude was a russian wanna-be. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
*In homework explainer-like nerd voice* "Of course >50% of the 1930s Soviet Communist Party, were Trotskyite traitors, it would be ridiculous to think the Great Purge was conducted for any other reason."Majorian posted:e2: also stalin lusted mostly for non-slav blood. dude was a russian wanna-be. It's wierd how Stalin wound up being such a Russia weeaboo considering most of the actually Russian Bolsheviks were less than proud of their country. Lenin especially thought Russia was a superstitious backwards shithole and in on records wishing he had been born in the west. It's interesting contrasting the avant-gard radicalism of the 1920s with Stalin's relatively conservative social policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Some of the Bolsheviks did bad things, therefore all socialism and communism is wrong and bad and evil forever. The incredible suffering that billions of people have faced throughout history - and still do to this day - as a result of capitalism, and the lovely things individual capitalists do with their wealth and power has no bearing on the morality of that system, though. The Saurus fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Some of the Bolsheviks did bad things, therefore all socialism and communism is wrong and bad and evil forever.  : the post
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:
I'm not aware of causing death and suffering worldwide as members of the capitalist and political class in the west have? Beyond the necessary suffering that all of us cause by living in a capitalist imperialist system and having to buy necessities like food and clothes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Some of the Bolsheviks did bad things, therefore all socialism and communism is wrong and bad and evil forever. while more sympathetic, this argument isn't actually any more technically sound here than it is when you applied it to fascism, the saurus
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
capitalism; is bad
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:But the question that Stalin raises is this: how many eggs are you willing to break to make a three-egg omelette? The early 20th century was an era of unprecedented barbarism and destruction, so the willingness to make a militarized industrial omelette was much more desperate than the situation for anyone in the global north today. Nowadays the primary problem is what we're doing to other people, and not what other people can do to us. The United States is mobilized to combat relatively insignificant threats, and we live in a farcical age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The early 20th century was an era of unprecedented barbarism and destruction, so the willingness to make a militarized industrial omelette was much more desperate than the situation for anyone in the global north today. Nowadays the primary problem is what we're doing to other people, and not what other people can do to us. The United States is mobilized to combat relatively insignificant threats, and we live in a farcical age. wow soviet knock-off thomas friedman somehow manages to be worse than regular friedman
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
"the next five year plan will be critical"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:wow soviet knock-off thomas friedman somehow manages to be worse than regular friedman What?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Look when it comes to authors of amateurish geopolitical analysis there aren't a whole lot of household names to reference ok, cut me some slack here mr crow poop kin
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
I can just copy paste whole Google books if that's what you want on this dead comedy forum
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Look when it comes to authors of amateurish geopolitical analysis there aren't a whole lot of household names to reference ok, cut me some slack here mr crow poop kin "non-racist sam harris." wait, nevermind, that's a contradiction in terms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
with every post itt c-ham puts more and more effort into projecting benign disinterest. a neutron star of irony, collapsing in on itself. occasionally there is a good joke
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:06
|
|