(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
Yossarian-22 posted:If you look at family histories of any country they mostly involve a lot of moving around. Moreover, "national consciousness" is an incredibly novel thing in most of the world as people used to feel loyal to their monarchs. The U.S. is actually one of the older "nation-states" as such despite being such an unusual amalgamation of peoples. it doesn't matter how it was created, it is still rooted in reality as a social organization. You cant just wish away "national consciousness" by academically explaining that it isn't real. quote:And then of course language becomes an issue when it becomes a way of excluding or denigrating people who speak other languages in the respective country. Even people who speak different dialects of the dominant language are forced to assimilate in the process of nation-state formation. i mean historically speaking, its very difficult to have a concept of citizenship that isn't exclusionary because citizenship confers extra rights and ownership to the population. Democracy and nationhood go hand in hand. Look at for example, Switzerland. in the soviet union some of my family complained about "discrimination" when they lived in Kazakhstan because they were not selected for some university position and instead those positions went to native Kazakhs. It wasn't discriminatory because its their country and they were training their local intellectual and productive base.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Top City Homo posted:in the soviet union some of my family complained about "discrimination" when they lived in Kazakhstan because they were not selected for some university position and instead those positions went to native Kazakhs. It wasn't discriminatory because its their country and they were training their local intellectual and productive base. lotsa quotes here because the rationale can be rather different: was this a sort of """"affirmative action"""", so to speak?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:lotsa quotes here because the rationale can be rather different: was this a sort of """"affirmative action"""", so to speak? my understanding is that this sort of affirmative action was widespread in the ussr and china both, and crucially unlike popularly-understood USA affirmative action it expressly applied to political positions as well as regular employment or schooling. so like the legislature in mongolia has to contain some percent of native mongolians etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:lotsa quotes here because the rationale can be rather different: was this a sort of """"affirmative action"""", so to speak? There is book out there literally called The Affirmative Action Empire. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 22:21 on Jul 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:it doesn't matter how it was created, it is still rooted in reality as a social organization. You cant just wish away "national consciousness" by academically explaining that it isn't real. Okay? But the discussion was about America being a fictitious nation. I'm saying it is no more or less fictitious than other nations. It might be more of a "settler colony" than most nations but that's a separate discussion. Like you said, you can't uncouple people from their patriotism by simply going around saying that the U.S. is a fake country, as some people in here are arguing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:lotsa quotes here because the rationale can be rather different: was this a sort of """"affirmative action"""", so to speak? its not so much affirmative action its just trying to respect local development goals. A minority population had rights to self determination and they did not want people outside their communities to monopolize scarce resources that were supposed to stay within that republic. Otherwise, they would lose their educated population to other republics because no seats are available while the majority takes all the other spots. So for example, if you were part of the RFSR in the Soviet Union, you could always apply for a university position there as long as you were Russian. In that situation, a Kazakh would not get priority if he also applied in Kazakhstan because its the russian republic. its basically anti chauvinistic in character Once you graduated you would get a job in your field but not always from your first choice. If you were a doctor, you may sometimes need to go to central asia to help train Kazakh doctors before choosing your next post. My wife's mom graduated from a Minsk university at the top of her class and they gave her a giant book and said you can work anywhere you want, in any republic for any position related to her field, no questions asked
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:My wife's mom graduated from a Minsk university at the top of her class and they gave her a giant book and said you can work anywhere you want, in any republic for any position related to her field, no questions asked Why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:Okay? But the discussion was about America being a fictitious nation. I'm saying it is no more or less fictitious than other nations. yes, but god is also fictitious and we still have various churches and church hierarchies etc. Ideas can create material reality when people turn those ideas into self reinforcing social customs. Those customs are real and those relations are real. obviously, when we act in a way that says " your rituals are of no concern to me" it will disturb a person who is an integrated national citizen because for them there is a universal subjectivity that confirms that there is a nation called the USA and they are a part of it. quote:It might be more of a "settler colony" than most nations but that's a separate discussion. Like you said, you can't uncouple people from their patriotism by simply going around saying that the U.S. is a fake country, as some people in here are arguing. that's exactly it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Why? because she was a good student and everyone was guaranteed a job she got a professorial position in Russian literature imagine becoming a professor of english literature right after graduation in the US
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:because she was a good student and everyone was guaranteed a job Let me clarify my question: did she earn the right to take whatever position she wanted because of her performance or for some other factor, like rarity of her skillet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Let me clarify my question: did she earn the right to take whatever position she wanted because of her performance or for some other factor, like rarity of her skillet? did you miss the "top of her class" part or are you doubting that is what earned her the position?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Let me clarify my question: did she earn the right to take whatever position she wanted because of her performance or for some other factor, like rarity of her skillet? she earned her position. socialism is basically the only society where meritocracy can be considered as "merit" based not just another phrase for lottery of birth
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Quote isn't edit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:did you miss the "top of her class" part or are you doubting that is what earned her the position? No, I was clarifying my initial question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
I mean if she was the top of her class, then it makes sense that almost any position would be open. That said, I still think catching a job at MGU wouldn't be that simple. That said, there is a second part, where if she wasn't the top of her class, she would have likely still been able to get a decent job somewhere else in the Soviet Union. There wasn't a situation where she would "poo poo out of luck" and had to give up her field of study to work in a coffee shop. As the affirmative action thing goes, a lot of came down to the specifically Central Asia where you had both Slavic/Turkic populations but the Slavic population would have a natural advantage without some quotas for native Turkic speakers. That said, by the late Soviet Union, many Turkic-speakers in urban areas were also well educated and the differences weren't as extreme. In Azerbaijan (not the Central Asia but still a comparable situation) there is still a hard break between urban Azerbaijans (who often still know/speak Russian) and rural Azerbaijans even though the Slavic population in Azerbaijan is minimal outside of Baku. ------------- It also gets into language issues since like the PRC, the Soviet Union did generally push a single national language and most the current back and forth is occurring in China also occurred in the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:its not so much affirmative action its just trying to respect local development goals. A minority population had rights to self determination and they did not want people outside their communities to monopolize scarce resources that were supposed to stay within that republic. Otherwise, they would lose their educated population to other republics because no seats are available while the majority takes all the other spots. I'd imagined it was something more or less like this, particularly in opposition to russification carried during the empire days
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:she earned her position. Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 01:27
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:I'd imagined it was something more or less like this, particularly in opposition to russification carried during the empire days Weird to learn how these evil Soviets *checks notes* respected local autonomy and culture of the republics of which they were comprised?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:Okay? But the discussion was about America being a fictitious nation. I'm saying it is no more or less fictitious than other nations. Nobody is claiming the US is a "fake country," you're just absolutely mistaken. You're also mistaken by claiming the United States is a "nation-state" instead of a federation. Nation states aren't structured in a way where its constituent territories are nominally sovereign, yet still beholden to an alienated overgovernment. Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 03:24 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
I’ve never seen an argument that the US isn’t a nation state that focused on its federated nature, I think federations are often considered nation states. usually people point out the lack of a unifying national identity/culture or the difference between white America vs nonwhite America
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
indigi posted:I’ve never seen an argument that the US isn’t a nation state that focused on its federated nature, I think federations are often considered nation states. usually people point out the lack of a unifying national identity/culture or the difference between white America vs nonwhite America It is a bit narrow, but it both arguments do line up with other federated structures. A nation-state is supposed to embody the territorial bounds of the national polity. Nation-states don't need a formal separation between central and regional governments because the State already embodies the totality of national polity. Countries whose reach extend beyond the national polity cease to be nation-states. Like, Russia isn't really a nation-state because it has a federal structure which encompasses a lot more than can be credibly considered "Russian" territory. The fact that national settlements aren't clean or contiguous is the biggest reason why nation-states have always been a bad idea. America doesn't even fit the definition of a nation on its own terms. Americans don't share a common history - being immigrants, they don't share a common religion or ethnicity, we don't even really share a common culture and never have. Even the de facto arrangement of Americans having a common language doesn't perfectly fit because America doesn't have an official language. "Americanism" can only be defined by its ideological context, and American ideology is antithetical to communism. Being American is so inexorably tied to liberal ideas, that even "conservatives" are just a more vulgar form of liberal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:can't up this post enough. imo it is amazingly interesting and I only skimmed the surface If you read Russian, you need to read this http://istmat.info/node/27169 quote:In this book, Professor K. Ballod (Ballodis) illustrates the peaceful transformation of capitalist Germany from its then state into a socialist society and describes the essence and rationality of socialism over capitalism. Moreover, socialism The work became one of the reasons for the development of the GOELRO plan. I haven't found an english version of this book anywhere. quote:to complement what you said, "planning for socks" is the correct idea (in terms of benefitting from planned economics) as the advantages of economies of scale compound in a much greater rate than a pulverized low density production. The problem in this scenario is figuring out the logistics, and this was the Big loving Issue of planning that made a lot of things very difficult for the USSR You have to keep in mind what the planning system accomplished. 1913 Russia economically exceeded 1929 USSR despite national income growing by 19% and industry, agriculture, and infrastructure growing by ~34% 1929 USSR was sanctioned and not recognized by the United States, Spain, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. They refused to accept gold as an import payment and a credit blockade and anti-dumping sanctions and embargoes: USA (1930), France (1930), England (1933). 1929 USSR had limited competency in modern technologies, including machine tool construction, non-ferrous metallurgy, chemical industry, aviation industry, automobile industry, agricultural machinery production, and the tractor industry. 1929 USSR had a population of 154 million and a life expectancy of 43 with no healthcare and limited education From 1929 to 1955 the USSR saw economic growth (excluding WW2 production) at ~14% a year. The USSR had an independent mechanical engineering industrial base, 1st in European industrial production, agricultural mechanization, and 2nd in world labor industrial productivity. New industries ( nuclear, aviation, transport, chemical etc). The best and high quality engineering/technological/scientific education in the world and affordable, quality healthcare. Life expectancy increased by 26 years. Population grew by 46M people, reaching 200M. Real income grew over 4 times. The problem is that Khrushchev destroyed all the mechanisms that drove this. growth He destroyed the innovative and directive control the party had over the economy while adding more responsibilities because maybe he really believed that the USSR could achieve communism in 20 years. Despite his utopian wrecking, the state was still able to maneuver on sheer momentum from the sabotaged mechanism for another 38 years . quote:(had Lenin or Stalin been with the access to the logistical organization that Amazon and Wal-Mart have nowadays, the USSR would have completely and utterly destroyed the entire question of domestic consumption) Right. The technology and methodology available today already has everything necessary for consumer planning and logistics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 04:57
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:America doesn't even fit the definition of a nation on its own terms. Americans don't share a common history - being immigrants, they don't share a common religion or ethnicity, we don't even really share a common culture and never have. Even the de facto arrangement of Americans having a common language doesn't perfectly fit because America doesn't have an official language. "Americanism" can only be defined by its ideological context, and American ideology is antithetical to communism. Your first paragraph shrouds America in the same exceptionalist uniqueness and mysticism that its apologists and nationalists use, namely the whole "nation of immigrants" shebang, even as you try to denounce it. Austria-Hungary had a similar claim to national pride as a multi-ethnic empire, and Franz Joseph spoke seven languages. Franz Ferdinand even had a bunch of scholars surrounding him who proposed a "United States of Greater Austria." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria I don't understand what demarcates "shared experience" and "common history" and what doesn't. Yugoslavia surely had a shared history before its borders arbitrarily changed. Montenegrins and Kosovars had common histories with Serbs until they didn't. I suppose the Soviet Union wasn't "a real nation" either? Most nationalists and communists in the Middle East and Africa have to deal with the arbitrary borders that they were dealt as a result of Sykes-Picot and the Scramble for Africa but they generally try to make it work anyway. If peasants with insanely different ethnic/cultural/linguistic backgrounds hundreds of miles away from each other can a socialist nation make in China and Russia (and some people vulgarly will insist that these were just fronts for "Han or Russian chauvinism" even still), I don't see how this is impossible simply because the Americans had to cross large bodies of water before they became American subjects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 05:56
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:Your first paragraph shrouds America in the same exceptionalist uniqueness and mysticism that its apologists and nationalists use, namely the whole "nation of immigrants" shebang, even as you try to denounce it. Austria-Hungary had a similar claim to national pride as a multi-ethnic empire, and Franz Joseph spoke seven languages. Franz Ferdinand even had a bunch of scholars surrounding him who proposed a "United States of Greater Austria." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria United States of Greater Austria was an excellent way to neutralize Hungarian nationalism and unite the disparate ethnic groups of the empire. It may not have lasted, but the monarchy could have got a lot of life out of casting themselves as the protectors of the transylvanians, slovaks, croats, ukranians, etc. against the hated Hungarian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
the turk lusts for vienna
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 06:14
|
|
|
I think we’re doing a lot of talking past each other but Pener is using the definition of “nation” that’s much more specific and isn’t really synonymous with “state” - for example, Canada can be described as a state comprised of two different nations (regular Canadians and those foul French ones), and this description would also apply to the USSR and China. China is a state with a bunch of different “nations” within it - geographically bound populations with shared ethnic cultural religious and language histories, many of which have legal recognition from the Chinese state
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
These are some of the reasons the Washington DC baseball team being called the “Nationals” really bothers me still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 12:02
|
|
|
indigi posted:I think we’re doing a lot of talking past each other but Pener is using the definition of “nation” that’s much more specific and isn’t really synonymous with “state” - for example, Canada can be described as a state comprised of two different nations (regular Canadians and those foul French ones), and this description would also apply to the USSR and China. China is a state with a bunch of different “nations” within it - geographically bound populations with shared ethnic cultural religious and language histories, many of which have legal recognition from the Chinese state Yes. The United States and Austro-Hungarian Empire both predate the concept of a "nation-state," so using nation-state synonymously with any modern state gets pretty messy. Yossarian-22 posted:Your first paragraph shrouds America in the same exceptionalist uniqueness and mysticism that its apologists and nationalists us Yes. That is my point. That Americans are ideological thinkers, and that insofar as you can call American a "national" identity it's defined purely in ideological terms. Peasants in Russia & China still have essential qualities that define their nationhood which don't depend on their relation to a political economy. For America to become a socialist state would mean overthrowing 250 years of national tradition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:These are some of the reasons the Washington DC baseball team being called the “Nationals” really bothers me still. Especially since they are the Expos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
docbeard posted:One of the issues in (but not necessarily unique to) an American take on socialism is that it would probably work better if it weren't called socialism, due to the lifelong conditioning of more than half a century's worth of Americans to see socialism as a nightmare dystopian dictatorship that hates you, yes you, little Charlie and Susie, personally. (To the point where, even knowing better, it's hard for me not to knee-jerk see it that way sometimes.) I suspect we're starting to see that go away but it'll be a few decades before it's gone completely. This is essentially lying to Americans on the reasoning that they're too dumb to: A. Become socialists because of ideological conditioning B. Not recognize socialism with a red white and blue coat of paint To the first point I'd rebut that only people old enough to remember the cold war have any deeply ingrained opposition to socialism. These people are also by and large the more comfortable half of the American population and thus the least sympathetic demographic to socialism already People born after the breakup of the USSR received a substantially more cursory anti-communist indoctrination. If surveys on the issue are anything to go off of socialism is more popular than capitalism with young people. To the second point I'd say lying to people about your ideology is antithetical to leftwing thought. The Nazis tried to equate socialism with German nationalism precisely because they, like the rest of the right wing, are bad faith liars. Attempting to synthesize socialism with "Americanism" can only end in the discrediting of socialism as a valid form of anti-imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
I don’t think calling or referring to socialism as something else but retaining all the core principles is “lying” in any meaningful sense
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yes. That is my point. That Americans are ideological thinkers, and that insofar as you can call American a "national" identity it's defined purely in ideological terms. Peasants in Russia & China still have essential qualities that define their nationhood which don't depend on their relation to a political economy. For America to become a socialist state would mean overthrowing 250 years of national tradition. Yes, but that national tradition is predicated on there always being a new frontier to offload the problems onto. 'voting with your feet' and so on. It will be overthrown because of a lack of frontier regardless of how anyone has been trained to think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:This is essentially lying to Americans on the reasoning that they're too dumb to: I don't disagree, but the opposite extreme would seem to involve completely writing off everyone born before 1991, and as fine a catchphrase as "don't trust anyone over 30" is... I don't know, I definitely think that Socialism With American Characteristics is possible, but I don't necessarily know what that looks like (and I'd also describe myself as open-minded-but-skeptical where Marxism in general is concerned, so I'm probably not the best person to figure it out anyway!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yes. it would be overthrowing a 70 year ideological oligarchy
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:and that insofar as you can call American a "national" identity I think when people in America refer to America as a nation they are usually referring to White Nationalism which is a huge influence in modern and historical American politics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:it would be overthrowing a 70 year ideological oligarchy I'm pretty sure that climate change and poverty will do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:For America to become a socialist state would mean overthrowing 250 years of national tradition. lets start today
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
ill make the wiki
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Dreddout posted:
so in 10 years when the boomer die out, generation x comes to full political power and burns whatever is left of the world for 40 years. then millennials get their turn then socialism is o.k. in 'merica?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 00:12
|
|