|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Turns out this cover is not at all a homage in its intent, but rather meant as an insult. It comes from the adepts of an extreme-right guru called Alain Soral. You're absolutely right that this is meant as an insult, but do you have any source for the idea that it's coming from Alain Soral's followers? Everything about it to me points to the opposite, that it's coming from the radical anticolonial left who are pissed about Charlie Hebdo's hypocrisy and pseudo-leftism. EDIT: What's implied is that Charlie Hebdo used to have leftist ideals, but it started going bankrupt until it figured out that taking a rightward turn and focusing on making GBS threads on Muslims was good for profits. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jan 12, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:03 |
|
HorseLord posted:I think you should probably read my post again, champ. I think I got it, slugger.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:You're absolutely right that this is meant as an insult, but do you have any source for the idea that it's coming from Alain Soral's followers? Everything about it to me points to the opposite, that it's coming from the radical anticolonial left who are pissed about Charlie Hebdo's hypocrisy and pseudo-leftism. Edit: I saw your edit. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think I got it, slugger. Given you responded as if I said they should somehow subdue them I don't think you did. It's okay, you made a mistake. Many people do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:13
|
|
HorseLord posted:Given you responded as if I said they should somehow subdue them I don't think you did. It's okay, you made a mistake. Many people do that. Nope, the mistake is your's I'm afraid - you just got defensive because you thought I was misreading you. I never thought you were encouraging the subordination or repression of the Soviet cultural elite, or anyone else. My point is that there was no way cultural figures in the USSR could have been included without being subordinated - the USSR was structurally repressive in its nature. A USSR that incorporates freely expressing cultural elites is not the USSR, by definition. However, because militarism was also intrinsic to the Soviet system, the system incorporated military scientists and leaders very readily (though they weren't above purges, in the Stalinist years in particular, at all). So saying 'if only the Soviet union could have encouraged an open cultural community more!' is just as useless as observations and questions like 'what if Stalin hadn't done blah blah' - well, then he wouldn't be Stalin. There is a reason historians don't encourage people to play games with counterfactuals in this way. It's OK though, you rushed for the patronising remark right on the first reply. You got defensive. Many people do that. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Nope, the mistake is your's I'm afraid - you just got defensive because you thought I was misreading you. My point is that there was no way cultural figures in the USSR could have been included without being subordinated - the USSR was structurally repressive in its nature. A USSR that incorporates freely expressing cultural elites is not the USSR, by definition. However, because militarism was also intrinsic to the Soviet system, the system incorporated military scientists and leaders very readily (though they weren't above purges, in the Stalinist years in particular, at all). "You should have used the correct fuse instead it would've worked out better." "stop being ahistorical and wondering about counterfactuals. What's done is done, if I hadn't replaced the missing fuse with a nail and burned our house down when the power surged then I just wouldn't be me." Now you've finished wanking over the inability to go back and correct past mistakes and mankind's objective lack of freewill, or whatever, do you have anything good or useful to add to the conversation? Regardless cultural figures absolutely could have played a very important role in building soviet society and keeping the party's ideology fresh. The entire history of the soviet union wasn't already decided when Lenin got out of bed one fateful day in november, and what USSR means "by definition" is no more defined by what celebrities did than "United Kingdom" is by me clipping my toenails. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:26
|
|
HorseLord posted:"You should have used the correct fuse instead it would've worked out better." Your argument is like saying 'what if fascism didn't involve nationalism irridentism, expansionism, militarism and state repression' - then it wouldn't be fascism. The Soviet system was built on repression backed by force. Once you remove the repression the Soviet system dissolves or is overthrown. So saying 'What if the Soviet Union stopped repression' translates practically in to the question: 'what if the Soviet Union wasn't the Soviet Union?'. This becomes even more obvious if you examine the actual history of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It has nothing to do with concepts of free will and determinism. HorseLord posted:The entire history of the soviet union wasn't already decided when Lenin got out of bed one fateful day in november. Edit: in response to your edit: No, it wasn't, although the jacobin early period of Soviet Communism was necessary to put it in to power, and thus negated a lot of its moral force. It's for this reason that Ryutin, Trotsky and others, refer to Stalin as 'the gravedigger of communism'. Putting aside that famous argument in Soviet theory, just look at what happened in the USSR when a more open policy with regard to speech, thought etc. was adopted. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Your argument is like saying 'what if fascism didn't involve nationalism irridentism, expansionism, militarism and state repression' - then it wouldn't be fascism. The Soviet system was built on repression backed by force. Once you remove the repression the Soviet system dissolves or is overthrown. The soviet system is a bunch of councils arranged in a pyramid. They started and ended as multiparty entities, even. Disinterested posted:No, it wasn't, although the jacobin early period of Soviet Communism was necessary to put it in to power, and thus negated a lot of its moral force. It's for this reason that Ryutin, Trotsky and others, refer to Stalin as 'the gravedigger of communism'. Putting aside that famous argument in Soviet theory, just look at what happened in the USSR when a more open policy with regard to speech, thought etc. was adopted. And what happened was directly caused by what I suggested they shouldn't have done. Hell, you talk about "early period of Soviet Communism" negating it's moral force but like, what does "early period" even mean? The early period was full of free expression and avant garde loving everything, the Stalin and post stalin USSR you speak of was a much later thing. That alone puts the nail in the coffin for your argument that somehow the USSR had to be the way it was to meet the definition of being the USSR. I would have thought being the same state with the same name would be enough, but hey ho. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:35
|
|
HorseLord posted:The soviet system is a bunch of councils arranged in a pyramid. They started and ended as multiparty entities, even. At this point the troll/mental defect becomes obvious. Edit: can you try actually writing the main body of your post out before unceremoniously scrambling to edit it. To continue on with this horrendous derail: That is an incredibly obtuse literal interpretation of my words. 'The Soviet system' both simultaneously means 'the system of organisation by Soviets' as well as 'the general system of governance of the Soviet Union', without any real conceptual or linguistic difficulty. The only reason to emphasise the first definition by being overly literal is to troll. quote:And what happened was directly caused by what I suggested they shouldn't have done. It's quite clear from the scholarship that no matter what direction the leadership the Soviet Union had taken post-Lenin, it was always going to go to dark places. There was no realistic good outcome possible, even if anything-but-Stalin might quite possibly have been the most preferable option. quote:Hell, you talk about "early period of Soviet Communism" negating it's moral force but like, what does "early period" even mean? The early period was full of free expression and avant garde loving everything, the Stalin and post stalin USSR you speak of was a much later thing. That alone puts the nail in the coffin for your argument that somehow the USSR had to be the way it was to meet the definition of being the USSR. I would have thought being the same state with the same name would be enough, but hey ho. I'm not sure that the Leninist era is quite the happy era that you seem to imagine it was. There was repression even then, even if it was sometimes married to avante-garde ideas. That Trotsky liked to write literary theory doesn't undermine the fact that he was also a butcher. I am principally referring to the Stalinist era, but there are no shortage of things to point to back to earlier on, both in Leninist theory and in the practice of the party. But yes, noted one party state Bolsheveik 1920's Russia was indeed a hotbed of 'free expression'. I'm not trying to be a cold warrior about this, as the best critiques of the USSR tend to be left critiques, including the Luxembourgist and Trotskyite critiques. HorseLord posted:This conversation between us started because you couldn't understand the basic human tendency to wonder how something could have been better than it was. [Citation needed]. Historians don't like counterfactuals except when they're trying to be sensationalists, generally speaking, but mine would be: something would have had to have gone differently very early in the Soviet project. Even so, I believe (as do many modern communists) that Marxist-Leninist theory was inherently flawed in such a way that it was bound to produce bad results. And I believe the way that the USSR was taken apart demonstrates what happens in a repressive one party state when more advanced freedoms are permitted - it disintegrates rapidly. I'm happy to engage in wondering how it could have been better, but there's not much use in doing that by imagining things that were extremely unlikely to happen, or never could have. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:At this point the troll/mental defect becomes obvious. This conversation between us started because you couldn't understand the basic human tendency to wonder how something could have been better than it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:You're absolutely right that this is meant as an insult, but do you have any source for the idea that it's coming from Alain Soral's followers? Everything about it to me points to the opposite, that it's coming from the radical anticolonial left who are pissed about Charlie Hebdo's hypocrisy and pseudo-leftism. Dedko is a cartoonist for Quenelplus, a Dieudonné website whose affiliation with Soral is evident. The "religions: double standard" title is classic Soralian propaganda about how you just can't joke about Jews. As for "trahison des idéaux de gauche" part, it's because the soralians, who like to think of themselves as something else than brownshirts, consider that the left has abandoned the defense of the workers and the regulation of the economy (and of the banking system) as a political goal. According to them, socialists and far-left parties have lost their identity and are indistinguishable from the right, except when it comes to the support of gay rights, feminism, and so on, which the soralians hate. (That makes them hilariously wrong when it comes to Charlie, since Bernard Maris' weekly column about the economy easily demonstrates the contrary).
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Turns out this cover is not at all a homage in its intent, but rather meant as an insult. It comes from the adepts of an extreme-right guru called Alain Soral. This is what I get for not reading the words and just seeing an edit of a well-known CH cover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Oh hey, a 18,000-person anti-Islam march in Germany in response to the Charlie Hebdo stuff. Apparently Muslims are "not capable of democracy" and it's only a matter of time until Muslims
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Oh hey, a 18,000-person anti-Islam march in Germany in response to the Charlie Hebdo stuff. Apparently Muslims are "not capable of democracy" and it's only a matter of time until Muslims I'm glad those are usually counter-demonstrated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Oh hey, a 18,000-person anti-Islam march in Germany in response to the Charlie Hebdo stuff. Apparently Muslims are "not capable of democracy" and it's only a matter of time until Muslims It's the same group that has been going for months. They'd find an excuse anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
The Dresden firebombing marches are the ones with the massive counter-protests. I'm not up to date with this latest Pegida stuff, but I suspect it's not facing nearly as much opposition
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I'm glad those are usually counter-demonstrated. And except in Dresden they are also vastly outnumbered, fortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The Dresden firebombing marches are the ones with the massive counter-protests. I'm not up to date with this latest Pegida stuff, but I suspect it's not facing nearly as much opposition There's this, although it's just 4,500 in Hamburg. You'd also have to wonder if they're as committed to counter-demonstrations as Pegida to going out and going "gently caress muzzies" all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
There are a few thousand at the counter-demonstrations in Hamburg and Berlin, 20,000 in Munich and about 30,000 in Leipzig.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Anything on Berlin, besides shutting down the Brandenburger Tor's lights?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:nobody could do that poo poo except ironically. So communism was brought down by hipsters?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Anything on Berlin, besides shutting down the Brandenburger Tor's lights? The Berlin police reports about 400 at the Pegida demonstration and 4000 at the counter-demonstration. The lights at the gate weren't shut down tonight, but the Chancellor said in a speech that "Islam is a part of Germany" and that she is the cancellor of all Germans e: she actually said "regardless of their origins and background" Honj Steak fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Why are those Pegida protests so strong in the East? I thought the immigrant populations were concentrated in the Western cities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
From what German goons have told me, Eastern Germany is still very poor 23 years after reunification; everyone who could gently caress off to the west did so, and the old state-run industries collapsed under competition from Western competitors, leaving the most destitute behind. East Germany's also where Die Linke is strongest, although you'd wonder how much of the electorate just does protest votes and were willing to switch from Die Linke to AfD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
TheIllestVillain posted:Why are those Pegida protests so strong in the East? I thought the immigrant populations were concentrated in the Western cities. The East got proper hosed after unification (Treuhand!  ) and has noticeable demographic problems. And while some parts are actually pulling ahead compared to other states, the East gets a first taste of bad economic developements all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Randler posted:The East got proper hosed after unification (Treuhand! A question, since I assume you are from Germany. How is the industry infrastructure in the east compared to the west? I was talking with a German acquaintance of me some time ago, and he said that the reason east Germany is so much worse off than the west was because the Soviets shipped off any heavy machinery and industrial equipment they could find, and the east never really recovered from that after the wall fell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
The East was also heavily affected by the fact that everyone who could leave after the wall did, including a lot of skilled workers and managers fearful that the pendulum would swing back the other way before re-unification happened and they'd be "trapped" again. And then after that didn't happen, they already had comfortable living situations elsewhere they didn't want to leave. There was also the separate issue that people left in great numbers before the wall, but there was a good 30 years of training up new people to replace them by the time it went down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:A question, since I assume you are from Germany. How is the industry infrastructure in the east compared to the west? I was talking with a German acquaintance of me some time ago, and he said that the reason east Germany is so much worse off than the west was because the Soviets shipped off any heavy machinery and industrial equipment they could find, and the east never really recovered from that after the wall fell. It is partly that, East Germany was always behind the West, but at the same time, there is the classic problem of what you do with a population with non-competitive industries and what happens when a priority is put on profit efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:A question, since I assume you are from Germany. How is the industry infrastructure in the east compared to the west? I was talking with a German acquaintance of me some time ago, and he said that the reason east Germany is so much worse off than the west was because the Soviets shipped off any heavy machinery and industrial equipment they could find, and the east never really recovered from that after the wall fell. What? This stinks of just-so bullshit to me. The DDR was the richest, most developed country in the Eastern Bloc by a pretty big margin. The moving factories poo poo stopped in the 50s, the wall came down over 30 years later. The reason it's hosed up today is the same reason every other Eastern Bloc country is hosed up, no more no less. East Germany is much better off than even the best of the other post-Communists though, because it's part of Germany
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Ask Germans about jammerossis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Greece's Golden Dawn party has released their campaign platform for the upcoming parliamentary elections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKLPqG6d9Ls Further details - https://xaameriki.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/golden-dawns-program-for-a-free-and-powerful-nation/ Despite much of their leadership still being under arrest, opinion polls show that they could become the #3 party. Prior to the 2014 regional elections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIn6bQJgwMU
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Geez, that Golden Dawn party is terrifying. You know when you've got video-game-esque triumphant music playing in the background of your video that poo poo is getting scary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
I love the double whammy of them wanting a political turn towards Russia, and Russia using them to demonstrate how the West is full of Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
on the left posted:Care to name any well-known and loved soviet movies? I watched Kin-dza-dza! and it was like slow torture. I'm going to agree with Shy here and recommend Ivan Vasielevich Changes Profession (Иван Васильевич меняет профессию). It's really, really funny and has some pretty interesting insights into Soviet culture. Here it is, with English subs: Part 1 Part 2 edit: found a version with better subtitles. VikingofRock fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Golden Dawn has lost a lot of support in polls and are at less than half of what they were in 2013. (they're black) Also the left is going to likely to emerge victorious in the next election. Golden Dawn is nowhere near the threat they were just a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Pretty creepy seeing an actual revanchist/expansionist platform in Europe. A ridiculous EEZ and military protection of [Greek] Cyprus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Also the left is going to likely to emerge victorious in the next election. Golden Dawn is nowhere near the threat they were just a year ago. They have been slowly bleeding after the mass arrests, certainly a great thing. However, I wonder if Syriza goes down in flames and is unable to reach a compromise, if there might be a return of pissed off protest voters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
A major contraction of New Democracy or decline of SYRIZA would almost certainly lead to a GD resurgence. It's success is because of funding and support from Greece's Deep State (leftovers from the junta), but that also means it doesn't really need popular support to continue its operations. It's still the biggest threat to Greece's future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Apparently Papandreou has created his own party and now PASOK might not beat the threshold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
rudatron posted:A major contraction of New Democracy or decline of SYRIZA would almost certainly lead to a GD resurgence. It's success is because of funding and support from Greece's Deep State (leftovers from the junta), but that also means it doesn't really need popular support to continue its operations. It's still the biggest threat to Greece's future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:51
|
|
