World War III

[O. Van Bruce]

Ed, we live inside the system and it has perfected itself to the point that it doesn't need to use the same methods as Stalin or Mao. furthermore, the real cruelty of capitalism can only be seen in the 3rd world countries.

Reasonable enough, except we don't need to believe that the system dooms other countries to poor living standards. There are some reforms we could (and arguably should) be looking at.

That's exactly what happens because 1st world countries wouldn't support their economies if their multinationals couldn't buy cheap labour and primary resources in 3rd world countries.

[Ed Oscuro]

Another giant mischaracterization haphazardly strung together and extrapolated from different parts of the original post.

I see you are especially jealous to avoid being stuck toward any kind of "characterization" about Stalin, even those which appear completely compatible with what you say elsewhere (isn't that you saying that Stalinist dictatorship is preferable to the Western democracies - but maybe just not the media? Score one for the institutions of liberal democracy then!). Of course, I acknowledge that you don't have to go on record about any topic you wish to avoid, but it is at the least very strange that you should be so defensive about attempting to push discussion away from it.

At the same time you muster all this righteous fury for self-defense, you refuse to acknowledge that you toss out all kind of ridiculous mischaracterizations of the rest of the world...including me, your friendly local Forumite. You still won't retract your inexcusable comment that I'm in love with lassiez-faire policies, for example. Technically speaking, I'm sure you could probably aver that you weren't talking about me in particular, so in that case you are only guilty of using that time-honored and totally respectable tactic of talking about people who are not in the room so you can deny making direct comments about others, and to ignore whatever it is they happen to be asserting, which is of course a time-honored and completely respectable debating tactic.

In a word this is called hypocrisy.

Anyway, this is something I would like you to reflect on.

If I had simply typed democracy, it would`ve given the wrong idea that I`m opposed to any democracy on principle which is not the case. I`m only against liberal democracy which I consider undemocratic by design. It needed to be specified.

No, that's not necessary; I had figured this out. What is at issue for me is that you are averse to admitting the many signs that - even acknowledging the flaws - there are many liberal democracies which have not been worse, under any kind of development or moral criteria than you like, than the worst of the Communist dictatorships. That, of course, is not an argument against Communism or even dictatorship in general, but rather against the argument which you at least seem to have proposed in some of the lines quoted above.

as if there are no fans of democracy who have issues with implementation, economic tenets, or other issues

There`s the key and most divisive issue to consider - the issue of property. If there`s no agreement on that, then there`s no common ground to stand on with other "fans of democracy".

I don't think "property" is the major issue actually, when you consider that many so-called dictatorships of the proletariat have shackled nations in service of the ruling elite. I'm far from giving a proper Socratic definition here, but I think property is obviously just one potential dimension of the problem.

An unfortunate, but objective excess of the degradation of the revolutionary process in Russia on one hand - Stalin, or a country that did its best to stifle and destroy any socially progressive movements in the world for the better part of the 20th century, organized countless coups, installed a variety of nasty right-wing regimes around the world, dropped a nuke on two Japanese cities, spilled an ocean of Napalm and Agent Orange on Vietnam, carpet bombed Korea and Cambodia and backed the horrific anti-PKI massacre in Indonesia on the other - the US.

Count up the bodies then. Stalin killed more people, and not all of that was calculated either.

It's funny how you can speak in one breath of "property" as an appropriately nuanced term, and in the next you use much more expansive terms to attempt to account for U.S. misdeeds.

What, for example, do "socially progressive movements" have to do with any kind of input to a bureaucratic or technocratic attempt to solve social issues by reducing or generalizing individual human factors? Again, the use of that hilariously limited catch-all term "property."

And again, about that pesky Stalin. He(and Mao) may be a monster to you, a middle class citizen of a first-world country, but a folklore hero of sorts and a shining beacon of hope to millions of the oppressed somewhere in Nepal, Bangladesh and India(unlike, say, your personal favorite imperialist Churchill who you go quoting around like he`s some sort of champion of human rights and democracy). To me, he is neither.

Again, I would ask you to consider your personal revulsion to having your thoughts expanded on without your consent, as you apply those same processes to other people. I admire Churchill in many ways, but by no means all. India (arguably; it is a complex situation which Churchill knew he did not have a magic bullet to solve, and an inherited problem - yes, easily and readily admitting this is a mainly British problem) and gassing Kurds are just two notorious examples.

However, sometimes he writes things which contain some element of useful truth for historical consideration even today, and it is quite acceptable to take some statements even in isolation because they are essentially self-contained. You yourself should be keenly aware of this given that you strive so hard not to be taken to task for things you don't bring up in the current discussion. Well, you should extend the same courtesy to others. If your assertion is that one must always include an exhaustive historical context in all consideration, well, clearly the exhaustive historical context is that the U.S. has made less of a mess than certain leaders of the USSR.

[O. Van Bruce]

It would take a long essay to explain this consistently but I believe, Ed, that you are active and knowledgeable enough to recognize that, in contrast to the deaths of Stalin on the USSR or Mao in China, most of the USA deaths came indirectly.

One clear example was the Iran-Iraq war. We know nowadays that the USA instigated the war and financed both parts. in the end, near 1 million Iraquians and Iranians were dead in a war that only served US interests.

[Ed Oscuro]

It would take a long essay to explain this consistently but I believe, Ed, that you are active and knowledgeable enough to recognize that, in contrast to the deaths of Stalin on the USSR or Mao in China, most of the USA deaths came indirectly.

Yes, but you have intent and levels of responsibility. You don't have to get too tortured parsing it either: In the United States we no longer tolerate massive removals of indigenous peoples or citizens (well, there are always some idiots trying, but that's life). The idea - maybe it is not a perfect one, but it has worked spectacularly well in i.e. the Supreme Court attempting to lead the way in desegregating schools.

One clear example was the Iran-Iraq war. We know nowadays that the USA instigated the war and financed both parts. in the end, near 1 million Iraquians and Iranians were dead in a war that only served US interests.

I assume you mean the Iran-Contra affair. That one's a bit complicated because Regan may have been (illegally) conducting some foreign policy before he was elected - although even the Iranians deny this and it's unproven. Nevertheless, the arms deal with Iran is one of the things I hold most strongly against Reagan, who probably should have been impeached. However, isn't there a differece between arming somebody and saying "we want one million dead, nothing less is acceptable?" Yet in the years immediately before the Iranian Revolution, China was at the very least failing to distance itself from Pol Pot's regime.

I think that only recently has U.S. foreign policy started to become very careful - the seeds of it were there during probably Herbert Walker Bush's Presidency, certainly Clinton's, and Bush's as well (when they were being sane and not inventing pretexts for doing heinous things). The current Administration policy towards North Korea is admirably restrained, even beyond what other nations would put up with. I hope that the future will show more examples of care like this. Is it certain that we won't backslide into the old interventionist days, when Smedley Butler could truthfully say "I could have taught a few things to the Mafia" or when Eisenhower and Ford were blithely stamping out democratically elected leaders or signing off on (and supplying) whatever Suharto wanted to do to Timor. The bad old days, to be sure, but not entirely bad.

[Jonathan Ingram]

You still won't retract your inexcusable comment that I'm in love with lassiez-faire policies, for example.

It was a hunch on my part, but truthfully, it doesn`t matter to me whether capitalism is lassiez-faire or regulatory since I`m equally opposed to both, so perhaps the more honest thing on my part would`ve been not to add any descriptives to it at all.

That, of course, is not an argument against Communism or even dictatorship in general, but rather against the argument which you at least seem to have proposed in some of the lines quoted above.

Talking about dictatorship and democracy as something irreconcilable is a bit anti-dialectical, don`t you think? What is a democracy to you anyway? - Is it just a means to the end(because that`s what it is to me), or the end itself?

Again, the use of that hilariously limited catch-all term "property."

You seem to believe(at least that`s the impression you make) that actions are shaped by socially constructed norms and values without any input from the economic conditions and irrespective of the position of social classes in relation to the means of production. Marxism is economic determinist in nature and sees politics, morality and ethics as superstructures over the economic base, hence me highlighting the property relations as the key issue.

It's funny how you can speak in one breath of "property" as an appropriately nuanced term, and in the next you use much more expansive terms to attempt to account for U.S. misdeeds.

The latter stems from the former. See above. No contradictions here.

Count up the bodies then. Stalin killed more people, and not all of that was calculated either.

That`s a childish argument and no, he didn`t.

I admire Churchill in many ways, but by no means all. India (arguably; it is a complex situation which Churchill knew he did not have a magic bullet to solve, and an inherited problem - yes, easily and readily admitting this is a mainly British problem) and gassing Kurds are just two notorious examples.

Churchill pushing for the Entente intervention in the Russian Civil War and backing the White Guards to "strangle Bolshevism in its cradle" isn`t one of those instances?


Anyway, this discussion seems pointless to me. I was baited into it against my will and I really see no point in taking this any further. If there`s no common ground to stand on(and there most certainly isn`t), this bickering could go on forever.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Law and Justice won parliamentary election in Poland (the President is theirs too). It was nice knowing you.

[guigui]

Law and Justice won parliamentary election in Poland (the President is theirs too). It was nice knowing you.

What does that imply ?

[Blinge]

They're a right wing party.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I you wanna start major troublemaking in this part of the world, you couldn't ask for a better accomplice. "Right wing" isn't saying much.

[Xyga]

Are they the type to do everything to start another conflict with Russia or what ?
(dunno them, in my cuntry the press literally never mentions Poland)

[Obiwanshinobi]

I don't know the future, but they are the type who want everybody as messed up as they feel themselves. Now they have a greater means to make it happen than ever before.

[neorichieb1971]

WW3 can only take place when one of the big players has migrated into space or the moon.

[Xyga]

And when teenagers come to pilot giant mecha.

[BIL]

I recommend blasting KOF99 IKARI THEME while re-reading this thread.

[Blinge]

..then watching this

1:46 we'll have to smuggle them out, of course.

[kaicooper]

wars is just a game for pussies

[Xyga]

wars is just a game for pussies

yeah, real men get married

[Skykid]

wars is just a game for pussies

yeah, real men get married

[EmperorIng]

Are they the type to do everything to start another conflict with Russia or what ?
(dunno them, in my cuntry the press literally never mentions Poland)

Just another vote of no confidence for the moribund German Bankers' Unio- I mean European Union.

[copy-paster]

If WWIII happens it would be same as "The battle of Armageddon" when all of people are eliminated.

[kaicooper]

wars is just a game for pussies

yeah, real men get married

ofc .. 100% sure