Dumpster Fire Discussions

[Samson]

I would advise supporters of the Holodomor as genocide to think about the question: why starve your own citizens at all? In a communist state! Logic is broken...

For the Nazi regime, killing people of a different nationality is the norm. And even the goal

Simple. Because the implementation of theory is never as good as the theory itself. Human bias prevails.

I'd rather not spend much time on the specific tangent though. I was just using Buck's own arguments to demonstrate how they're not consistent (with regards to the invasion of Ukraine).

Is this how we are supposed to use this thread (and do feel free to ignore if you want)?

While there is certainly a good claim that Stalin was into genocide, if the Holodomor was genocide then just about ever famine in recorded history is. Sure, millions died and ones chance of dying was highly dependant on your geographical location and your social class, and that was largely a political decision made by TPTB. However this is also true of every famine. At least the Holodomor was an actual national famine, unlike the potato famine for example.

 

[Estebonrober]

Never! It's baked into our DNA. God evolved us this way! Maybe you should bring this issue up with him?



But why do you believe this? Do you really think the USSR was keeping a lid on ethnic division around the world? Or was it more of a hope and cope thing for Marxism and perpetuated/inspired it's spread (which you believe helps humanity)?

I've answered the first one, resigning to the worst of our nature condemns the species almost certainly, we must rise above it. Separate but equal will not stop us from annihilating each other.

I believe the USSR put the fear of God into the global capitalists of the world and thus forced them to make concessions, concessions we have seen steadily disappear since the fall of a real socialist movement (fake or not). Marxism helps in a lot of ways, but the main way is historical materialism. IE wipe away the culture war mud from your lens and see history for what it really is a story of resources or lack thereof.

 

[Joij21]

IE wipe away the culture war mud from your lens and see history for what it really is a story of resources or lack thereof.

There's religion. You really think Osama Bin Laden was fighting for resources? The guy literally thought he was Mohammed reincarnated because of a dream where Allah told him so.

Is racism about resources? Because to me it looks more like one side believes the other side is ugly and therefore unworthy of life. Not much logic to it beyond that.

 

[Akka]

humans are unlikely to make it out of this century if they do not change it... Our existence at this number and level of living is already in all defiance of nature, so yes I can wish we defy our own nature to preserve the existence of our species

I could go philosophical about the contradiction of arguing about preserving the existence of a species by transforming it into something that isn't itself anymore, but I think that the whole "human nature", while interesting, should be discussed in another thread.

Aye the USSR was a totalitarian imperialist state, my first regret has been the absolute bull run into a global market free for all and demolition of worker's rights and compensation especially in the US. My second one is of the overall sense of larger "tribes" regressing into smaller ones. There are many SSRs that never wanted in and were very happy to be out and there are still more than a few that the unity of the USSR is looked upon fondly for a plethora of reasons. All you have to do to see this is watch people talk about it in these states, the opinions are mixed and for a wide variety of reasons.

That the USSR falling has had a number of less-than-ideal consequences is one thing I can understand.
Saying that its fall was a tragedy, though, is not something I would agree. And I'm pretty sure that most people in the countries which lived under its yoke don't feel differently.

That being said, the bull run into a global free market is certainly something nearly as ugly, and that I celebrate the fall of a totalitarian state doesn't mean I enjoy how the victor just reveled in its own worst excess afterward. Though I'd say Reagan voodoo economics predated the fall of the USSR and don't own their existence to it.

 

[Estebonrober]

There's religion. You really think Osama Bin Laden was fighting for resources? The guy literally thought he was Mohammed reincarnated because of a dream where Allah told him so.

Is racism about resources? Because to me it looks more like one side believes the other side is ugly and therefore unworthy of life. Not much logic to it beyond that.

Yes, read the roots of Bin Laden's beef, it was about land and that land's resources and its uses against its own people. Racism is always about resources, it is the easiest way to otherize a population and exclude them from resources. Again this is probably Marx and company's greatest gift to us, historical materialism.

Historical materialism - Wikipedia

 

[Joij21]

Yes, read the roots of Bin Laden's beef, it was about land and that land's resources and its uses against its own people. Racism is always about resources, it is the easiest way to otherize a population and exclude them from resources. Again this is probably Marx and company's greatest gift to us, historical materialism.

Historical materialism - Wikipedia

I think there is more to it then that. Historical Materialism is too reductionist to be a viable explanation.

 

[Estebonrober]

I think there is more to it then that. Historical Materialism is too reductionist to be a viable explanation.

with respect, I feel this is a self report on multiple levels >.>

 

[Samson]

There's religion. You really think Osama Bin Laden was fighting for resources? The guy literally thought he was Mohammed reincarnated because of a dream where Allah told him so.

Is racism about resources? Because to me it looks more like one side believes the other side is ugly and therefore unworthy of life. Not much logic to it beyond that.

Did he really beleive that, or is that what he told his followers to get them to die for him?

Saying that its fall was a tragedy, though, is not something I would agree. And I'm pretty sure that most people in the countries which lived under its yoke don't feel differently.

It is not that clear cut. From Pew research:

Spoiler There may be some tankies :

 

[Akka]

It is not that clear cut. From Pew research:

One thing that is very noticeable is that the regret about the fall of the USSR are directly proportional to how much the countries have stayed dependent on Russia. Difficult to say if it's correlation, causation or consequence, but it's very noticeable.

The line between the two can become very blurred, and there should be a reason why neither of them posts now.

Because their arguments were shot down each time and they feel it's pointless to make them.
The thing is, their arguments were based on propaganda, lies or at best anecdotes. I'm asking again, should we just shut up and not contradict people when they are wrong just so they feel welcome ?

 

[Remorseless1]

I've answered the first one, resigning to the worst of our nature condemns the species almost certainly, we must rise above it. Separate but equal will not stop us from annihilating each other.

I believe the USSR put the fear of God into the global capitalists of the world and thus forced them to make concessions, concessions we have seen steadily disappear since the fall of a real socialist movement (fake or not). Marxism helps in a lot of ways, but the main way is historical materialism. IE wipe away the culture war mud from your lens and see history for what it really is a story of resources or lack thereof.

The unionist ( workers right to organize) movement began in the late 19th Centuty, with the US joining in during the first decades of the 20th. US President Theodore Roosevelt instituted a number of work place reforms in 1906.
While Marx and Angels book was contributory to the rise of worker movements, it was more reflective of grassroots movements by people recognizing the vast income gap between company owners and their employees.
So it had little to do with the creation of the USSR although it too was contributory. Interesting that the Soviets banned unions, had little or no workplace safety requirements, paid workers poorly and the state itself used criminals as slave labor in Siberia. The Soviets talked about the rights of workers but did not practice them at home.

 

[Ferocitus]

You know that neo-Nazis are alive and well in Russia, right? Even in Russian military? Wagner Group is close to Putin.

Putin has admitted that there are idiot neo-Nazis in Russia.
The difference is that Ukraine had them in their government, and they made decisions concerning Russians in the Donbas region.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is this how we are supposed to use this thread (and do feel free to ignore if you want)?

Nope.

If you post this kind of material in other threads, staff has the option of moving here or just deleting it.

And they will. They'll arbitrarily move posts here without any rhyme or reason given.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The latest move was because the discussion was moving away from the the general war and into other topics. Moving posts seems way better than deleting them and they do allow posters to continue the conversation.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The problem is, because of the definition of which posts to move and lack of motivation, it really does become arbitrary and lacks transparency and consistency. It's a spur of the moment decision on which to move.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, that is correct. With all the hours staff has expended trying to keep the war threads civil and focused, on top of repeated terrible posting, do not expect full transparency or consistency.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh, don't worry. That expectation died with experience.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe a good idea would be to allow a second thread on the War in Ukraine, where all stuff which posters deem relevant to Ukraine - tends to be very glaring analogues - are allowed. At least imo this would be the better choice. Might even be worth a try to RD the other thread and specify that it is under special rules etc.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Maybe a good idea would be to allow a second thread on the War in Ukraine, where all stuff which posters deem relevant to Ukraine - tends to be very glaring analogues - are allowed. At least imo this would be the better choice. Might even be worth a try to RD the other thread and specify that it is under special rules etc.

Please go ahead and start such a thread; I've been encouraging that all along but no one seems interested.

Or this thread could be used for that since some of those posts you want are already here.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks, but really the last thing I need is to be the OP in such a thread
Maybe you can just rename this one to "Less moderated Ukraine War thread" or some other title you may think of?
(by the way, thanks for taking the time to respond)

If people don't care enough to start a thread on what they want to talk about, we already have some places for those short discussions. If a topic has enough interest to foster a two page discussion, then it needs it's own place. What we have seen in the War thread are "drive by distractions" that attract sufficient controversary to get a page or more of chatter that is unrelated to the war but makes "good/easy/distracting/trollish" conversation. Keeping up with the fast pace of the thread is hard enough without having to sort through stuff that belongs somewhere else. In addition, much of the "not war" talk generates reports that have to be dealt with separately and involve several staff to arrive at a resolution. Given that the staff is spread from the Western US all the way to Eastern Europe, time differences make that a slow process.

Everyone wants consistent, predictable moderation, but few want consistent civil posting.

 

[Berzerker]

Did you bother to read it though ?

No, I heard about it from a talking head

No, it requires you to recognise that there were 2 sides involved, both sides committed crimes, but none of this justified Russian invasion.

The people of eastern Ukraine watched their government overthrown in a violent coup by the right wing and then Kiev sent an army led by the right wing to attack them for not supporting it. You tell us what is justified. And we helped while Biden's 'anger' over Charlottesville inspired him to run against Trump.

I think Russia (and the freaking world) had every justification to end that war and make Ukraine abide by Minsk or grant their independence. As for Putin's invasion, I would have limited it to the republics being attacked but I would have been prepared to keep pushing Ukraine back if they continued attacking them.

But Putin knows the Ukrainian govt is our puppet, we want war. Thats why Zelensky couldn't end it, he was outvoted 2-1 by the US and Ukrainian fascists. So Putin pushed harder, convince Ukraine and Europe to ensure a peace treaty in spite of the US. None of this would have happened if Obama-Trump-Biden supported Minsk.

I see no indication of the CIA in those particular bits of propaganda, just standard domestic stuff.

Then who lied? The CIA has been using our media to spread propaganda for decades. John Brennan and James Clapper were hired by MSNBC and CNN to tell us what to think. When Trump was trying to get out of Afghanistan the media in unison were telling us of bounties on US soldiers paid by Putin. Just more bs to undermine Trump's attempt to make peace. He got impeached for supposedly delaying arms to the war in the Donbas because a Ukrainian-American lt-col supporter of the war got upset.

Nice little video, showing per capita GDP dynamics of ex-Soviet countries.

Pay attention to what happens to Russia after 2014...

yabut...look at Estonia What drives the Baltic states economies? I think Russia suffered from the fracking boom in the US.