Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition

[BruceVC]

 

Also, when I saw the bit about 'it's not a civil war, it's all of Syria against outsider mercenaries and terrorists', I thought "does that make most of Aleppo and it's citizens outsider mercenaries and terrorists too?"

 

Most of Aleppo's (city) citizens were and are government supporters. The rebels were quite open about 'invading' Aleppo from outside, they were successful initially precisely because there were few troops there as there was little unrest, and much of the city's population fled from rebel areas to government areas during their initial attack (indeed, while there are a lot of refugees from Syria there are far more IDPs and they are almost all in government areas). Most of the urban centres were strongly to moderately pro government, most of the anti areas were rural. The most anti government city (Hama) actually had very little violence because there were most troops there.

 

It's not primarily the US in Syria for sure, Obama was consistently fighting the loony warhawk fringe (Hillary, Power; McCain, Graham), if the US really wanted something to happen it would have irrespective of the UN or the legality of it. They have indirectly armed Al Qaeda and ISIS though (when Al Nusra/ ISIS were the same organisation as they were initially), via the CIA (but not the Pentagon) because they control most of the routes in to rebel territories- and everyone knows they take a share of supplies to other groups that travel their routes. It's no accident that they are the best armed rebel group despite being 'embargoed'.

 

The video is pretty loaded and is itself propaganda, but a lot of it is true. Things like the Al Kindi Hospital being used as an example of a hospital destroyed by the gov happened, when it was blown up by suicide bombers from Al Qaeda/ ISIS, and how the white helmets work and were formed, and the multiple 'last hospital/ doctor bombed' claims are accurate. The MSM is usually completely useless on Syria especially US outlets but that video alternative is most of the way to being biased in an exactly reverse way.

 

Nah I dont believe much of this post, its your normal " lets blame the USA for the violence in the ME " 

 

 

For example Obama did not intervene specifically because of the UNSC veto, I don't blame them because of how people in the ME always blame the USA for something. Its a specious point to say " if the USA  wanted something to happen "....that's the point, they had no inclination in intervention 

 

And I want to see credible links around the CIA funding, why would the CIA need to fund a group that came from Iraq that had access to stolen weaponry through the tribal Sunni connection?

 

So the CIA connection is a false theory people use to blame the USA for starting the Syrian civil war and again this is just an excuse for the  turmoil and instability we are seeing in the ME

 

So unless you can produce links we will just ignore your comment 

[Chilloutman]

 

 

TRIGGER WARNING: Contains harsh language.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

 

Which actor/comedian is that? I think I recognize the person but can't place the name.

 

Is that suppose to be a real venting session, I hope not because that entire speech was just subjective diatribe .....

 

volo please tell me you don't think what he said was valid because he is making the same assumptions he claims the " left " was making. Again speaking on behalf of other people in another country 

 

Yes people like me thought Hilary was going to win, everyone assumed that. For him to think anyone would think he knew Hilary was going to lose  is just a mendacious and convenient example of social media grandstanding

 

Its okay to admit you were wrong but to learn from it

 

The guy is comedian, but can you please provide few lines you think are not valid?

[Chilloutman]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

hah, even you can see through it, noice

[Chilloutman]

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

hah, even you can see through it, noice

 

"The government has softened the legislation by excluding email and messenger providers"

THAT WAS ON THE TABLE?

 

Hah, and you want to have communism. Did you ever heard about KGB? they done same stuff with news. Only approved news were allowed.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

hah, even you can see through it, noice

 

"The government has softened the legislation by excluding email and messenger providers"

THAT WAS ON THE TABLE?

 

Hah, and you want to have communism. Did you ever heard about KGB? they done same stuff with news. Only approved news were allowed.

 

neither surveillance nor corruption is inherent to communism but rather to hierarchies, wouldn't you agree?

 

Well I don't like surveillance too much now, but its difference if its because of breaking the law or if its because you are anti establishment/political opposition

[Malcador]

Only 50m? Tsk, aiming low

[BruceVC]

[quote name="BruceVC" post="1923287"

So unless you can produce links we will just ignore your comment

 

And when you do produce links BruceVC will ignore them also as he did numerous times before so just don't bother.

No I can produce a link anytime if required and applicable. Why do you think I am always correct in our debates and why do I always come across as convincing

 

You need to start learning to create your views based on links....this way you will be comfortable having a debate 

[Chilloutman]

yeah sure these 6 years of 80 of soviet union were the 'best' (if you were not anyone else than proletariat ofcourse...)

[smjjames]

In the 20's, yeah, before Stalin clamped down with Communism, also before the Great Depression, which certainly didn't help things.

 

Also, are the politics thread meant to be just American politics or just politics anywhere in general? Just wondering here.

[Gfted1]

Posts can be from any politics in general. Its just mostly dominated by US politics because of our great new president. And the press just cant get right over it.

[Raithe]

Posts can be from any politics in general. Its just mostly dominated by US politics because of our great new president. And the press just cant get right over it.

 

Because he's like, the best at what he does? He has all the bestest words and best ideas, and totally has the best concept of diplomacy and statecraft? And knows how to make America great again like it fondly imagines itself to have been in that waxy, nostalgic, view of the 50's when the economy was booming before desegregation and when birth control was illegal?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m

 

Someone's trying to take my freedom of speech

hah, even you can see through it, noice

"The government has softened the legislation by excluding email and messenger providers"

THAT WAS ON THE TABLE?

Hah, and you want to have communism. Did you ever heard about KGB? they done same stuff with news. Only approved news were allowed.

neither surveillance nor corruption is inherent to communism but rather to hierarchies, wouldn't you agree?

Well I don't like surveillance too much now, but its difference if its because of breaking the law or if its because you are anti establishment/political opposition

that's really a matter of when... Mc Carthy didn't see it that way, and I believe Trump did ask for voter's personal information.

 

Now, obviously the US is still very strong on such things as freedom of speech, but I don't see why that would be an inherent feat of capitalism. Capitalism dies after all exists in dictatorships, and historically always has. The amount of suffering caused by the big empires of the past, especially the British, are unparalleled (if we go by pure numbers). Now, does that mean that capitalism must lead to such tragedies? No, but it means that capitalism certainly doesn't prevent them. Communism certainly also has an impressive death toll, no doubt. But again, I do see neither inherent necessity nor prevention.

 

And besides, it's not like countries like the Soviet Union were always a Stalinist hell. Take a look at the USSR between the civil war and Stalins "Revolution from above" (what might be considered his grasp on power), so around 1921-1928; in other words the time of the NEP.

The 1925 elections, so those which fell into this time frame, were the freest in the Soviet Unions history. For example, communists lost their majority in large pars of the rural areas where local farmers elected them out of their soviets, causing the Bolsheviks much worry. Political opposition was also very open. This isn't to say that there was no censorship-a socialists call for "freedom of thought for anything from anarchism to monarchism" wasn't exactly followed on. But political discussions within a certain frame were vivid and controversial. Yes, also the communists had a left and right wing; the left advocating for a more quick industrialisation and more decentralised power, while the right seeked a more authoritarian form of government and much more economic adaption to the peasants, i.e. The farmers. Stalin Fell more on the right (and usually allying with them), but also supported shock industrialisation much more radically than the left. Lenin was also more to the right, Trotzki the most prominent left communist. The populance and their options was very diverse and difficult to generalise, but they can, very roughly, be divided into three fairly equal groups: those opposed to the new order, those in support of its ideals but sceptical of specific policies

 

Due to the NEP, economic liberty was surprisingly high. Though state enterprise continued to dominate, basic markets were installed and private ownership brought back (though still treated with extreme suspicion). This introduction of capitalist elements did result in a strong economic growth, however, there were some who felt that the revolution was betrayed. Indeed, inequality did rise, but it was still nowhere near anything in the west.

 

Social liberty also peaked. Women were made equal legally in every way, and the Soviets became the first worldwide to introduce equal pay legislation. Due to a high degree of sexism in the populace however, progress was slow in this field, but many politicians were burning feminists (though theft probably wouldn't have called themselves that), insisting that women must have an equal position in the working world . Homosexuality was also legalised.

Welfare programs were supposed to increase living conditions, but sometimes failed due to the people's mindset or still had severe Problems. For example, the numbers of people per doctor fell from around 4000ppl/1d to around 2500ppl/1d, which is an obvious improvement but still very bad. The number of children attending school also rose from around 30 to 80 percent. However, most parents, especially in the rural areas took their children out of school after two or two and a half years. The regime also tried to raise awareness for health issues, for example through large and continuous campaigns against alcohol (schoolchildren carrying signs saying "don't buy vodka buy us school books" for example). The Soviets also connected the country, for example through bringing electricity to the villages ("Lenins Lamp").

Of course, one must also remember the regimes aggression against religion and purging of many churches. On the contrary, the arts were at an all time high. In the 20s, the Soviet Union was the leading artists country. Cinema, literature, photography and the classic arts all experienced a spirit of revolution and departure.

 

While there is no doubt that the horrors of the Soviet regime must be remembered, it would also be wrong to simply ignore its best times.

 

Communism is an economic system. Just because about all of the "communist" countries have been brutal and repressive tyrannies that murdered their own people and others by the hundreds of thousands does not necessarily reflect on communism as a system. It's more about the evil bastards that ran those countries.

The problem is communism is by it's nature it suppresses the biggest safeguard against the evil bastards: individual freedom. Communism does not permit individual ownership of anything up to and including the self. If you don't own your own labor, the work of your own hands you don't own anything. I get that Marx meant for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to only wield power long enough to dismantle the things that are bad for the working class, then give up power and go hoe vegetables on some farm somewhere. But he was an idiot. That is not how humans work. When you get a bunch of them with absolute power the only way to remove them is to wait for them to die or at gunpoint.

 

It's a pipe dream. The only way it could ever work is if you change the nature of man. Good luck with that.

.

[smjjames]

Really should cull the quote pyramid...

 

Anyways, communism in the sense of pooled and shared resources really only works in small groups where everybody knows each other and tends to be more accountable to and for each other.

[Raithe]

Did people really plan this headline out well?

 

[smjjames]

It took a second reading of that to get what you were getting at, heh.

[smjjames]

Human nature. Inherently selfish and therefore capitalism is the only system that works, right? What you refer to as human nature is human nature under capitalism, and it exists for merely 200 years out of 12000 years of human civilisation. I'd say it's a pretty bold claim to say that these 200 years have brought about the true nature of humans; especially considering that our oldest ancestors, the ones where you'd actually assume they act on little but human nature (since they lacked significant culture, history of society) actually often had shared property. So the argument doesn't really hold up.

 

Pfft, saying that the earliest lacked significant cultures or history is wrong. In fact, pinpointing the time where culture and oral traditioins (history of society before writing) truly became something identifiable as culture is very difficult. Heck, even our closest relatives show signs that one could call proto-cultural and are very much like a culture as it's learned. The earliest known examples of cultural artifacts for modern homo have been dated to 82,000 years ago. Simpler forms are certainly far older.

 

That aside, while capitalism in it's modern form hasn't been around for all that long, you can still find elements of capitalism for a long time, all the way back into the medieval period.

Edited July 10, 2017 by smjjames

[smjjames]

 

 

Human nature. Inherently selfish and therefore capitalism is the only system that works, right? What you refer to as human nature is human nature under capitalism, and it exists for merely 200 years out of 12000 years of human civilisation. I'd say it's a pretty bold claim to say that these 200 years have brought about the true nature of humans; especially considering that our oldest ancestors, the ones where you'd actually assume they act on little but human nature (since they lacked significant culture, history of society) actually often had shared property. So the argument doesn't really hold up.

Pfft, saying that the earliest lacked significant cultures or history is wrong. In fact, pinpointing the time where culture and oral traditioins (history of society before writing) truly became something identifiable as culture is impossible. Heck, even our closest relatives show signs that one could call proto-cultural and are very much like a culture as it's learned.

But if we are looking for the test of pure human nature, thus with the least cultural influence, I'd say this is the best we got?

 

I'd probably go back another million years, close to the origin of modern homo if you want to get to that.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think that's it? Did I miss anything?

Quite a bit. So much so I think you need a crash course of your own.

Here is a place you can read up: https://www.marxists.org/txtindex.htm

Here is another: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

It's all free, full of nice pdfs. Please read them before posting.

[injurai]

Why would anyone seriously try to separate communism from it's primary economic motives? The distinction between systems of government and economics is a moot one when the two systems need to be brought together to manifest at all.

[smjjames]

@Ben no.3: Misquote? You seem to have quoted without replying.

 

Why would anyone seriously try to separate communism from it's primary economic motives? The distinction between systems of government and economics is a moot one when the two systems need to be brought together to manifest at all.

 

China? Their economy was definetly fully communist at first, but it's now a mix of communist government and capitalist economy,

[smjjames]

Well, to be fair, Russian communism, which is the example you have been using, is itself a bit of a take on Marxism with Leninism added. Every other 'communist' has been some variant off of Marxism/Socialism.

[injurai]

Where do people here put themselves politically?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The mods have embraced the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism.

[injurai]

Is socialism too dirty?

[Raithe]

Vox - Pew Study

 

 

 

 

Most Republicans think colleges are bad for the country, and the vast majority think the news media is too, according to new data from the Pew Research Center. The Pew study, conducted from June 8 to 18 among more than 2,000 respondents, found that Democrats and Republicans are growing substantially more divided in their opinions on public institutions.

 

 

 

According to the survey results released Monday, 58 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independents say that colleges and universities have had a negative impact on the nation — the first time a majority of Republicans have thought colleges are bad for the country. As recently as 2015, 54 percent of Republicans said colleges and universities had a positive impact on the way things were going in the country, but by 2016 those results split to 43 percent positive and 45 percent negative.

 

On the other side of the aisle, 72 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they think colleges and universities have a positive effect on the country, holding steady with past years’ results.

 

Pew doesn’t speculate on the reason for the decline, but over the past few years, colleges, particularly elite colleges, have made headlines for a series of controversies and protests around racism, free speech, and civil rights. In 2015, the football team at the University of Missouri went on strike to protest the handling of racist incidents on campus, and Yale was rocked by controversy about the proper way to address insensitive Halloween costumes.

 

More recently, students have protested and sometimes disrupted appearances from controversial figures associated with Donald Trump or the conservative movement. Fox News has closely tracked these protests, portraying liberals on campus as frequently violent and disruptive.

Republicans are especially cynical about the news

The partisan divide was even sharper when it came to the media. Only 10 percent of Republicans thought the media had a positive effect on the way things are going in the US.

Meanwhile, 44 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have a positive view of the news media’s impact on the nation — an 11-point increase since August 2016.

 

Much of this widening divide might be attributed to Trump’s political messaging, which declares an all-out war on the media. This month alone, the president tweeted a GIF featuring himself beating up a man with a CNN logo superimposed over his head and a personal attack on MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski. Indeed, since the presidential election in November, Google search trends reveal that mentions of “fake news” have skyrocketed, hinting at the changing public opinion toward news outlets.

 

Despite the widening partisan gap, however, Pew reports that the public’s overall views on the effect of institutions on the nation are relatively unchanged. Polarization may have increased, but the uptick in Democrats’ positive views balance out Republicans’ increasingly negative ones.