In today's news...

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

Though seperate post for clarity here: I was referring to the fact that left-right is what it is because of where deputies sat in the chamber during the French Revolution. It's a 200 year old seating chart that's worked it's way to become an actual political term. Just like how the "Montagnards" were called as such because they all sat together on the highest rows in the back. We can discuss the ideas all day if you want, but my quip was just about how funny it is that something as trivial as where people wanted to sit at is now used as such a wide reaching label.

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

By "Game of Thrones," you mean everyone important dies, and generally in a messy way? Because that would be fairly accurate.

Still, the French Revolution might not have taken place without the American Revolution, which was based mostly on British property rights, dating back to the signing of the Magna Carta. So, really, you're singling out a single link in a long chain as the most important one.

See my clarification post. I'm talking about the etymology of "left-right".

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

Though seperate post for clarity here: I was referring to the fact that left-right is what it is because of where deputies sat in the chamber during the French Revolution. It's a 200 year old seating chart that's worked it's way to become an actual political term. Just like how the "Montagnards" were called as such because they all sat together on the highest rows in the back. We can discuss the ideas all day if you want, but my quip was just about how funny it is that something as trivial as where people wanted to sit at is now used as such a wide reaching label.

You know... I had forgotten that little piece of trivia until just now. Good stuff. :3

 

[super_slicer]

Re: In today's news...

Wait wait wait, the Dutch can try their citizens for actions they've taken outside of Dutch Jurisdiction? Seems kinda suspect there, would have thought that you'd need to take it to a body like the UN to prosecute.

Also, FUUUUU that pacifist bullshit law "Not allowed to initiate violence". The world isn't all hugs and kisses and rainbows, sometimes you need to kill fuckers BEFORE they've initiated violence by shooting you in the head. Preferably before they've even picked up their gun! (Not specifically in reference to this guy, just general disgust at people who refuse to accept the necessity of violence)

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

Wait wait wait, the Dutch can try their citizens for actions they've taken outside of Dutch Jurisdiction? Seems kinda suspect there, would have thought that you'd need to take it to a body like the UN to prosecute.

Also, FUUUUU that pacifist bullshit law "Not allowed to initiate violence". The world isn't all hugs and kisses and rainbows, sometimes you need to kill fuckers BEFORE they've initiated violence by shooting you in the head. Preferably before they've even picked up their gun! (Not specifically in reference to this guy, just general disgust at people who refuse to accept the necessity of violence)

It doesn't seem all that outlandish to me. I think it makes sense to not want your citizens to go stirring up trouble without the government's go-ahead. Not sure if I agree in this case, given how clear it is that ISIS is freaking Evil with a capital E... but in theory the rationale behind the law is sound.

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

Granted, I'd still argue that the French Revolution *is* the most important link in the chain, though acknowledging that history is a chain. Even more so than normal, considering the school of thought I subscribe too. Overall while the American Revolution was important it didn't really change anything in the short term. The ideas it spread were kind of a slow boil, and the status quo in the colonies actually wasn't overturned too much by some standards. The order of classes did not change. Unlike the French Rev, where the traditional elites were upended, in a rather spectacular fashion. It was a major transition from feudalism to capitalism. The American Revolution had the same wealthy landowners at the top of the ladder at the beginning and end. Truth be told, too, the French rev drew mostly directly from the same thinkers the Americans did without using America as a middleman. The American Revolution did play an important role, though, in bankrupting France, which provided the crucial crisis point for the transition. Such a transition is all but inevitable, so really the specifics aren't so much important as they are interesting.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Re: In today's news...

So, really, you're singling out a single link in a long chain as the most important one.

So you're saying he can't have a particular fondness for the French Revolution without first adressing the Big Bang?

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

Such a transition is all but inevitable, so really the specifics aren't so much important as they are interesting.

I'd be careful with the word, "inevitable." A small change can make a huge difference. Danilevskii claimed that Russia was the one state that would never see a political revolution. Less than fifty years later, Germany sends Lenin back to Russia, disrupting what might otherwise have been the emergence of a Russian democracy.

So you're saying he can't have a particular fondness for the French Revolution without first adressing the Big Bang?

Of course he can be fond of it. But calling it the "most important" event is going beyond fondness, I think.

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

So you're saying he can't have a particular fondness for the French Revolution without first adressing the Big Bang?

Well, there is that quote: "If you want to make a cake from scratch you must first create the universe."

I'd be careful with the word, "inevitable." A small change can make a huge difference. Danilevskii claimed that Russia was the one state that would never see a political revolution. Less than fifty years later, Germany sends Lenin back to Russia, disrupting what might otherwise have been the emergence of a Russian democracy.

That's why I said all but inevitable, not inevitable. Also, link it with my other statement. The specifics do not matter, merely are of interesting. Here's the thing about Russia. Russia is what happen when you get too excited by Marxism. History isn't led by people, it follows it's own path. Trying to lead history yourself causes bad things to happen. Case in point: Russia. As a true Marxist, the correct thing to do is sit back and enjoy the ride. It has to happen naturally. Russia was not a natural revolution, but a bunch of people getting too excited (and hell, it's exciting, hard to contain the hype) and screwing it up royally.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Re: In today's news...

It was a major transition from feudalism to capitalism

Well, the feudal system was largely gone by the time of the Early Modern Era. The kings were absolute, and the service of an oath-bound warrior elite was largely irrelevant for international warfare. Not saying that the Ancien Regime wasn't archaic in many ways, but they were mercantilists much like Britain, if I recall correctly.

Granted, I didn't write a paper on the event, and you might've just been generalizing the change to emphasise its abruptness (which of course it was).

Personally, I'm a fan of the Peace of Westphalia as one of those "moments in time" that had huge impacts. Well, that and the First World War.

As a true Marxist, the correct thing to do is sit back and enjoy the ride. It has to happen naturally. Russia was not a natural revolution, but a bunch of people getting too excited (and hell, it's exciting, hard to contain the hype) and screwing it up royally.

Wait, you're a bona fide, real life historical determinist Marxist?

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

Well, the feudal system was largely gone by the time of the Early Modern Era. The kings were absolute, and the service of an oath-bound warrior elite was largely irrelevant for international warfare. Not saying that the Ancien Regime wasn't archaic in many ways, but they were mercantilists much like Britain, if I recall correctly.

Granted, I didn't write a paper on the event, and you might've just been generalizing the change to emphasise its abruptness (which of course it was).

Personally, I'm a fan of the Peace of Westphalia as one of those "moments in time" that had huge impacts. Well, that and the First World War.

Yeah, I was just emphasizing how abrupt it was. I wrote a great paper on the Revolution, but beforehand I wrote a whole paper about how the French bureaucracy formed and the organizational structure developed by Louis XIV through Louis XVI. The point being, "feudalism" refers, in this case, to political power being in the hand of rich landowners. "Capitalism" refers to political power with merchants. It's kind of a failure of terminology, this far out, unless we want to argue academic semantics which gets rather tiresome so I try and skip it when possible.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Re: In today's news...

Fair enough, mate.

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

Wait, you're a bona fide, real life historical determinist Marxist?

As with everyone one the left, I'm sure people would love to dispute my credentials. For the purpose of getting people's attention, I typically do not deny it, but every statement I make comes with a big * attached to the end of it. I engage in probabilities, not absolutes. There's always the chance we end our species through some manmade disaster, after all, and that certainly means history is going to be derailed, heh, just as an example. I won't dispute that history can be derailed, but by and large I think there's a pretty big economic trend that drives historical development conditions.

In the history academia, there's actually a *ton* of Marxists. Marx was three things, a historian, an economist, and a prophet. He was a pretty good historian. The jury is still out (IMO, others will dispute it) on economics. As a prophet, he failed horribly. Depending on definitions. Like I've been saying, the details are interesting, but not important

 

[Crawdaddy]

Re: In today's news...

No no, Marx has had a huge impact on the social sciences, I won't deny that. I was just quite surprised to see his evolutionistic ideas being mentioned, seeing as they're a bit of a hangover from late 19th century social theory in general (Weber and Durkheim also dabbled in it, and they both also failed as prophets, at least partly), and are now largely ignored by the modern Marxist thinkers I've heard of, at least (granted, I haven't delved too deeply into it, I get a bit overwhelmed with all the terminology and competing subgroups: neomarxists, structural marxists, post-structural marxists, etc.)

I think my favorite contribution of his is that he emphasises the inherent cleavages (no pun intended) within societies, rather than pretending they're all homogenous. Granted, I may not agree with his dismissal of culture as largely ephemeral, but still, he's the big conflict thinker of early social science. And I like his writing on labour as an inherently meaningful act, and how he goes into alienation and so on. Ironically, we see the fruits of his thoughts on alienation today in all sorts of corporate practices trying to make wage workers identify positively with their employer - probably not what he'd intended, lol.

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

Indeed. I tend to believe Marx himself got a little to excited. There was all the talk that capitalism has to be taken to it's logical conclusion, and that industrialization and colonization were that conclusion. With historical perspective now I think we can say that was a middle phase, but the recent trends of squeezing workers themselves dry and the "new automation" loom might actually be the final stage of capitalism. After all, there's the focus on labor as being the be all of economics, but with new automation, human labor pretty much is drastically declining in importance, just as land no longer was as important when feudalism ended. Granted, I don't want to fall into the same trap that either Marx or the Soviets fell into. All I'll say is *something* big will happen because of this trend, likely in the next 50 years. It's going to be exciting, but we could screw it up. It could be really good. It could be really bad. It could be a transition to the next phase, or we might get set back awhile. It'll be important, but all we can do is wait.

 

[super_slicer]

Re: In today's news...

Hopefully it will all go to shit for capitalism.

The entirety of existence being reduced to the pursuit of monetary gain and the acquisition of "things", is the end game I see for capitalism, and it's greatest failing as the bulk of it's "cogs" will never manage much vertical progress. Leading us back into a pseudo-feudal caste system (With corporations being the feudal lords), and stagnating technological development.

Granted I've been infatuated with Marxism since watching Star Trek as a youth, and have never been a member above the lower "caste", so I'm quite biased against capitalism.

 

[Byzantine2014]

Re: In today's news...

Glenn Frey passed away at the age of 67, rest in peace you soul man

You must be registered to see the links

Really, I think we're pretty close to Feudalism as it is. Governments can't do much against corporations or are run by them, a very small percentage of the population controls a huge majority of the world's resources, and some companies have larger economies than decently well-off countries. And with all the automated advances and the vast resources mega corporations could have... maybe they'll keep power.

Just something I recently thought about: we have simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation, how does that even work?

Where art thou, Lenin?

 

[Changer]

Re: In today's news...

Hopefully it will all go to shit for capitalism.

The entirety of existence being reduced to the pursuit of monetary gain and the acquisition of "things", is the end game I see for capitalism, and it's greatest failing as the bulk of it's "cogs" will never manage much vertical progress. Leading us back into a pseudo-feudal caste system (With corporations being the feudal lords), and stagnating technological development.

Granted I've been infatuated with Marxism since watching Star Trek as a youth, and have never been a member above the lower "caste", so I'm quite biased against capitalism.

Capitalism is bound to fail. Eventually, automation will make a lot of work obsolete, yet corporations will still expect to get paid for the stuff they produce in spite of the fact that practically nobody can earn the money to buy it.

I don't think Capitalism is entirely bad though, as working harder or smarter to get extra money is a good motivator improve yourself and do better. It just needs better bottom level. You should be able to rise as high as your work ethic and intelligence can take you; but you really shouldn't be allowed to fall so low that you end up starving on the streets.

 

[Crawdaddy]

Re: In today's news...

Glenn Frey passed away at the age of 67, rest in peace you soul man

You must be registered to see the links

Really, I think we're pretty close to Feudalism as it is. Governments can't do much against corporations or are run by them, a very small percentage of the population controls a huge majority of the world's resources, and some companies have larger economies than decently well-off countries. And with all the automated advances and the vast resources mega corporations could have... maybe they'll keep power.

The thing with feudalism is that it's just not another term for an economically unfair society (which a lot of people seem to use it as), but a society in which land and economic privilege is given to a class of warrior aristocrats by the monarch in return for military support.

I'm not going to argue against the point that large corporations have too much of an influence on politics, though.

Just something I recently thought about: we have simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation, how does that even work?

In short? Highly differentiated distribution of resources.

In long, globally we produce far more than we need in terms of foodstuffs, however, much of what is produced in third world countries (or "the global south") is exported to other countries, and not available to the local population. That's how you can end up with people starving in Ethiopia or Sudan, even though the countries export massive amounts of beef and grain.

Now, with that being said, obesity isn't actually found among the richest (bizarelly). Rather, obesity is most dangerous among poorer populations in richer countries (like the USA) or emerging industrial countries (like India or Brazil) where the only food that's cheap is very rich in saturated fats, sodium and sugar. That's because it's typically highly processed and/or preserved, and not fresh.

The richer populations* are the ones who can afford to buy all the food they want, but in addition also can afford gym memberships, personal trainers, get into expensive sports as hobbies, are educated enough to understand more complex dietary schemes, or can buy fairly exclusive fresh goods.

(*Obviously not always, but as a pattern.)

Where art thou, Lenin?

I was actually in Russia three years ago. He's in the mausoleum next to the Red Square. Looking remarkably good, if a bit waxy.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: In today's news...

Where art thou, Lenin?

To Lenin (and Stalin), starvation was simply another political tool to be used in the securing of the Revolution. This is an excerpt from a

You must be registered to see the links

(and I've seen this document in classes and on more than one site):

Spoiler

Now and only now when in the famine-stricken areas people are eating people, when there are hundreds if not thousands of dead bodies lying by the roadside, can we (and therefore must we) carry out the confiscation of church valuables with stupendous and merciless energy, not stopping at repressing any sort of resistance. Now and only now the overwhelming majority of the peasant masses will be either for us, or--at all events, will not be in a position to support in any decisive way that handful of ultra-reactionary priests and bourgeois reactionaries who can and want to try out a policy of violent resistance to the Soviet decree.

Whatever happens, we must carry out the confiscation of church valuables in the quickest and most decisive manner. Thereby we can secure for ourselves a fund of a few hundred million gold roubres (one must remember the gigantic riches of some monasteries). Without such a fund, any government work in general, any economic construction in particular, and especially any establishing of our position in Genoa is unthinkable. Whatever happens we must seize this fund of a few hundred million (or perhaps even a few billion) gold roubles. And this can only be done successfully now. All considerations indicate that later we would not succeed, for no other moment except that of desperate famine will give us such a mood amongst the peasant masses which will either gain us their sympathy, or at any rate will neutralize them in the sense that the victory in the struggle over confiscating the valuables will be undoubtedly and completely ours.

My point: Lenin might have claimed the support of the people, but it's not as though he had a whole lot of compassion for the starving--they were an asset to be used for the advancement of global Communism.