Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: American Freedom?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
 RE: American Freedom? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
The Comintern, from 1919 on, provided funds and personnel to advance communism in Europe. The Comintern, backed by Russia, actively worked to advance revolution and the overthrow of European governments. One cannot work to undermine systems and provoke revolutions in other countries, and then cry "foul" when those countries fight back in order to preserve their system of government from such efforts.
With which you only confirm the centering of self-preservation and dominance, of what in the same time can´t stand for willingness for democracy. The exegesis of fake democracy that will allow opinion and aiming only in predefined and restricted ways as circled in above by Deniz.
Democracy however would mean the welcoming of whatever the people demand for. Including the "overthrow of governments" if so inquired. To be even more precise: Even constitutions must not be the untouchable foundation founders stipulated them as ( statutes which in the same time and actually are being held open to modifications all the time, as long as it only be the ones in power who will alter, add and scratch passages as desired ).
Anyway, if anyone shows capable of making the people going for new shores, then noone should be hindering such striving as the will of the people. And if those new shores were to mean the calling for a governments resignation then it ought to be accepted. That would be democracy after all, isn´t it.
Governments and constitutions that are there to sustain/ defend themselves in the same time are not democratic.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
... , the Western forces did not engage the Bolsheviks in combat.
Looks like carefully chosen words, Bill.
Not that it was to sound like considerate action of democratic forces who decided to not intervene.
Not necessarily with forces whose refined speciality of past century has been international sabotage.
America's Secret War Against Bolshevism
http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-War-against-Bolshevism/dp/0807849588
I would be honestly interested to hear of your perspective on the questions in my last post.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 10:52:38
 |
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
The Western policy of initiating an embargo (a hostile and warlike action; to point out it was not a hot war is needless) managed to make a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps intelligent diplomacy and propaganda would have led to a different outcome than an implacably hostile and militaristic superpower driven by reasonable fear of the enemies that encircled it, and a brush with nuclear extinction of mankind. I would also point out that the actions of the Western countries obviously reflected the perceived interests of the elite (capitalists), not necessarily the exploited workers--so it is a little simple to speak of the countries acting monolithically.
I think we will just have to agree to (agreeably!) disagree, Miguel, both on your reading of history, as reflected in your comment quoted above, and in your apparent perception of Lenin and the Bolsheviks as beleaguered idealists who, left alone, would not have engaged in anti-Western, anti-capitalist actions. That Western countries, in your words, "made a mountain out of a molehill," is a highly debatable proposition, but it is certainly one way of looking at it. At any rate, it makes for an interesting discussion.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 11:27:04
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
As with Miguel, I think we will just have to agree to (again, agreeably!) disagree, Ruphus. I am tempted to say that we cannot agree on the interpretation of events in the establishment and development of the Soviet Union, from the Russian revolution on. But in order to debate interpretation, we would have to agree on the historical facts. I do not think we agree on some of the key historical facts regarding the Russian revolution and the Western response, and without agreeing on those facts, we certainly cannot debate any interpretation of events.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 13:02:47
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
But you can give me a notion about what you associate with the objects in my questions, no?
Hello, Ruphus. I assume your are referring to the questions you posed in an earlier post, regarding Washington's and Western attitudes and actions toward Russia, the Russian people, Gorbachev, oligarchs, Yeltsin, Putin, etc. and the collapse of communism. Your questions were interesting, but they went far afield of the specific topic of why communism collapsed in the Soviet Union. I stand by my fairly detailed explanation, offered earlier in response to a post by Richard. Namely, that the reason for the collapse of communism in the USSR was twofold: The 45-year policy of "containment" (which hollowed out the Soviet economy and exposed the sclerotic internal contradictions of communism) and the recognition by Gorbachev that the system had to change.
We could go into Yeltsin, the criminal oligarchs, Putin, and a hundred other aspects of post-communist Russia, but it would take too long, and it would read like the continuous roll of toilet paper on which Jack Kerouac typed the first draft of his seminal work, "On the Road." This is not the venue for that broad a discussion.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 16:24:15
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
The universal tendency to bring up history happens for a reason. The reason is that theories of politics have proven notoriously unreliable in making predictions over the long term. We think we know what happened in the past, though inevitably history is a gross abstraction of complex events. So people talk about the past when trying to evaluate political and economic theories. A real problem arises in the discussion when people seriously disagree about history.
I wouldn't say that "inevitably history is a gross abstraction of complex events," Richard. History is neither an abstraction of complex events, nor is it, as some believe, a completely relative concept, depending upon one's frame of reference. Clearly, historiography has developed a pretty refined methodology for historical research. And much of such research results in a very good understanding of the past. The problem of people disagreeing about history usually occurs in its interpretation, and I have found that much disagreement over interpretation is ideologically driven.
And while we are on the topic of historical research and the good results it can produce, I would like to recommend Anne Applebaum's recently published book, "Iron Curtain." She has done a tremendous amount of research in recently opened files, regarding how the Soviet Union imposed communism and ideological conformity on Eastern Europe after World War II. Ms. Applebaum concentrates on three countries: Poland, East Germany, and Hungary. But the methods she describes were applied to other Eastern European countries as well. Of course, the Soviets were occupying Eastern Europe at the War's end. But "Iron Curtain" details the methods used to ensure communist rule. Foremost, of course, was the imposition of NKVD clones in the form of the secret police. Youth groups were indoctrinated. Collectivization imposed. And there were a myriad other elements of control that mirrored the Soviet apparatus. It is a very good book.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 16:51:43
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
I don't question the accuracy of historical research carried out according to the best standards of the trade. I question its completeness.
The study of history is much like the study of theoretical physics and the cosmos, in regards to its "completeness." Both seem to me to be continuous works in progress as new discoveries are made, whether they involve previously unknown or unopened archives in the case of historical research, or new ideas such as "string theory" in physics. Each new discovery, built upon previous knowledge, moves our understanding forward. And sometimes it can change our understanding, which is still forward movement. Although we may not know the "complete" history of an event such as the Russian revolution, each new element of research adds to the overall picture and gives us a pretty good understanding of the past.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 17:32:19
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
"I think we will just have to agree to (agreeably!) disagree, Miguel, both on your reading of history, as reflected in your comment quoted above,"
If you mean to say that US militarism reflects the interests of both the elite and the general population, then I will agree that must agree to disagree.
"and in your apparent perception of Lenin and the Bolsheviks as beleaguered idealists who, left alone, would not have engaged in anti-Western, anti-capitalist actions."
This is a distortion. They probably would have wanted to, but it would have been a tough sell to the people, who primarily wanted to eat and survive (as do all people). By encircling them, it ensured that they would engage in anti-Western, anti-capitalist actions. The West turned a possible threat into a certain one. The reality of Western aggression could never have been matched by the most ingenious internal propaganda.
"That Western countries, in your words, "made a mountain out of a molehill," is a highly debatable proposition, but it is certainly one way of looking at it. At any rate, it makes for an interesting discussion."
I would say so, and would extend it to numerous other militaristic actions on the part of the West, and later, the US. It seems part of our extended culture to use force as a first resort. The blowback that occurs should not be unexpected.
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 17:48:40
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
There is a great difference between the study of history and physics, and who could say it better than, "History is written by the victors." Modern history may be more objective than ever, but as Richard perhaps mentioned too subtly, it is incomplete and systematically so. The acceptable subjects are explored in great detail and with wonderful earnestness, but what about the unacceptable ones? Chomsky clearly demonstrated a parallel phenomenon with regards to the reporting on similar incidents that occurred in the 80s, some under Communist rule, others in our southern backyard. The convenient truths, that is, those that conformed to the Evil Empire theme, received exponentially more coverage than those that showed US complicity in equally evil acts.
It should go without saying that the incompleteness of physics has little to do with politics in the same sense (string theory besides!).
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 17:59:27
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
Hello, Ruphus. I assume your are referring to the questions you posed in an earlier post, regarding Washington's and Western attitudes and actions toward Russia, the Russian people, Gorbachev, oligarchs, Yeltsin, Putin, etc. and the collapse of communism. Your questions were interesting, but they went far afield of the specific topic of why communism collapsed in the Soviet Union.
That was not what I meant.
Here:
quote:
And the very same systematic looting throughout the ending Eastern Block: All that instituting and supporting of skim by the very legislatures that your so genuine corps was at backing up without the slightest of objection ( a clearing very consciously observed by me, particularly with the utterly arrant ripping off in East Germany ) ...
Will that historically unique robbing all have been to you:
# Hogwash that never occured?
# Unpredictable?
# Coincidence?
# Crime defied by humane liberators from White House, but inevitable still?
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 19:21:33
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
"and in your apparent perception of Lenin and the Bolsheviks as beleaguered idealists who, left alone, would not have engaged in anti-Western, anti-capitalist actions."
This is a distortion. They probably would have wanted to, but it would have been a tough sell to the people, who primarily wanted to eat and survive (as do all people).
A tough sell to the people?! Are you actually suggesting that Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolshevik leadership in power in Russia were accountable to the Russian people? In fact, Lenin forced the Russian people into his ideological mold through nationalized industry, collectivized agriculture, terror, and thought control. And as I stated earlier, it was Lenin's view that revolutions must occur in Europe if the Russian revolution was to succeed. Through the Comintern, he attempted to foment European revolutions because he saw it as a matter of survival, even though events would prove him wrong. It was Stalin who proclaimed "Socialism in One Country." in order to concentrate on development in the USSR. There is so much valid historical research on this matter that it is astounding that anyone believes otherwise, although I can see where a reader of Noam Chomsky might think so. Chomsky is clearly on the far Left of the spectrum.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 19:31:00
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
There is a great difference between the study of history and physics, and who could say it better than, "History is written by the victors." Modern history may be more objective than ever, but as Richard perhaps mentioned too subtly, it is incomplete and systematically so.
I thought I made it explicitly clear that I was comparing the study of history and the study of physics and the cosmos with regard to both being works in progress, and that neither is "complete."
The old saw "History is written by the victors" has an element of truth to it, but there is much good history being written today that does not fit that old mold. And while history written by those shrill voices on both the Left and the Right are by design systematically incomplete ("selective" to use another term), that is not the case with much of the good stuff being written today. A good historian does not lend himself to the selective ("incomplete and systematically so") writing of history. There are many examples.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 19:44:11
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
"A tough sell to the people?! Are you actually suggesting that Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolshevik leadership in power in Russia were accountable to the Russian people? "
A handful of zealots cannot control tens of millions without an apparatus to do so. That apparatus is composed of people who must be convinced to act. It is far easier to convince such people that they are in existential jeopardy when that is, in fact, the case.
"In fact, Lenin forced the Russian people into his ideological mold through nationalized industry, collectivized agriculture, terror, and thought control."
Yes, progressively, in time--as the book by Applebaum you have cited a couple of times states. It is easier to adopt a bunker mentality when you are actually in a bunker.
"And as I stated earlier, it was Lenin's view that revolutions must occur in Europe if the Russian revolution was to succeed."
That hasn't been disputed. You are probably aware of Che Guevara's rather pathetic attempts to foment revolution in Africa and South America.
"It was Stalin who proclaimed "Socialism in One Country." in order to concentrate on development in the USSR. There is so much valid historical research on this matter that it is astounding that anyone believes otherwise, although I can see where a reader of Noam Chomsky might think so."
No one is disputing what Stalin and Lenin believed, that is a straw man. I hope you aren't basing a significant part of your argument upon it.
"Chomsky is clearly on the far Left of the spectrum."
Ad hominem.
Bill
[/quote]
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 20:25:05
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9353
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
I've read about this era in Soviet history through the lives of the composers, musicians, writers and visual artists. The government does not seem to be very tolerant of what the people wanted and used the arts as a mechanism of propaganda whenever possible. The various procession of leaders in power also seemed to go by whim and whimsy when making decisions about who will be killed or jailed due to how much they overextended past the unwritten laws of artistic conformity.
I can't help but think that my reading of history through this subculture could be used as a metaphor of the main political culture. I observe in the history of the arts in the Soviet Union that the political leaders often act out of insecurity; an insecurity based on their vicarious experience of living through the artists. Stalin, for example, had little understanding of the arts, so little that Shostakovich wrote music that was at once nationalistic, towing the party line, but with a sarcastic or acidic subtext that said stick it up your communist asses.
Stalin was a pretty dull boy and if he did not get wise to what Shostakovich was doing, how much other information went over that head and its beady little suspicious eyes? Stalin was deluded in the same way someone like Saddam Hussein was deluded. A man who in retirement fancied himself a poet, a writer of plays to elucidate the plight of their peoples.
Look where Leon Trotsky fled, right into the waiting arms of Frida Kalho and fat old Diego Rivera. Now they hunted Trotsky down all the way over in Mexico and put a steel hammer though this head. You know why? Because he knew the value of art and it separated him from the other communists like Stalin who did not understand art. Trotsky got Shostakovich's inside jokes and sardonic dark humor about the regime. That was why he was dangerous.
The artists were more in touch with the humanity of the USSR and this scared the politicians. Some of the artists were cuckholds to the party and some were not. The ones who participated in the confluence of Soviet propaganda were allowed to exist without too much trouble. But we don't bother to read or listen to them today, do we? Why? Because they did not transgress the politicians emotional notions about how they would be useful to the state. Ironically in the beginning of the state many of the artists who later would become dissidents and either go to prison, like Solzhenitsyn, or go over seas began to embrace the communist ideas and make art about them.
Kazmir Malevich's work and the style of constructivism that he fostered was an early communist influenced style. Many others worked it the same way and the young state approved of the style because it registered the ideas of strength, unity and future that the young party sought to put forth. Artists like Shostakovich and the slightly older Prokofiev wrote music that was the complement to the visual arts clean lean styles; they were team players in that struggle that the Soviet state was engaging in. But something happened along the way and artists began to mistrust the state and they stopped the supporting art and began to write and make art or music which was subversive to the state. Does it matter why they changed from supportive roles to critical roles? Or can we today just enjoy the vicarious thrill of understanding intellectually that these works or art are place markers or historical flag plantings for shifts in the trust of the people in the government?
The point is that you read and use it to process your own questions about history. I'm bored with discussions that end in someone telling someone else that they need to prove their point. That is list making. Go to the grocery store with your lists. Make conversation that prompts the other side to question where it looks for information to make more questions about history. That is what Chomsky, Foucault and those other theory wonks want you to understand.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 3 2012 20:38:32
|
|
Miguel de Maria
Posts: 3532
Joined: Oct. 20 2003
From: Phoenix, AZ
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
That seems a fancy way of saying one is free to disregard dissenting arguments based on the obvious fact that they come from a different perspective, in this case, the Left. Ad hominem is a fallacy whether or not malice exists.
Mainstream history is generally more reliable and scholarly, but will also rarely vary from accepted narratives. Thus it fulfills its function of justifying the current power structures. So it was with the Pharoahs, so it was with Saddaam, so it would be even in our society. The mission--if we choose to accept it--is to see beyond our own cultural blinders and perspective. That is impossible if we ignore the arguments of those with visible agenda.
By the way, I am not a Leftist, despite some sympathies to that side of things. That being said, capitalism seems to be the engine that is mindlessly hurtling our species toward the imminent depletion of vital, nonrenewable resources, not to mention extinction . I have no emotional allegiance toward capitalism, and if viable alternatives exist, I am all ears.
_____________________________
Connect with me on Facebook, all the cool kids are doing it.
https://www.facebook.com/migueldemariaZ
Arizona Wedding Music Guitar
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 4 2012 4:09:21
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9353
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
Mainstream history is generally more reliable and scholarly, but will also rarely vary from accepted narratives. Thus it fulfills its function of justifying the current power structures.
History is peer reviewed and it continues to undergo peer review generation after generation by lucid critical thinkers, but I disagree that it's function is to be confluent with power. One can glace at the roll call of important thinkers of the twentieth century beginning with crusty old Spengler through Hanna Arendt, Foucault and even to contemporaries like George Lakoff, who is also a left leaning linguist (aliteration!) with opposing yet very valid ideas from those of Chomski. None of these critics of history would advocate historians as mere supporters of power.
Even investigative journalists who have written important works which end up being important works of history, William Shirer comes to mind, would likely shudder to think history is written to glorify or fortify political power. That is what propagandists do, and the job of historians is to expose propagandists. To heap on top of that to further support the premise that history is not written to be confluent with power is that one of ideas of Antonio Gramsci an Italian communist, was that "Power is non discursive." By that he meant power, those in power, do not have to enter into dialogues with those not in power. The object of historians is to either retroactively or in the political moment force power or bring power to the table to be to be discursive. That is the how historians should be held accountable. They are not blind Sybils who see into the past a future flawlessly, but generational researchers who ferret out more facts as time goes by a puzzle those facts into a grand narrative to make it more truthful. If you want to speak about methodology of research and compare Foucault to Shirer, por ejemplo, that in itself is a fascinating topic. More interesting usually to me than actual political hindsight rehashing. The part the historian plays is to provide everyone with information that can allow them to bring the non discursive in a relationship where they talk. The meta narrative may be flawed in small ways, but the cyclical nature of history keeping will eventually revisit those area of contention. Sometimes even turing over a historical a priori "truth" and then a generation later turning it back again.
It would be a miracle if at some point Hollywood or even the loose society of American independent film makers would pull is head a out of it's stupidass and make a non sensationalist movie about a philosopher other than the idiot that is Ayn Rand. Why not a movie about Hanna Arendt, a great woman of philosophy?
Dumb-ass-ness is an easier sale than smartness. That is the main problem with capitalism. Nothing wrong with free markets, the problem is how to keep the consumers from making dumb choices which drive supply and demand. But if you try to round them up and educate them is smells of a Bolshevic plot, which in truth which aint that much better than trying to just buy the right kind of product which supports a smarter way of life.
In the USSR there was one kind of toilet paper and you had to wait in line to buy it, in the US today there are thirty kinds of toilet paper, but the consumer wants the one that is bleached and causes more environmental damage. But as soon as you regulate the toilet paper industry to use more environmentally supportive manufacturing someone will call you a communist.
That is American Freedom. Free to buy bleached toilet paper and not stand in line.
BTW if anyone is interested in Chomski's work, I highly recommend George Lakoff who had and a notable and academically public split with Chomski. Lakoff is much more interesting and less plottingly didactic, well in my opinion. And that's no ad hom, because giving an opinion or providing context is not the same as mounting ad hom attack, which someone was falsely accused of.
Sorry to go off, but the idea that historians are the servants of power is something I have to comment on. I'm sure there is a guy in Japan somewhere who is making large giajin supporting soapboxes and he sees me coming, yen in hand.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 4 2012 4:57:15
|
|
XXX
Posts: 4400
Joined: Apr. 14 2005
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan
The reason is that theories of politics have proven notoriously unreliable in making predictions over the long term. We think we know what happened in the past, though inevitably history is a gross abstraction of complex events. So people talk about the past when trying to evaluate political and economic theories. A real problem arises in the discussion when people seriously disagree about history.
In my layman's words: history is the "what" happened. Theory is the "why" happened. The "what" is a condition, to research the why. The problem with such historical discussions is always that people usually do not differentiate between those too. If Bill says: "Lenin forced the Russian people into his ideological mold through nationalized industry, collectivized agriculture, terror, and thought control." then this is already a judgement, not a neutral point of view. Almost all of those points could be also said about the Western states of those times (and even today) - with the exception of collectiv agriculture, which is the only useful thing of them.
I also want to mention that the task of a theory is not to make predictions. It is to find out about the "nature" of things, their inner logic. In human behaviour you have specific reasons, just like in any other science. Humans have purposes which they set by themselves, and they will try to gather the means to fullfil them as they can. Political science is about to find about how the purposes of the society concur (or fall apart) with the purposes of the individual. Political changes in the past have been violent because they did not concur, so the outcome of any revolution highly depended on how much means each side could gather.
quote:
You and an Indian scientist would agree on the law of gravity--more or less. You and he might disagree on your opinions about dark matter or the accelerating expansion of the universe, but you would be just as likely to disagree with a German colleague.
More than about agreeing or disagreeing, i wanted to point out the HOW physicists would reason a theory/statement etc. Research in Dark matter is not finished yet, but, for example, the question "why things fall to the ground" will be answered by the same reason from all physicists, even though none of them have the same cultural, working experience. (Also have in mind: the SAME experience will not lead to the same opinion on it either.)
But try to formulate a question like "Why did the russian revolution succeed?" or "what is capitalism/communism?" and you will get different answers. I think you will get better answers when asking "what is feudalism", because nobody has any interest in feudalism. There is less chance of ideologic statements, ie reasoning something wrongly because of an interest.
_____________________________
Фламенко
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 4 2012 8:24:39
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: American Freedom? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
quote:
quote:
And the very same systematic looting throughout the ending Eastern Block: All that instituting and supporting of skim by the very legislatures that your so genuine corps was at backing up without the slightest of objection ( a clearing very consciously observed by me, particularly with the utterly arrant ripping off in East Germany ) ...
Will that historically unique robbing all have been to you:
# Hogwash that never occured?
# Unpredictable?
# Coincidence?
# Crime defied by humane liberators from White House, but inevitable still?
Ruphus, I am not going to engage in a discussion that deteriorates into posing multiple-choice questions. To do so causes the discussion to descend from a real exchange of ideas into the farce of a grammar school quiz.
Cheers,
Bill
Hello Bill,
It should be obvious enough that you are not bound to reply in multiple choice manner. I only listed some hypothetical variations of what you might have been thinking, to explain what my actual wondering is.
Maybe your idea and perception was something completely else, with me still honestly interested in hearing what it may have looked like.
But in the way it looks so far, you seem simply reluctant to answer, as it could either illuminate the inconsitency of composed opinion or even the willful agenda behind an unfairness-skipping perception.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mezzo
This must be an U.S. spectrum analyser, if you look at it with the E.U. spectrum (latin side) then the cursor might stop to the moderate area or barely to the center. It would hardly lean left imo.
It must be considered where Bill considers moderate to reside, which ought to roughly be where Reagan or Thatcher would had nudged it.
Just look at all the crime that he considers void or justified.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Miguel de Maria
That being said, capitalism seems to be the engine that is mindlessly hurtling our species toward the imminent depletion of vital, nonrenewable resources, not to mention extinction . I have no emotional allegiance toward capitalism, and if viable alternatives exist, I am all ears.
Be embraced, brother in mind.
There always exists alternative to the worst of options. - Only time enough won´t always be.
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
In the USSR there was one kind of toilet paper and you had to wait in line to buy it, in the US today there are thirty kinds of toilet paper, but the consumer wants the one that is bleached and causes more environmental damage. But as soon as you regulate the toilet paper industry to use more environmentally supportive manufacturing someone will call you a communist.
That is American Freedom. Free to buy bleached toilet paper and not stand in line.
Yeah, "communist"; of the worst abusive words the Ammerican language has. All that while there will exist hardly any other nation that would be less informed on what the term actually deals with.
Eventhough there have been other weird examples, like where I am now.
As I have been told the local clerus would splice the term "communist" into three syllabels of which one would give a meaning in Arab language and another one in the local speech. Out would come "god ain´t" and with that the ogress per se.
Imagine how millions would believe the bunkum who had not even heard of the name "Marx".
How I remember the times of Cold War and how hard-working demagoges had turned terms like "communist" and "Russian" into the epitome of evil to the vast majority in the western world.
Really, there would splash sort of satanic waves through crowded rooms if you used any of these terms. As if you had just revealed to be an AIDS infected pederast working in a kindergarden or so.
My brother was the largest in western trade with the USSR in the seventies / eighties. He and his western business friends showed guts like ox to dare. And you may imagine what the CIA wouldn´t try just to defunct him. They had him followed permanently wherever he went, and he was travelling internationally all the time.
He became the first case of the CIA losing before court in the US.
And he was apparently poisioned with a product from Biopreparat while Bill´s "liberating" friends where clearing off the Russian state gold stock, but that is another story. ( That we will not be reading about in historical books that soon I guess.)
But what we may be reading of some decades in the future could be investigations of how the unwinding of the Eastern Block washed Trillions of bucks into private western accounts. And some oh so honorable liberators and their shadows of the late eighties will probably be blown the cover of as the ordinary and shabby skimmers they have been. Only that those sirs at that time will likely all have passed already.
Free World my ass.
- And "American Freedom" like what: Orange pickers, McCarthy, Patriotic Act?
You are right: Neutral history is a very contemporary phenomenon. Over the millenias before the subject was dependent to power.
A very popular example being the one of Marathon which the ancient Greeks blew up to their glory.
Modern history will now gradually be shifting the cradle of democracy and pragmatism to the Orient. Even if it remains clear that the newborn achievements were suffocated too soon to have a career there.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 4 2012 10:28:22
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.125 secs.
|
Printable Version
