701–710 of 971 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FDR after he gave up to the requests of the communists and created the largest welfare program in US history?
I think you mean when he saved capitalism from itself so that folks like you can whine into the future
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that capital is ahistorical (or at least, traces its origin to the concept of human property itself by being 'just' property) is not a claim to be made as though it were uncontroversial. In fact, many people proposing non-capitalist systems disagree the idea that capital is 'just property' for good reasons, which may be worth considering. You argue that the capitalist system presupposes these rights and the…
It doesn’t matter what you call it, capital is the same thing regardless of its ownership structure. Let’s call it woogum and the woogumist system if you like, that doesn’t change anything. Capitalism is commonly defined as a system of economics based on private ownership, and associated rights such as free exchange of labour, free markets, etc as against state ownership. Systems based on cartels, oligarchies and cor…
'As against state ownership is an interesting bit to use as part of the definition, because it creates the whole rest of your argument for you (by which you must say that a term like 'state capitalism' is nonsensical, but I disagree). This is fundamentally an issue of definitions, and I'm more than happy to agree to disagree on that, or even to go with your definition, and I'll use capital-prime to denote what I'm talking about.
However, according to Wikpedia (quoting Samuelson) capital is "those durable produced goods that are in turn used as productive inputs for further production" of goods and services" - so while a subclass of property, certainly not 'just property'. This also raises an empirical question, that is, in a given society what are those 'durable produced goods...' as they exist in the macroeconomic sense? Yet others view capital as a social relation. I'm saying there are multiple perspectives on the definition, but that's the nature of multiple interested parties talking about a politically, ideologically, and socially charged subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last missing puzzle piece is pretty clear when looking at the full picture. Maybe now that he is gone, nobody will prevent from stating it officially. It's pretty clear that he was aware and gave orders. There're testimonies that next time Alfa unit asked for written orders. Guess when Alfa unit was given unwritten orders and who could give them such orders? If they acted without orders, why no heads roll back th…
I wonder how all of this played into Alfa's decision not to kill protestors in service of the August 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt.
Regarding Lithuania's January events, other units did refuse to operate even back then. IIRC Pskov airborne unit was given unwritten order to fly to Vilnius, but the commander refused.
Say what you will, he seemed a politician very keen on world peace, beyond mere lip service. He understood the lacunae of the Soviet system and genuinely set about to reform them. But ultimately it was Ethno-national interests in Ukraine, Baltics and Central Asian republics along with the rise of opportunist power-grabbers like Yeltsin that did him and Soviet Union in. And perhaps his own reluctance to follow the Chi…
That was a very human mistake to prioritize politics (people) over essential root-causes (money). I am convinced that for most people, their development years (pre-adolescent) shape them, and for Mikhail, the experiences of his father and maternal grandfather as he witnessed as a child shaped him. He saw a cruel world made by people and tried to fix it, but for humans, the root cause is always superseded by basic nee…
I guarantee you that people existed before money, and that people create(d) money. People are the root cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> Imagine if Trump had really been a Russian agent and had returned Alaska to Russia, would you expect all subsequent administrations to just respect that it is Russian now? Huh? You mean: Imagine if Russia just annexed Alaska after they sent their green men over-there, to disrupt and takeover the region. Since when Ukraine just gave up on crimea? They were bullied off it and same with donbass. Their military was wea…
It had been independent / Tatar before, and Russification meant it was mainly populated by Russians.
The issue is that Ukraine refuses to allow for the self-determination of the Crimea and Donbass since Euromaidan. Why can't they just allow internationally managed referendums to take place? This would be far better than warfare and paramilitary killings, etc. for both sides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy does not imply friend of or aligned with the West. Russia has historically been an imperial power and seeks to further its own power and perceived interests, and they certainly refuse to be under foreign/Western/American domination. A democratic government could mean less reckless actions but it wouldn't necessarily mean friendlier actions.
> Democracy does not imply friend of or aligned with the West. It seems like it does, though? I mean, no, it's not like India or Brazil are subjugated client states of the US or Germany or whatever, but they know where their natural allies are and which direction the wind blows in international relationships. Market democracies are going to stick together, if for no other reason than because they'll end up poorer if…
India is neither aligned nor allied with the US. They share interests particularly when it comes to containing China. But again India's interests on this have nothing to do with being a democracy or with China not being a democracy.
The US are of course heavily involved in Brazil, including by supporting the military coup there in 1964... following which the military government was unsurprisingly completely aligned with the US.
I think that there is a 'survivor' bias here because most countries are not strong enough to resist the US so either they are 'friendly' or something might happen to them... Iran did democratically elect a President once but he was not 'friendly' so was promptly replaced by a friendly dictator.
To assume shared geopolitical interests only because two countries are superficially "market democracies" sounds rather naive.
Gorby came to DC for a summit with Reagan in December 1987. When his motorcade stopped to meet folks on the street, he was absolutely mobbed. I remember the news coverage (WashPost et al.) expressing surprise and bafflement. I think the power structure in the US did not expect such an outpouring of obvious hunger from the man on the street for an end to all the Cold War madness. "More popular than Reagan ?!" Mikhail…
Trivial pedantry - but the phrase is more commonly _requiescat in pace_ pacem would be the accusative[0] vs the ablative[1] - the difference being him being peaceful in rest, vs his rest being peaceful. Nonetheless, I echo your sentiment. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_case
"Requiet in pacem" is what I usually see on teh interwebz, which proves absolutely nothing.
FWIW I quit Latin in 10th grade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone previously pointed out, the perspective here is that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were invaded and forcibly annexed in 1940.
Very much like Hawaii and Florida, weren’t they? Weren’t those countries ruled for decade or so by dictators who ceased power in late 20s? Didn’t Soviet actually organized elections and then their parliaments voted to join the USSR? I’m sure it’s all a sham but history is a bit nuanced.
Also, there are no elections or parliaments anywhere within the Soviet (or Russian, for that matter) sphere of influence. There are "elections" and "parliaments".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The parent comment is correct I'm sorry but it's not, and I already stated why with reason. They were not asking for "democratic reforms", but for independence. Call it self-determination if it makes you feel better. Debate my comparisons, fair enough, I just tried to put things in perspective.
As someone previously pointed out, the perspective here is that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were invaded and forcibly annexed in 1940.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the dissolution of soviet union is not over yet. You can see this nowhere as clearly as in russias attack on Ukraine[0] where imperialistic russians that dream of restoring the glory and borders of soviet union[1] are waging their genocidal war. Meanwhile they are using hunger[2] and energy as their weapons against the rest of the world[3]. If the russians are not stopped in Ukraine, then there is no reason to be…
Quoted post unavailable.
Russia has no moral or any other claim over Crimea. Their actions in starving millions of people to death in Crimea in the 20s, the ethnic cleansing by evicting Tartars and Cosacks, replacing them with Russians - these all go to the long term drive of Russian imperial ambitions in the area.
Putin tried to take the whole of Ukraine and has tried several times to assasinate Zelensky, just like he has assasinated many others (and tried but failed to assassinate a previous Ukrainian president with poison).
The internal politics of Ukraine are just a pretext that Putin is using to realize his ambitions. They are not a reason in any way for the war crimes and attrocities he has committed.