Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 136: Mother Teresa's a bitch

(+) Yeah! (+)

CaptainOfCrush posted...

I've always been comfortable sharing but I've always had the impression that no one here really cared to hear it.

Interested!
---

So i am very well aware that it was never actually about the emails, but kushner is reportedly conducting government correspondence using a private email.

In other news, manafort has received notice that he will be indicted by mueller.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

It's an American thing, not an English thing. I'm British, political liberalism as a movement was basically invented in the UK, and our liberals are centrists - socially and economically liberal. Socially in greater civil liberties, economically in less government involvement. They are not especially left wing or right wing, and the term is not used that way. In America there is no economic left, so the liberals are as left wing as America goes. Hence the confusion of the term.

this also makes a lot of sense. i think socialism as a concept does exist in the US but it's primarily seen as a weird fringe ideology that no sensible people would adhere to. this is why during the campaign of the '08 election republicans were constantly going "obama is a SOCIALIST!", as if that's a worse insult than saying "obama is a fascist." (of course it was total bullshit as he wasn't a socialist at all but yeah.)

Also Stalin wasn't a true communist, true communism is no government, and he did indeed undeniably deploy fascist ideology such as devotion to the state, cult of personality, totalitarianism... Stalinism is really it's own thing and in no way opposite to fascism at all.

yup, it's important to keep pointing this out. i'm not a communist but "LOL PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE IN AN IDEOLOGY THAT KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE" is the stupidest argument against communism ever. communism the way marx and engels intended it has never been tried, much like anarchy.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i think socialism as a concept does exist in the US but it's primarily seen as a weird fringe ideology that no sensible people would adhere to

According to a lot of Republicans (anecdotally, at least), socialism is "anything to the economic left of me". For a smaller number, scratch the word economic from that description.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Also Stalin wasn't a true communist, true communism is no government, and he did indeed undeniably deploy fascist ideology such as devotion to the state, cult of personality, totalitarianism... Stalinism is really it's own thing and in no way opposite to fascism at all.

The problem wasn't merely that Stalin wasn't a true communist, though. The problem was that communism opens the door for a leader like Stalin.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Lightning Strikes posted...

Also Stalin wasn't a true communist, true communism is no government, and he did indeed undeniably deploy fascist ideology such as devotion to the state, cult of personality, totalitarianism... Stalinism is really it's own thing and in no way opposite to fascism at all.

The problem wasn't merely that Stalin wasn't a true communist, though. The problem was that communism opens the door for a leader like Stalin.

And Capitalism opens the door for a leader like Trump? Who probably wishes he was like Stalin?
---

As someone who doesn't much care for American sports, it has always felt silly for the anthem to preface something as vapid as a game between people of the same nation. Is there some "this is what our vets fought for" kinda vibe to it? Why sports and not, I dunno, classes in school? Horse shows? Art exhibits?

Legit curious as a foreigner.
---

Omniscientless posted...

As someone who doesn't much care for American sports, it has always felt silly for the anthem to preface something as vapid as a game between people of the same nation. Is there some "this is what our vets fought for" kinda vibe to it? Why sports and not, I dunno, classes in school? Horse shows? Art exhibits?

Legit curious as a foreigner.

It started back during the first World War when morale was super low and nobody was coming to baseball games, and a lot of people were going "Why are you playing baseball instead of fighting in the war?"
---

The idea that anarcho-communism is the "true" form of communism has, in my experience, always struck me as an absurd back-justification for supporting communism as it has actually been practiced.

Movements need leaders. Movements founded on the idea that people who oppose you are the enemy and must be violently brought low are going to have secret polices, and gulags, and all the other evils we associate with communism. I see people saying that, after the mass redistribution of wealth they dream of, anarcho-communism will result in decisions being made via direct democracy. Ignoring the foolishness of direct democracy for a second -- and it is foolish -- at this point in their "revolution," countless people have been shot for being "wrong." You cannot have a marketplace of ideas in such an environment; you cannot have honest debate when being on the wrong side of a debate has previously proven deadly.
---

I want to ask Corrik a question, so feel free to get mad at me for engaging him

All those veterans in your family, and others you know. They put their lives on the line for our freedoms.

You know the saying "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."

Would they still put their lives on the line to allow the players to kneel, despite how much they hate it?
---

I kinda would like to take up Corrik's offer to see the "hundreds" or whatever of vets complaining about the kneeling, since when you Google "veterans reaction to nfl players kneeling," you get stuff like

"Going viral: WWII veteran takes knee to support black NFL players"

and quotes like

“If they kneel, I’m going to salute, I’m going to salute with pride,” he said. “I understand why they are kneeling. That’s what I fought for. For them to have the right. Personally, I don’t like it. But I appreciate that what they are doing is a non-violent protest. No people are hurt. No equipment is lost. Black Lives do matter.”
---

SupremeZero posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Lightning Strikes posted...

Also Stalin wasn't a true communist, true communism is no government, and he did indeed undeniably deploy fascist ideology such as devotion to the state, cult of personality, totalitarianism... Stalinism is really it's own thing and in no way opposite to fascism at all.

The problem wasn't merely that Stalin wasn't a true communist, though. The problem was that communism opens the door for a leader like Stalin.

And Capitalism opens the door for a leader like Trump? Who probably wishes he was like Stalin?

The difference is that Trump is still being kept in check as far as grabs for power are concerned. The Soviet Union never really got past Stalin's influence even after his death. (And thanks to Putin, one could argue Russia really just had a short reprieve.)
---

dowolf posted...

The idea that anarcho-communism is the "true" form of communism has, in my experience, always struck me as an absurd back-justification for supporting communism as it has actually been practiced.

i just said i'm not a communist so i'm not sure why you're saying this. anarcho-communism is a gazillion times closer to how communism was when it was first described than stalinist communism. nothing "absurd" about pointing out this fact.
---

kevwaffles posted...

SupremeZero posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Lightning Strikes posted...

Also Stalin wasn't a true communist, true communism is no government, and he did indeed undeniably deploy fascist ideology such as devotion to the state, cult of personality, totalitarianism... Stalinism is really it's own thing and in no way opposite to fascism at all.

The problem wasn't merely that Stalin wasn't a true communist, though. The problem was that communism opens the door for a leader like Stalin.

And Capitalism opens the door for a leader like Trump? Who probably wishes he was like Stalin?

The difference is that Trump is still being kept in check as far as grabs for power are concerned. The Soviet Union never really got past Stalin's influence even after his death. (And thanks to Putin, one could argue Russia really just had a short reprieve.)

Trump being kept in check is honestly less about the system and more about his general incompetence. People have gotten away with far worse shit by the simple expedient of actually doing it competently. Like Cheney.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i just said i'm not a communist so i'm not sure why you're saying this. anarcho-communism is a gazillion times closer to how communism was when it was first described than stalinist communism. nothing "absurd" about pointing out this fact.

I wasn't trying to be accusative. I just know far too many actual communists who genuinely believe "we can totally get it right this time" while simultaneously posting North Korean apologia. Nor am I trying to say that the argument isn't technically correct -- more that its present-day use tends to be for the purpose of these circular, pro-communism arguments.

I know weird people, is what I'm trying to say >_>
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I want to ask Corrik a question, so feel free to get mad at me for engaging him

All those veterans in your family, and others you know. They put their lives on the line for our freedoms.

You know the saying "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."

Would they still put their lives on the line to allow the players to kneel, despite how much they hate it?

Yes they would.
---

Below is a hodgepodge of anecdotes and random memories/feelings from my time in Iraq. I was born there in December 1985 and left with my family in early 1991 after the Persian Gulf War. We spent about nine months in Jordan waiting for our immigration approval and arrived in the U.S. on February 29, 1992 (leap year babeh!).

-The old adage was “nowhere in Iraq could three men have a conversation without Saddam knowing about it,” and you could feel that people lived by it. There was an unquestioning understanding of Saddam’s reach and authority. I remember my family, and I’m guessing most others, were hesitant to criticize Saddam in their own homes, let alone in public. Publically talking about him the way we talk about Trump or Obama would have almost certainly gotten someone jailed and possibly executed.

-A couple of neighborhood boys once told me that “Saddam’s police will be out patrolling this street tomorrow.” The next day, I stayed indoors and literally crawled around on the floor because I didn’t want the agents to spot me through the windows. Stupid jerk kids.

-We fearfully (and I guess lovingly) referred to him as Saddam. Hardly anyone used his last name in conversation. Conversely, the American President was known simply as “Bush.” I actually remember my family freaking out and being super impressed when I knew that his full name was George Bush.

-There were only two channels on the TV, both state-run. They ended their programming at around 10 p.m. every night with the Iraqi National Anthem, which I would stand for and recite while my family laughed. I was pretty sharp for my age, but I sometimes think that makes people even more prone to fall for propaganda.

-My family is Catholic, and there was no indication (to me) that Saddam ever mistreated Christians in his country. My parents both attended and graduated medical school without issue, and our family had warm relations with our Muslim neighbors for decades. My mom says that Christians were even teased by their Muslim coworkers because Saddam would give them both Christian and Muslim religious holidays off.

-Similarly, there was no (easily detectable) professional discrimination against women. The crap that emerges from places like Saudi Arabia about women being forbidden to drive and existing essentially as property of their husbands… that never, NEVER happened in Iraq. Both of my parents’ med school class photos showed about a 50/50 gender split. My mom was actually paid more than my dad. It was common practice for Christian Iraqi women to keep their maiden names, and their husbands just had to deal with it. My mom kept her maiden name. After my grandpa died a few years before I was born, my grandma became matriarch and led the family like a goddamn boss. She was respected throughout the neighborhood as a leader by men and women alike. Iraqi women dressed similarly to their Western counterparts, though perhaps a little more conservatively. I don’t remember hijabs and burqas being at all common. I’m like… 90% sure that life for a woman in Iraq is worse now than it was in the 80s.
---

-Even for well-off families like mine, we had nothing that compared to the dizzying assortment of STUFF options we enjoy in the U.S. In Iraq, corn flakes and bananas were delicacies to me, among my favorite foods when I could enjoy them. I lost my fucking mind when I saw how common they were in the U.S. Every once in a while, I’ll look at a banana and remember how rare they were to me as a kid.

-My mom almost fainted the first time she stepped inside a Target (her first big American retail store visit). Those places did not exist in Iraq. Everything was a mom-n-pop.

-From what I understand, there was no “auto insurance” the way we have it here. If two men got into an accident, they stepped out of their cars, yelled at each other for five minutes, and drove away. Women had every right to drive but many chose not to simply because it was way more stressful over there. Even many men decided it wasn’t worth the hassle. My dad didn’t really learn to drive until we moved to the States.

-My dad was an army doctor during the Iran/Iraq war. I’m not sure how many of his stories are exaggerated but good lord, he saw some shit. He also told me that his single most dangerous day at the job was the day the Iran/Iraq war was actually DECLARED OVER. Everyone fired their guns in the air to celebrate, and the resulting fallout was injuring civilians everywhere. The hospital director called my dad’s apartment (just a quarter-mile down the street) and told him to come in because of the situation. My dad stepped out and said he could hear the celebratory bullets raining down around him. He grabbed his thickest medical book, held it over his head like a helmet, and broke the quarter-mile world record in his sprint to the hospital. I’m pretty sure celebratory gunfire is still a thing over there.


I'll write some more later. I have a ton of memories but they're all scatterbrained, so I apologize if some of this is a little incoherent.
---

I wish people would realize that bullets fired upward come down :-(
---

"Hey guys, you can survive without food or water for 2-3 weeks, right? Shouldn't be a big deal? We kinda have this kneeling football player thing to deal with. Thanks for understanding!"

https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/912329122227134465
---

Pretty interesting stuff! I'm surprised to hear about women/Christians being treated relatively well.
---

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20815108/alejandro-villanueva-pittsburgh-steelers-top-selling-gear-standing-national-anthem
---

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/anthony-weiner-sentencing/index.html

Should get a few more years for directly causing the election of Donald Trump
---

Corrik posted...

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20815108/alejandro-villanueva-pittsburgh-steelers-top-selling-gear-standing-national-anthem

I mean, how many times do I have to explain this is all straight out of Kimmy Schmidt? The NFL creates processed outlets for outrage so people buy jerseys so they can burn them in protest.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Corrik posted...

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20815108/alejandro-villanueva-pittsburgh-steelers-top-selling-gear-standing-national-anthem

I mean, how many times do I have to explain this is all straight out of Kimmy Schmidt? The NFL creates processed outlets for outrage so people buy jerseys so they can burn them in protest.

Well, they're not buying this particular jersey to burn it in protest, so it sounds like this "Kimmy Schmidt" needs to up her game.
---

Just wait. All has been foretold.
---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

-The old adage was ?nowhere in Iraq could three men have a conversation without Saddam knowing about it,?

It's hard to imagine the scale of difference between America and other countries sometimes as somebody who has never left the US...but that's a pretty interesting quote.
---

Movements certainly don't NEED leaders, the communist parties here in Ireland (the largest of which actually does pretty well thanks to proportional representation and every other party either being centrists or Sinn Fein) have collective leadership and still manage to function just fine.

Of course, I mainly wish that there was a left wing party that wasn't insane.
---

There's still a unified, guiding message from those co-leaders though, I imagine?
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Movements certainly don't NEED leaders, the communist parties here in Ireland (the largest of which actually does pretty well thanks to proportional representation and every other party either being centrists or Sinn Fein) have collective leadership and still manage to function just fine.

Of course, I mainly wish that there was a left wing party that wasn't insane.

Leaders are necessary. All you stated was that they have multiple leaders and not a singular one.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Movements certainly don't NEED leaders, the communist parties here in Ireland (the largest of which actually does pretty well thanks to proportional representation and every other party either being centrists or Sinn Fein) have collective leadership and still manage to function just fine.

"Movements" don't need leaders but the organized restructuring of society definitely does need leaders.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i just said i'm not a communist so i'm not sure why you're saying this. anarcho-communism is a gazillion times closer to how communism was when it was first described than stalinist communism. nothing "absurd" about pointing out this fact.

This is missing the point of the criticism though. People know what communism's endgame is theoretically described as being - the problem is that the process Marx envisioned for getting there will inevitably create a Stalin. Like it's not accurate to say that communism has never been tried, it's been tried, and the people who tried it realized that when they had absolute power, they didn't need to give it up.
---

Also CaptainofCrush thanks for posting that stuff about life in Saddam's Iraq, it's really interesting
---

Panthera posted...

Lightning Strikes posted...

Movements certainly don't NEED leaders, the communist parties here in Ireland (the largest of which actually does pretty well thanks to proportional representation and every other party either being centrists or Sinn Fein) have collective leadership and still manage to function just fine.

"Movements" don't need leaders but the organized restructuring of society definitely does need leaders.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i just said i'm not a communist so i'm not sure why you're saying this. anarcho-communism is a gazillion times closer to how communism was when it was first described than stalinist communism. nothing "absurd" about pointing out this fact.

This is missing the point of the criticism though. People know what communism's endgame is theoretically described as being - the problem is that the process Marx envisioned for getting there will inevitably create a Stalin. Like it's not accurate to say that communism has never been tried, it's been tried, and the people who tried it realized that when they had absolute power, they didn't need to give it up.

I'm sure as hell not a fan of communism, but I might need to make a topic outlining how wrong this is (unless Eddv beats me to it).
---

Bear in mind we're talking about leadership of all members, not a select few. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea, but I think it can certainly function.
---

It depends entirely on what the group in question is trying to do. The more nebulous its goals the more decentralized the leadership can be, but if the group is trying to actually do specific things you need to have people who can tell other people what the plan is to make it happen
---

Panthera posted...

It depends entirely on what the group in question is trying to do. The more nebulous its goals the more decentralized the leadership can be, but if the group is trying to actually do specific things you need to have people who can tell other people what the plan is to make it happen

Do you? Many parties around the world leave policy up to their membership. Also direct democracy can work with an educated electorate and heavy regulation of information. Not saying it's the best way, but I absolutely believe organisations with no leader can function.

Like, right now, do you think the US would be worse off with no President?
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Like, right now, do you think the US would be worse off with no President?

As crazy as it may sound, yes.

Right now, we atleast have groups like white supremacists still being careful about how bold they are so that Trump doesn't come down on them. Imagine what they'd be like without that concern.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Do you? Many parties around the world leave policy up to their membership. Also direct democracy can work with an educated electorate and heavy regulation of information. Not saying it's the best way, but I absolutely believe organisations with no leader can function.

Leaving policy up to the members is completely different from actually implementing it. If you decide X needs to be taxed, who collects the money, who counts it to make sure no one hid anything? Those people need someone actually directing their activities to ensure you cover everything. You need someone that can look at a situation and say "okay, Bill takes that one, Jim takes that one" and have it stick or else you'll have a mess where some vital things get over scrutinized to hell and back while others go entirely ignored.
---

dowolf posted...

I wasn't trying to be accusative. I just know far too many actual communists who genuinely believe "we can totally get it right this time" while simultaneously posting North Korean apologia. Nor am I trying to say that the argument isn't technically correct -- more that its present-day use tends to be for the purpose of these circular, pro-communism arguments.

I know weird people, is what I'm trying to say >_>

ah, gotcha.

Panthera posted...

Like it's not accurate to say that communism has never been tried, it's been tried,

pretty sure there wasn't a leaderless period before stalin. so no, communism in the marx/engels sense hasn't been tried.
---

By getting rid of the President you'd just give more power to the legislative branch. If you dissolve parties and their leaders you'd still have people making at least temporary alliances to pass what they want.
---

Collins is officially a 'no' on Graham-Cassidy:

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/912439131602550785
---

I mean, states have functioned with no government because of the existing civil service. Look at Belgium, almost two years with no government, and not only did they get by, some say they recovered from the financial crisis more quickly because no austerity could be implemented.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

pretty sure there wasn't a leaderless period before stalin. so no, communism in the marx/engels sense hasn't been tried.

There was a guy called Lenin who was the primary leader of the communist revolution. He wasn't in any hurry to hand over power and got the secret police state business well under way. Again, the problem is that the leaderless period doesn't come about because Marx's general vision of how it will work is that the revolutionary elite will seize control of society and then transition into pure communism, but people who seize control of society aren't necessarily inclined to give up on being in charge of everything so they can be equal to everyone else.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

I mean, states have functioned with no government because of the existing civil service. Look at Belgium, almost two years with no government, and not only did they get by, some say they recovered from the financial crisis more quickly because no austerity could be implemented.

This isn't the same as not having leaders though, it's just the leaders being labeled differently. If there was someone that could make decisions and have others follow them, there was leadership.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Collins is officially a 'no' on Graham-Cassidy:

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/912439131602550785

So then we're waiting for essentially Murkowski at this point?

I know Rand Paul was vocally against it, but he is the kind of guy that always falls in line when needed.
---

I mean there's not really, unless you count existing policy and law as leadership. Or you think our real leaders are the civil service in which case we'll talk!
---

Didn't Belgium have something in place run by the former prime minister, though
---

Hey now, Ted Cruz is a 'no' vote right now as well.

I'm sure between him and Rand Paul at least one of them is going to keep their word and...

HAH. Sorry. I tried.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

I mean there's not really, unless you count existing policy and law as leadership. Or you think our real leaders are the civil service in which case we'll talk!

I do count that as leadership, given that it is explicitly directions put down by the leaders to follow until told otherwise. Like that's exactly the way you minimize the problems caused by a leadership dispute <_<

I'm not exactly opposed to calling the senior civil servants the leaders either. They effectively are the leaders of their agencies and something like them needs to exist to co-ordinate things. Coordination is basically why leadership of some form needs to exist, is pretty much what I'm thinking on this topic.
---