wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Absolutes Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Reply locked New topic
Author

Absolutes

Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
The US does not have a history of attacking countries merely because they want to be communists.
I am tired...
And do you think it would be better for a country to be attacked than to have its people enslaved and murdered for 70 years?
No, I do not think it would be better for a country to be attacked. I think, it would be better for a country to decide on its own if the country wants its citizens to be "enslaved and murdered" -- gee, Thomas, you need to go back in time and to explain Soviet people that they were "enslaved and murdered" - they could possibly beat you up, but this wouldn’t change anything in your beliefs,I guess.


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I'm glad to see that your family prospered under communism.

So did other families. I wasn't too politically educated when I was 7-8, when I visited my friends families. Tom, what Russian people have to go through now is much worse then communism --- I do not know how can I explain it to you. I am afraid there is no way to explain it to you, because you seem to be more concerned with those who "dared to challenge the power of the communist" -- these guys are cool, I agree.
Majority wasn't that cool, and majority suffer now, but I doubt anybody is concerned about majority, not minority, besides communists
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

A vivid example is China's murder of thousands in Tianenman Square not so long ago.
Why do you keep on bringing up this example???

OK, how about 1956 suppression in Hungary by USSR, or perhaps 1953 suppression of revolt by USSR ?, etc, would like more examples? I mention Tianenman Square because it is recent and so that you don't dismiss it as something of the distant past.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/ram/russia/feastgerman1953.htm

Do you have any clue what Chinese society is, and what happened "in Tianenman Square"? This was our Soviet "democratization" that sent Chinese students wrong message that "it is Ok now", I am afraid. It was a tragedy. You would prefer Chinese government just watching what was going on?

I don't understand you I hope. Yes, I would prefer that the Chinese govt just watch the peaceful demnostrations of unarmed citizens rather than murder them.

Watching how their country goes to nowhere? Herb, unlike you, I had to experience all consequences of "democratization" and "liberation from communism", and you know what? An average Russian citizen suffers MUCH more under "democratic" government of Russia then he did under "communistic" government of the USSR.

I would be the last to claim that democracy alone is a panacea. Usually democracy + guarantee of rights + real capitalism + the social infrastructure to support capitalism = a very much better society.

But for some reason I do not think you care much about real people and their life, all you are concerned with are abstract ideas and labels, like "communism", "democracy" etc. "Communism was defeated" - GREAT! That real people suffer from it -- gee, who cares...

Like the attack on my motivation earlier, and the attack that I am ignorant, I wonder if if this is worth a response.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Plenty of communists here in the US since the 1950s. Plenty of communes here where people have very wide latitude to make their own communistic paradise.
I was talking about other people invading your country, people who speak languages you do not understand, whose motivation you cannot understand, people who are much stronger than you.
Have you ever experienced it? Your civilization being wiped out?

[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

Oh, yes, I've had my civilization wiped out several times this week alone (MS Age of Empires).
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I do realize that you naturally compare other countries to what you have here, and then wonder what the heck is wrong with all other countries and why they cannot live as well as you are. Must be that they all are just lazy, yeah? (I hope you are smart enought not to say it when there is a Latino guy that can reach you). Can you allow that the USA is an exception rather than rule?

The USA is not an exception. Do you really want the long list of all the prosperous capitlaistic countries? What's up with the other sophomoric comments; are we back in middle school?
[/QB]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
They do have the goal of exterminating/suppressing dissent in whatever is the most practical manner at the time.
True.
As Tiananmen Square showed, even long after the revolution, mass murder is viwed as effective means of controlling the population.
If no other means help. I do not understand your disgust.

You don't understand disgust at the murder of thousands of unarmed citizens peacefully demonstrating for democracy??? You joke about too many things.

You do not have problems with the USA attacking any country it feels safe to attack, whenever there is (or not) a slight possibility the country will choose "communistic" way of development. There are thousands of victims, but this seems not to be a big concern for American population. However, when "communistic" nation solves its problems how it thinks it should be solved, here you are, with your priceless advices. And when your priceless advices ruin millions, it doesn't mean anything, as long as your own bank account is safe.

I have never approved of the slaughter of thousands of defenseless civilians and neither has the "American population" as you allege.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

That's like saying that since their are Moslems in Israel that Israel must be an Islamic nation! Tsarist Russia was a dictatorship.

Agreed.
Tsarist Russia was more feudal than capitalisitic.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
No, I do not think it would be better for a country to be attacked. I think, it would be better for a country to decide on its own if the country wants its citizens to be "enslaved and murdered" -- gee, Thomas, you need to go back in time and to explain Soviet people that they were "enslaved and murdered" - they could possibly beat you up, but this wouldn’t change anything in your beliefs,I guess.
Perhaps you can go back in time and explain to the Ukranians who died from starvation due to the Stalinist collectivization of farming. It will take a while to explain it to all of them since between 6 and 7 million died.
But you are wrong about one thing, no government has the right to decide that its citizens should be murdered.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Tom, what Russian people have to go through now is much worse then communism --- I do not know how can I explain it to you.

Funny but I know quite a few people from Russia and they all agree that Russia is a much better place to live now than it was under communism. Perhaps you are looking at communism through the eyes of an 8 year old?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Funny but I know quite a few people from Russia and they all agree that Russia is a much better place to live now than it was under communism.
And where did you meet them? In Xvalinsk? Or was it in New York? If the latter, what they are doing there? Why not to go back to this wonderful place Russia is now? "Russia is a much better place to live" - because they can choose NOT to live there?
But it's a complicated question. Some things are certainly better now, some things are worse. Also class structure could put some light. There are people who are much better off in Russia than they could even dream to be in the USSR, and the rest barely survive. You probably won't meet them in New York.
Perhaps you are looking at communism through the eyes of an 8 year old?
Perhaps you could calculate that I was 20 when "democratization" was on march? Perhaps I could even talk to people who are much older than me?
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Perhaps you can go back in time and explain to the Ukranians who died from starvation due to the Stalinist collectivization of farming. It will take a while to explain it to all of them since between 6 and 7 million died.
And the USA enslaved its black population! They even lynched them! That's why capitalism must be destroyed!
Do you allow that even communistic societies can make certain progress and become less murderous over time?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
But you are wrong about one thing, no government has the right to decide that its citizens should be murdered.
Where is my favorite quote from Michael Ernest... Aha, here:
"Mr. Hayakawa, by the way, was Chancellor at San Francisco State University in the late 60's. Going back to those time, the above quote might well have been a self-portrait, if not a muted apology for his actions at the time, which included being the first chancellor to invite the state's militia on campus to "deal with the uproar." Less than two years later, 4 dead in Ohio."
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Perhaps you can go back in time and explain to the Ukranians who died from starvation due to the Stalinist collectivization of farming. It will take a while to explain it to all of them since between 6 and 7 million died.
And the USA enslaved its black population! They even lynched them! That's why capitalism must be destroyed!
Do you allow that even communistic societies can make certain progress and become less murderous over time?

I thought slavery would be classified as a different economic system, more akin to feudalism? Perhaps we should also draw a distinction between politics and economics. The essence of capitalism is voluntary exchange and trade, not slavery. Capitalism is the opposite of slavery. Communism has more in common with slavery than capitalism.
As far as communism becoming less murderous, how long should we wait??? In China's case specifically (I think they just sentenced a dissident to life sentence today), you know I'm going to mention Tianenman Square again, however unpleasant that fact is to you. Also, long after the Revolution in Russia, USSR was crushing dissent in Hungary in '56 and in East Germany also as mentioned earlier. If the death toll declined over time, maybe part of it has more to do with the people learning to be submissive to stay alive rather than a change in communism.
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
But you are wrong about one thing, no government has the right to decide that its citizens should be murdered.
Where is my favorite quote from Michael Ernest... Aha, here:
"Mr. Hayakawa, by the way, was Chancellor at San Francisco State University in the late 60's. Going back to those time, the above quote might well have been a self-portrait, if not a muted apology for his actions at the time, which included being the first chancellor to invite the state's militia on campus to "deal with the uproar." Less than two years later, 4 dead in Ohio."

There actually was an uproar at Kent State in Ohio of which you speak. The events below took place amongst the usual anti-war protests in 1970 but turned violent :
May 1st : Anti-war rally in Kent involving several hundred students turns ugly when police cars are attacked, windows broken in a number of businesses, bonefire lit in the middle of street,
and traffic is blocked downtown. Mayor declares a state of emergency.
May 2nd : Rumors of additional planned violent activities prompted the Mayor to alert the National guard. That night about 2,000 demonstraters gathered around an ROTC building and broke buildings and set it on fire. When firemen arrived they were attacked and there hoses slashed. The firemen left then returned with police protection. Police dispersed protestors with tear gas but the protestors regrouped in front of campus. National Guard pursued students into dormotories. Stones were thrown at guardsmen and guardsmen bayoneted a student.
May 3rd : More large protests, though more peaceful, yet National Guard reacted harshly bayonetting a few more students and using lots of tear gas.
May 4th : A large protest crowd of perhaps 1500 gathered and was ordered to disperse. There was some minor skirmishing and stone throwing, then about a dozen of the Guardsmen simultaneously opened fire on students at a time when the hostilities appeared to have diminshed. Four people were dead.
The legitimate way to protest does not include acts of lawlessness, rioting, arson, and other activities that threaten the safety of everyone in the community. I condemn the acts of the protestors. I condem even more the acts of the Guardsmen who fired on the crowd. However, to use the usual tactic of implying some sort of moral equivalency between communism and democracy becauase of this incidnet shows a bias. Everyone knows what the result would have been if this were down in Russia or China in the 1960's or even in China today (Tianemen Square involved totally peacefull protestors yet thousands were murdered.). I'll take the worst acts of democracies over the worst acts of communism any day, as well as the average acts of communism vs the average acts of democracies.
But again what has any of this to do with capitalism? The decisions involving the National Guard were politcally motivated and had little to do capitalism.

http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~paulsjo/KentState.html/
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
The USA is not an exception. Do you really want the long list of all the prosperous capitlaistic countries? What's up with the other sophomoric comments; are we back in middle school?
I suspect the list of countries that are far from prosperity is even longer. "sophomoric comments" - I am trying to keep my responses in the style of this thread Sorry, needed to vent out.
Like the attack on my motivation earlier, and the attack that I am ignorant, I wonder if if this is worth a response.
You started first with your "Have you no conscience?". But sorry anyway... As for you being ignorant, I did not say it. I only said that we have different experience, which is nobody's fault and nobody's merit. Perhaps "Do you have any clue what Chinese society is" gave you this impression, but I myself have no clue what Chinese society is, it's not an insult, it's simply a fact.
So, we can put you down for regime change in Iraq?
I never advocated regime change in Iraq, I said "in general, I would justify a regime change if there is ongoing murdering going on". In general, each case need special examination. One of factors to consider: how strong the country's military is? How many victims are expected in case of invasion? How many deaths "liberation" worth? Who can answer these questions? I cannot.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I thought WWI started when Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia. Then the German military invaded Belgium. Where do the captialists come into this?
I applied "capitalism" term in a very sloppy manner, to basically designate "everything what is not communism". If we put such different countries like the USSR, China and Cuba in the same communistic basket, than what the heck...
Seriously, I am not sure if these labels "communism", "capitalism" bring any extra insight. These are too "high-level" concepts. To start with, if we decide to separate political system from economical, then the economical system that was in the USSR was called "socialism", not "communism". "Communism" was only in plans. Regarding China, Herb already said that their economics is probably closer to "capitalism".
Cuban economics,
"President Castro has discussed these problems at length, and claims a great deal of credit for Cuba's rather remarkable levels of literacy (high) and infant mortality (low), as Robert McNamara remarked at the conference. In reply, Castro said his economy was neither socialist nor capitalist, but handmade!"
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/02/sp_world_blanton101602.htm
Political system, officially in the USSR it was called "socialistic democracy". You can define it as "dictatorships", but it will be a strange kind of dictatorship. Soviet people did not dream days and nights how to get rid of communists, not in Russian part anyway. Perhaps in Baltic republics they did, but where I lived dictators weren't too fierce.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Funny but I know quite a few people from Russia and they all agree that Russia is a much better place to live now than it was under communism. Perhaps you are looking at communism through the eyes of an 8 year old?

Personal accounts from either Mara or the few people you know can give a false view of the overall situation of the millions living now in the USSR. I do know that life expectancy steadily decreased to a significantly low level for many years after USSR broke up and I don't believe it has risen recently. Many factors to consider, but I would not be surprised if things overall are actually worse. Russia was not prepared for capitalism and it did go any where near as well as we had hoped.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Funny but I know quite a few people from Russia and they all agree that Russia is a much better place to live now than it was under communism.
Russia:
Population below poverty line: 40% (1999 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/rs.htm
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
The USA is not an exception. Do you really want the long list of all the prosperous capitlaistic countries? What's up with the other sophomoric comments; are we back in middle school?
I suspect the list of countries that are far from prosperity is even longer. "sophomoric comments" - I am trying to keep my responses in the style of this thread Sorry, needed to vent out.

But the point was not whether the list of prosperous capitalisitc countries is long or short, the point is that the USA is not unqiue as you stated. As a general point, most people do agree that communistic countries are less prosperous than capitalistic countries. Even taking into acount that they may have started down the road of economic progress later than other countries, after adopting communism their rate of progress fell far short similarly situated capitalistic countries (North/South Korea, East/West Germany, less similar but still very instructive - Taiwan vs China)
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

One property of an absolute is that it is incontestably true. Having an actual absolute would have made this topic a lot shorter.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I thought WWI started when Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia. Then the German military invaded Belgium. Where do the captialists come into this?
I applied "capitalism" term in a very sloppy manner, to basically designate "everything what is not communism". If we put such different countries like the USSR, China and Cuba in the same communistic basket, than what the heck...
Seriously, I am not sure if these labels "communism", "capitalism" bring any extra insight. These are too "high-level" concepts. To start with, if we decide to separate political system from economical, then the economical system that was in the USSR was called "socialism", not "communism". "Communism" was only in plans. Regarding China, Herb already said that their economics is probably closer to "capitalism".
Cuban economics,
"President Castro has discussed these problems at length, and claims a great deal of credit for Cuba's rather remarkable levels of literacy (high) and infant mortality (low), as Robert McNamara remarked at the conference. In reply, Castro said his economy was neither socialist nor capitalist, but handmade!"
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/02/sp_world_blanton101602.htm
Political system, officially in the USSR it was called "socialistic democracy". You can define it as "dictatorships", but it will be a strange kind of dictatorship. Soviet people did not dream days and nights how to get rid of communists, not in Russian part anyway. Perhaps in Baltic republics they did, but where I lived dictators weren't too fierce.

The term communism is meaningfull as applied to communistic China, USSR, and Cuba. For the most part thoughout their history there was centralized control of their economy, although this is changing in China/Cuba now due to the obvious economic failures communism. Another similarity is complete control of the political structure by one party with no dissent allowed. Another similarity is the politicizing of every aspect of social life. Dissent of even a mild degree could have repercussions in every aspect of your life. Another similarity was the influence of Maxist ideals, etc, etc.
However to term everything not communistic as capitalistic is not valid (where's that link to the logical fallacies?). As one example mentioned earlier, Russia was still to some degree in a fuedal state and other nations had emperors/kaisers who could exert enormous control over the economy to a degree not possible in a truly free market economy.
I'm not sure if I classify China as capitalistic yet, although they have made significant changes in what they allow in some provinces.
Castro allows many small private markets to exist amongst the citizens because communism itself could not provide them with the needed goods. Tourism is likewise encouraged and is a money maker. Never the less, the average Cuban does not live well. Thats why they still risk death trying to get to where I live in South Florida.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
One property of an absolute is that it is incontestably true. Having an actual absolute would have made this topic a lot shorter.

But this way I get to correct every single misconception of the liberal/left paradigm.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I thought slavery would be classified as a different economic system, more akin to feudalism? Perhaps we should also draw a distinction between politics and economics. The essence of capitalism is voluntary exchange and trade, not slavery. Capitalism is the opposite of slavery. Communism has more in common with slavery than capitalism.
"voluntary exchange" - in Tsarists Russia children worked on factories 12-14 hours a day (and were paid less than adults) -- must be because they liked it and voluntarily chosen to spend their time that way. Communists prohibited exploitation of children and established 8-hours working day. Are there any colors in your palette other than black for "communism" and white for "capitalism"?
As far communism becoming less murderous, how long should we wait??? In China's case specifically (I think they just sentenced a dissident to life sentence today), you know I'm going to mention Tianenman Square again however unpleasant that fact is to you. Long after the Revolution in Russia, USSR was crushing dissent in Hungary in '56 and in East Germany also as mentioned earlier. If the death toll declined over time, maybe part of it has more to do with the people learning to be submissive to stay alive rather than a change in communism.
So there is no change in communism? Only capitalism evolves? Why is it so? How then would you explain that Gorbachev was just watching revolutions in Eastern European countries in 1989 and then allowed Baltic republics to leave the USSR?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
"Communism kills" - look at International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights page! It's all about former republics of the Soviet Union! If you were unbiased, you would call the collapse of the USSR "humanitarian catastrophe".
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
But this way I get to correct every single misconception of the liberal/left paradigm.


"Science has a healthy respect for human error, and it has a mechanism for gracefully replacing a disproven theory with a new one. It weeds out unclear notions, unreproducible assertions and just plain nonsense. (In the same way MD does, I believe)"
"War is a no holds barred contest with personal existence at stake, but a forum post need not be. I try to approach each argument keeping in mind that I may be wrong, that I am in fact here because I may possibly learn something new from another person. If we view this arena as simply a means to bludgeon an opponent to submission, overtly or otherwise, then we miss the better alternative of having a reasoned conversation."
Anthony Villanueva
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Are you saying that because communists lied about the west that therefore everything anyone ever said bad about communism must be a lie?

It's not so easy.
From a review of Chomsky's "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies":
"Chomsky reminds us that the majority of the populace rely on the various media institutions for their information about political affairs; both domestic and foreign. One can only hold an opinion on a topic if one knows about the topic. So take, for example, the popular myth of the 'persistent Soviet vetoe' at the UN during the cold war. Why do people believe the USSR was constantly vetoeing any and every Security Council Resolution? Simple! When they did, it generated front page condemnation. When the US or the UK exercised their right of veteo: silence. As Chomsky notes, during the years of 1970 and 1989 the former Soviet Union veteod 8 resolutions. The US veteod some 56. This is what Chomsky refers to as Thought Control. Unless the public examine the factual record of the UN themselves, they will never come by this information, (at least not in the mainstream press)."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0896083667/
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
And the USA enslaved its black population! They even lynched them! That's why capitalism must be destroyed!

You still haven't answered my question... how many years are we allowed to go back to make facile arguments? In any case, we seemed to have ended slavery here.
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Do you allow that even communistic societies can make certain progress and become less murderous over time?

By "less murderous" do you mean that they go from murdering millions per year to thousands per year?
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Ok Map, I gotta call you on the constant Chomsky quotes. Chomsky probably isn't the best guy to be quoting if you are looking to reach an understanding with your opponents.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
How then would you explain that Gorbachev was just watching revolutions in Eastern European countries in 1989 and then allowed Baltic republics to leave the USSR?

By that point, there wasn't much the Soviet military could have done to prevent it.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

It's not so easy.
From a review of Chomsky's "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies":
"Chomsky reminds us that the majority of the populace rely on the various media institutions for their information about political affairs; both domestic and foreign. One can only hold an opinion on a topic if one knows about the topic. So take, for example, the popular myth of the 'persistent Soviet vetoe' at the UN during the cold war. Why do people believe the USSR was constantly vetoeing any and every Security Council Resolution? Simple! When they did, it generated front page condemnation. When the US or the UK exercised their right of veteo: silence. As Chomsky notes, during the years of 1970 and 1989 the former Soviet Union veteod 8 resolutions. The US veteod some 56. This is what Chomsky refers to as Thought Control. Unless the public examine the factual record of the UN themselves, they will never come by this information, (at least not in the mainstream press)."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0896083667/
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

I have to admit that I laughed when I read this. First off, I never heard of the "popular myth" of the Soviet veto. I doubt that many people have. But why should Chomsky let that bother him. Name it "popular" and it must be so, right? Since you seem to support Chomsky, I would like you to do a random study and go ask people off the street if they "believe the USSR was constantly vetoeing any and every Security Council Resolution" between 1970 and 1989. I think it is more interesting how some people read Chomsky's prose and simply accept it without any careful thinking about its logical flaws. But here's something even better... why did Chomsky pick 1970 to 1989? Because prior to 1970, the USSR was using its veto constantly! The USSR, for example, use the veto 81 times between early 1946 and late 1955, often to prevent new countries which they considered to be �in the other camp� from becoming members of the UN.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
MI: And who destroyed GULAG? Capitalists? Marians? Islamic terrorists? Communists did. And they pay victims of repression too, mind you.
TP: What communists? I thought Russia was no longer a communist country.

"Archipelag Gulag" was published in the USSR in 1990, when the Communist Party was still alive and doing quite well.
Rehabilitation started in 1950-s, but here are latest steps:
16 January 1989:
Decree of Presidium of Supreme Soviet "About additional measures in rehabilitation..."
13 August 1990: decree of the President of the USSR "About restoration of rights of all victims of political repressions 20-50" in which these repressions were called "criminal".
If you disagree that communists destroyed Gulag, then whom do you credit for it?
[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
You still haven't answered my question... how many years are we allowed to go back to make facile arguments? In any case, we seemed to have ended slavery here.
I do not recall millions dead from starvation in the USSR for long time.
By "less murderous" do you mean that they go from murdering millions per year to thousands per year?
"In 1958 less people were arrested than in 2000 and 69 were executed."
Russian: http://www.inopresa.ru/details.pl?id=5348
Spanish: http://www.lavanguardia.es/cgi-bin/noticialvd.pl?noticia=zemskov120201&seccion=noticias
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
As far as communism becoming less murderous, how long should we wait??? In China's case specifically (I think they just sentenced a dissident to life sentence today), you know I'm going to mention Tianenman Square again, however unpleasant that fact is to you.
As far as I know, Chinese government doesn't murder people for the heck of it. They are trying to preserve their political system this way. We can hate what they are doing, but this doesn't constitute "regim change" case, in my opinion.
"The principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference. <...> As to the content of the principle in customary law, the Court defines the constitutive elements which appear relevant in this case: a prohibited intervention must be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely (for example the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and formulation of foreign policy). Intervention is wrongful when it uses, in regard to such choices, methods of coercion, particularly force, either in the direct form of military action or in the indirect form of support for subversive activities in another State."
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inussummary860627.htm
(boldness provided)
Regarding human right violation:
"Is that to say that any kind of riposte is acceptable in such a case? My answer is clearly in the negative: a crime (i.e., a gross violation of a peremptory international norm) cannot be answered with the violation of another peremptory norm, that is another crime. And it happens that, in the modern world, the use of armed force is forbidden by such a norm, with two exceptions. Recourse to armed force is permissible:
a.in the framework of "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" in case of an "armed attack"15 (an aggression); or
b.in compliance with a decision (or an authorisation) of the Security Council of the United Nations acting in conformity with Chapter VII. "
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/rc/pellet.htm
However to term everything not communistic as capitalistic is not valid (where's that link to the logical fallacies?).
Well, of course it is not valid. I am not going to argue with you.
Herb, why do you call me "Mara"? Not that I object, just curious.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
First off, I never heard of the "popular myth" of the Soviet veto. I doubt that many people have. But why should Chomsky let that bother him. Name it "popular" and it must be so, right?
"The Post's leading political commentator, David Broder, added his imprimatur:
During the long Cold War years, the Soviet veto and the hostility of many Third World nations made the United Nations an object of scorn to many American politicians and citizens. "
"A critical analysis of Administration policy in the New York Review by George Ball opens: "With the end of the cold war and the onset of the Gulf crisis, the United States can now test the validity of the Wilsonian concept of collective security -- a test which an automatic Soviet veto in the Security Council has precluded for the past forty years."
Etc.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c06-s09.html
"In the wake of the Gulf War, a New York Times editorial (4/15/91) claimed that since the end of the Cold War, the U.N. Security Council is "no longer paralyzed by Soviet vetoes." The comment shows that Cold War propaganda lives on: For years, it hasn't been the USSR that has been paralyzing the Security Council, but the USA. Since the beginning of the Reagan administration, the U.S. has led the world with 47 vetoes of council resolutions. In the same time period, Britain used the veto 15 times and France cast seven. The USSR, constantly blamed in the U.S. press for thwarting the international will, used its veto exactly twice in the last 10 years -- and hasn't used it at all since 1984. (China, the remaining veto power, has not vetoed a resolution since 1972.)"
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/un-reliable-figures.html

"The U.S. is far in the lead since 1970 in vetoing Security Council resolutions and rejecting General Assembly resolutions on all relevant issues. In second place, well behind, is Britain, primarily in connection with its support for the racist regimes of southern Africa. The grim-faced ambassadors casting vetoes had good English accents, while the USSR was regularly voting with the overwhelming majority."
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c06-s09.html
But here's something even better... why did Chomsky pick 1970 to 1989? Because prior to 1970, the USSR was using its veto constantly!
Chomsky: "The U.S. is far in the lead since 1970 in vetoing Security Council resolutions and rejecting General Assembly resolutions on all relevant issues."
He did not analyze history of practice of veto in UN, he analyzed practice of media workings. "Persistent Soviet veto" was one example.
The USSR, for example, use the veto 81 times between early 1946 and late 1955, often to prevent new countries which they considered to be "in the other camp" from becoming members of the UN.
But the source where you found this information only proves that the myth is real! They give these numbers as the only example of "veto abuse". If you think Chomsky is biased, so is your source.
[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
As far as communism becoming less murderous, how long should we wait??? In China's case specifically (I think they just sentenced a dissident to life sentence today), you know I'm going to mention Tianenman Square again, however unpleasant that fact is to you.
As far as I know, Chinese government doesn't murder people for the heck of it. They are trying to preserve their political system this way. We can hate what they are doing, but this doesn't constitute "regim change" case, in my opinion.
"The principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference. <...> As to the content of the principle in customary law, the Court defines the constitutive elements which appear relevant in this case: a prohibited intervention must be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely (for example the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and formulation of foreign policy). Intervention is wrongful when it uses, in regard to such choices, methods of coercion, particularly force, either in the direct form of military action or in the indirect form of support for subversive activities in another State."
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inussummary860627.htm
(boldness provided)
Regarding human right violation:
"Is that to say that any kind of riposte is acceptable in such a case? My answer is clearly in the negative: a crime (i.e., a gross violation of a peremptory international norm) cannot be answered with the violation of another peremptory norm, that is another crime. And it happens that, in the modern world, the use of armed force is forbidden by such a norm, with two exceptions. Recourse to armed force is permissible:
a.in the framework of "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" in case of an "armed attack"15 (an aggression); or
b.in compliance with a decision (or an authorisation) of the Security Council of the United Nations acting in conformity with Chapter VII. "
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/rc/pellet.htm
However to term everything not communistic as capitalistic is not valid (where's that link to the logical fallacies?).
Well, of course it is not valid. I am not going to argue with you.
Herb, why do you call me "Mara"? Not that I object, just curious.

"Mara" or "Mapra" are the informal English shortened versions of Mapraputa; which is often done in my culture as term of endearment/affection.
But on to the issues of global importance:
How do we reconcile non-intervention with preventing genocide within a country? Is morality dependent on a consesus of the wildly fractionated, politicized countries of the UN?
Rhetorically speaking (as I meant last time), are you content to let the millions starve in the Ukraine as they did under Stalin and do nothing if the UN is unable to decide on an effective course of action? What about China's genocide in Tibet, which the UN did nothing about, is that OK?
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
MI: And who destroyed GULAG? Capitalists? Marians? Islamic terrorists? Communists did. And they pay victims of repression too, mind you.
TP: What communists? I thought Russia was no longer a communist country.

"Archipelag Gulag" was published in the USSR in 1990, when the Communist Party was still alive and doing quite well.

[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

The Berlin Wall came down in 1989; the forces of change had already been unleashed before 1990, and I would not say the future of the Communist Party was "well" at all at that point. They saw the handwriting on the wall, it was over, they knew it, and everyone else knew it.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
But the source where you found this information only proves that the myth is real! They give these numbers as the only example of "veto abuse". If you think Chomsky is biased, so is your source.

You have completely missed the point. Chomsky chose his period because he knew that during that period the US was vetoing anti-Israel resolutions. The Soviet veto is not a myth. The Soviets did actually use the veto extensively during the cold war. They stopped in 1970 because of the improved relations with the west starting with Nixon's trip to Moscow. Let's look at the quotes:
"During the long Cold War years, the Soviet veto and the hostility of many Third World nations made the United Nations an object of scorn to many American politicians and citizens."
This is absolutely true. What part of the above quote do you think is untrue?
"With the end of the cold war and the onset of the Gulf crisis, the United States can now test the validity of the Wilsonian concept of collective security -- a test which an automatic Soviet veto in the Security Council has precluded for the past forty years."
Again this is a true statement. It does not claim that the Soviets vetoed many resolutions. It simply states that the Soviets automatically vetoed resolutions dealing with collective security. Do you think this statement is untrue?
"In the wake of the Gulf War, a New York Times editorial (4/15/91) claimed that since the end of the Cold War, the U.N. Security Council is "no longer paralyzed by Soviet vetoes."
I wish I could see the actual editorial rather than just what someone wrote about the editorial. Don't you?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I do not recall millions dead from starvation in the USSR for long time.
"In 1958 less people were arrested than in 2000 and 69 were executed."
Russian: http://www.inopresa.ru/details.pl?id=5348
Spanish: http://www.lavanguardia.es/cgi-bin/noticialvd.pl?noticia=zemskov120201&seccion=noticias

A long time ago? The 1930's wasn't that long ago. But we need to only go back to the 1960's in communist China to see millions dead from starvation due to communist collectivization.
1958 is an interesting year. It was when Kruschev was in power. But what happened to Kruschev? And what happened to the labor camps after Kruschev was forced from power? It is estimated that 6,000,000 people died in slave labor camps in post-Stalin USSR.

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/rip/R8Sep01.shtml
"Khrushchev's secret speech to a closed session of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party signaled the beginning of the period known in the history of the Soviet Union as The Thaw, which was marked by the hope of reconciliation between the regime and society. The conspiracy of silence surrounding the GULAGs was broken.
However, The Thaw did not last long, and though some of the camps were closed in the Brezhnev era, the labor camp system continued to serve the oppressive needs of the regime.
With the development of the human rights movement in the USSR, information sent from prisons and labor camps reached the Western world via free thinkers and dissidents from inside the country. The letters and appeals of dissidents about the conditions in the labor camps became a significant part of the archives of Radio Free Europe (RFE) and Radio Liberty (RL). Many people behind the Iron Curtain learned details about their countries� labor camp system from these radios, which sometimes managed to include in their broadcasts even the names and information about the fate of particular political prisoners."
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
In 1991 when Gorbachev appeared to be losing power he banned demonstrations and renewed censorship of the print and television media. The hard line communists didn't find his actions tough enough and arrested Gorbachev and grabbed control of the government. It was only because of the lack of support of the military and the rising up of the people against the hard line communists that the Soviet Union was not thrown back into a repressive communist regime. Moscow could easily have had its own Tianeman Square in 1991. The failure of the 1991 coup is what led to the end of the communist party. The communists tried to regain power through the military and the people of Russia stood against them.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
In 1991 when Gorbachev appeared to be losing power he banned demonstrations and renewed censorship of the print and television media. The hard line communists didn't find his actions tough enough and arrested Gorbachev and grabbed control of the government. It was only because of the lack of support of the military and the rising up of the people against the hard line communists that the Soviet Union was not thrown back into a repressive communist regime. Moscow could easily have had its own Tianeman Square in 1991. The failure of the 1991 coup is what led to the end of the communist party. The communists tried to regain power through the military and the people of Russia stood against them.

I wish there were a more of a first person account I could find of these events, but even the rather dry accounts you find at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A99179-1991Aug21¬Found=true ,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/shoulders/coup.htm I find moving, as must Mapra.
These types of events I find the most inspiring in human history; the courageous fight aginst uncertain or very long odds for liberty.
Photos :
Yelstin on tank, after speech where he spoke to the people saying he would not go back to a "concentraton camp regime".
http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter16/image242_large.html
Tianamen Square protestor (is this corrrect ?, i thought i remember there being another one?)
http://www.spunk.org/library/places/china/images/sp001236.gif
Sometimes these things don't have happy endings. Photo of the remains of protestor crushed by tank tin Tianeman Square massacre.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.TAN.CRUSHED.BY.TANK.HTM
[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Absolutes
 
Similar Threads
Why they hate us??
Crazy race called "Humans"
The Great Debate, LLC (Liberals vs Libertarians vs Conservatives)
GB vs the USA
Illegal Aliens Can Get Driver's License In Some 15 States In the U.S.?