Legend of the Ronny

[ashw_justin]

In the case of Communism - the verdict is out. Again, I refer you to a book like "The Black Book of Communism". Read it, then come back and tell me Communism is not inherently evil - a victim of the "winner's" perspective and propaganda.

Ok, but only if you read "Las Veinas Abiertas de America Latina." Deal?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yo pienso que hay demaciado protesta, Reyna Dramatica.

 

Действительно, ты королева... королева без "ле". Такое вымя у тебя!

[sexual_chocolate]

por favor, en ingles ensolamente.

 

listo? communismo: BUENO! Capitalismo: MALO!

 

no no no, otra vez: communismo: MALO! Capitalismo: BUENO!

 

puedes continuar ahora.

[G-spotter]

"In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around."

[sexual_chocolate]

"In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around."

 

 

"NO NO! it's not in the scripture!"

[KaskadskyjKozak]

por favor, en ingles ensolamente.

 

listo? communismo: BUENO! Capitalismo: MALO!

 

no no no, otra vez: communismo: MALO! Capitalismo: BUENO!

 

puedes continuar ahora.

 

Unfettered, pure capitalism is not "good". Who ever said that? Robber barons, exploitation, yes, we all know the history. But its track record does not even come close to the evils the communists have brought upon the world - intentional calculated mass murder, enslavement, and crushing of the human spirit. They make Genghis Khan's legacy look mild by comparison.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Mojitos: Si! Martinis...pues...si, tambien!

 

Pero yo prefiero el sabor dulce de las mujeres Cubanas, abajo del sol tropical, lejos de estos Yanqui vespas maricones y perros de raspar.

Edited January 3, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

I'd recommend actually acquainting yourself with the subject before tossing terms like "lay public" around when discussing a topic that's light years away from the subjects that constitute the sole basis of your education.

Surely we could have something remotely similar to a democracy if the average voter were as educated as you suggest. Unfortunately, that you criticize me for invoking a lay public only supports my point. Supposing that I represent a reasonable expectation of the average historical education in this country, the public in general is far enough removed from the facts of history and politics that the remaining choices are skepticism or dogma. Now I will not concede utter ignorance as to the course of history, but I will admit a preference for rational doubt over blind political faith.

 

Your references are well taken and I'm well aware that there are plenty of examples of indisputable atrocities by enemies of the U.S. There are also clear atrocities committed by the U.S. or its allies/subordinates that we are expected to support/excuse on the basis of a double-standard--US (The Good Guys) vs. Them (The Bad Guys). That the truth is not that simple is not being debated. It's not debated here because it's obvious; it's not debated in popular politics because it's "demoralizing."

 

Justin:

 

Your point was that the only basis for the "lay public's" judgment on these matters was self-serving ignorance and propaganda.

 

Are such indictments of the actual communist regimes that blighted the past century unique to US citizens? Do the majority of the scholars around the globe who are intimately familiar with the facts of what transpired under each regime hold them in high regard?

 

I'd also note that assuming that because you have advanced training in a scientific subspecialty *and* you aren't terribly well acquainted with history that you are discussing doesn't entitle you to assume that you constitute a "reasonable expectation of the average historical education in this country." Still less does it justify the claim that the only intellectually defensible stances open to anyone attempting to understand history and render moral judgments on any particular aspects of it are either skepticism or dogma.

 

Even less true is the claim that there's any expectation that you ignore or excuse *any* action taken by the US or it's allies. What is reasonable to expect is that:

 

1)You'll make an effort to acquaint yourself with the facts about the action and the context in which it occurred before you feel as though you are in a position to evaluate the morality of the actions taken in a given situation.

 

2)You attempt to apply the same standards to all actors.

 

Both the US and Germany intentionally bombed civilian population centers during WWII. Does this fact alone render the two sides morally equal? If not, why? Etc.

 

..................................................................

 

During my own thoroughly average education, I came across an essay on the subject that I've always remembered.

 

The Ethics of Belief (1877)

 

" A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

 

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

 

Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him."

 

It's been a while since I read the whole thing, but from what I can remember it's well worth reading if you have the time...

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

 

[No. 13 Baby]

Whaddya bet the KKK guy has one of these underneath his mattress?

 

[JayB]

In the case of Communism - the verdict is out. Again, I refer you to a book like "The Black Book of Communism". Read it, then come back and tell me Communism is not inherently evil - a victim of the "winner's" perspective and propaganda.

Ok, but only if you read "Las Veinas Abiertas de America Latina." Deal?

 

Dependency Theory? The Asians must be thankful that no Left-wing scholars ever took them aside and explained that they were condemned to spend an eternity as underdeveloped, impoverished econo-victims on global "Periphery."

 

In any event, the proper counterbalance in this case would be either Carlos Rangel's "The Latin Americans," or "The Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot," by Mendoza et al.

[sexual_chocolate]

Unfettered, pure capitalism is not "good". Who ever said that? Robber barons, exploitation, yes, we all know the history. But its track record does not even come close to the evils the communists have brought upon the world - intentional calculated mass murder, enslavement, and crushing of the human spirit. They make Genghis Khan's legacy look mild by comparison.

 

i think it relevant to administer the fecund pointage of JayB's post above to the apologist sentiments regarding "capitalism" that you espouse.

 

 

[lI1|1!]

[ashw_justin]

I'd also note that assuming that because you have advanced training in a scientific subspecialty *and* you aren't terribly well acquainted with history that you are discussing doesn't entitle you to assume that you constitute a "reasonable expectation of the average historical education in this country."

Other things aside, honestly, JayB, I think you are way off in your estimation of the average education and historical awareness of the voting public. I'm just as idealistic as you about a democratic government of well-informed citizens, but this is exactly why it is so painful when such ridiculous issues as the fear of terrorists, a thinly-veiled guise to use the concept of evil to promote our domination of the Middle-East, dominate public politics instead of the truth. What percentage of your esteemed voters know anything about the history of Iraq prior to the first Gulf War? Since I'm aware of the U.S. support of Iraq and Saddam (even during the atrocities that we now condemn) prior to our change of heart, the general public must have voted with full and/or exceeding knowledge of this fact, since everyone else must be so much further educated than I am. No, I think I bit off base here. Just how educated do you think the voting public is? Where is the data on this? Apparently we had $500 billion lying around, but we sure as hell didn't use it on education.

[tvashtarkatena]

[olyclimber]

More presidential candidate phun:

 

y2iFhGtKO-Q

 

 

[Off_White]

Hah, I think I've already seen that ad!

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Giuliani: A one note diva singing an overplayed song slightly off key.

Edited January 3, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[quicker_than_ewe]

Giuliani: still pushing 711

[ashw_justin]

Ok, but only if you read "Las Veinas Abiertas de America Latina." Deal?

Dependency Theory?

A bit off the mark. It's more of a leftist view of European and then U.S. support of repressive regimes, including the violent overthrow of independent nationalist governments, in order to maintain the exploitation of raw goods by offshore capitalist interests--our wealth and rights secured against the forceful denial of others' in their own countries.

 

But more to the point is that it amounts to a biased criticism of a foreign power, much like this Black Book of Communism promises to be.

[Fairweather]

[

But more to the point is that it amounts to a biased criticism of a foreign power, much like this Black Book of Communism promises to be.

 

Actually, it was written by 5 Frenchmen and later translated into English. It's a pretty committing read - on the order of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" in size and detail.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

[

But more to the point is that it amounts to a biased criticism of a foreign power, much like this Black Book of Communism promises to be.

 

Actually, it was written by 5 Frenchmen and later translated into English. It's a pretty committing read - on the order of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" in size and detail.

 

and parts are based on some recently declassified documents from the former Soviet Union, but let's not let facts get in the way of ass_justin's preconceived notions. He can't seem to at least Google the book or maybe look at Amazon reviews before spewing some opinion, yet alone read the book.

 

[JayB]

Ok, but only if you read "Las Veinas Abiertas de America Latina." Deal?

Dependency Theory?

A bit off the mark. It's more of a leftist view of European and then U.S. support of repressive regimes, including the violent overthrow of independent nationalist governments, in order to maintain the exploitation of raw goods by offshore capitalist interests--our wealth and rights secured against the forceful denial of others' in their own countries.

 

But more to the point is that it amounts to a biased criticism of a foreign power, much like this Black Book of Communism promises to be.

 

The notion that South Americans required foreign capital and technology to sustain the brutality, incompetence, and corruption that have been the hallmarks of their history is a notion that's laughable enough to be worthy of a...leftist intellectual from South America.

[olyclimber]

Actually, you can all suck it. I'm right, you are wrong. I am so much more intelligent than you, and there are factual mistakes in what you are saying.

[sexual_chocolate]

The notion that South Americans required foreign capital and technology to sustain the brutality, incompetence, and corruption that have been the hallmarks of their history is a notion that's laughable enough to be worthy of a...leftist intellectual from South America.

 

? that is a strange non-sequitur that does nothing to address his point, but you will be happy to hear that seattle home prices fell for the third month in a row, with single family (non-condo) prices falling nov. '07 to nov. '08 by a point or so. yay!

[ashw_justin]

The notion that South Americans required foreign capital and technology to sustain the brutality, incompetence, and corruption that have been the hallmarks of their history is a notion that's laughable enough to be worthy of a...leftist intellectual from South America.

Actually the story goes that South Americans have been denied foreign capital and technology, precisely because the development of a true internal economy, with the means to manufacture domestic products from one's own raw resources, would result in an escape from a kind of economic slavery where a country gifts its natural resources to foreign interests and is forced to buy it back in manufactured goods at 100 times the cost, because it is actively prevented from developing its own means of domestic production. Asymmetric trade may still be "fair trade," but manipulating the political affairs of foreign countries, violently if necessary, to institute and maintain it is quite another thing, and it seems one would have to ignore a lot of recorded history in order to dismiss the fact that we have been involved in doing just that.