I've been down this road before. Conversations with people who considered themselves authorities on politics because they lived in a Right-Wing-Fascist-Dictatorship. I do not defend or advocate the Right-Wing fascist system of the Soviet Union. — JerseyFlight

???

If you start arguing that the Soviet Union was a Right-Wing-Fascist-Dictatorship, terms and definitions have no meaning for you.

You seem to think you have settled the matter, but all you have really done is manifest that your theoretical position is driven by emotion. — JerseyFlight

Contrasting how political ideologies have worked historically in the real world isn't driven by emotion.

All the problems of class and society remain, how do you propose we approach these problems? — JerseyFlight

A good start would not to put one historical political theorist on a pedestal for worship. It would be good to look at what has worked and why...and what has failed. Only then one is ready to think how to improve things in the present.

How do you propose we go about making a better society, where human quality doesn't hinge on exploitation? — JerseyFlight

How does the society improve and how has it improved? By many ways, but let's try to stick to the topic of this thread here.

I don't have the direct quote, but I think that even Marx said that the proletariat could go the other way, from not going for a revolution, but simply ending up demanding better wages from the capitalists.

Well, that's what the labour movement and trade unions generally did in the West: the implementation of labour laws, increase in pay and the improvement working conditions. The lower classes didn't fall into despair, on the contrary, absolute povetry was decreased. Liberal democracies could do something to correct the problems that the industrial revolution had created. Up to some point, at least. And these corrections were generally universally accepted by both the left and right, usually through the political system in nation states.

As the era of globalization changed a gear up, these accomplishments came into danger as labour competition became global. One billion Chinese suddenly coming to the market had to have a huge impact and the aspect of the issue being international, global, meant that the labour movement organized usually at the national level didn't have an answer to this. Hence the transfer of jobs from the rich countries to places were labour was more cheap.

I think perhaps from the viewpoint of Marxism, the lack of response to globalization from the international labour movement is the problem. And just why this difficult is obvious: if globalization has erased jobs in Western industrial countries, it has created them in the Third World. I'm not a leftie, but in this question I think we could find some common ground.

. I'm saying that you have to see things without the blinkers of propaganda. — David Mo

Yes, and the typical issue is that if in our criticism of our own society we are harsh and objective, we then tend to not treat other societies in the same way and even find excuses for them...typically some conspiracy theory of some sort.

At my host's house, a university professor, they didn't have a shower head. Not because they couldn't afford it, but because there was not in the store. — David Mo

Oh they could afford it, but there wasn't any in store?

Well, that sounds exactly what happens when there isn't a market mechanism in a planned economy. It's a prime example of why and how the system sucked. In a socialist planned economy prices don't reflect supply and demand and thus don't relay information or create incentives. Prices and wages are controlled and typically create huge imbalances with high demand and low supply.

Do you think that the World Bank's statistics are false? — David Mo

When it came to the Soviet Union?

Very likely.

The World Bank didn't have any ability to gather statistics inside the country. And did the Soviet Union lie in it's statistics? Yes, apparently to the highest level. This was the problem especially with agriculture. I remember when the breadlines started in the last years of the Soviet Union when I was in Moscow. The Muscovite family was used to "luxury items" like soap etc. being rare on the shelves, but once the shortages came to bread, they were very worried.

Finland? You have chosen a really exceptional country. A model not very exportable. Like Iceland. — David Mo

I think it's not so exceptional. Many West European countries are quite the same. And the closest example to the US is of course Canada. The real issue is how to find the golden road between the public and private sectors, how you get the best mix of public and private, between state programs like the various welfare programs and then leave to the market mechanism what it can handle the best. And avoid corruption or poor oligopoly competition. That's where the real discussion should be.

But then of course, we can start with the classic ideas of Marx and keep the discourse quite theoretical.

You are living in delusion. The reason there is not more homelessness and poverty, and soon their will be, is ONLY because of social programs that exist to help the poor (and these are not even close to adequate). — JerseyFlight

That's what you have in the Nordic countries.

. Further, I can't remember who, a study was done a few years back, maybe someone on this thread knows the reference?, that found the poverty in the United States to be comparable to third world countries. — JerseyFlight

There is a saying that the US is the richest Third World country in the World.

You live in a delusion friend, and have been refuted many times over on this thread. — JerseyFlight

You are the one living in a delusion and painting your own fantasies. Starting from thinking that I'm an American.

What country are you speaking, please? — David Mo

Finland.

You may be interested to know that at the time of declaring the end of the communist system at the end of 1991, what was known in liberal countries as "poverty" (i.e. having a lifestyle that would cost about $180 a month in a developed country, or less) was not even 5% of the Soviet population, and that because it had grown in the last five years. In the best moment of the Union it was less than 2%. The "misery" (people without housing, in street situation, without basic access to food and minimum means, etc.) practically did not exist. — David Mo

Did you visit the Soviet Union?

I did.

Lived with a family for a short while in Moscow. Also shortly visited East Germany. Met some Soviets through my parents, who were scientists.

Soviet Union wasn't North Korea, but still it wasn't open. The economy wasn't great. The Soviet system did suck, the people, that first were totally silent about politics (thanks to the totalitarian system) then opened up after Glasnost and Perestroika, and what did they have to say? That the whole system was bullshit. That nobody believed in it. That it was doomed. And so it was.

We of course in the West didn't believe that, especially the leftist politicians, and thought it would just limp on. It didn't. It utterly collapsed with only people like Vladimir Putin crying after for the system. Or perhaps now the young leftists who don't have any clue about the reality of the socialist experiment, but can be dashingly radical by thinking the Soviet Union was cool.

At least old leftists here like BitterCrank know how it was... and of course people like him were totally politically incorrect leftists during the time when Marxism-Leninism was an official ideology in the World (if I remember correctly a discussion we had some years ago about the subject).

(Btw, Guess you believe in all Chinese statistic too. Or North Korean?)

They are poor neighbourhoods full of rubbish on the streets, shanty towns where illegal farm workers survive, semi-ruined housing buildings, immigrant concentrational camps in Greece or Italy. You don't have to go to Gambia to see something like the worst of Africa. But that is also hidden: we don't see slums on TV, we see places where bad people sell drugs until the good policeman arrives and... But we don't stop to think that drugs are the crust of poverty. Behind them is the wealth of the upper classes and the crumbs they leave for us subordinates. — David Mo

Not in my country, basically.

This country has truly eradicated large scale rural povetry that there was in the 19th Century. It doesn't have shanty towns or people living on the streets in tents.

But that didn't happen because of marxism. Had my country gone the same way as the Soviet Union went in 1918, it would have been far poorer now (or simply part of the Soviet Union and now perhaps in a similar situation as the Baltic States).

SSU: how do you define "worker"? Isn't a "worker" someone who is dependent on the wage he or she receives in exchange for labor? The wage, and the ability to labor, is everything to a worker. — Bitter Crank

Well, technically many CEO's and managers are "workers". They might have some bonus-system, but usually they aren't "owners" of the corporations, but hired hands. The ultra successful entrepreneur or family business are quite rare these days. Or would you consider high ranking officers, army generals, as "workers"?

Granted, a lot of people (just about everybody, it seems like) think they are "middle class". — Bitter Crank

And what's the problem with that? I consider myself middle class.

As for the American farmer, blessed be the small farmer with less than 250 acres and only 40 cows to milk, most of them are bourgeoisie. True, they may drive a tractor in the spring and a combine in the fall (both equipped with air conditioning, GPS, computer tracking recording how much corn, soy, or wheat was gathered from each square yard (square meter) of the field) which starting purchase price is around $500,000. Or probably they hire farm workers. But the bigger their land holding, the less likely is it that they are actually laboring in agriculture. — Bitter Crank

Actually, the farmer is the perfect example of how problematic the class divide in Marxism is. Yes, the ordinary farmer might be even a millionaire if he sold everything, but then he or she would have nothing else than a fat bank account. Otherwise he or she might earn actually very little, so little that the job at McDonalds might give equivalent or better income. Yet if the farmer is a land owner, he or she is the root problem of everything to classic Marxism.

What they are doing is much more a managerial function. — Bitter Crank

Industrialization has finally come to agriculture, but that may be a subject for a different thread.

Besides the fact that the proletarian (i.e. wage laborers) make up the majority of voting citizens it's curious that you think democracy dissolves into a literal dictatorship if a class conscious citizenry gains legitimate power and leverages it to further their own goals by reorganizing pre-existing property arrangements. — Maw

Have had much work, so I haven't had the time to respond or follow the discussion.

It's not at all curious what I'm talking about. It's one of the most important aspects in a democracy that especially taken into consideration usually with a constitution, the constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. It is absolutely no coincidence, but inherent to the ideology that communist revolutions have brought a totalitarian system when implemented in reality. Protection of the rights of minorities is something that marxism is fundamentally opposed. It see's just this "rights" as a vessel for the enemies of proletariat. It doesn't believe that liberal democracies can actually do something about the social problems that the new system has brought about, but that is what actually has happened. And of course, a lot of people are against the abolition of private property, so the conflict is inherent.

Marx oscillated throughout his lifetime between violent insurrection and peaceful democratic regime change, often as a result of whatever was going on in Europe, but if you can't grapple with the fact that a 64-year-old man changed his mind here and there during the course of 40+ years of a highly intellectually active life than you demonstrably can't handle this thread — Maw

Well, this thread is about Marx, not Marxism, so I guess we are a bit stuck in the 19th Century. But of course I acknowledge that modern marxism isn't the same the movement was 150 years ago (or so).

The basic problem is that Americans believe as if a God-like President would somehow descend into the White House and somehow create change with everything else in the representative system being in control with the two corrupt parties.

It won't work. Never will. But every Presidential candidate will surely say that they, as President, will surely change things!

The only way, hard but can happen surprisingly quickly, is to work through the representative system (in the way it is designed to work) starting from the municipal level, then the state level and finally through the national level from Capitol Hill, not the White House. The US President cannot do anything else than bomb some miserable Third World country. Anything else he basically has to go through the House and the Senate. So that's your Presidency.

But do vote, that's the important thing.

Right.

A clinical psychologist writes a self help life advise book through essays and in the end what's at stake, according to JerseyFlight, is civilization itself.

That surely is "deconstruction" at it's best.

So, if you can be arsed... please try to convince me not to mail in a blank ballot with a dead fish wrapped inside, if there’s any mailboxes left. — 0 thru 9

You doing nothing else than making one day more miserable to some postal workers (who likely will get fired after the elections anyway) with sending that dead fish. And you are also waisting the calories that you or your cat (or your neighbors cat) might have gotten from eating that fish, so even the fish goes to waste. So dumb idea.

Just stop thinking that YOU HAVE TO vote for one or the other duopoly parties. Genuinely look if there is a third party you think reeks less than the two ruling parties and vote for them. It's not meaningless or helps some other candidate. Voting simply improves the health of your representative government.

Obviously. Marx was not a liberal Democrat. He thought that parliamentary democracy was an instrument in the hands of the bourgeois class and that other types of democracy must be sought that would put an end to exploitation. This is the alphabet of Marxism. — David Mo

We have had a lot of experience of these "other democracies" and how democracy is killed by this method when there isn't actual representation of any others than those firm believers of the right cause. And this is why communism is so bad and has failed where social democracy has basically triumphed.

If one analyzes the role of European social democracy after Marx there is no doubt that he was right, from his assumptions. — David Mo

How so?

All I have to do is to look at my conservative party in this country and how it supports the welfare state to see how successful the modern social democratic movement has been in Europe.

Marx didn't want to "kill" an entire class. He wanted the bourgeois class to disappear as a class because it was living off the exploitation of humanity. — David Mo

:lol:

That's really funny, David. What do we call people who want a whole group of other people to disappear and then make statements like:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

"Only by forcible overthrow" doesn't seem like this "disappearance" would be peaceful. Stop trying to make Marx some kind of benign social democrat when he clearly isn't one.

You're looking at the "middle income class". Marx doesn't divide classes up by their income; he divides them up by whether or not they own the means of production. — Pfhorrest

And Marx puts on a pedestal a very specific type of labor, not having much thought to farmers or the self-employed, who can be indeed poor, but, as with farmers owning their small patch of land are theoretically totally different by the values of Marx (which can be seen clearly in the treatment of the so-called 'kulaks' and even here in Finland during the Red rebellion in 1918). The sharecropper or tenant farmer has the wrong ideas for Marx if he wants to own his land. Which again show the flaws in his theories that Marx as a city dweller didn't think so much.

A lot of those in the Bourgeoisie are what basically now belong to the middle class. Marx in his Communist Manifesto argues the following:

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with
reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science,
into its paid wage labourers.

The priest sounds dubious here as belonging to what Marxists see as the intellectual Opium dealers from a bygone era (and Capitalism doesn't reject religion, just look at the US). The fact is that functioning capitalist societies have not impoverished the physician, the lawyer or even the man of science (with poets I don't know).

I think Marx was basically a Democrat as the whole idea was to gain political power through democratic means — Benkei

Looking at the theories of Karl Marx, it's quite strange to say that the whole idea was to gain political power through democratic means.

What class makes up the majority of society? — JerseyFlight

The middle class, which isn't the favorite class divide of Marx. A lot of those nasty bourgeoisie in that category.

(What rarely is mentioned is that the upper class has gotten bigger too:)

But one good video to look at for Petersons political stance is in his interview with Steven Pinker, the author of enlightenment now. Watching it, it was very obvious to me that Peterson at every turn brought up "cultural marxism" and "post-modernism" as the bogeyman that threaten our achievements, while Pinker, while sharing some of Peterson's views, was much more neutral. — Echarmion

It's quite clear that the PR or Human Resources departments of large corporations aren't suddenly staffed by "cultural marxists" and the vast majority of university students aren't indoctrinated to marxism, yet public discourse and the discourse of the culture wars have obviously changed. I think this change has been noted and explained well for instance people like Steven Pinker.

The "culture war" is not just an aside for Peterson. It's the main focus of his philosophy. He conceptualizes it as literally an archetypical fight between light and darkness. — Echarmion

I wouldn't it's his main focus. Perhaps it would be similar to say that the main focus of Noam Chomsky's philosophy is to criticize US foreign policy. That he obviously has done in several books, but I gather the linguist who calls himself a left libertarian would have more to say about his personal philosophy. And so too with Peterson.

And on the other hand, there are many leftists who don't like the SJW nonsense either.

So, Marx did not believe any outcome other than the dictatorship of the proletariat leading to the classless society was possible. — Echarmion

And neither did the Communists that took up arms and were eager to kill the class enemy.

No, but Marx believed that if the working class provided itself with a system of internal democracy it could control its leaders. — David Mo

Yet democracy was only a tool for the proletariat, to get power. Others classes have to fall under the lead of the proletariat. This shows clearly how Marx isn't at all a democrat or believes in democracy. Marx or his followers do not believe that (liberal) democracy could be self correcting and fix many of the injustices. Neither was it acceptable to be a socialist who attempts to work within the system.

This can be seen from his views about how true communists differ from basically from other socialists. Marx divides them into the "Reactionary Socialists", who "for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists ", then the "Bourgeois Socialists", those who want "to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it" and the "Democratic Socialists", who "favor some of the same measures the communists advocate", but not as part of the transition to communism, but "as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society".

The first type of socialists Marx rejects because of many reasons, the second type Marx sees that "Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow." The third class are OK, if they "do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie".

How Marx views other socialists shows in my view clearly just how much Marx values "democracy".

Peterson explicitly makes political statements. — Echarmion

And as I mentioned, his commentary on the Canadian bill was an obvious issue about "culture war", just smacked right into it. Yet what he made his talks about I think were typically closer to his academic job.
But yes, he's been talking about cultural marxists, when at least in my view basically it's more about the effects of post-modernity or anti-modernism of our times rather than a plot of marxists (simply because there's so few actual marxists around).

Hence it's fitting to name this thread "Deconstructing Jordan Peterson".

I am not really surprised to see Peterson being unpopular on a highly left-leaning platform but while I don't agree with him on everything, I find his criticisms of the left to be very useful and instructive. I think most of what he says is fairly common sense and likely to produce the good results he claims it will. — Judaka

When the "right" is represented by an narcissistic idiot like Trump, it's no wonder that a reasonable academic conservative like Peterson gets attention and ends up in the target hairs of the left. In truth the quality of modern political discourse is really appalling.

Peterson came to public attention by criticizing a Canadian bill, the "Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16)", hence he instantly got the media focus ....and the notoriety in leftist circles. Especially when his self-help instructions got popularity, this seemed (somehow) as a political following to leftists.

I should have use the word "implies" instead of "claim," although I honestly don't see much difference, because the implication implies the claim whether spoken or not. — JerseyFlight

There's a huge difference between quoting what someone has said or written and what one thinks a person is implying.

I don't understand why Marx should have predicted Pol Pot. Is preaching the the struggle against the exploitation of man by man leading straightforwardly to Stalinism? I don't see why. — David Mo

It's very easy to predict this outcome.

It is as simple as when thinking to implement into reality Plato's ideal society, where people are divided into workers, soldiers and philosophy kings. You really are so naive to think that the class of the "philosopher kings" will be the most wise, virtuous and selfless and corruption can be rooted away by them living communally and modestly? What typically would happen that anybody having criticism about the "philosopher kings" will be put to the "worker" class while the friends and children of the "philosopher kings" will end up in the ruling class. Without any safety valves this will happen. And Karl Popper is quite right on blaming Plato on the rise of totalitarianism.

With Marx, we just simply start from the fact that many people are actually OK with the idea of private property / capitalism, so the reason for totalitarianism is obvious.

Hence it's absolutely no wonder at all that communist revolutions have collapsed into totalitarianism and one man rule. It is simply an intrinsic aspect of Marxism (and Marxism-Leninism). Marx starts from the belief that the change will extremely likely be violent, the change has to be done by force, so imagine how that comes out with actual people.

You misunderstand the way democracy works. — JerseyFlight

What has Marx to do with democracy?

Marx isn't talking about democracy, especially not as an safety valve for society, but as a means for proletarian dictatorship in the class struggle. Proletarian dictatorship is a way to eradicate private property, the final goal for Marx. Marx doesn't give a shit about democracy, only if it furthers the exact cause of the proletariat:

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.

(From The Principles of Communism)

How this happens Marx gives a very detailed map or theory and makes very specific how the prolertariat differs from slaves, serfs or handicraftsmen. And in the 20th Century Marxists followed his ideas slavishly. And it should be totally obvious to everybody that when Marx talks about class struggle, of the need of the Proletarian dictatorship, he obviously sees that not everybody will go along with the Proletariat, hence it really isn't about democracy and the rights of minorities that Marx is interested about.

It is a democratic system of workers. — JerseyFlight

And when has that democracy happened in reality?

Sadly, we have never had this kind of system in the history of the world. — JerseyFlight

Well, a lot of us who don't believe in communism and before didn't believe in marxism-leninism have had this as the genuine problem in the whole endeavour. NIce idea on paper, too bad you have human beings implementing these things. Once you give power of a dictatorship to anyone, the outcome is really bad. It simply changes people. In the end, killing your fellow human beings comes so easy.

Allow me to connect the dots, if man can indeed achieve positivity apart from the supernatural, then there is simply no reason to run to God, or in Peterson's case, argue he is necessary! Such an act would be a violation of the premise of positivity. When Peterson makes the claim that God is necessary for value, he presupposes all kinds of unspoken things. One of these things is that man cannot produce the positive without God. — JerseyFlight

What I gather is that Peterson doesn't even like the question (of being a believer in God) and is somewhat between what Religion and using the scientific method give as an answers. From what I can understand Peterson notices the difference between the objectivity of science and subjectivity of religion. I assume that the how seriously he takes Religion or Christianity (which he obviously knows) makes him seem as very religious.

I just have not followed Peterson so much that I would know just where and when he has said that " God is necessary for value" or that "man cannot produce the positive without God". If these are quotes from his books, please tell me.

The basic problem in the US is that people don't remember the time when Republicans were sane, to put it bluntly. Bush, Reagan, even Nixon and especially Eisenhower were quite "normal" by European standards, I would argue.

Can you tell me what this has to do with Marx? — JerseyFlight

Oh, how about starting with the theories of Marx that makes him different from social democrats?

Like class struggle, the dictatorship of the Proletariat etc.

. When Marx speaks of nationalizing land, he is not speaking of putting it in the hands of a dictator, but in the democratic hands of the workers, not in the hands of a political party, but in the hands of the workers. — JerseyFlight

And how does that dictatorship work then? Seems historically that it has gone to one man to decide what the proletariat thinks.

No, You’re a shit stain! This forum is falling apart. — csalisbury

Welcome to the Philosophy Fprum of 2020's with your moderator of the year, Streetlight X.

As long as I've been aware of US politics - since Bill Clinton - the US hadn't had a decent President. — Benkei

Were you too young when there was Bush senior, Reagan or Carter?

In this thread I will critically examine the writings of Jordan Peterson. I will periodically update the thread from time to time with new criticisms. — JerseyFlight

So we have a rather new member that hates Jordan Peterson (or what Jordan Peterson is supposed to stand for). Ok, that's a very popular stance among the leftists here.

The first thing to be said is that Peterson uses Nihilistic language with the insinuated promise of offering a solution or having found a way out of a tragic dilemma. (Never mind the fact that much of contemporary despair is generated by religious thought in response to its own collapse). — JerseyFlight

So even before the OP starts to look at what is said, it's already mentioned that, "never mind", the whole thing collapses. Wonderful objectivity here.

It's not that Peterson is wrong, — JerseyFlight

Really? He wouldn't be wrong???

he is ignorant on at least two fronts: 1) The role that religion plays in poisoning life — JerseyFlight

Which seems to be for you self evident. How does religion poison our life?

For Peterson, there is a God behind the world, and mankind is in a fallen state, this means humans are, in one sense or another, predestined to the production of negativity. — JerseyFlight

If so, please give the direct quote for this.

This is a false metaphysics that religion has assaulted mankind with for thousands of years. It has also been a vital point of justification for tyranny and violence, that is, man "must be controlled" as opposed to nurtured. — JerseyFlight

This seems to show just why you are so against of Jordan Peterson, the larger than life metaphor for what is so wrong in conservatism and with religion. For thousands of years.

What I find most disturbing in Peterson's thought (and this should be enough for any serious thinker to walk away from Peterson forever) — JerseyFlight

Now showing the true feelings about the issue...

he actually denigrates thought:

"But is there any coherent alternative, given the self-evident horrors of existence? Can Being
itself, with its malarial mosquitoes, child soldiers and degenerative neurological diseases, truly
be justified?... I... don’t think it is possible to answer the question by thinking.
Thinking leads inexorably to the abyss." Ibid RULE12 — JerseyFlight

At least I don't know what the context is here, what coherent alternative is Peterson talking about? Sorry, but a simple reader loses the red line here.

1) The role that religion plays in poisoning life
— JerseyFlight

What do you mean by this? — EnPassant

With all due respect, I don't find it very productive to engage with you. — JerseyFlight

Ah, so you are also condescending.

Right, It figures.

Don't engage.

You obviously are correct. Why bother?

We in America dramatically under estimate the impact of WWII on Russian psychology. — Hippyhead

First came Napoleon, then came Hitler. They're not going to wait for the third one. Or that's the jingoist line how aggression is tried to be described as defence.

This is how Putin survives. The Russian people correctly see him as strong and smart, and national survival transcends all other concerns. — Hippyhead

He is smart and cunning, that's for sure. But he is a huge gambler, who's popularity unfortunately has been based on starting wars (2nd Chechen War for starters...) and who could make some "pre-emptive" moves if Belarus gets into really serious political trouble.

It's about time we start messing with putin's Russia's internal affairs. They've been doing it long enough to other countries. — Professor Death

Who "we"?

That they mess with other countries comes from their overwhelming paranoia and own insecurity.

These people, the siloviki, genuinely believe that they are already under a deliberate attack from the West under the veil of some NGO of George Soros. From their point of view, it's just a pre-emptive strike, a defence that they are doing.

But the main point is to watch what the DNC did in 2016 and again in 2020. The DNC is at war with their own left. The GOP is a secondary target. If Biden wins, fine. If Biden loses, at least the Biden/Clinton/Obama wing of the party is in control for the next four years. That is the lens through which one processes the Kamala appointment. — fishfry

The fact is that Democratic party is a centrist party that knows it will get leftists to vote for it ...because there is no leftist party in the US!

Of course, there are many European Social Democratic Parties which leave capitalism and globalization alone and even promote them (starting with the Blairite wing of the Labor Party in the UK).

Any ideas welcome of how to further unravel putin's and the CCP's tentacles. — Professor Death

Let's hope that things go well in Belarus: that indeed Lukashenko would fall without piles of bodies and violence.

Or then, it can go like with the demonstrations against Putin years ago: people in the streets and then it whimpered away.

Remember these photos from Moscow during the Obama years? From 2011 I guess.



Things can go worse, you know:

Belarus' embattled President Alexander Lukashenko has declared that the country will not have new elections "until you kill me," according to videos posted online by local news outlets.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko on Sunday accused NATO of deploying tanks and planes to Belarus' western border, a claim the military alliance rejected.

Speaking at a rally of his supporters in central Minsk, the 65-year-old leader dismissed opposition calls for a new election and urged Belarusians to defend their country.

"I called you here not to defend me, but for the first time in a quarter-century, to defend your country and its independence," he said to the estimated 5,000 strong crowd, just as tens of thousands of protesters once again hit the streets in several cities demanding his ouster.

Left wing progressives of the Democratic party loose again. But of course, the Dems aren't a genuine leftist party.

She's devoid of compassion for the people she supposedly serves and has no principles or human decency whatever. I oppose her totally.

(1) That said, all in all I think it's a very good political pick, probably the best. One. Kamala's big with the Clinton and Obama people. — fishfry

Sounds like a great political pick! You couldn't have the Clinton and Obama people unhappy, could you?

I can feel the enthusiasm from other commentators here too.

Well, that's a bit of an overstatement. :-) But I would agree there is a lot we didn't do well. — Hippyhead

Well, the generation of Greta Thunberg is already bitching at us so, we don't think we are anything special either.

Point being, everything could be going great, and then out of the blue with no warning...

Game over. — Hippyhead

How relations can turn sour is actually breathtaking.

It only takes one sunk aircraft carrier in the South China Sea and there's no trace of globalization, no trace of friendly relations and talks in a G20 summit, no eating cake at Mar-a-Lago. And it absolutely doesn't matter if it Trump or Biden when that happens.

In the 1930's smart people could understand that war was coming. In the early 1910's it wasn't so. Back then, it was more like now.

Here's a funny story about Yeltsin. He stayed at the White House for a few days during his first meeting with Clinton. In the middle of the night Yeltsin was discovered, drunk as a skunk, in his underwear, out on Pennsylvania Avenue trying to hail a cab so he could go get a pizza. Best I can tell, true story. — Hippyhead

Western arrogance was then to think that Russia is passed, that after the fall of the Soviet Union it had become an Austria on the Volga, quite harmless with only a somewhat glorious past. Yeltsin and especially the poor performance of the Russian military in the first Chechen war were seen as the final nails in the coffin. The situation in the end was so poor that it's said that some military personnel died of starvation at a radar outpost in Siberia because they weren't supplied. And I remember the views of Russian officers and families living in tents once they had been withdrawn from East Germany.

The only thing that the Yeltsin administration put money was into...the strategic rocket forces. The tanks could rust outside in huge parking places, but the nuclear deterrence was always financed, even if the number of weapons was drastically cut.

The real tragedy was that after the fall of Soviet Union, Russia could have been brought to the West or it could have had a more peaceful role to play. But that would have been a huge undertaking with larger than life politicians on both sides to successfully do it. But we had just the average or above-average politicians. When NATO went on with the Kosovo bombings, Russians had been already lost and finally the FSB director that became president, Vladimir Putin, had his new potential enemy in the West.

s. The US GDP is on par with the entirety of Europe, forget individual countries. They are still a geopolitical juggernaut with allies across the world and this doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. — Judaka

Here's the bigger picture of the role of the US in World Economy:



Here's even a longer picture, which ought to be taken with a grain of salt as obviously the statistics aren't there and the whole thing is an estimation (and of course, the US isn't that old, but anyway):



What has happened in our time is China, which after letting go of the insanity of maoism, has grown from an economy the size of the Netherlands to the second biggest economy. Another huge change has been India, which also let go of socialism. The so-called Asian Tigers grew even earlier and many of the ex-Soviet satellites have seen good economic growth. This transition has been huge and a wonderful thing as global povetry and famine has declined, yet thanks to our slow growth we (naturally just looking at our own navel) haven't noticed this. So the real story isn't about the US unraveling, but others getting their act together.

The GDP of the US keeps increasing, which means a more powerful military, more money for aid and so on. — Judaka

Well, that aid isn't as with other countries a huge share of it is military assistance, which basically means assisting the military-industrial complex. So here's where that aid went few years ago. Nearly trillion to Ethiopia is quite notable:



And here's what it looks like compared to other countries, if we take out that military aid:


And on share of GDP, it's

US leadership isn't based on its paragon status, it's based on economic, geopolitical and military might, which it still has. — Judaka

And the role of the dollar. Never underestimate the role of the dollar. It can be difficult to understand just how important something like earlier (and even now) buying oil with your own currency that you a can print is. Or that vasts amounts of dollars are used between foreign countries that don't involve the US. It is something that Americans dismisses quite often and just take as a given, not something that actually happened because of WW2.

Here's the unraveling, IF there is an unraveling (which is indeed not anything given or obvious:



Roughly every fifth dollar the US government spends is now debt. And your largest single debtor is the Federal Reserve, not China. Before the pandemic the Federal Reserve owned twice as much than China of the treasuries and China's pot of treasuries has stayed roughly the same for the last ten years. Some countries like Germany had prior to the Covid pandemic a fiscal surplus. Last time that happened was when Clinton changed the rules on social welfare, if I remember correctly.

Typical cynical selfish boomer psychology! :-) — Hippyhead

Yes. Boomers. :angry:

There's nothing that you did well. That includes us, the Gen X, which is one of the smallest generations ever.

Yes, anyone that we've saved from ruthless tyranny typically thanks us by calling us ugly. :-) I think we're pretty good sports about that, all in all. — Hippyhead

This myth of foreign people hating Americans is what Americans sustain themselves. Of course those people who "hate" the US are called leftists, while other called conservatives don't have much if any problem with the US. Something along the lines you are now seeing in your own country btw.

Otherwise, what's the response of for example Europeans of the American military roaming around in their country? Something like this, 5 years ago during the Obama times:

And it still would be. 50 nukes dropped on the big cities of any country would collapse the food distribution system and so on. — Hippyhead

I think the most dangerous aspect of nuclear weapons is the modern Russian doctrine of "nuclear de-escalation". I know, the West has had thoughts along similar lines. What makes it so dangerous is that people genuinely can think it can work. The Russian have now in many of their large military exercises trained after starting conventional operations and have ended it with making a nuclear attack to "de-escalate the situation". Sounds crazy at first, but let's think about it.

There is the hideous logic behind it, because a) we genuinely think that the use of the smallest tactical charge will inevitably lead to all out nuclear exchange and b) our fear about nuclear radiation has no limits (the public reaction around the World to the Fukushima accident tells this).

If you haven't seen this already, perhaps this site will interest you. It shows the damage from various nukes on any particular city. — Hippyhead

Oh yes, it one of the most eye-opening programs there are. I'd really welcome others to use it. It really makes a great case just what equivalent of 300 tonnes, 300 Kt and 3 MT mean. (The Beirut explosion some estimate to have been equivalent to 1 Kt).

The social, political, and military chaos of the 60s dwarfs anything happening today. We got past that. We'll get past this too. — Hippyhead

And the British got past losing their Empire too. Yeah, London was a nice place at least few years ago.

I say everything is well as long as the dollar has it's status and Americans can create money that others will take. The most dangerous idea to America is the following idea: "Wait a minute, we don't have to have a single currency replacing the dollar, we'll use a basket of currencies with each currency (including the US dollar) noted by the volume of use of the currency in actual business transactions and have computer algorithms handle that basket for us."

That would be the death knell for the present style US government spending. And once you have to equal spending to tax income more or less, kiss your Superpower military bye bye.

I recently spent about 6 months studying this subject full time. — Hippyhead

That's interesting.

Yet I guess Russia and the US having about 5000 each and not 24 000 and 40 000 respectively does mean something. Third World war having been fought at the middle of the 1980's would have been utterly devastating. Especially the Soviet war plans were crazy. Or the time when we had WW2 era generals that had seen the carnage of millions dying and there wasn't yet tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on each side.

The topic is interesting, but there is a huge problem with debating the issue. Firstly, no other topic has so much virtue signalling going around and seems like it's politically incorrect to ever doubt the worst case scenarios. Even to make the case that the World wouldn't be totally destroyed, or that the all the nuclear weapons exploded simultaneously make a small dent compared to the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs is viewed as bad as it somehow means that nuclear war is more possible. To describe the most catastrophic outcome is viewed as beneficial as it will "awaken people" to the threat of nuclear weapons. I do get the point, but then this creates mass hysteria, just like with nuclear radiation in general. And no other topic is so speculative, so kept secret that typically it seems that nobody hasn't been thinking of it clearly in the end. The fear that nuclear weapons raised later in Robert McNamara and people like William J. Perry shows how real the threat is.

Yet the politically incorrect truth is obvious. They make a hell of a deterrent, literally. And that's why they are an issue in the Middle East, where you have one dominant regional nuclear power: Israel. So it is actually reasonable that enemies of Israel have thought to acquire these weapons. And once you have them, welcome to the club! You can see it how the US responds with countries in the "axis-of-evil" that have actual nuclear weapons and have only "potential" nuclear weapons. Some countries like Libya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Sweden voluntarily stopped their nuclear weapons projects. Some have given away their nukes. Of them Ukraine is a country that is now truly regrets giving all the weapons away. It's now age old tech, but still under wraps.

And having nuclear weapons makes countries prone to attack with impunity non-nuclear states. The only case of a non-nuclear state attacking a country with a nuclear deterrent that I remember is when Argentina invade the Falklands, but I guess they understood that the British would not nuke Buenos Aires for some puny islands with sheep in the middle of nowhere.

In the case of the Middle East more countries having them will not make things easier.