War is used as to define serious dedicated engagement and that the issue tackled is extremely important and if not solved even an existential threat. Or something like that. I remember in Mexico City the traffic jams are so huge and the traffic so awful that people refer to going into traffic as "going to war". Well, naturally actual war is very, very different.

Anyone who signs up for the military know what they are signing up for.
They take an oath. In the US, it includes defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to obey the the orders of the President. — Amity

The interesting question is just who signs up for war? Consider my country, for example. Here in Finland the Constitutions says the following:

Every Finnish citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defence, as provided by an Act.

Notice that it means every citizen, man or woman. And only after the 1970's a further exemptions have been made for military conscription for males:

Provisions on the right to exemption, on grounds of conscience, from participation in military national defence are laid down by an Act.

Before the 1985 for example Jehova witnesses for their grounds of conscience went to jail for 11 months when they refused conscription. And that act doesn't exempt Finnish males at wartime: they still are in a category of being reserves. Only at the age of 50 for soldiers and 60 for officers is when reserve duty ends.

(Men, largely Jehova witnesses, who had abstained from military or national service at a special camp (read=jail) in Finland in 1968.)


This just shows that many countries, which are quite peaceful and democratic, have these quite totalitarian rules to be possibly implemented, even if they are very improbable. Such draconian laws might come as a surprise to people as they aren't obviously talked much about.

This also shows how totally different the role of the armed forces can be. In many Western countries that don't have a potential enemy lurking on their physical borders, the armed forces are made usually up of voluntary professional soldiers that are there to participate in international operations. Then there many armies in Third World countries that basically concentrate at the domestic security issue and often are nearly the only working part of the government (which makes things problematic). The role can be quite different.

Another discussion could be had about who the President might consider a 'domestic enemy'.
Think protest march v riots. Who are the 'patriots' ? Who the traitors ? — Amity

Interesting question. I'll just answer about the use of military force. How "patriotic" is to defy your government and resort to "extra-parliamentary opposition" is another question I think.

To bring in the military to any domestic problem is a sign of defeat. That basically means the police or the legal system is incapable of handling the issue. Do notice the lengths that the US military went to for the active military units NOT to be used during the turmoil of the Trump presidency. Using active military can be also a statement like with Eisenhower ordering paratroops of the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock because of school policies.

(Safety in going to school?)


Yet when the military is used, it also gives credibility to those who are engaged. Remember that prior to 9/11 terrorists belonging to the same cabal of islamist tried to bomb and pull down the Twin towers. They failed, only a few people were killed and the whole thing was a police matter. The terrorists were found by the FBI in Pakistan and tried in ordinary courts and put into a normal jail.

Imagine an US President doing the same after 9/11: coming out and saying that this is now a police investigation and the FBI will be on it. And the investigations would have gone on for years.

Nope. That would have been something that the American psyche wouldn't have tolerated. President Bush would have been a weak dick, a pussy.

Bush had to go to war. Invade Afghanistan. Use the armed forces and invade a country. And for the matter, an Al Gore administration would have done the same. Absolutely. Again the reason was that a) the US could do it, b) it would not upset the ordinary life of Americans and c) Americans are accustomed on actions like that. And I'm really not blaming Americans here. I think that the vast majority of people in this World in the situation of the US (having a huge army) would have acted the same way.

The relevant type of poverty is the relative poverty. It does not help the poor in first world countries that they would be rich in some banana republic. Because they don't live there. No, they have to make do where they are, in the first world country. — baker

It's pretty outrageous to even consider that being poor in a rich western country is the same as being poor in Third World country. So no: absolute poverty is the real issue. Relative povetry doesn't mean anything globally as there are such huge differences between countries. Just imagine if you would just consider the richest place in the US where the average household income is half a million dollars. How poor really is relatively poor household that only would get only 200 000$ or less?

Your government considers poor being a family of four earning annually 25 000$ or less. The global median family income is less than 10 000$. Hence basically the majority of all the people in the World live in povetry...compared to the US. And it doesn't change so much when you count the cost of living to change this: prices of a car or apartment are still quite comparable.

Living in a small hut without electricity and running water is something different to having an income of 40% of the median income in the US or having that 25 000$ or so annual income for a family. And the homeless people in the US? There's half a million of them in a country with 320 million people. In the Democratic Republic of Congo there are about 90 million people who call DRC home do not consistently have a home. Not surprising in a country where 72% of the people live in extreme poverty.

For the poor in first world countries, it's not much different. — baker

Actually, it is.

People who are poor in the US (or Finland) would be quite rich in the Democratic republic of Congo. You see, from the global perspective you have to look at absolute povetry. Nearly all of the statistics about povetry in the First World are of poverty compared to the median/average income.

Starting from people that earn less than 1$ a day or 365$ a year. Huge difference to those who are poor in the US.

Afghanistan's brush up with modernity happened in the 70's with the Daoud regime and the early days of the communist regime. The tribes revolted Jehad-type against the whole thing circa 79/80. — Olivier5

There is a pattern in Afghanistan of rulers trying to install modernity and not being successful with it. After Daud the Saur revolution led to a lot of people being killed...and a forty year war.

Democracy is what brought us a police state and cutthroat capitalism. — baker

I assume you refer to the US or to some Western democracy (if not, please correct).

You then truly to compare your "plight" to a country where since 1978 from 1,4 million to over 2 million people have died in a continuing war from a population of 32 million? In a country where it all started with a Communist revolution that killed instantly thousands? Guess they don't need democracy, basic rights or working institutions.

The simple fact is that the alternatives to democracy are pretty ugly indeed. They are only so many Monacos, Bruneis or Gulf States, you know. The problems in the US or West are not in any way in the same ballpark as in non-democratic Third World countries. One should remember that.

I'm assuming that when you, ssu, say that you want to fight corruption you really mean it. You don't have any ulterior motives and that if you see Democrats engaged in corruption, you will fight them as hard as any Republican you see engaged in corruption, nor will you be allowing certain corporations to continue to engage in corruption because they are donating to your campaign. I hope you would assume the same thing when I say that I want to fight corruption. — Harry Hindu

The guiding principle is simply that laws would be literally followed.

Giving outright bribes isn't tolerated anywhere. Yet we all understand where the slippery slope is here, where the true crucible of democracy lies. When laws simply aren't followed, when people who ought to be punished for braking the law aren't because the laws aren't enforced, then there is still hope. Simply abide by the laws, period. Once when corruption is simply made legal, then it's truly a problem. For example this is real challenge in the US is that the corruption is made legal only a real dork like the Vietnam fighter ace "Duke" Cunningham who turned politician made made a price list of how much to pay him for what amount of contract.

(Corruption as the clearest: Scan of a document submitted as evidence by the prosecution and included in their February 2006 sentencing memorandum against Cunningham, penned by his own hand on his own Congressional office stationery for the benefit of "co-conspirator#2" (defense contractor Mitchell Wade). The left column lists millions of dollars of government contracts; the right column lists the thousands of dollars in bribes required to secure them.)

Cunningham pleading guilty to accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes and under-reporting his taxable income for 2004. He pleaded guilty to federal charges of tax evasion, and conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He was sentenced to eight years and four months in prison and was ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution.

Needless to say, President Trump pardoned Duke Cunningham.

Why should the Afghans have democracy? Can you justify?

We have democracy, and what good has it done us? — baker

You're serious? ? ?

I have yet to hear what I think is a reasonable explanation for not getting vaccinated. Do you know of any? — praxis

That some of the vaccines in use are of very new technology and different from classic vaccinations and we don't know what the long term effects of these are? Or that the person is a young child? Especially if the two times vaccinated still can spread new variants, I still think there opening on having a frank discussion about vaccinations, just as with medicine and health care in general. I'm personally not an anti-vaxxer, but I do value a public debate about vaccinations.

You see, the thing you portrayed well is the way we can also stop a discussion:

Anti-vaxxer's are like climate change deniers, or in the case specific to this topic, systemic racism deniers, and are positions taken to express tribal solidarity. — praxis

I do know who you are talking about, but that categorization can be used quickly to squelch any debate of quite valid issues. There is obviously a reason that we need an open discussion about these issues. For starters, we shouldn't respond like an internet computer algorithm that if we see the words "taxation", "deficits", "vaccination", "white privilege", "multiculturalism", we instantly assume what the person thinks and believes and categorize him or her.

The belief that we could control a virus by controlling human beings is only the most recent mistake of man’s hubris. — NOS4A2

It's not that recent as disease and pestilence have been the norm in human history. To have ships on quarantine for example is an age old way fight diseases.



Interestingly Stephen Pinker has remarked that Xenophobia is an evolutionary defense against epidemics.

I had a quick look at this - what do you mean by 'the so-called anti-social type' and how do they 'prevail in wars' ? Examples ? — Amity

It's the idea that people who don't fit into the peace-time society, have brawls with the police or end up in jail then show their potential as being great soldiers. It's a popular storyline in war films and books. Basically it's a myth. The reality is different, with the worse example perhaps being the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger.

That includes the military and artistic types. Why would you describe the latter as 'erratic' ? — Amity

Erratic in the positive way, not something regular. Art that catches our attention is something out of the ordinary. And artists generally show in their work, whatever it is, human feelings.

The conscripts fighting in the trenches included all types. — Amity

All servicemen, volunteers and professional soldiers include all types of people. Somehow many people think that those drafted, conscripts, are "people like us" where people volunteering for military service are different. It's degrading to think so. When you have such large numbers of people, there are all kinds of people involved and the idea of one "military-type" is wrong (even if you can find the occasional stereotype). If people's perception of the military is what Hollywood represents it to be, it's far from the actual reality of ordinary military life and those who serve.

Besides, armies have for all known history trained those individuals representing all types of people to act in uniform as an organized group. It's simply a pragmatic issue: the better controlled, coordinated and organized force likely will prevail. A combat situation is obviously dangerous and extremely stressful, hence military training focuses on learning to operate in such dire situation. Automatic responses and learning by heart practices help in such situation to operate.

They turned from the noble notion that it is glorious to die for one's country to being totally anti-war. — Amity

And how many in the military are for war? It's like saying that doctors and medics are for disease and accidents.

Clearly, military personnel are probably not given to poetic thoughts as they follow out orders. — Amity

To follow orders, yes. But to serve in the military, they are given a lot of those "poetic thoughts". Still, the hire-for-money-willing-to-serve-anybody mercenary is an rare oddity. In fact the modern private contractor business has long been taken under the control of the intelligence services of the great powers. I think the South African Executive Outcomes was for a while genuinely offering "will serve without political links" service.

Problems are not just technical in nature with a manual to follow...not so very far from being 'artistic' by using their skills and thinking of 'brotherhood'. — Amity

True, but the pragmatism of the human endeavor like in the military and in war is many times sidelined to make a statement about politics or the society in general.

The question is, educated in what? "Educated" as in being a member of the socio-economic elite, or as in vocational training? — baker

Starting from the basics, educated as being able to read. Then having basic education. It is not only that people can work in more technical jobs, but also have an understanding of things like math, biology, history and so on. It is very useful for a society to function.

To argue this point, here is an anecdote: I remember a friend that served in Afghanistan and worked in CIMIC (Civil-Military-Cooperation), which in reality stood for military intelligence that even leftist politicians accepted. Then there were going to be elections in Afghanistan and her team had to gather intel on how the population was feeling about the elections. In this work going to small hamlets she could see what being in war for decades means for the education level of the people. Many didn't know there was an election and few didn't know just what elections are. Things like what a "kilometer" is were not known to many. After coming back from the country, she had large doubts of the progress been made there.

The literacy rate in Afghanistan is now 43% and over 10 million Afghanis are illiterate.

Now with this kind of voter population, you think a functioning democracy can be created with voters following politics and choosing better candidates from others?

Is perception paraconsistent? — fdrake

Cool video. — Banno

I agree with @Banno also on the paraconsistency. At least I can see both ways. It's just a thing were you focus. Similar to those pictures where you can see two different pictures. A little bit of training your eyes and it's easy to notice. Of course that's a subjective opinion.

Yet really hard to think that something in nature would be paraconsistent. It may just be a useful model to depict things when we don't know something.

The classic picture:

No slavery I know has at-will employment, where both employee and employer can terminate the relationship whenever they choose and for whatever reason. No slavery I know allows bargaining between both parties. No slavery I know permits a slave to be an employer himself. In slavery one is forbidden to leave, has no say in the relationship, and is subject to the arbitrary whims of their master. — NOS4A2

I guess you never have heard about about the Mamluks then.

Slavery came in various ways in history. Not all were the type of slaves that were seen as sub-humans as in America.

In any case I much rather assume the risk of living than let governments, all of which failed to contain the virus, continue to contain human beings. — NOS4A2

Isn't that why we have governments in the first place? Containing us?

That's all. Nothing new. — Banno

As this mask wearing, avoiding shaking hands and a two meter distance is staying for us for years now, I start to fear that this will have an effect how we behave in the future. Work culture has already changed, that's for sure.

Sure, it's very easy for a Finn. But I do miss the Latin way of women you know giving a kiss on the cheek.

How sick are they getting from it? Are you less sick when vaccinated? — Benkei

Seems that vaccinated people have less probability to die, but otherwise it looks bleak.

From CNBC:

About three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts Covid-19 outbreak were fully vaccinated, according to new data published Friday by the CDC.

The new data, published in the U.S. agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, also found that fully vaccinated people who get infected carry as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people.

From Boston.com:

The state has seen a rise in its COVID-19 infection rates in recent weeks, driven, according to Gov. Charlie Baker and public health officials, by the super-contagious Delta variant and gatherings held around the July Fourth holiday.

Provincetown has seen a surge of hundreds of cases, many among fully vaccinated individuals. New data from that outbreak, which showed individuals who were vaccinated were transmitting the virus to other fully vaccinated people, was one of the factors for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updating its guidelines for indoor mask use earlier this week, the Washington Post reports.

Have to say it.... fuck.

At least the mask makers are happy.

As such, essentially every government in the world is an oligarchy where the elite few rule the many and limit and strictly control the new members to their club. — Harry Hindu

Yes, essentially it is like that. (I think that Monaco as a tiny city state can have basically the monarch as head of state as every Monegasque can go and visit him if they have a problem.)

Just think if you or I were able to become president - what they did to Trump would be nothing compared to what they would do to people like us looking to really change things. — Harry Hindu

Ummm....what did they do to Trump, actually?

The GOP utterly failed to do the choreographed selection of the party nominee (unlike the Democrats, who can rely on the ever loyal Bernie to lure in progressives and social democrats) and got a wild card with Trump. And the party is now in a state of disarray, but still holding on two the duopoly.

And let's face it: many in both parties would likely want to change things, but once the dance is going on with a certain tune, you cannot start to tango when everybody else is doing a square dance. There is no evil solid entity lurking in the shadows, no Illuminati. There are just people who think they can control the dance. Yes, there is a power elite in every country. But don't think they agree on things and can act in an uniform fashion. It's more like things happen and the elite accepts it or tries to manage somehow the process.

What do you think? Is it really worth fighting the endless and meaningless war of the ruling elite? Is the life is not short enough for doing this? — Art Stoic Spirit

When the people go on with their lives and do not even know that their country is fighting a war with volunteers and drones in a country they couldn't find on the map, it really can be endless.

In a time of peace and extensive globalization, the role of the corporation seems to be huge. They seem to wield huge power through lobbyists and the revolving door of politicians and officials turning taking corporate jobs and vice versa. Nation states court them to get them investing in their countries and can seem to bend over backwards to please them.

I would think that this is a mirage thanks to the peaceful times we live in. People could have argued that corporations hold the most power prior to WW1 as the World back then enjoyed nearly similar globalization as now. In fact, I would argue that corporations are actually the weakest and most fragile institutions when compared to states or religions (churches). In the end corporations or companies are just written contracts, legal entities, that can be dissolved easily by a judge or by bankruptcy or simply by some other corporation buying them. Then all the those who worked in the corporation or who owned it's carry on as if nothing: the people look for other work and the owners either take new stock or cut the losses (in a bankruptcy). Brands come and go. Who remembers now the most powerful corporation, Standard Oil?

(An old cartoon of Standard Oil. Nothing new under the sun.)


A corporation is just a job for some and and an asset for other people. Job and owning a stock go just so far. Yet being a citizen of a state or being a member of a religion defines people differently. And even if you wouldn't care at all about just what your nationality and you would be a total atheist, the outside World does categorize you by your nationality is and by the religion you were born to. No company cannot create brands like that. And no judge in Texas can decide that let's say the country of Iran is illegal and should be dissolved. A lot of Iranians would still think they are Iranians.

I would agree with that religion is waning in the West, Nietzsche got it all correct, yet I wouldn't count it out. The same goes for ideologies: they can make a comeback with people wholeheartedly taking on a mission.

Collapse won't happen in 20 years "to the day", but would be a process of unrelenting droughts, floods, fires, leading to crop failures, political upheaval, and both civil and inter-nation wars. — boethius

I think it's very likely that we will have some countries collapsing to civil war especially in the Sahel region, that already is hit the most. For example the hunger index shows on map quite well what the areas are were conflict can happen and is happening:

Global Hunger Index by severity:


The inter-nation wars isn't necessary going to happen and those can be limited as, obviously there are two or more established sides that can cut their losses and control their forces (as they control their militaries). The societal collapse to civil war is the problem, that we've seen in many places (Somalia, South Sudan, Libya, etc) is the real danger. For example Yemen is as bad as it is thanks to the Saudi coalition intervention.

Yet let's look at were we stand. So perhaps you would anticipate a turn to the 1960's and 1970's?


And then the stats of people dying at famines:


Yet will this happen in Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, Japan, South Korea? Just going to the situation of early 20th Century or 19th Century would be bad, but did that collapse our global society?

The fact is that there has been a lot more famine, wars and unruly places in history than now and still the human society has prevailed.

Armies (running out of food) won't simply sit around and starve to death, so the habitable places that remain will face relentless invasion and piracy with dwindling weapons systems that can no longer be renewed without the present global technological manufacturing platform. — boethius

This isn't at all realistic.

Armies don't run out of food and then roam around as an army. Armies "collapse" simply when the pay doesn't come in. Functioning and lethal armed forces are actually very fragile and need huge resources and support. If the pay doesn't come, cracks appear immediately. Hence they either a) are cut in size and manpower by the government, b) go home if they aren't paid or c) stage a coup to get their pay. This happens far earlier than the issue becomes food. You shouldn't forget what Napoleon said about warfighting and armies: "You need money, money, money". To give an example: Iraq still had a huge army when Dubya Bush invaded. Saddam's army simply started to melt away with soldiers and officers taking off their uniforms, but a lot of units were still quite intact. Then the Americans had the great idea to just let them go. First they (the ex-armed forces) demonstrated for getting pay, then they went home and some started the insurgency in small uncoordinated groups. These uncoordinated group won't invade any country with a standing army, but the sure can start a low intensity guerilla conflict... or a civil war.

You obviously didn't read my previous post which I literally say "as I explain in my previous post, I define as effectively arresting control of our institutions from our sociopathic oligarchs" is effective democracy. — boethius

On the contrary.

If that arresting control "from our sociopathic oligarchs" would happen through the ballot box, that is great! Unfortunately in the World we live in people who want to "arrest control" mean they literally go and arrest people without giving a damn about the institutions as they are "corrupt and in control of the sociopathic oligarchs" in the first place. That was what I meant. Hence democracy and the necessary institutions are sidelined, which freaks out everybody. Then likely we get true sociopaths or even bloodthirsty psychopaths competing for power. Democracies are saved with guns only if an outside aggressor attacks them. There are far and few examples when guns have overthrown dictatorships and replaced them with democracy. Portugal and their Carnation Revolution is for example an exception.

This is what I've been saying for awhile now and is the foundation of the problem as stated by ↪frank - politics - dividing people based on identity and then making people think that everyone else that doesn't share your identity is out to get you. It's no different than religion. — Harry Hindu

Well, it works well for those in power wanting to hold on to the status quo.

Why have Americans getting truly together under banners like "We are the 99%" or so when you can make a basically a class issue a race issue? Even if race and povetry do go hand in hand in the US, it goes even more with class. Yet talking about "White privilege" goes so well with poor white people literally called "White trash" in the US that the Republicans will surely say about "the other side" saying how privileged they are. No wonder there are so many Trump supporters. Who cares about what actually people really try to say when strawman arguments rule the discourse?

Anyway, if you have so much discontent towards how things are in the country, both from the left and the right, make sure that the opposition will be divided and incapable of unifying. Has worked in other countries, actually.

I've come to the conclusion that the polarization of American politics is an active if not openly declared strategy (or policy) implemented by the two ruling parties to stay in power. They only ease the tension if some nutcase comes along and starts shooting politicians of one or the other party (as has already happened). Otherwise, make the other side as evil as possible in the "culture war".

I genuinely hope this political strategy isn't mimicked by political parties in my country. Unfortunately the media copies everything, so I don't have my hopes up.

It's a perfectly good term — boethius

Then just what historical study shows a huge migration of people from the Western parts moving to East Rome that you are talking about. Seriously, I've not heard about it so inform me.

Feudalism I would argue was not "moving Roman civilization" to the country side, but the collapse of the Western Roman civilization. — boethius

Then I wrote it badly. Feudalism was an answer to deal with the collapse. So I think we agree here.

I have no idea what you're talking about i terms of technology advance and market mechanism in this context. — boethius

It was a response to this:

However, our technological systems and infrastructure and level of affluence can be radically changed in mere decades. It requires high level of effort, but it is feasible. — boethius

That radical technological change needs also the market mechanism. Competition is a way to make things efficient.

I'll respond to you later about the last part of your post.

Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius come to mind. Also the contemporary Stoicist writings of James Stockdale and Nancy Sherman. — 180 Proof

And I believe in Cicero's assertion that silent enim leges inter arma, and think Sherman was right when he said war is cruelty and cannot be reformed. — Ciceronianus the White

Those just justify the position. But it is interesting to see how these historical people were totally aware of what they do to other people in war, be they the Romans or general Sherman who famously "made Georgia howl".

Smedley Butler is an interesting case. But then he fought in "the Backyard of the US" in the Banana Wars and in the Boxer Rebellion and saw quite openly American imperialism. His small booklet is worth reading.

I remember reading the memoirs of an American Sergeant Major from special operations (a Delta force operator). Even if obviously the author was patriotic, as an NCO he told things as they actually were, which made the story in the end comical (or grotesque), but it in it's way it just underlined how correct Smedley Butler had been (especially when comparing the time during the Reagan and older Bush years in Central America).

War has this curious way of intoxicating us and our societies. It shows how frighteningly adaptable and malleable we are. Yet that might be also our strength that we do adapt. Because it's usually not that only the so-called anti-social type who prevail in wars, it's how totally ordinary people do fight them. Military men and women are usually the most rational and pragmatic people and furthest from the erratic "artist" type. I think it the way how we as a species have rationalized war in our society that is the most surprising and puzzling things in our society.

So, 'universal pacifism' might not be achieved but there are other kinds, perhaps more realistic.
Peacebuilding interventions - and asking questions about 'whose peace' for whose benefit and at what cost ? Peace has to become the more attractive option - how can that be done ? — Amity

The distrust nations share doesn't go easily away. The Swiss still have a large reservist army even if it is crazy to think that the EU countries would invade it (or any other country would). Yet the Swiss have decided after a referendum to sustain their military and the country still opts to be non-aligned.

(Even if literally being inside the EU, the Swiss still have keep their fighters inside mountains. As the saying goes: the Swiss don't have an army, they are an army.)


Having armed forces being a deterrent and then welcoming cooperation between the nations is one way for peace to endure. In fact the US policy from Teddy Roosevelt of "speaking softly and carrying a big stick" could work, if there is no need to use that stick and there wouldn't be imperial (or post-imperial) aspirations. Unfortunately Teddy Roosevelt among others had those aspirations.

The real tragedy is that politicians (and people) will seriously work for cooperation and peace only after truly horrific wars. Nowhere, not even in China with it's large population, has more people been killed as in Europe during WW1 and it's sequel WW2. It sounds bleak, but I think that only with huge losses felt among the entire society jingoism and aggressive militarism is defeated. If war doesn't affect the ordinary person's life, if it's fought somewhere else with volunteers or robots, then the causes for going to war can be quite obscure and light. Many don't even know that their country is engaged in a low-intensity war even today, thanks to the obscuration of the line between peace keeping and war.

A real danger for ruinous wars are ideas like the Thucydides Trap. Just like with the "Domino Theory", these kind of ideas can get the World into wars. The worrisome thing is that there exist between the US and China (or Russia) these tragic vicious circles.

Other civilizations always had the chance to at least move somewhere else. For instance, Roman civilization did effectively move to Byzantine and survived for another 1000 years. — boethius

Moving is a bad term here.

Understanding the difficulties of reigning such a vast landmass, the Empire was divided peacefully to two parts. Eastern part, which we call "Byzantium" after the fall of West Rome (and they themselves called the Roman Empire) as you said, survived for a thousand year afterwards. It's not that West Romans moved to East Rome, it is simply the question that having a city of million people in Antique Times, you need a huge landmass and functioning shipping routes to feed those million people. This was possible when Rome was basically fed with grain coming from North Africa and in the case of Byzantium and Constantinople, when they had the fertile Nile delta to grow food for the huge city. When West Rome lost North Africa to the Vandals and Byzantium lost Egypt, then where people moved was the countryside. Feudalism and Dark Ages was basically an issue of de-globalization.

You are arguing in a hypothetical realm divorced from reality. — boethius

What I'm arguing is that to solve these problems take more than 20 years and yes, long term changes in population growth do matter. They simply are so subtle that those focusing just on the present day don't notice their effects. And it's not just technological advancement, but also the market mechanism which also is an important factor here.

On the time scales imposed by the actual reality we live in, depopulation would be required in the next couple of decades; and the only feasible way to do that is through environmental collapse: the problem we are trying to avoid. Otherwise, people try to survive and try to help other people survive, no one volunteers themselves for depopulation. — boethius

So in your view in 20 years there is a catastrophy, a collapse?

The tough realist position (that includes effective actions) is not depopulation, — boethius

First, actual global population growth to be negative will take a long, long time. It possibly can happen in the next Century, which is quite a way off. Second, it's not the kind of "depopulation" some antinatalists think about. It's simply what is already happening in Japan and in many countries all around the world.

radical transformation of our political system (which, as I explain in my previous post, I define as effectively arresting control of our institutions from our sociopathic oligarchs) — boethius

Democracy has it's faults, but it's still the thing I believe in. It has some safety valves built into it, if only the citizens would apply them. The alternatives usually don't have them. Radical technological transformation, yes. Radical political transformation, be careful just what you wish for.

That’s because from the start the privatization program was dominated by foreign players from advisors to government with links to the State Property Committee that was in charge of the program to international institutions like the IMF, International Finance Corporation (IFC), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and American and European banks. — Apollodorus

Yes, interesting. Yet I'm not so sure how successful these were and how much did actually go through. I remember that various Western oil companies were eager to get their share of Siberian oil, but they were stalled and later left. Basically Russia needed desperately technological know-how and from the West to improve their infrastructure, but state security was over everything else.

Yeltsin was forced to implement some cosmetic regulation and Putin had to renationalize key companies soon after coming to power. - In any case, the oligarchs or “kleptocrats” were only part of the problem. — Apollodorus

The sick old Yeltsin needed the oligarchs money to hold on to power and (avoid the communists taking power) and this increased their power and lead some to think that they could have also political power. This was an absolute no-no, just in like China. Only in the US can the super-rich grab political power and use it. In Russia (or that matter in China) if the oligarchs show desire for political power, they are jailed or are exiled. To survive and hold on to their billions they simply have to be obedient yes-men.

The real tragedy that this has left Russia in a state were crucial investments have not happened. Who of the billionaires would dare to extensively invest in Russia when all can disappear in a moment with the government confiscating your wealth?

I think that the massive fortune that Putin has personally stolen has far more to do with the concentration of power than wealth hoarding. To rule over other oligarchs, you have to have also more wealth than they do I guess. I remember on Russian opposition politician observing that just the expensive watch Putin wears is far more than the "official" wealth that Putin tells publicly he has.

Of course, everything is owned by the state when you are de facto the state...

Putin's mansion, officially state owned:

That’s the saddest part, Trump didn’t do jack for his base and none of the wealthy who scored big under his administration stormed the capital. — praxis

At least Putin had a fun time. Must have reminded him of his old job heading the FSB.

The emergence and spread of postmodernism is an indicator of how the world of academia exists primarily for its own sake, catering to its own needs, interests, and concerns. It's also a cautionary tale of what happens when academia is opened to plebeians, ie. people who don't belong there. — baker

Thinking that having everybody going to tertiary education would improve the economy and the society is the error. Yes, a lot of people opt for easy subjects which don't have actual demand on the private sector, just a few openings to teach the subject. Yet university level education ought to simply show that you are quite capable of learning new things and working in various jobs that demand complex thinking. But when that bar is lowered too low, then you have a problem.

Of course if the attitude in the university is to a) party, b) somehow manage through the exams and c) forget everything later, then naturally that doesn't help in the long run. It should be about life long learning, as the philosopher John Dewey put it.

That people are educated is a really important issue. Just to give one example, having a functioning democracy needs people to be educated and aware of political issues.

Like the majority here on this forum (I assume), I am a man of peace and never seen war personally. I really hope that I or my children never see war. I have no illusions of war being just a distant thing happening somewhere else, that couldn't happen here. I don't think that people would be now more reasonable than in the 20th Century. War could happen even if at the present there is peace and good relations in this area of the globe.

My parents did remember WW2 as young children. My father remembered the bombings and being in air raid shelter, my mother remembered when she was six falling from a horse when riding to the country house when it was accommodating German soldiers in the summer of 1944. Both of my grandfathers fought in that war and they remembered from their own childhood the civil war, which basically was part of the Russian revolution during the WWI era. My country has never enjoyed such a long time of peace as we have seen now (thanks to the Crimean war disrupting an otherwise largely peaceful 19th Century as a Grand Duchy of Russia).

I don't have high hopes for the goodness of man, for universal pacifism or other high mindedness and pompous grandstanding. I believe in the old Roman saying from Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus "Si vis pacem, para bellum".

I think it is a proper and realistic way to confront one of the worst things humans do to each other. Deterrence along with friendly relations can sustain peace.

I know that the politicians of this country see war as not the likeliest, but the greatest threat possible to this country. I know that they and the military have taken and take dead seriously the possibility of war, unlike our Western neighbors that basically got rid of their large army after the Cold War ended and genuinely believed in a "New World Order" or something. As the only country that had fought on the axis side yet survived WW2 without an occupation, people here do believe that defending oneself is a rational thing to do. In many countries were the attempt of defending militarily the country from a bigger aggressor has meant only death, pain and humiliation, the attitude can be different.

If I would have been an American, I surely would support the troops, but would have never thought of volunteering to the military as I wasn't good in sports and haven't seen myself at all as the military type that Hollywood depicts (which is largely absolute bullshit). Here of course military service is obligatory and as I'm not a hippie I was conscripted and hence to my total surprise I found myself as a reserve officer in the war time army, which for some years I still will be.

Is there another philosophy for war?
I remember what once war veteran once told me: "In war never forget your humanity".

I think that is a great philosophy especially for an officer to remember.

In the early 1970’s the Rockefellers were taking advantage of the oil crisis (partly caused by their own policies) and the weaknesses of communist economies in order to expand their petroleum and banking empire. Hence they promoted a policy of East-West rapprochement and David founded his Trilateral Commission, an association of multinational banking and industrial corporations, for the purpose. — Apollodorus

East-West rapprochement has a long history where some bankers weren't the only ones promoting this. The détente process was very important in part of the Cold War. Let's not forget that if after the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets the Cold War got colder, it was at the end of Reagan's administration that huge gains were got in disarmament. A major issue was the formation of OSCE, which is is the world's largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization (if you don't count the UN as such). And historians also note that the development that started from the CSCE Helsinki summit (that from was formed OSCE) were part of why the Soviet Empire collapsed. At the time for the Soviet Union the rapprochement / détente process looked like a fine strategy. Not so when the Communist bloc and Soviet empire collapsed and a lot of those agreements in the Helsinki accords backfired for the Soviet Union.

By 1993 more than 40% of Russian enterprises were owned by Western interests and a large part of the rest were co-owned by the same interests and their Russian associates. — Apollodorus

This sounds quite large. Do you have a reference where this stat is from?

This state of affairs may take a long time to achieve, but look to Japan and (West-)Germany what they achieved in 30 years or so. They became wealthy and connected both in terms of much business and militarily (security-wise). — DrOlsnesLea

Germany and Japan are societies with social cohesion and functioning institutions that were forced to seriously look at how disastrous their former aggressive militarism had been. Seldom has a society and it's leaders had to really change.

Peace, cooperation with your neighbors and open trade won't help all nations as it helped Japan and Germany. The poorest societies are riddled with so many problems that the objective at first is to a) avoid collapse and b) get some kind of economic growth and societal progress to happen. Not everything will be fine and dandy. People will be happy, if there is some improvement, if they can say that things have improved from the past.

In the Chinese example you had the Chinese understanding after Mao's death that strict central planning under Marxist guidelines simply doesn't work and chose a de facto economic model of what could be defined as fascism: state lead capitalism. Let's remember that their change happened after the abysmal Cultural revolution and the "Great Leap". Unlike the USSR, they opened up for the West yet otherwise kept the communist system. Still, the Chinese leaders still talk of it being true 21st Century Marxism, not some orthodox ideological following of Marx. Some leftists here arrogantly dismiss this, but I do believe that the Chinese leadership truly believes what they say (as that is typical for elites in power) and their recent actions in my view show this.

The big difference is that Gorbachev didn't go for the Chinese strategy and also with "Perestroika" had the idea of "Glasnost", openness. Gorbachev was a Marxist-Leninist who wanted reform within. The policy of Glasnost also really shook the power of the Communist party as opening up a totalitarian system for free speech is a huge deal. Then the privatization of the soviet economy was intended to be this transfer of assets to the ordinary people. It didn't go like that: the class of the oligarchs was created usually with the industry heads taken then the role of being owners. This created the kleptocracy of modern Russia with the new elite not investing in Russia, but buying yachts and football teams in the West.

With China the US thought that capitalism and investment would change the country also ideologically. Not so. The Chinese Communist Party can only show that they truly have done a historical leap in the last thirty years. With the USSR as the old Russian empire collapse (had been held together only by the marxist-leninist totalitarian state) the US decided that Russia was past and put it hopes on Yeltsin. Well, Yeltsin then picked his FSB chief as a replacement and the rest is history.

Yet with the example of China you can see what historical economic growth is. With the USSR you only needed to go to the countryside or to smaller cities and see just how much actually of the homes people lived in was still from the days of Imperial Russia. Just visiting Russia even today makes one really suspect just how awesome that economic growth actually was as Oppyfan thinks.

And with Operation Paperclip the US got 1600 German scientist to the US, very important guys that without the US wouldn't have gotten anybody to the moon in 1969. And British also used German scientists, btw.

Yet you simply cannot deny the genius of Sergei Koroljov, who designed the R-7 and other rockets that the modern variants carried a year or two ago American astronauts to the ISS. Koroljov's rockets were far more advanced than the Germans had on the drawing board to strike mainland US, hence not all technology in the Soviet Union was copied from the west. That simply is false.

The Soviet Union was capable to design state-of-the-art weapons and for example in it's air defence missile designs were better than the US (simply out of necessity). Yet that is where it all went. What it totally lacked was to create anything truly new, to innovate new industries. A centrally planned system based on large corporations simply cannot compete in new ideas with the hippies from the silicon valley.

Central planning kills radical innovations. That is fact that many socialism lovers simply forget.

So when you say deficit spending enables wars, that’s not saying much— it also enables us to fund all kinds of things, good or bad. — Xtrix

Yet that is a huge enabler.

That the US can fight wars and intervene everywhere makes it the sole Superpower. When it cannot do that, it's no longer a Superpower as during the Cold War. It's then just the largest among the great powers.

The US can get into to a mess everywhere around the World simply because of this. You see, fighting a low-intensity conflict on the other side of the World (for 20 years) is astoundingly costly. Other countries have limitations. For example, the Russian involvement in Syria is basically one and a half squadrons of fighters, security for the airbase and then private military contractors. And that's basically it.

The US maintaining one ranger company in Afghanistan for a year cost at least as much, likely more, as the country of Estonia spends on defense annually. Germany basically could deploy one battalion (far less than 1000 soldiers) outside Europe. An US active-component Armored Brigade Combat Team, a 4200 strong military unit costs in one year a total of 2,6 billion dollars. Just to sustain one (of the eleven) nuclear aircraft carriers costs annually over 1 billion, with the aircraft wing basically two billion dollars. If the US really would have to cut it's spending the simple fact it could not have the global military presence it now has.

Now you are too p0m0 for me to understand.

But I'm not the brightest guy anyway...

Denmark has had a "corona-passport" for some time now.



Here the politicians, especially those from the Green party, are avid supporters of a corona-passport. Without it you could not go to a restaurant or participate in public events. Only the conservative party has been against it (but they are in the opposition and not in the administration).

Yet a Big problem for the social democrats and Sanna Marin... Finland has a constitution and this legal system that makes it so difficult for the social democrats to pose all the limitations they want! They have had to go back on their restriction on at least two occasions, because certain policies have been deemed unconstitutional or against the law.

And most of all, is this just a ruse to shoehorn in a third pomo-friendly thread to annoy ssu? Oh, more pluralism, more diversity, yes, very clever. (It's not, honest.) — Kenosha Kid

Not annoyed, but thank you for the thought. :smirk:

I thought it was sarcasm, but today you never know.

Yeah, it was 30 years ago so for many it's ancient history. Yet some have this romantic yearning for a failed totalitarian system as, well, it isn't at all politically incorrect. Yes, it did put the first man in space and defeated the Third Reich, but still, it simply sucked. Even more than western capitalism at it's worst.

That there are as many Russians now as there were in the year 1900 or so simply tells how horrific it all was.

So what's your angle for a better, war-free world? How do you do it? What are your thoughts? — DrOlsnesLea

Strengthen international cooperation and make regional organizations take responsibility of their area. If the US (France, UK) would built up these organizations to act themselves to promote stability and joint security operations, that would be far more better than to engage separately the individual nations on a bilateral relationship.

Think for example Western Africa and ECOWAS: The basically Nigerian lead organization has lead peacekeeping missions. The west could promote the ability of African countries themselves. Military cooperation and joint operations is one way to ease potential tensions. The Congolese First and Second Civil wars were a disaster, when different African countries supported different factions and basically fought the African version of WW1. Such stupid tragedies should be avoided.



Middle East, that is a totally shitshow, should start also cooperation, starting with easing the tensions between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). These countries acted together when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, but now nearly have gone to war with each other (thanks to a reckless young Saudi prince).



The above two are just example, but European integration is a great example of how integration and cooperation bring also peace. Without it, it may have been totally possible to see for example a conflict between some Balkan states if they would have been left to their own devices.

Yugoslav Civil War, the war in Ukraine or the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war show that conflicts can and do happen. What do all have in common? The countries didn't have security arrangements in international organizations (like NATO). Without NATO, likely Greece and Turkey would have had several conflicts already under their belt. Binding countries into security cooperation does really help!

The Nagorna-Karabakh war happened just last year.

?

The USSR had the second-fastest growing economy at the time - If a libertarian ever says ECP to you say dog problem. — Oppyfan

First huge step is to believe USSR statistics. A country where honest statisticians or economists reporting the actual data are silenced by putting them into mental asylums, I wouldn't have high hopes on the accuracy of the statistics.

Second huge step is to think that the totally different economic system and accounting wouldn't matter in getting comparable statistics (I guess this is the ECP argument or something). When prices are administrative decisions and amortization isn't taken into record as in "capitalist" accounting, you have problems. And finally, let's not forget that a very huge segment of that "economic growth" went into armaments, weapons and the maintaining a Superpower armed forces. Compared to the US, the defence spending was a greater percent of the whole economy. Building tanks and nuclear weapons don't make the people more prosperous. When you look at the Soviet economy from that perspective, for example the Leningrad area was one huge military-industrial complex. Military expenditure was basically half of the government expenditure.

As Diana Negroponte points out when Gorbachev took over the system:

The economic structure required that 60% of capital investment support the production of fuel and raw materials with a further 20% dedicated to the military, leaving only 20% to invest in manufacturing industries and the consumer sector. Citizens found employment in one of the 300,000 construction projects, far more than was needed, but reducing that number by two-thirds presented a real danger of mass unemployment. The ruble had only paper value, with Soviet citizens holding overall 400-450 billion rubles, but they had nothing to spend it on; store shelves carried few consumer goods.

(Where that economic growth went into. An abandoned tank repair shop in Ukraine:)