[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by PeterKropotkin

Not really, the ottomans were already declining by 1683. The real problem started 1648 with Cossack rebellion in the Ukraine that brought Russia in and then economic system that relied too heavily on serfs based agriculture— didn’t adapt well to issues in the late 17th and early 18th centuries with environmental pressures. So, it saw a terrible decline internally while its neighbors grew. Fredrick the great and the smelled the stench of death in the air for Poland and it was all over...

My point being, dear Piotrek, that Poles did not help themselves by rescuing one of the three countries that soon thereafter made Poland disappear from the political map of Europe for over a century.

Originally Posted by PeterKropotkin

Actually, Marxist regimes have a good track record until Capitalists intervene.

Would you care to provide some examples?... Because from what I know, the communist ideal seems to thrive exclusively in hunting and gathering societies, but once humans put their hands on private property (thanks to the advent of animal husbandry and agriculture), there's no turning back!

But, I am socialist not a Marxist and anarchy-syndicalist to boot. So, we want a bottom up non hierarchical formation of the economy and government...

Ah, the buzz word of the day: heterarchy. Again, that works quite excellently in small scale hunting-gathering societies, or in unusually egalitarian (and also small scale) agricultural societies. Once we get to state societies, though, there's no turning back: history shows that even when states die, their remnants just get absorbed by new state societies.

The only recent example of heterarchy that I can think of is the Zapatista movement - which seems to have fizzled out on its own because it's no match for the Mexican state. I suppose you could try to argue that Bolivian MAS (with its supporting structures of workers' and peasants' unions) is supposed to have a Zapatista-like bottom up structure, but if you have seen the news recently, it's a complete mess, too.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by PeterKropotkin

The Pentateuch is pretty funny... i love all the unclean rituals. Then the New Testament is pretty good for fortune cookie logic. I went to catholic school... but I am an atheist since 7...

I take your silence on my questions as you admitting that Marxist regimes do not have a good track record at all, and that heterarchies are no match for the power of the state. In other words, that anarchism is a cute utopia that has no chance of happening.

[PeterCrackhead]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

I take your silence on my questions as you admitting that Marxist regimes do not have a good track record at all, and that heterarchies are no match for the power of the state. In other words, that anarchism is a cute utopia that has no chance of happening.

Actually, I deem them boring.

But if we must the Soviet Union went from utter destruction in 1945 to space in 1961. China went from abject poverty in the 1900’s-1970’s to today’s command economy success of today.
Then you have the success of the heterarchy of Mondragon in Spain or the 800+ cooperatives that exist in America...

Command economies can be very successful. And so can cooperative systems. The questions are who are systems working for? Capitalism isn’t failing it is doing what it claims making capital grow at the expense of the general population.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by PeterKropotkin

Actually, I deem them boring.

But if we must

Well, you started it!

the Soviet Union went from utter destruction in 1945 to space in 1961.

And you really think it was the capitalist system's meddling into Soviet affairs that eventually destroyed that system? Not the 1001 internal problems? If you want, I can build up a decent argumentation to support the thesis that the race to the Moon is one of the important factors that destroyed USSR (putting so much of their resources into something as useless as sending a dog to die in space, instead of investing in things that actually bring profit).

China went from abject poverty in the 1900’s-1970’s to today’s command economy success of today.

You can describe the Chinese system as "state's capitalism," or "slavery based," but the point is that this country became wildly successful once it discarded "pure" communism and accepted aspects of capitalism. The date you provide neatly coincides with Nixon's "opening of" China - so we agree that capitalist meddling is what made China great.

Then you have the success of the heterarchy of Mondragon in Spain or the 800+ cooperatives that exist in America...

Please note that both exist within states rather than instead of states - big difference from the anarchist dream. So we can agree that heterarchies work well in small-scale societies but cannot replace complex state societies.

Command economies can be very successful. And so can cooperative systems. The questions are who are systems working for? Capitalism isn’t failing it is doing what it claims making capital grow at the expense of the general population.

What's the alternative? The Gulag Archipelago? At least in capitalism, people cling to the futile dream of a better future. Communism takes away that dream (even though about the same percentage of people still has the possibility to pull themselves by the bootstraps via bribery, extortion, and other lucrative aspects of working for the state apparatus).

Ever heard of a PGR? These show you that cooperatives imposed by someone are doomed to failed. In capitalist societies, cooperatives can survive is because their membership is voluntary, and the members actually care about their co-op.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by PeterKropotkin

Workers of the world Unite.

I take it that you are unemployed and on welfare.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

the Soviet Union went from utter destruction

It was "utterly destroyed" because of Communist misrule. Then it got masses of handouts from capitalist countries ("lend-lease" which was never repaid) and pillaged all of Eastern Europe. Which brings us to:

to space in 1961.

They built ICBMs with looted technology because mass-murder weapons were their top priority. Meanwhile ordinary people went from peasant huts in 1917 to the same huts in 1992. The only consumer good that the USSR produced reliably was vodka.

Meanwhile South Korea went from a more complete total destruction in the 1950's to the Gangam-style decadence of today without looting or handouts. Japan went from ashes to robot-cafes in the same time. Neither country has a drop of oil, by the way.

China went from abject poverty in the 1900’s-1970’s

By 1979 China had been communist for 30 years. "Abject poverty" is an understatement for famines that killed more people than the holocaust.

Your arguments are basically "You know how you hired me as a babysitter and all the children died and the house burned down? Well, the insurance company gave me a new house and I abducted the neighbors kids! That's why all the other babysitters are horrible and I'm the only good one!"

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

You seem to base your worldview on reading a bunch of people's brainfarts and saying "these guys sound pretty smart, let's overthrow everything and put their brainfarts into action."

This is not how science works. Science is more difficult. Economic science - the dismal science - is a lot more boring than reading someone's speculations and marveling at how clever they sound. If you think that economic science is not scientific enough for you, then how about the left start a true economic science, with more scientific rigor?

But it's not about that.

You have a brain stuck in the stone age - the same brain God crafted for Adam - and the modern world makes no sense to a stone age brain.

This is why so many people love sports, riots, sports riots, criminal gangs, gang warfare, cliques, mobs, jocks, cheerleaders, and general stupidity. It's all primitive violence, the scale and patterns are similar to stone age warfare. It comes naturally to people.

In the stone age, every social problem could be solved by whipping up a a mob and launching it at the unpopular person. The stone age left keeps doing this. They don't care that it's ineffective. They only care that it comes naturally to them, and it feels natural.

In the stone age, all economic problems could be solved by whipping up a mob, going after a successful tribe, and stealing their stuff. It comes naturally to people. Leftism comes naturally to people. That's the only reason leftism persists, not because of any successes.

The stone age world you are trying to recreate is one of total bigotry - racism to the point of "you're from another village more than a mile away, so I'll be a hero for murdering you". Not because people were eviler, they just couldn't organize a peace process with their primitive political and economic systems. The same primitive systems you are trying to bring back.

It was not an eco-utopia of wisdom and restraint, stone age people drove to extinction half the species of large animals they came across. Maybe they were wise enough to know what was happening, but they could not stop the slaughter with their primitive political and economic systems. The same primitive systems you are trying to bring back.



In the stone age technology barely ever advanced at all. Stuff like rope took forever to be invented, and forever to spread. Nerds who invented stuff got no respect. You had to be a jock or a cheerleader. They probably knew that they should invent more stuff. They probably knew that they needed to support the nerds who invent stuff. But they couldn't have research and development departments with their primate political and economic systems. The same primitive systems you are trying to bring back.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

the race to the Moon is one of the important factors that destroyed USSR (putting so much of their resources into something as useless as sending a dog to die in space

It was the communists who first noticed that one death is a tragedy, and one million deaths is a statistic. Well, here's that one death:

[handmaiden]

Originally Posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond

It was the communists who first noticed that one death is a tragedy, and one million deaths is a statistic. Well, here's that one death:

Wait. Did something happen to the dog?

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by handmaiden

Wait. Did something happen to the dog?

It died 7 hours after lift off, possibly because of overheating and stress. At least it was a somewhat quick death rather than dying of thirst/starvation (she had no food aboard and there were no plans to bring her back to earth).

It's nothing when you think about Holodomor (don't click if you just ate), but some people react with more empathy when they hear about one dog's suffering, than when they hear about millions of peoples' suffering.

[PeterCrackhead]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

It died 7 hours after lift off, possibly because of overheating and stress. At least it was a somewhat quick death rather than dying of thirst/starvation (she had no food aboard and there were no plans to bring her back to earth).

It's nothing when you think about Holodomor (don't click if you just ate), but some people react with more empathy when they hear about one dog's suffering, than when they hear about millions of peoples' suffering.

Or this one under the capitalists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

Don’t forget the Congo under Belgium ....

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by PeterKropotkin

Or this one under the capitalists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

Are you saying that potato bugs were sent by the capitalists to destroy the Irish?

Because in case of Holodomor, the government came and took the crops, not leaving enough to eat nor to sow. It was a 100% preventable, man-made, well planned and flawlessly executed operation which purpose was to break the Ukrainian farmers.

[PeterCrackhead]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Are you saying that potato bugs were sent by the capitalists to destroy the Irish?

Because in case of Holodomor, the government came and took the crops, not leaving enough to eat nor to sow. It was a 100% preventable, man-made, well planned and flawlessly executed operation which purpose was to break the Ukrainian farmers.

No, I am saying the response to the potato famine was their fault. They did the same things the Russians did. And Belgium’s killed 10-12 million Congolese to improve exports...

[handmaiden]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

It died 7 hours after lift off, possibly because of overheating and stress. At least it was a somewhat quick death rather than dying of thirst/starvation (she had no food aboard and there were no plans to bring her back to earth).

It's nothing when you think about Holodomor (don't click if you just ate), but some people react with more empathy when they hear about one dog's suffering, than when they hear about millions of peoples' suffering.

I wouldn't dare. I have to go into my prayer closet and ask Jesus to comfort me about the dog.

[PeterCrackhead]

Originally Posted by handmaiden

I wouldn't dare. I have to go into my prayer closet and ask Jesus to comfort me about the dog.

You might need a stress relieving spanking from your HOH...

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by PeterKropotkin

Or this one under the capitalists:

The difference is that today nobody is demanding a bloody revolution to turn our nation into a command economy controlled by King Leopold II. Oh wait, that's exactly what the left is doing, except with themselves in the place of King Leopold II.

BTW the moment Belgium heard about what Leopold's command economy was doing, they annexed the Congo and turned it into a normal country. As for communist atrocities from 1917 onward, the left has still not been able to face up to it, after more than a century. Still either red holocaust deniers, or "whataboutist" subject changers like yourself.

As for the British response to the Irish famine, that was Malthusian thinking at work. The only people promoting Malthusian thinking these days are on the far left.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Well, Peter Krackpot has showed up but not replied. I guess the debate is over.

Every single time he gets a job as a babysitter, the children die. When we point this out, all he can say is that more than a century ago some babysitters also failed, among the many, many other babysitters that did just fine.

Oh, but we should still hire him. The kids always die when he babysits all because of a conspiracy from the rival babysitters. Yes, capitalists can't do anything right, but we're super-geniuses at meddling, even to the point of somehow sending CIA agents back to mess up the Anabaptists in the 1500's.

And the communists, despite being in constant witch-hunt mode, constantly catching and killing spies by the thousands, are still hopelessly weak against foreign meddling. Something even the crudest and most backward non-communist governments manage to handle.

Back to the metaphor, as a babysitter, your job is to keep the kids alive, even if invisible goblins are trying to poison them. Every other babysitter manages to stop the invisible goblins. Maybe we should keep hiring them.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by PeterKrackpot

No, I am saying the response to the potato famine was their fault. They did the same things the Russians did.

Really? They came and confiscated every seed the Irish had? Also, so the historical sources lie when they said the British began to import cornmeal from America to relieve the hunger? (The fact that this did not help as corn is an incredibly non-nutritious plant is beyond the point - they had no means of knowing that, then).

You certainly can call the British response to the famine "slow," "ineffective," even "uncompassionate" - but at least there was some response, rather than heartless continuation of the original plan of decreasing the number of Ukrainian farmers via man-made hunger that was implemented by Stalin.

[PeterCrackhead]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Really? They came and confiscated every seed the Irish had? Also, so the historical sources lie when they said the British began to import cornmeal from America to relieve the hunger? (The fact that this did not help as corn is an incredibly non-nutritious plant is beyond the point - they had no means of knowing that, then).

You certainly can call the British response to the famine "slow," "ineffective," even "uncompassionate" - but at least there was some response, rather than heartless continuation of the original plan of decreasing the number of Ukrainian farmers via man-made hunger that was implemented by Stalin.

I wonder why it was so ineffective?

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by PeterKrackpot

I wonder why it was so ineffective?

Have you ever seen bureaucrats doing anything effectively? By the way, overgrown bureaucracy is another reason why Soviet Union failed - aside from the race to the Moon and multiple genocides.