@Metal-Brain
I have nothing against RUSSIANS. I have a LOT against PUTIN. There is a big difference.
I worked with Russians quite a bit, I have worked in several multi year jobs around the globe and I found nothing to dislike about Russians. Putin wants his old USSR back and THAT is a fact JACK. If and when he gets through killing and raping enough Ukrainians he will just want to chop on Moldavan land next or some other border country. AND YOU KNOW IT so don't EVEN try to claim otherwise.
@metal-brain saidCan I blame you for the actions of your grandparents?
Aren't they completely justified for resenting the west?
Isn't sonhouse and others demonizing Russia unjustly?
Obviously Russia has justification in this.
And as I’ve pointed out to you multiple times: they should not have taken the bait.
@shavixmir saidAnd as I’ve pointed out to you multiple times Russia's existence is at stake. It wasn't really much of a choice and you know it.
Can I blame you for the actions of your grandparents?
Obviously Russia has justification in this.
And as I’ve pointed out to you multiple times: they should not have taken the bait.
NATO should not have expanded to Russia's doorstep. That is the true cause of the war. If the situation was in reverse my government would have done the same thing and you know that too. Kennedy should not have tried to invade Cuba either, but they didn't like a country that was chummy to the USSR being that close just like Russia doesn't like a NATO membership seeking country at their border.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidWhoa at least half of them was Russia attacking other people.
Napoleon, Crimea, WW1 & 2, the cold war, Afghanistan, end of the cold war, capitalist pressure resulting in the oligarchs, NATO expansion.
There are many reasons for Russia to dislike and not trust the West.
What’s your discussion?
Nobody has any real reason to like or trust anyone else including their ‘allies’. Not liking or trusting people because they are not you is not a good thing.
WWII Was clearly traumatic for the Russian people and for good reason and that alone is enough to justify a fear and deep mistrust of everyone but they need to move on. One obvious fact that has come out of the Ukraine conflict is that west will not attack Russian soil unless Russia attacks the west first.
the rest is just what happens if you decide your a continental and or World power.
BTW the rest of Europe has every reason to fear and mistrust Russia.
@kevcvs57 saidHalf of them was Russia attacking someone else?
Whoa at least half of them was Russia attacking other people.
Nobody has any real reason to like or trust anyone else including their ‘allies’. Not liking or trusting people because they are not you is not a good thing.
WWII Was clearly traumatic for the Russian people and for good reason and that alone is enough to justify a fear and deep mistrust of everyone but they nee ...[text shortened]... ontinental and or World power.
BTW the rest of Europe has every reason to fear and mistrust Russia.
Well, please tell us which!
1 edit
@shavixmir saidThe Crimea Russia attacked the Ottoman Empire
Half of them was Russia attacking someone else?
Well, please tell us which!
WW1 Russia declared war in support of Serbia
They invaded Afghanistan to prop up an unpopular communist regime
BTW I’ve mentioned the trauma of WWII on the Russian people
But Russia invaded Poland before Germany invaded Russia and it was not the west per se it was the Germans with most of the west allied with Russia.
After the war Russia occupied most of Central and Eastern Europe under the gossamer thin mask of the Soviet Union, for 50 long years. These are the very nations that Putin wants back in his sphere of influence and you seem to think they and the west should comply.
So this image of Russia being the wests whipping boy or eternal victim just doesn’t sync with reality.
@kevcvs57 saidWW1 saw Germany really have a horrible go at the Russians who were poorly equipped. And Germany declared war on Russia.
The Crimea Russia attacked the Ottoman Empire
WW1 Russia declared war in support of Serbia
They invaded Afghanistan to prop up an unpopular communist regime
BTW I’ve mentioned the trauma of WWII on the Russian people
But Russia invaded Poland before Germany invaded Russia and it was not the west per se it was the Germans with most of the west allied with Russia.
After ...[text shortened]... this image of Russia being the wests whipping boy or eternal victim just doesn’t sync with reality.
Russia did not invade Afghanistan. They were invited in by the legitimate government. And the West (basically the US) funded the Islamic opposition forces to extreme levels, which basically forced Russia te retreat.
Which is the lesson they seem to have forgotten in Ukraine, by the way.
WW2 did see Russia invade Poland and attempt to invade Finland.
After than German aggression did the rest. How many Russians were killed in that war? 24 million or so...
So, if Russia should trust the West? Barbarossa put the nail in that coffin during WW2.
Eastern Europe did fall under the Soviet Union for 50 years. Not a good thing. I agree.
However, Western Europe feel economically under the US. And we're still suffering from that.
@metal-brain saidI agree that people should read what Marx actually wrote before criticizing Marxism. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Which means that what you get bears no relationship to how hard or how well you work. “The state will wither away,” Clever in theory, but show me one example of a Marxist state which actually withered away, to be replaced by “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Yup, except that in the real world, it’s always just dictators who put intellectuals and dissidents in gulags. Stupidly naive in theory, economically unworkable and politically oppressive in practice.
People should read Marx so they know what it is really about, not what people have been conditioned to think about it. If people knew what it is they would like it.
@moonbus saidYes agreed Marxism falls at the same hurdle as Christianity, namely, Human Nature. Any system that invests power in itself will often ( arguably always ) end up as an oppressive regime that falls into the wrong hands.
I agree that people should read what Marx actually wrote before criticizing Marxism. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Which means that what you get bears no relationship to how hard or how well you work. “The state will wither away,” Clever in theory, but show me one example of a Marxist state which actually withered away, to be replaced by ...[text shortened]... in gulags. Stupidly naive in theory, economically unworkable and politically oppressive in practice.
The bigger mystery will be if MB is claiming that Russia is or ever was a Marxist state.
It went almost directly from brutal absolutist monarchy to a Leninist, Stalinist and Putinist system
@shavixmir saidI’m not going to nitpick about what constitutes a legitimate regime or whether it’s legitimate to pour forces into another country to suppress a rebellion but I’m glad they got kicked out of Afghan in much the same way that I’m glad NATO / we got kicked out of Afghan because neither had any business being there.
WW1 saw Germany really have a horrible go at the Russians who were poorly equipped. And Germany declared war on Russia.
Russia did not invade Afghanistan. They were invited in by the legitimate government. And the West (basically the US) funded the Islamic opposition forces to extreme levels, which basically forced Russia te retreat.
Which is the lesson they seem to h ...[text shortened]... gree.
However, Western Europe feel economically under the US. And we're still suffering from that.
Yeah they did lose more people than anyone else by a large margin and that’s where the trauma comes from. I won’t even make an issue of how much of these losses where due to the psychotic decision making process of the Stalinist regime because the ultimate fault lies with the even more psychotic Hitler regime.
As for Western Europe falling under the sphere of the US, you could argue it was partly cultural imperialism and partly out of necessity due to the threat of the aforementioned Warsaw Pact but that’s a bit of a chicken and egg argument.
@kevcvs57 saidBrutality is not incidental to Marxism; it’s inherent, because no one willingly works hard for little return. So the state has to force people to work and has to enforce strict wages and price controls to keep the planned economy running. It inevitably falls apart as soon as the state terror mechanism relents, viz the precipitous collapse of E. Germany and the USSR.
Yes agreed Marxism falls at the same hurdle as Christianity, namely, Human Nature. Any system that invests power in itself will often ( arguably always ) end up as an oppressive regime that falls into the wrong hands.
The bigger mystery will be if MB is claiming that Russia is or ever was a Marxist state.
It went almost directly from brutal absolutist monarchy to a Leninist, Stalinist and Putinist system
@moonbus saidWhat makes you think it’s little return?
Brutality is not incidental to Marxism; it’s inherent, because no one willingly works hard for little return. So the state has to force people to work and has to enforce strict wages and price controls to keep the planned economy running. It inevitably falls apart as soon as the state terror mechanism relents, viz the precipitous collapse of E. Germany and the USSR.
It’s a collective return, but it’s not little.
@moonbus saidPeople willingly work hard for little or no financial return all the time; they are called "volunteers".
Brutality is not incidental to Marxism; it’s inherent, because no one willingly works hard for little return. So the state has to force people to work and has to enforce strict wages and price controls to keep the planned economy running. It inevitably falls apart as soon as the state terror mechanism relents, viz the precipitous collapse of E. Germany and the USSR.
And capitalism forces you to work as much as any State "socialist" scheme does though it does so by threat of death by starvation rather than State force (usually). And that work in the vast majority of cases profits those in a position of power or it wouldn't exist.
@no1marauder saidIt’s easier put so:
People willingly work hard for little or no financial return all the time; they are called "volunteers".
And capitalism forces you to work as much as any State "socialist" scheme does though it does so by threat of death by starvation rather than State force (usually). And that work in the vast majority of cases profits those in a position of power or it wouldn't exist.
Did your dad pay your mum to have sex with him? No? Then there are other motivations besides wealth and getting rich.
@moonbus saidYeah that’s because human beings are scumbags I did mention that. Human nature is the problem I also think it depends on the environment that the Marxist revolution takes place, if it is replacing a brutal capitalist it monarchist regime there is a much greater danger of ending up with Leninism or Stalinism rather than Marxism.
Brutality is not incidental to Marxism; it’s inherent, because no one willingly works hard for little return. So the state has to force people to work and has to enforce strict wages and price controls to keep the planned economy running. It inevitably falls apart as soon as the state terror mechanism relents, viz the precipitous collapse of E. Germany and the USSR.
Theocracies are just as likely to transform into brutal regimes for the exact same reason.
Anyone reading Marx will be aware that he never based his revolutionary theory in the mainly agrarian societies of early 20th century Russia and China.
The proletariat he based his theory on were the newly industrialised / urbanised proletariat of 19th UK.