Pravda: American capitalism gone with a whimper

[hokie4redskins]

"Any suggestion the people who wrote the rules and are asked to enforce them know them less than you will lead to an immediate temporary ban." :laugh:

I suppose editing is out of the question since you quoted me. :laugh:

Just wondering why is all. No biggie.

[Mad Mike]

Pravda? Really? :hysterical:

Soviet Union witnessed invasion of US-made UFOs in 1980s

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/31-03-2007/88811-UFO-0

The first “flying saucers” could not cover long distances, and Americans had to use submarines to deliver those saucers to the Soviet shores. The Pentagon was testing the third generation of flying saucers when the Soviet Union just started development of similar mechanisms. A correspondent of PRAVDA.Ru is going to break the secrecy requirement and publish a story told by a former engineer of an enterprise where UFO components were manufactured.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the USSR witnessed an invasion of unidentified flying objects. Some of the “visits” were particularly curious. In December 1989, policemen in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk came to a scene of actio and witnessed “some dark apparatuses with colored lights” were experimenting on a power line going to a local aluminum plant. Other acquaintances of the man who told the story witnessed objects flying over the Yenisei River and the city of Krasnoyarsk. The man himself saw an UFO earlier, April 26, 1989 in the Ural Region. Where did the strange machines that were obviously made by humans come from?

Another human civilization may live inside Earth's hollows

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/24-07-2007/95191-civilization-0

Since ancient times the exploration of the North was of immense interest to humans. It was an attraction for adventurers and researchers seeking mysterious land and unexplored islands there.

Legends say that an entry to the underground realms was located somewhere in the North, and legendary ancient tribes living on the planet centuries ago used the entries to have a good shelter under the Earth's surface. Mystics believe that the entry to the legendary Hyperborea, Shambala and Plutonia is carefully concealed from outsiders somewhere close to the North Pole. Recently, a reliable edition reported that UFOs coming to this planet start not from space but burst out from huge holes under the surface in the North Pole.

Seriously. Pravda is a joke at best and an anti-american propaganda machine at worst.

Here are some of the other headlines you will find there...

USA violates human rights humiliating air passengers

USA shamefully betrays its only staunch ally in Middle East

Yeah, Let's take them seriously. :doh:

[JMS]

I read the entire thing. Hard as it was, I did it. This article should be titled, "How many truisms can you fit into four paragraphs"? Answer is 12.

But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists. ?

Honestly, does anybody believe Wall Streed poured money into the Communists during the cold war? Where are they coming up with this tripe?

Dumbing down of America is true enough. But I would submit that how we got Bush in 2001, not Obama in 2009. 90% of the US citizens believed Iraq was behind 911 at one point. 70% believed it on the eve of the American Invasion of Iraq... That's what the dumbing down of America gave us. Yes men for citizens rather than skeptics.

Lastly I would submit, as bad as the US economy is, and it is bad. Russia's economy is significantly worse. Our stock market lost 40% of it's value. Russia's stock market lost 90% of it's value. Foreign investment flooded into the US resulting in a strengthening of the dollar, it flooded out of Russia.

Fact is we are leading the world out of this depression, and our biggest liability currently is the rest of the world is watching us and not doing enough to help. It's likely their own slumping economies will hurt our recovery; rather than our recovery lifting China, Japan, Europe, and Russia out of the morras.

[hokie4redskins]

:blahblah:

Or you could refute the article itself.

You do know it's an editorial, right? You do know it's an opinion piece, right?

:ciao:

[The 12th Commandment]

...Europeans have dealt with faux socialism or outright communism before, so they have a better idea of what's in store than most of us do.

I never thought I'd see you using the Europeans to bolster your argument. Any port in a storm, huh?

[Jeeb]

Or you could refute the article itself.

You do know it's an editorial, right? You do know it's an opinion piece, right?

:ciao:

and a terrible one at that. I might as well write for another random pathetic website on why i think puppies are cute, it might have about as much substance as this article and at least some people might agree with me.

[Madison Redskin]

Or you could refute the article itself.

You do know it's an editorial, right? You do know it's an opinion piece, right?

:ciao:

How exactly does one refute an opinion?

[Larry]

Or you could refute the article itself.

It can't be refuted.

In order to be refuted, it has to claim to contain an actual fact. This thing neither states a thesis, nor attempts to support one in any way.

[GibbsFactor]

Capitalism is awesome for the 5% that truly succeed at it. What we need to figure out is how to motivate that 40% or so that suck.

[hokie4redskins]

It can't be refuted.

In order to be refuted, it has to claim to contain an actual fact. This thing neither states a thesis, nor attempts to support one in any way.

Dude, you'd tout blogs as gospel if it trashed Bush......or any NYT editorial from 2001-2008 for that matter.

:laugh:

And since when can you not refute an opinion?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute

Leftist deflection in this thread is hilarious. Again, I called this in the first post.

[The Evil Genius]

Must be nice to hide behind the concept of "leftist deflection", despite getting 20 or so responses showing exactly why and how the original opinion piece is incorrect and/or misguided.

You go 4skin, you go! :thumbsup:

[hokie4redskins]

Must be nice to hide behind the concept of "leftist deflection", despite getting 20 or so responses showing exactly why and how the original opinion piece is incorrect and/or misguided.

You go 4skin, you go! :thumbsup:

:yawnee:

Dude, nobody has contributed less to this thread than you.

[The Evil Genius]

:yawnee:

Dude, nobody has contributed less to this thread than you.

And that is suppose to slay me how? Ooooh...score 1 for 4skin. Yay!

[JMS]

:yawnee:

Dude, nobody has contributed less to this thread than you.

That's why he's an EVIL Genius.

[Baculus]

Wow, I can't believe I got NNT'd for this.

You did? Sorry, man.

Oh, BTW, I made an earlier error. The Communist Manifesto was released in 1847, NOT 1848. I had 1848 stuck in my head because it is such a big year for attempted revolutions in Europe.

We both agree the state disappearing is a bunch of rubbish, right? I'm not sure where you're going with this one.

Well, earlier, in reply to one of my posts, you said, "Stateless schmateless. No way communist ideals could be reached without a state authority to distribute every and all things evenly. An entity with that kind of power and control would never just fade into the background." My objective was to demonstrate that Marx, in essence, believed that the state was a transitory stage in communism, until the objectives had been secured.

I was originally discussing the misrepresentations that people have when it comes to socialism and Marxism.

Yes, I'm well-read.

Anarchists and Marxists are pro-dissolution of the state until, of course, they're the ones in power. You're forgetting the state of nature aspect. To expect oligarchs (or anybody for that matter) to suddenly abandon their grip on power once they've reached their stateless utopia is lunacy. Ironically enough, Marxism doesn't work without serious state power and interference. Claims of "statelessness" make me laugh.

That is why Marxists feel that revolution is needed, because oligarchs do not willingly give up power. Anarchists, though, propose to destroy the state immediately and entirely. There is no transitory phase and they would never achieve power to gain or lose it in the first place, because any form of statism is the means for one man to own another. (Of course, anarchists unto themselves have disagreements on this subject...)

That was the entire point of my earlier statements -- that Marx struggled with the systematic fashion that the state would disappear. Marx did recognize that a state was needed, but it was supposed to be one advancing and representing the emancipation and interests of the worker class (proletariat) and just long enough to reorganize society. But would the state and the bureaucratic "caretaker" class actually, willingly, give up such power? What is to keep the managerial class, as someone mentioned earlier, from becoming a new de facto class? It's like in Orwell's 1984, where the IngSoc party, once they achieved power, formed a completely authoritarian state.

Will the state "organically" disappear?

Marx and Engels disagreed with anarchists, because both men felt that to dismantle the state without any preconditions or transitory stage was reckless. Without any sort of organizational efforts, destroying the state in one fell swoop would result in the exact sort of chaos, followed by tyranny, which led to the rise of state in the first place. And that, in the end, monarchists would return to power after the proletariat lacked the means to preserve the revolution.

Sounds contradictory, but Marx and Engels had their own logic.

This is what Engels mentioned in a letter to a friend:

"The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organisation of the state. But after its victory the sole organisation which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfil its new functions. But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and in a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris Commune."

Engels, though, also believed that a state was needed for the basic functions of a modern society: running the trains, building dams, and all the efforts needed to organize the industry of a nation. So, to be honest, I don't think he was ever convinced that a state could totally disappear, because a modern nation, in his view, would have trouble functioning without some means to organize its efforts on a national scale.

Of course, the disagreement between Marxists and anarchists run a bit deeper, too. The nature of authority and authoritarianism was a keen element of this dispute, and the whether or not the state can be dissolved by a top-down or a bottom-up revolution.

Again, I think we're in agreement, but you're deflecting from the point I'm trying to get you to address......which is the inherent and increasing power of the state as it veers toward socialism.

But whatever.

We are in agreement, but I am not sure if we agree to how all socialists view the state, or the nature of the state in relation to socialism.

Many anti-authoritarians, such as anarchists, are socialists with little interest in the state. (All anarchists aren't socialists, but most have the same core egalitarian beliefs.) They just have different opinions to how social organization would take place, such as mutualistic cooperative spheres of influence and labor which would function on the local level without requiring a state to dictate, or interfere, in such efforts.

The state does not have to veer to socialism, because the nature of the state could have many forms, whether it is on the national or local level.

State socialism is not the same as a worker's socialism where the workers democratically control their labor (which is more of a unionist/syndicalist socialism) and authoritarianism or corporatism are not one and the same as socialism, either. Social Democracy is a form of statism, as much as the federal system of the United States is a form of statism as well.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It can't be refuted.

In order to be refuted, it has to claim to contain an actual fact. This thing neither states a thesis, nor attempts to support one in any way.

Reminds me of that "The Office" episode...

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information."

[Bang]

This thread is hilarious, I must say.

and boo-hiss on the NNT. We've had goofier things.

~Bang

[hokie4redskins]

Will the state "organically" disappear?

This is what Engels mentioned in a letter to a friend:

"The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organisation of the state. But after its victory the sole organisation which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfil its new functions. But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and in a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris Commune."

Wow, substance. Who knew?

:whoknows:

But that objective is never secured because the state power is not only never released, it is needed to secure classless ends. Marxism, besides being proven a failure, was ironic on many levels. IMO they didn't think it through.

Kind of reminds me of the Reagan quote on reading Marx versus understanding Marx.

Yeah, but Marxist "revolution" is a pipe dream. They revolt against the oligarchy and suddenly find themselves in power. And they wield it like a kid who just found his dad's gun. Just look at the Bolsheviks.

Okay, I'll give Marx credit saying that dismantling the state was reckless, but I will still blast them for not recognizing that it's impossible. Big difference. They had such a misconstrued vision of human nature. But I credit you for recognizing the contradictory elements of their thinking (even though you try to justify it with Engels' quote which basically says they were of classical liberal thought......which is laughable.)

Laissez-faire Marxism FTW!!

[Baculus]

Wow, substance. Who knew?

:whoknows:

But that objective is never secured because the state power is not only never released, it is needed to secure classless ends. Marxism, besides being proven a failure, was ironic on many levels. IMO they didn't think it through.

Kind of reminds me of the Reagan quote on reading Marx versus understanding Marx.

Yeah, but Marxist "revolution" is a pipe dream. They revolt against the oligarchy and suddenly find themselves in power. And they wield it like a kid who just found his dad's gun. Just look at the Bolsheviks.

Okay, I'll give Marx credit saying that dismantling the state was reckless, but I will still blast them for not recognizing that it's impossible. Big difference. They had such a misconstrued vision of human nature. But I credit you for recognizing the contradictory elements of their thinking (even though you try to justify it with Engels' quote which basically says they were of classical liberal thought......which is laughable.)

Laissez-faire Marxism FTW!!

Just so you know, I like talking about this sort of subject, so don't think I am trying to preach. I just like to prattle on about things at times. :-)

I actually think Marx was sometimes correct in his historical analysis. In that, he believed that Mankind's development was based upon the history of productive forces and the resulting civil and social structures were related to commerce, modes of production, and material relations. And that, for much of Man's history, humans had little choice in their modes of production, because these economic systems were a product of each proceeding generation, unless a revolutionary development takes place.

Or, in Marx's words, "The economic forms in which man produces, consumes and exchanges are transitory and historical."

For example, a hunter and gatherer society is going to have a more primitive form of organized society compared to a city state, with a system of organized farming, trade, monetary exchange, etc.

I am just not sure if ALL human activity can be reduced to economic modes of production.

The Bolshevik Revolution is an example of what Marx and Engels actually feared, and for good reason. After the 1917 revolution, we saw a great deal of infighting and, in essence, a destruction of the original intent of the revolution. The irony of the name, "Soviet Union," is that the Soviets, which were democratic worker's councils, were totally subverted into tools of the state by the resulting Communist party.

The American Revolution was successful because there was an organized governmental structure presented to avoid the sort of chaos which was evident in the French and Russian revolutions.

I think if you read Marx and Engels in later years, you will see some changes in their philosophies which probably reflect an acknowledgment in some of the realities that you mentioned. I think that is natural, since both men understood that abstract ideas are often based upon historical forces.

Some folks have suggested that anarcho-capitalism (a form of "right-libertarianism") is just a sort of Marxism "of the right," with a sort of counter economic fetishism.

Laissez-faire Marxism is an interesting thought -- there are some left-libertarians who consider themselves to be just that! Some Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists have also taken elements of Marx and combined it with the Free Market system.