The insight here is that why people from the west look at china from the outside and think I couldn't live there and why people from the east is more content in china than the citizens in the US in US?
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
China is going through a massive economic boom, so it's natural that people there might be a bit more content and happy after years of toiling away for a pittance.
True, I'm just pointing out that Norway (or something close to it), for a lot of liberals (that often get labeled as Marxists these days, because that's the slur-du-jour used for leftists) represents the ideal. What countries should be trying model themselves after. We're a small country with massive oil reserves, so unless you've got something exceptionally valuable to drive growth, getting there will be hard. So yeah, we're not the ideal yardstick, if only because we've had a good bit of luck along the way.
I'm yet to see Hitler and Stalin in a karaoke off tbf. As a history student, I always preferred Stalin, but that was more my anti-US politics stance than reason I think.
I think the point of referring it to students is because of the absolute trash that many of them "learn" whilst in university.
I finished uni in 2007 and would have been pretty hard left leaning up until a couple of years ago and I think a lot of that has to do with what you are told in university, as a social sciences student (politics).
But the changing of my circumstances, and getting older I suppose, have made me sway more to the right. I'd consider myself a Liberal as opposed to some kind of socialist these days.
Anyways, it's getting late and I need all my strength to keep pressing the F5 key in the Sanchez thread tomorrow. Unless Santa comes during the night
I finished uni in 2007 and would have been pretty hard left leaning up until a couple of years ago and I think a lot of that has to do with what you are told in university, as a social sciences student (politics).
But the changing of my circumstances, and getting older I suppose, have made me sway more to the right. I'd consider myself a Liberal as opposed to some kind of socialist these days.
Anyways, it's getting late and I need all my strength to keep pressing the F5 key in the Sanchez thread tomorrow. Unless Santa comes during the night
As I said: I haven't studied this subject, and since you have obviously done research to underpin your points, I can't answer your claims in similar detail.
What I can do is state that I'm suspicious some serious adjustments have been made to history here, in order to create a streamlined narrative of Stalinist pragmatism & efficiency.
For example, the version of the turnaround in 1942 I came to know is similar to the version @MTF has given: that crucial figures among the military leaders were survivors of the purges themselves. And that the turnaround went along with replacing the outdated military strategy that saw a renaissance after the purges, and reinstalling the innovative concepts that vanished with the purged military elites of the 1930s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation
The impact of the purges
(...) By 1937, the Soviet Union had the largest mechanized army in the world and a sophisticated operational system to operate it.
However, the death of Triandafillov in an airplane crash and the 'Great Purges' of 1937 to 1939 removed many of the leading officers of the Red Army, including Svechin, Varfolomeev and Tukhachevsky.[32] The purge of the Soviet military liquidated the generation of officers who had given the Red Army the deep battle strategy, operations and tactics and who also had rebuilt the Soviet armed forces. Along with these personalities, their ideas were also dispensed with.[33] Some 35,000 personnel, about 50 percent of the officer corps, three out of five marshals; 13 out of 15 army group commanders; 57 out of 85 corps commanders; 110 out of 195 division commanders; 220 out of 406 brigade commanders were executed, imprisoned or "discharged". Stalin thus destroyed the cream of the personnel with operational and tactical competence in the Red Army.[34] Other sources state that 60 out of 67 corps commanders, 221 out of 397 brigade commanders, 79 percent of regimental commanders, 88 percent of regimental chiefs of staff, and 87 percent of all battalion commanders were excised from the army by various means.[35]
Soviet sources admitted in 1988:
In 1937–1938 ... all commanders of the armed forces, members of the military councils, and chiefs of the political departments of the military districts, the majority of the chiefs of the central administrations of the People's Commissariat of Defense, all corps commanders, almost all division and brigade commanders, about one-third of the regimental commissars, many teachers of higher or middle military and military-political schools were judged and destroyed.[36]
The deep operation concept was thrown out of Soviet military strategy as it was associated with the denounced figures that created it.
Deep operations during World War II
The abandonment of deep operations had a huge impact on Soviet military capability. Fully engaging in the Second World War (after Winter War) the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviets struggled to relearn it. The surprise German invasion (Operation Barbarossa) subjected the Red Army to six months of disasters. The Red Army was shattered during the first two months. Thereafter it faced the task of surviving, then reviving and maturing into an instrument that could compete with the Wehrmacht and achieve victory.
Soviet military analysts and historians divide the war into three periods. The Red Army was primarily on the strategic defensive during the first period of war (22 June 1941 – 19 November 1942). By late 1942 the Soviets had recovered sufficiently to put their concept into practice. The second period of war (19 November 1942 – 31 December 1943), which commenced with the Soviet strategic counteroffensive at Stalingrad, was a transitional period marked by alternating attempts by both sides to secure strategic advantage. After that deep battle was used to devastating effect, allowing the Red Army to destroy hundreds of Axis divisions. After the Battle of Kursk the Soviets had firmly secured the strategic initiative and advanced beyond the Dnepr River. The Red Army maintained the strategic initiative during the third and final period of war (1944–1945) and ultimately played a central role in the Allied victory in Europe.[37]
The impact of the purges
(...) By 1937, the Soviet Union had the largest mechanized army in the world and a sophisticated operational system to operate it.
However, the death of Triandafillov in an airplane crash and the 'Great Purges' of 1937 to 1939 removed many of the leading officers of the Red Army, including Svechin, Varfolomeev and Tukhachevsky.[32] The purge of the Soviet military liquidated the generation of officers who had given the Red Army the deep battle strategy, operations and tactics and who also had rebuilt the Soviet armed forces. Along with these personalities, their ideas were also dispensed with.[33] Some 35,000 personnel, about 50 percent of the officer corps, three out of five marshals; 13 out of 15 army group commanders; 57 out of 85 corps commanders; 110 out of 195 division commanders; 220 out of 406 brigade commanders were executed, imprisoned or "discharged". Stalin thus destroyed the cream of the personnel with operational and tactical competence in the Red Army.[34] Other sources state that 60 out of 67 corps commanders, 221 out of 397 brigade commanders, 79 percent of regimental commanders, 88 percent of regimental chiefs of staff, and 87 percent of all battalion commanders were excised from the army by various means.[35]
Soviet sources admitted in 1988:
In 1937–1938 ... all commanders of the armed forces, members of the military councils, and chiefs of the political departments of the military districts, the majority of the chiefs of the central administrations of the People's Commissariat of Defense, all corps commanders, almost all division and brigade commanders, about one-third of the regimental commissars, many teachers of higher or middle military and military-political schools were judged and destroyed.[36]
The deep operation concept was thrown out of Soviet military strategy as it was associated with the denounced figures that created it.
Deep operations during World War II
The abandonment of deep operations had a huge impact on Soviet military capability. Fully engaging in the Second World War (after Winter War) the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviets struggled to relearn it. The surprise German invasion (Operation Barbarossa) subjected the Red Army to six months of disasters. The Red Army was shattered during the first two months. Thereafter it faced the task of surviving, then reviving and maturing into an instrument that could compete with the Wehrmacht and achieve victory.
Soviet military analysts and historians divide the war into three periods. The Red Army was primarily on the strategic defensive during the first period of war (22 June 1941 – 19 November 1942). By late 1942 the Soviets had recovered sufficiently to put their concept into practice. The second period of war (19 November 1942 – 31 December 1943), which commenced with the Soviet strategic counteroffensive at Stalingrad, was a transitional period marked by alternating attempts by both sides to secure strategic advantage. After that deep battle was used to devastating effect, allowing the Red Army to destroy hundreds of Axis divisions. After the Battle of Kursk the Soviets had firmly secured the strategic initiative and advanced beyond the Dnepr River. The Red Army maintained the strategic initiative during the third and final period of war (1944–1945) and ultimately played a central role in the Allied victory in Europe.[37]
But I now leave this particular debate to those who know more and restrict myself to reading along.
--------------
I also see an underlying idea in your post that you seem to value in some way. It is the idea of optimizing a society by weeding out the "deficient" elements and organising the "human material" for maximum efficiency. I guess I don't have to tell you that this is a basic assumption and self-justification of authoritarian/fascist ideologies. (Not that this mindset can only be found in those particular ideologies, of course.)
But I'm very sure this is a lie, which is part of why I don't trust your version of Stalinism's history.
The fallacy here is the implication that Stalinism was the best (or even a good) way to build up the necessary military strength to repulse and defeat the Wehrmacht. It's a seemingly perfect argument, because it's unfalsifiable - history happened that way and the USSR won. But it's also impossible to prove that a less mass-murderous course of the USSR wouldn't have been as efficient (or more efficient) in opposing Germany's attack. If the parts in that quoted wiki article are historically accurate, this seems likely.
Last edited:
Read the fascinating Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, chief...you'll learn to truly despise the man.
Yeah I'm very much like yourself as for the most part I sound like a commie but I don't have the confidence to call myself anything like a Marxist. At the moment I'm very much constantly re watching David Harvey videos and trying to read a different types of marxism. So far I've found out that this Lenin chap was very angry.
With regards to students and free speech debate(The thing that really angers people like Peterson) is that you would have thought the conservatives would be more on the side of the students. These students(Along with the rest of us)are everyday told that when you buy something it is then your to do with as you wish, these student have by ranking up debt essentially brought their education. So the idea of no platforming doesn't seem so completely outlandish, it's their product and they want to do with as it as they wish. It's a debate on consumerism.
God capitalism is very depressing.
Karl is very much playing the long game on this one.
How you do come to the conclusion.
Ha, what an amateur. Having read a paragraph of each, I now confidently can call myself a devout Marxist-Meidnerist-Ackermanist.
Well...that's debatable to put it mildly. Undoubtedly Stalin did rid himself of both brilliant minds and deadwood during the Moscow trials, but saying it was part of some grand strategy to get up the best military minds is a stretch. Imo after Lenin died and he had gotten rid of Trotskji he really just wanted to strengthen his iron grip by removing any conceivable treat to his rule. Regarding generals stuck in the 19th century, the whole Russian army was stuck in the the 19th century by the outbreak of WW1, hopelessly outdated and poorly supplied.
It was quite clear that there was mutual distrust between Stalin and Hitler before Barbarossa, but considering how much ground the Germans took the first couple of months and how much havoc their wrought on the Russian forces (pretty much their whole air force was captured/destroyed) it's clear that Stalin was not prepared for an attack. In other words Barbarossa was a massive strategic feck up for Stalin and his generals and had it not been for a very wet summer and brutal winter in 1942 that slowed down the German advance, it might have gone a lot worse.
I agree that Hitler would have decimated the soviet population had he won, but i think you're giving Stalin to much credit here.
Thread's going well, I see.
Of course, the big question is, how sustainable will Norway's 'socialist' system be when the oil runs out ? The government would probably have to take more money off the population in the way of taxes in order to keep the status quo. & as history shows, that's never been a popular move with the masses.
If you take the Nordic socialist policy as a whole, capitalism & the free market plays a significant role in how that part of world has developed over the years. Therefore anyone who, in this day & age, takes the readings of Karl Marx as something that can implemented into today's modern society, really needs to update their library. Or even better, take the opportunity to use something that capitalism has provided & switch on their computer & google away.
It's also their choice as to whether or not they decide to go to university, that's not something I had when I left school in the early 70's. Universities were only for the rich & the elite. Capitalism has given people like you, & many others like you, that choice, & the opportunity.
Oil related income made up an estimated 15% (or ~£16b) of our total state income, down from 25% (or ~£34b) just a few years ago, and we've managed fine. The sovereign wealth fund is worth just shy of £1 trillion (and growing), so we could, theoretically, coast on that for a while after the oil runs out. In addition, our politicians have made a point of spending as little of the money made from oil as possible (Handlingsregelen, as it's called, which states that the national budget can have a deficit equal to 3% of the total value of the sovereign wealth fund), to avoid the country becoming too dependent on it.
Anyway, my point is that Norway has done a pretty good job of diversifying our portfolio, so to speak, so we're unlikely to go the way of Venezuela just because of losing our oil.
Last edited:
Is that your defense? Right wingers are disrupting free speech too so it’s fine for progressives to do it? Criticism of no-platforming by other leftists is based on the argument we are regressing like right by refusing to allow the other side to speak no matter how vile it may be.
I think the point is more to highlight the fact that the other side do it just as much, but somehow we only hear about it when the cucked Marxist post-modernist SJW PC brigade does it.
Did you read the full article?
SJWs are the beginning of the end to this world tbh
Last edited:
No, only your snippet
Who cares about the criticism from alt right. They would label liberals one name or another.
So this video has been going pretty viral the past day or two, probably due to how much of a shit show it was on her part. It seems to have backfired tremendously on the host. I think it's a very interesting video, and if you watch it, check out his Twitter page afterwards to see how the Guardian chooses to cover it, it's total parody just like the host herself.
She said it so much
James Delingpole said this guy's interview was a "pivotal victory in the culture wars", Douglas Murray was a fan as well.
He sounds like a bit of a cnut based on that alone.
He sounds like a bit of a cnut based on that alone.
It would be wise to reserve your judgement until after you've actually watched it.
Don't want to watch the full 30 min thing, but is this where he said hierarchies are innate in us and his proof was that lobsters have hierarchy?
I'm sure someone can timestamp it for you if you genuinely want to understand one of his points.
Is there an article or something that he's written? Why are right wing internet guys always popular through youtube videos?
I think he has several published papers from his job as a Professor, not sure about actual articles he's written. He's brilliant in video form though I think he's good at getting his point across with impeccable accuracy, I can't see an article doing him any more justice.
That's ok, I've seen that clip of about 2 minutes elsewhere and I think his reasoning there is faulty. This is why.
- Hierarchy is a mode of social organisation. However, it is a mode that is in conflict with cooperation. Human cooperation was absolutely essential in establishing our dominance over the rest of the planet. So why isn't the "correct" perspective for this problem, the constraints on cooperation due to hierarchy, especially when JP is talking about human society? (This hints at my broader problems with ev psych, where the researchers' perspective can be very influential in the outcome)
- He mentions that the simplicity and evolutionary history of the lobster as a way to suggest that hierarchy is a by-product of simply having a brain with serotonin receptors. If this is the case, it is enough to show one example of an animal which has the same features (brain and serotonin receptors) and does not live in a social hierarchy. Indeed, some species of monkeys have seemingly no hierarchy at all. Hence, his hypothesis is wrong. He needs to refine it much further, where he needs to show what is genetically different between those monkeys and us humans, that has made hierarchy an apparently innate genetic feature among us.
- Research on Homo sapiens themselves suggests that we lived in a rather egalitarian society as hunter-gatherers. However, this stopped being true some time after the rise of agriculture. It is unlikely that here was a mass genetic change at this time. (In fact, extant hunter-gatherer populations have been sequenced and no genetic differences suggesting anything of the sort have been found, AFAIK). Hence, this suggests that it is the social/material conditions around us that create (or greatly exacerbate) in these hierarchies - exactly the opposite of what JP is arguing.
- I am a geneticist/biochemist not a sociologist or economist; I haven't read any academic feminist work or even much of Marx. I do not believe either think that all hierarchies will all vanish if, for example, capitalism is ended. Indeed, Peter Frase, a socialist, has suggested that we might form hierarchies around other social status symbols, etc, if we all had access to the same resources. Instead Marx argues about the structural role that the owners of capital have in an economy with private property and how that prevents wage-labourers from getting the full value of their work or living free lives. In that sense, unless JP is referring to some particular feminist or Marxist, he seems to be straw-manning a very broad school of thought.
I watched the first 15 minutes and I don't see any goof up from the host. Worst case you can say that she is playing devil's advocate a bit too much and forcing Peterson to defend his points vigorously. Nothing wrong with that.
It really is a sad state of affairs. If you can't handle opposing points of view you are not mature enough to be at Uni imo.
"So, you're saying" interview.
I see this line a lot - understandably. Is it not quite mature to consider other points of view and then stand against them? And even in the 'safe space' world, is it not quite mature to realise you are unable to think logically, rather than emotionally, on certain topics, and shy thus shy away from them? Unless emotion is in itself, immature. I think it probably is a rather mature thing to do.
Whereas to casually dismiss complex issues, using soundbitey slogan-like statements, might be less mature?
Apologies if I've misunderstood the meaning of your post. It's, as I said, a line I've seen many times before and so I guess I'm arguing against those who usually use that line and if I've subsequently gotten myself away from what you were actually trying to suggest then that is my fault.
It is commonly agreed upon that the shift from a reciprocal economy to a redistributive economy during the agricultural revolution was central in the formation of social hierarchies as we know them and can be seen as an (un)wanted byproduct of that, but these hierarchies are mostly measured by the disparity in wealth and power.
If you look at other social animals like wolves or chimpanzees, there are no such thing as wealth or certainly political power that separates them, but they still follow a strict social hierarchy and i think that's the point: Even if you remove factors such as wealth or the access to desirable resources there would still be jostling for status and resources in any group of social animal.
No doubt that human society is structured in a way that reinforces social hierarchies, but there is also an innate desire in us to elevate ourselves and exercise power over other regardless of material resources
Standing against opinions is fine, encouraged even. It's the 'I don't agree with it and therefore it needs to be banned' stance that becomes problematic to me.
Why? Because all voices need to be heard? Because shutting people down only helps their cause?
Because it's just that, an opinion. What makes the subjective view of one person more important than that of those who agree with it?
I can't stand the X Factor, but I don't want it banned. I just don't watch it.
You're just being silly there.
Nothing does. However, I would suggest students have a right to offer an opinion on who speaks at their university. I would find it hard to argue it is a triumph of free speech to suggest they should be stopped from doing so.
If Jim Davidson was booked for my work Christmas party, I dare say I'd mention I wasn't entirely impressed.