Globalize Resistance

[Dan Stack]

While I could take or leave the song, my dog Loki seems rather fond of it. I often catch him singing it. UConn basketball teams seem to like it as well... (UConn Huskies for those unfamiliar with college sports.)

[Karg]

You Know, I'm an avid NY Mets Fan and lately they've been using that song at the stadium. Makes me want to take the guys who sang this crap and stick them in a room with a crew of angry Klingons who've been stuck on a ship for a year alone!




Karg

[First of Two]

Who let the Targs out?

"It's not about whether the facts are right, it's rather how you present them. "

You know, you've just summed up the biggest difference between my POV and what appears to be the rest of the world's POV.

It IS whether the facts are right. It has nothing to do with who's the better public speaker or who gives candy away or who's "nicer."

The reason we backed nasty regimes in other countries is that we were fighting a proxy war against the USSR (a dictatorship by another name), and would support anybody who was against them.

Unsurprisingly, this was the same reason that France supported the fledgling USA during the American Revolution. Part of their long history of mutual hostility.

[C5]

Originally posted by First of Two
Who let the Targs out?
It IS whether the facts are right. It has nothing to do with who's the better public speaker or who gives candy away or who's "nicer."

I agree with that point... although I'm not quite sure it is applied by everyone (I heard that in the USA, for instance, the elected President is the one having made the most expensive campaign since a few years...).
But the trouble is, right and wrong are not absolute values. Two individuals can be right at the same time, while being of quite opposite opinions. Like they said : "Down is up seen from above"

Originally posted by First of Two
The reason we backed nasty regimes in other countries is that we were fighting a proxy war against the USSR (a dictatorship by another name), and would support anybody who was against them.

Unsurprisingly, this was the same reason that France supported the fledgling USA during the American Revolution. Part of their long history of mutual hostility.

Wait... are you implying France and USA have been hostile to each other since USA's creation ? Not entirely false but I wouldn't go as far as calling that a "long history of mutual hostility".

[Joe Dizzy]

@First of Two

That's not what I meant.
What I was trying say was that people are not offended by what you say. But by the way you say it.

People might even agree with you on the things you say, but it is the way you say it, that makes you (i.e. americans in general) unpopular.

I bet that I could easily state proven facts about the US in a way, that would drive even the most open-minded american up the wall. And it's exactly that way of phrasing things that makes some people so uncomfortable.

It's not about packaging so-called unpleasant truths, it's about not coming across as self-righteous, arrogant SOBs that matters. Because once you've done so, nobody will take you seriously.
You might think it's trivial, but the truth is, it takes little effort to phrase something in a less offensive way, without changing what you're trying to say.
Refusing to even try is the wrong attitude on your part.
After all, you are trying to tell something to "them", to explain something to "them". Therefore you should phrase it in a way that manages to get your point across without pissing off your audience.

Again, I'm not suggesting anyone on this board has done so. (Although I do have experience with some americans I've met over here, that fitted that bill perfectly.)

[LizardQueen]

Originally posted by C5


Wait... are you implying France and USA have been hostile to each other since USA's creation ? Not entirely false but I wouldn't go as far as calling that a "long history of mutual hostility".

I think the implication was that France was hostile to Britian when the US declared independance. So France supported the US as a move against Britian. (If I'm putting words in your mouth 1st of 2, feel free to correct me!)

[First of Two]

That is correct. France and Britain had a LONG history of hostility before the American Revolution, and continued afterwards for some time... at least to Napoleon's days, possibly beyond.

(And according to some folks over there, even to this day, albeit to a much lesser, non-violent extent)

[C5]

Okay, sorry. This was what I thought too, but since there was no mention of the UK in the sentence, I had a sudden doubt.

[calguard66]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
As far as I know, communism in the Soviet Union was slightly altered by Lenin to suit Russia.

More than slightly:

Essentially, Marx wrote that human society evolves thru several stages. Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, and then Communism.

Each level has to be taken in turn to set the stage for the next level... feudalsism sets the stage for captialism, which creates the means of production used in socialism, which sets the political and philosophical climate for communism. This series of "social evolution"naturally would take many generations to come to evolve... and it is a natural process. According to Marx, humanity WILL get to communism eventually if allowed to develop naturally.

The USSR tried to jump from Feudalism directly to Socialism, and rush on to Communism. Without the economic infrastructure (including education) built by Capitalism they were severely hampered. Without the philosophical development generated by years of success at the Socialist level Communism was impossible.

Thus the failure.

[calguard66]

Originally posted by Cdr Scot II

Here's a thought to ponder (I think that it's still true) - no two countries in which MacDonalds has established a presence have ever gone to war with one another. This is one of the best examples of how capitalism prevents wars - if you are both part of the system, it's just too damn expensive! The EU is a classic example of this principle in action .

The truth is just the opposite. The only countries which go to war are ones which have an economic relationship. Money. Even the crusades fit this model. The current "stateless" wars of terror fit it as well.

Another fallicy is that nations with democratically elected governments do not war.

[Cdr Scot II]

Originally posted by calguard66



The truth is just the opposite. The only countries which go to war are ones which have an economic relationship. Money. Even the crusades fit this model.

Was it the Third Crusade that saw the Crusaders trashing Constantinople as payment to the Venetians for transport - I can't remember. I know what you mean though.

However, in the situation of the economic relationship, it is by default one of conflict. In the above example, Venice wanted to dominate Levantine sea trade, and knobbled the competition. In Europe, the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s removed the primary motivator for Franco-German conflicts by effectively making the Ruhr valley a shared resource to all members. Result? No war in NW Europe for 50+ years.

Wars always boil down to resources, one way or another.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Posted by Calguard66:

The USSR tried to jump from Feudalism directly to Socialism, and rush on to Communism. Without the economic infrastructure (including education) built by Capitalism they were severely hampered. Without the philosophical development generated by years of success at the Socialist level Communism was impossible.

Very true. At the time, Lenin had likened the poor Russian peasants to the agrarian proletariat. He believed they were ready to make the jump, because they were so oppressed. I have to disagree with you on one thing though-many people in Russia very strongly believed in Communism in the beginning. It is only the corruptive days of Breschnev which terminated their blind belief in the system. They also had highly educated professionals in Russia trained in the West, which were sent to Siberian camps to work in enormous work/scientific camps.

I also believe that communism will never work, based on the Soviet experience. The sheer economic inefficiency of the system brought it down, as well as the slow demise of the old guard.

[calguard66]

Originally posted by Lightcastle
Like the way the US defaulted on all its debts in the late 1800s but now fights tooth and nail to not forgive any other country's debt?

Lend-Lease. Marshal Plan.

[calguard66]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
Posted by Calguard66:


Very true. At the time, Lenin had likened the poor Russian peasants to the agrarian proletariat. He believed they were ready to make the jump, because they were so oppressed. I have to disagree with you on one thing though-many people in Russia very strongly believed in Communism in the beginning. It is only the corruptive days of Breschnev which terminated their blind belief in the system. They also had highly educated professionals in Russia trained in the West, which were sent to Siberian camps to work in enormous work/scientific camps.

I also believe that communism will never work, based on the Soviet experience. The sheer economic inefficiency of the system brought it down, as well as the slow demise of the old guard.

Communism won't work as long as individual human beings are interested in "getting ahead", rather than the advancement of the race as a whole. The theory is that, after generations of socialism, where all fundamental needs are met by the state, greed and avarice are removed as motivators, allowing Communism to succeed.

Frankly, I very much doubt Lenin understood Marx's theories at all. He was an idealist looking for a better life for people. Most of the rest saw them only as a springboard to power, a means of uniting the people. It sounded good... much like bread and circuses.

[First of Two]

>>".The theory is that, after generations of socialism, where all fundamental needs are met by the state, greed and avarice are removed as motivators, allowing Communism to succeed. "


The problem is, whatever kills greed and avarice, is likely to kill all other types of motivation and ambition, as well. Greed is the prime motivator of invention.

Really, I don't think that having fundamental needs met will ever cure greed and avarice, because they're conditions of wanting MORE than fundamental needs met. Communism can only work if not only are everyone's fundamental needs met, but everyone's whimsical, unnecessary wants can be met, too.
That will never happen. Not even with replicators... although that would bring it a lot closer.