Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[Bort 34]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Feel free to point out where I said anything of the sort. Do try to read what someone actually says instead of obsessively promoting your Putin propaganda. Mind you, I'm glad you agree that ultimately Putin is indefensible.

You specifically referred to Yeltsin's "nascent democracy" in comparison to Putin's "dictatorship". By extension, that also suggests that privatisation, deregulated markets and the existence of corporate-backed political parties is somehow more "democratic" than the Soviet council structure and state-owned industry which preceded it (which I would strongly disagree with).

I'll say again - replace Putin with a socialist leader tomorrow, and I'll be very happy indeed. I don't think he'd see that message as propaganda in his favour.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

5 minutes ago, Bort said:

You specifically referred to Yeltsin's "nascent democracy" in comparison to Putin's "dictatorship". By extension, that also suggests that privatisation, deregulated markets and the existence of corporate-backed political parties is somehow more "democratic" than the Soviet council structure and state-owned industry which preceded it (which I would strongly disagree with).

I'll say again - replace Putin with a socialist leader tomorrow, and I'll be very happy indeed. I don't think he'd see that message as propaganda in his favour.

It's impossible to see how anything could be less democratic than the Soviet council structure, given that the Soviet council wasn't elected by the public. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

17 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's impossible to see how anything could be less democratic than the Soviet council structure, given that the Soviet council wasn't elected by the public. 

It was a system of representative democracy, like many other countries (except without corporate influence over policy).

[horsefly 4,301]

16 minutes ago, Bort said:

You specifically referred to Yeltsin's "nascent democracy" in comparison to Putin's "dictatorship". By extension, that also suggests that privatisation, deregulated markets and the existence of corporate-backed political parties is somehow more "democratic" than the Soviet council structure and state-owned industry which preceded it (which I would strongly disagree with).

I'll say again - replace Putin with a socialist leader tomorrow, and I'll be very happy indeed. I don't think he'd see that message as propaganda in his favour.

You conveniently avoid any discussion of the word "nascent" in my original post. Anyone who thinks the USSR was in any way democratic is in serious need of a lesson in introductory political theory. Yeltsin began a very imperfect rudimentary development towards a more democratic system. That he bequeathed that system to Putin was a complete political disaster with the dire consequences we have witnessed all too clearly. Putin immediately took the opportunity to exploit the changes Yeltsin had begun by turning his KGB mates into billionaire oligarchs in order to establish complete dictatorial control over a new Russian empire. That you support the Russian empire in its current war against a democratically elected sovereign government tells us all we need to know about your commitment to democracy (or indeed socialism).

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

16 minutes ago, Bort said:

It was a system of representative democracy, like many other countries (except without corporate influence over policy).

The Russian revolution was supposed to deliver equality. In practice, the political operators in the Soviet Union enjoyed lavish lifestyles way in excess of that of the wider public. Given that fact, I find it difficult to believe that the supposedly democratic process you point to on paper produced any real-world  accountability to the public in the Soviet Union.

Edited August 2, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You conveniently avoid any discussion of the word "nascent" in my original post. Anyone who thinks the USSR was in any way democratic is in serious need of a lesson in introductory political theory. Yeltsin began a very imperfect rudimentary development towards a more democratic system. That he bequeathed that system to Putin was a complete political disaster with the dire consequences we have witnessed all too clearly. Putin immediately took the opportunity to exploit the changes Yeltsin had begun by turning his KGB mates into billionaire oligarchs in order to establish complete dictatorial control over a new Russian empire. That you support the Russian empire in its current war against a democratically elected sovereign government tells us all we need to know about your commitment to democracy (or indeed socialism).

Honestly, I think you'd benefit from reading something as basic as this. Trying to frame oligarchs as a phenomenon specific to Putin is either dishonest or historically illiterate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs

Once again, trying to pretend that I "support" the current Russian government or Putin is just making things up. Please do better.

[Bort 34]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Russian revolution was supposed to deliver equality. In practice, the political operators in the Soviet Union enjoyed lavish lifestyles way in excess of that of the wider public. Given that fact, I find it difficult to believe that the supposedly democratic process you point to on paper produced any real-world  accountability to the public in the Soviet Union.

The data simply doesn't agree with what you're saying.

http://www.socialisteconomist.com/2017/10/how-ussr-radically-reduced-income.html?m=1

In contrast, try to get your head around some of these ridiculous figures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

[1902 1,167]

1 hour ago, Bort said:

Independent researchers were able to estimate the death toll of the North Korean famine in the 1990s - why do you think something as fundamental as overall life expectancy would go unverified?

I'm not "justifying" Russian war crimes at all (an incredibly dishonest interpretation of my posts), I'm merely pointing out that such crimes aren't unique, and the West's governments and military leadership should be as willing to condemn their own actions as those of others. This quite obviously isn't the case.

Because the two sources you pointed to are not in fact independent researchers looking for indicators of life expectancy, they are two organisations that compile and present official data. 

Anyway it is stunningly hard to use data to extrapolate demographic trends when the underlying figures are falsified or incomplete. Even China's (a far more open society then N.Koreas) census data is being furiously debated as its accuracy is so hard to verify. 

Whatabouttery is a clear tactic used to muddy the waters and to provide tacit justification. You have even tried to use the collapse of the Russian healthcare system in the 90s to 'relativise' the deaths of Ukrainian citizens due to shelling. I call that an attempt to justify, you can call that unfair if you wish. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

The data simply doesn't agree with what you're saying.

http://www.socialisteconomist.com/2017/10/how-ussr-radically-reduced-income.html?m=1

In contrast, try to get your head around some of these ridiculous figures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

The data doesn't account for the fact that you don't have to actually own something to have privileged use of it not afforded to others. The fact that the Soviet elite lived surrounded by luxury that they didn't technically own as individuals is neither here nor there; most of the luxury Putin enjoys is actually owned on his behalf by oligarchs. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,301]

8 minutes ago, Bort said:

Honestly, I think you'd benefit from reading something as basic as this. Trying to frame oligarchs as a phenomenon specific to Putin is either dishonest or historically illiterate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs

Once again, trying to pretend that I "support" the current Russian government or Putin is just making things up. Please do better.

You really are quite thick aren't you! Where did I say that "oligarchs are a phenomenon specific to Putin"? Nowhere, of course, just another attempt by you to deflect from the rubbish you're claiming. No one examining the clear facts denies that Putin has used his power to create billionaire oligarchs from former KGB colleagues that he then used to establish dictatorial power in Russia, and as force for corruption in foreign countries (including the UK). 

[Bort 34]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

You really are quite thick aren't you! Where did I say that "oligarchs are a phenomenon specific to Putin"? Nowhere, of course, just another attempt by you to deflect from the rubbish you're claiming. No one examining the clear facts denies that Putin has used his power to create billionaire oligarchs from former KGB colleagues that he then used to establish dictatorial power in Russia, and as force for corruption in foreign countries (including the UK). 

Rise of the oligarchs under Yeltsin = "nascent democracy"

Continued existence of oligarchs under Putin = "dictatorship"

Even though I'm thick, I know double standards when I see them.

[horsefly 4,301]

36 minutes ago, Bort said:

It was a system of representative democracy, like many other countries (except without corporate influence over policy).

Oh! I've just realised you didn't post this as a joke. You are seriously so ignorant of what the word "democracy" means that you think this represents some form of political democracy. Perhaps you can remind us which members of non-Communist political parties played a role in this process of "democratic" decision making.

[Bort 34]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Oh! I've just realised you didn't post this as a joke. You are seriously so ignorant of what the word "democracy" means that you think this represents some form of political democracy. Perhaps you can remind us which members of non-Communist political parties played a role in this process of "democratic" decision making.

Perhaps you could clarify why the existence of multiple corporate-funded political parties (who will always prioritise business interests) is necessary for "democracy"?

[horsefly 4,301]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

Rise of the oligarchs under Yeltsin = "nascent democracy"

Continued existence of oligarchs under Putin = "dictatorship"

Even though I'm thick, I know double standards when I see them.

Yet again, astonishing ignorance. I never claimed anywhere that I admired Yeltsin, or thought he managed to institute a genuine democracy, etc, etc, etc. I merely pointed out what is clearly true that he began a process of moving Russia from one run according to Communist principles to one run according democratic structures. That's why I used the word "NASCENT". I suggest you stop playing the buffoon and look the word up.

[Bort 34]

18 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Whatabouttery is a clear tactic used to muddy the waters and to provide tacit justification. You have even tried to use the collapse of the Russian healthcare system in the 90s to 'relativise' the deaths of Ukrainian citizens due to shelling. I call that an attempt to justify, you can call that unfair if you wish. 

Yes, to be clear, no justification intended. I'm just interested why one is rightly considered a crime against humanity while the other is seemingly brushed aside as regrettable.

[Bort 34]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Yet again, astonishing ignorance. I never claimed anywhere that I admired Yeltsin, or thought he managed to institute a genuine democracy, etc, etc, etc. I merely pointed out what is clearly true that he began a process of moving Russia from one run according to Communist principles to one run according democratic structures. That's why I used the word "NASCENT". I suggest you stop playing the buffoon and look the word up.

He BEGAN a process of transferring STATE OWNED assets to PRIVATE HANDS for the benefit of a SELECT FEW, and to the detriment of MILLIONS.

This was done in the name of DEMOCRACY.

Hahaha.

[horsefly 4,301]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

Perhaps you could clarify why the existence of multiple corporate-funded political parties (who will always prioritise business interests) is necessary for "democracy"?

I'd be happy to oblige, just as soon as you answer my prior question and tell me which members of non-Communist political parties participated in the decision making process you laughably tried to pass off as an example of democracy. Astonishing naivety.

[1902 1,167]

3 minutes ago, Bort said:

Yes, to be clear, no justification intended. I'm just interested why one is rightly considered a crime against humanity while the other is seemingly brushed aside as regrettable.

Fair enough, but It's not brushed aside, it was a human tragedy, but its the result of two crap views of economics. An unsustainable command economy which collapsed due to its own inability to produce basic goods in adequate quantities and an equally dogmatic view of the market as the saviour of all that would provide a necessary correction.

The difference is neither was a deliberately induced tragedy. The people who initially orchestrated these systems often genuinely believed that they would lead to prosperity however insane that may seem to many of us. You read Engels and Friedmann and you can see that both equally believe that they will promote human happiness. Of course, there were many people who then exploited them.

By contrast, there's no way that shelling a school to terrify a population into acquiescence is anything but an attempt to gain power over a populace for your own gain.

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, Bort said:

He BEGAN a process of transferring STATE OWNED assets to PRIVATE HANDS for the benefit of a SELECT FEW, and to the detriment of MILLIONS.

This was done in the name of DEMOCRACY.

Hahaha.

Oh dear! You don't get politics do you! I have no time at all for unwarranted influence by multi-national corporations, it is a scandal that they wield the power they do. But I do understand (which you don't) that a one-party controlled state is not a democracy, and the movement from that to a multi-party freely elected government is a move to democracy. Perhaps you can get a friend to explain that for you, I clearly don't possess the talent to dumb it down any further so that you can grasp the difference. 

[Bort 34]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

I'd be happy to oblige, just as soon as you answer my prior question and tell me which members of non-Communist political parties participated in the decision making process you laughably tried to pass off as an example of democracy. Astonishing naivety.

Give "democratic centralism" a Google.

Now if you could tell me which party could ever hope to bring socialist policies (proven to be popular with the British public*) to the UK, I'd be interested to hear it. Labour have shown that they'll assist the media in sabotaging any such movement within their party. The Tories are Tories. And all other parties are irrelevant thanks to FPTP. Democracy?

*https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/socialism-is-more-popular-with-the-british-public-than-capitalism-survey-finds-a6892371.html

[horsefly 4,301]

11 minutes ago, Bort said:

Give "democratic centralism" a Google.

Now if you could tell me which party could ever hope to bring socialist policies (proven to be popular with the British public*) to the UK, I'd be interested to hear it. Labour have shown that they'll assist the media in sabotaging any such movement within their party. The Tories are Tories. And all other parties are irrelevant thanks to FPTP. Democracy?

*https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/socialism-is-more-popular-with-the-british-public-than-capitalism-survey-finds-a6892371.html

So, no answer to my question.

[Bort 34]

11 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Fair enough, but It's not brushed aside, it was a human tragedy, but its the result of two crap views of economics. An unsustainable command economy which collapsed due to its own inability to produce basic goods in adequate quantities and an equally dogmatic view of the market as the saviour of all that would provide a necessary correction.

The difference is neither was a deliberately induced tragedy. The people who initially orchestrated these systems often genuinely believed that they would lead to prosperity however insane that may seem to many of us. You read Engels and Friedmann and you can see that both equally believe that they will promote human happiness. Of course, there were many people who then exploited them.

By contrast, there's no way that shelling a school to terrify a population into acquiescence is anything but an attempt to gain power over a populace for your own gain.

The work of Engels helped lead to the creation of both the USSR and the People's Republic of China, the two most rapid large-scale eradications of poverty in human history.

Friedman's beloved neoliberalism has seen a stagnation in living standards for the last 40 years, while the rich get richer than ever.

Equating the two is incredibly misleading.

[Bort 34]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So, no answer to my question.

Jesus Christ, I'll Google it for you.

[1902 1,167]

Just now, Bort said:

The work of Engels helped lead to the creation of both the USSR and the People's Republic of China, the two most rapid large-scale eradications of poverty in human history.

Friedman's beloved neoliberalism has seen a stagnation in living standards for the last 40 years, while the rich get richer than ever.

Equating the two is incredibly misleading.

That really wasn't my point, it's that both believed that they were benefitting humanity.

However, it's also misleading to argue that this was the result of communism.

Wherever and however it has taken place, the eradication of absolute poverty has been the result of mass industrialisation. In Europe and the United States that was done on a capitalist model, in the USSR it was done through the 5 year plans, in the PRC it has been done through a model which combined state lead investment, FDI and features of a market economy in a hybrid system.

[horsefly 4,301]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

Jesus Christ, I'll Google it for you.

Jesus Christ would indeed note that yet again you are too stupid to answer the question. You were asked to name the non-Communist political parties that were allowed a voice in the supposedly "democratic" decision making process of the Russian government. You have to be extraordinarily thick to respond by posting a text which makes it clear that only Communist Party members get a say. A one-party state by definition is NOT a democracy you buffoon.

[horsefly 4,301]

11 minutes ago, Bort said:

The work of Engels helped lead to the creation of both the USSR and the People's Republic of China, the two most rapid large-scale eradications of poverty in human history.

Well I suppose if you count the mass murder and starvation of millions of your own people as one way to reduce the number of people living in poverty then, yes, the USSR and China were pretty good at that.

[Bort 34]

1 minute ago, 1902 said:

That really wasn't my point, it's that both believed that they were benefitting humanity.

However, it's also misleading to argue that this was the result of communism.

Wherever and however it has taken place, the eradication of absolute poverty has been the result of mass industrialisation. In Europe and the United States that was done on a capitalist model, in the USSR it was done through the 5 year plans, in the PRC it has been done through a model which combined state lead investment, FDI and features of a market economy in a hybrid system.

If believing that something benefits humanity is the incredibly low bar we're setting, then surely pretty much everything can be explained through that lens? White supremacists think that eradication of other races would benefit humanity.

Yes I agree that industrialisation is the key, but the USSR and China would never have been able to industrialise as quickly if they took the more common route of bowing to capitalist hegemony (predatory foreign loans etc.) in order to do so. Look at the much slower development of India or Africa for example.

[Bort 34]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Well I suppose if you count the mass murder and starvation of millions of your own people as one way to reduce the number of people living in poverty then, yes, the USSR and China were pretty good at that.

Look past your prejudice, stop parroting Red Scare propaganda, and please examine the data. 

I've shared this before, and will do so again:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience

[Bort 34]

11 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Jesus Christ would indeed note that yet again you are too stupid to answer the question. You were asked to name the non-Communist political parties that were allowed a voice in the supposedly "democratic" decision making process of the Russian government. You have to be extraordinarily thick to respond by posting a text which makes it clear that only Communist Party members get a say. A one-party state by definition is NOT a democracy you buffoon.

It's my contention that democracy does not require multiple corporate-funded parties in order to function. On that note, do feel free to reply to my points about the state of UK democracy when you have the chance.

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, Bort said:

Look past your prejudice, stop parroting Red Scare propaganda, and please examine the data. 

I've shared this before, and will do so again:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience

Hahahahahahaha! And you had the nerve to describe me as "historically illiterate". Beyond a joke!