Suspending the Election

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[lil devils x]

I'm not at the point where I regret my 2016 vote. But I am at the point where I'm more likely to spoil my ballot when it comes to the presidential election than I am to vote for Trump.
Not that it matters much. He will win my state regardless.

This seems to be appropriate considering:

 

[Buyetyen]

"Do you believe that?"
"I-I've been trying."

 

[Agema]

In the same way that you need to coerce your partner not to go to the police after you've beaten them (note: I do not believe you would hit your partner, figure of speech you). It was necessary since Stalin was dead set on rapidly industrializing the USSR. Whether it was absolutely necessary to industrialize and whether that industrialization was worth the cost in human life and suffering are other questions entirely and are probably more worthwhile.

I doubt the Soviet regime needed so much suffering and death of its citizens to forcibly industrialise. I believe it did so in large part because its leaders just didn't care much if they did die, similarly to the tsars before them. A few million citizens here or there for the greater glory of the Communist revolution was an easy enough cost to sign off on.

 

[Buyetyen]

I doubt the Soviet regime needed so much suffering and death of its citizens to forcibly industrialise. I believe it did so in large part because its leaders just didn't care much if they did die, similarly to the tsars before them. A few million citizens here or there for the greater glory of the Communist revolution was an easy enough cost to sign off on.

The early 20th century was also a time where European politics had a "strong man" streak to them, emphasizing military and economic might with a dose of bluster. Part of Bismarck's legacy, I suppose. Emergent leaders of the revolution would still have been familiar with that style of diplomacy and probably considered it the norm. Once you're in that mindset, the ruthless calculus of authoritarianism comes naturally.

Stalin was straight up evil. He embraced the strong man approach to politics. It was not an act with him, he really was a bitter, stupid, ugly little man who believed only in the application of force. Any amount of blood sacrifice was justified in the name of turning the USSR into a global superpower.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

The early 20th century was also a time where European politics had a "strong man" streak to them, emphasizing military and economic might with a dose of bluster. Part of Bismarck's legacy, I suppose. Emergent leaders of the revolution would still have been familiar with that style of diplomacy and probably considered it the norm. Once you're in that mindset, the ruthless calculus of authoritarianism comes naturally.

Stalin was straight up evil. He embraced the strong man approach to politics. It was not an act with him, he really was a bitter, stupid, ugly little man who believed only in the application of force. Any amount of blood sacrifice was justified in the name of turning the USSR into a global superpower.

I don't see what about that is uniquely western or of that time period. Seems just as apparant now as 5000 years ago and in the east, west and any other cardinal direction.

 

[Buyetyen]

I don't see what about that is uniquely western or of that time period. Seems just as apparant now as 5000 years ago and in the east, west and any other cardinal direction.

Probably because you have a very shallow view of history.

 

[Silvanus]

Context is always key and they are not perfect 1:1 matches, as those are rarely found in real life. What ever other circumstances there are, a recurring pattern is that violent revolution almost inevitably leads to violence against the people of the nation as the winner asserts dominance and after that the corruption begins as no one questions the guys holding the guns and have proven to be fine with using them. A few exceptions exists (the USA chief among them), but they are almost few enough to be the exception that confirms the rule.

Fair enough.

Destruction of property in a civil war is a necessity. Do note that for all that I lambast the USSR, I actually think the Russian Revolution was legitimate. There is a certain scale to these things though. As terrible as the institutional racism of the USA is right now, it can not really be said to be on the level of the Tsar's oppression of the Russian people, the Ancién Regimes callous disregard for the French people or the Apartheid system of South Africa. Especially since there are still legitimate, peaceful alternatives in the USA, whether those are the democrats, NGOs, grass roots movements or just simple social media movements.

To justify destroying property you need to have first exhausted other options and you need to ensure that the property being destroyed is actually that of your enemy. Burning down a police station in a riot against police brutality is actually understandable, looting the stores of private business owners not so much. I realize that this is kind of new to people in the USA in general, but the discussion about whether to protest peacefully or go for violent political action was at the centre of the progressive and extreme left of the 60's and 70's in Europe. As it turned out there, Baader-Meinhof, Rote Armee Fraktion and other communist groups that went for political terror only turned public opinion against the communists, allowed repressive conservatives to institute harsher laws and give the police broader powers and ensured that communism became an ideology non grata in large parts of Europe. This had the side effect of also driving voters away from socialism and turned several countries in Europe, Germany in particular, hard into the centre right. In countries were the left didn't turn to violence and terrorism, socialism retained a much better foothold as it wasn't possible to smear Swedish or Danish socialists with the sins of communist terrorists.

As I believe I've made clear before, I am not principally against violence as a political tool. However, it needs to be proportionate and the moment you decide to use it you must expect your opponents to retaliate in kind and for public opinion to turn against you. Basically, unless you are at the stage where you want to start a civil war or violent revolution, you should steer way clear of it. And if you think the USA is in need of a revolution right now or that one is even possible, I honestly think you're dangerously deluded.

I don't think revolution as we're describing it here is remotely plausible in the US. But destruction of property is a much smaller beast, and I find it hard to muster much concern when we're primarily discussing heavily-insured outlets of large businesses in city centres.

Sure, it doesn't make good PR, and it should be discouraged. But a certain amount of damaged property is nearly inevitable in protest/riot situations, and is always seized upon by the press to mischaracterise an entire movement. It seems to me a better approach to dealing with the PR problem would be to argue more forcefully for a shift in perspective. How important is it, really, when it's up against the shit the companies themselves are getting away with?

"If you build an arsenal/
The government will wish you well.
And if you steal a million bucks/
The government will wish you luck.
And they might even give you more/
If you're making things for war;
But if you're poor and stealing cars/
You'll spend your life behind those bars"

No and that is precisely why our Democracy is utterly doomed.

Really? You think it'll be like this forever?

What's considered possible or realistic in the US has shifted a hell of a lot. But it's a gradual process.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Probably because you have a very shallow view of history.

No, I'd say it's because I have a deeper view of it than you.

 

[Buyetyen]

No, I'd say it's because I have a deeper view of it than you.

I guess we'll never know.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I guess we'll never know.

"emphasizing military and economic might with a dose of bluster"

This goes all the way back to the Assyrians and is still used by countries all across the world today. It's not something special.

 

[Revnak]

Shit, I actually forgot about the Black War. That's entirely on me. So let me amend my previous statement by saying that what the UK and US did in no way excuses shit done by the USSR or vice versa. Genocide is bad (never thought I'd have to write that) and two wrongs doesn't make a right.

In the case of the USA the flimsy excuse they can use is that they never intended to wipe out native Americans, even if that became the effect in practice for many native American people. Stalin was explicit in his desire to wipe out Ukrainians, Balts, Tatars and Kossacks. Not to mention Kulaks, Troskyites, Tsarists and any one else that opposed him.

Bullshit they never intended to kill them. Sherman invented concentration camps and we called them “reservations.” BIA literally took kids from their families to re-educate them as “good Christians.” What the US, Canada, and Australia did to their native populations was intentional genocide. The UK also used concentration camps more often than literally any other imperial power and inflicted more intentional famines than them too. Fuck, they repeatedly allowed millions in China to die so they’d avoid a trade deficit to them in tea.

Edit- just want you to know I ended the previous argument since my anger there was pretty heavily influenced by a mischaracterization built on the LGBTQ re-ordering. Not wanting to continue that because in hindsight I went overboard if that was a typo.

 

[Agema]

Stalin was straight up evil. He embraced the strong man approach to politics.

When a man chooses for himself a name that roughly translates as "man of steel", everyone can expect a fair bit of harshness.

Nevertheless, despite the idea of a "strongman" I would strongly suggest that what Stalin did in Russia was far beyond what many European states could expect to get away with. (At least, in their home country - colonies were another matter.)

 

[Buyetyen]

When a man chooses for himself a name that roughly translates as "man of steel", everyone can expect a fair bit of harshness.

Nevertheless, despite the idea of a "strongman" I would strongly suggest that what Stalin did in Russia was far beyond what many European states could expect to get away with. (At least, in their home country - colonies were another matter.)

And I would agree. Starting from a baseline of bluster and macho dick waving isn't exactly the most auspicious beginning is my point. Stalin would have considered that kind of diplomacy normal as he'd seen so many other European diplomats doing it. It's like giving him a murder springboard.

Weirdly, the Soviet Union is probably the best illustration I've ever seen of a Lawful Evil government. Nobody, not even other members of the party, were immune to the security state. Fascism I would class more as Neutral Evil because the point of acquiring power in fascism is so that the rules no longer apply to you.

 

[Trunkage]

When a man chooses for himself a name that roughly translates as "man of steel", everyone can expect a fair bit of harshness.

Nevertheless, despite the idea of a "strongman" I would strongly suggest that what Stalin did in Russia was far beyond what many European states could expect to get away with. (At least, in their home country - colonies were another matter.)

I mean, how many people were executed or jailed and work to death under Tsarist rule? I don’t have definitive numbers but just reading up on the subject, Stalin may be an improvements on Nicholas. Just like Putin, despite all the political, journalistic and minority purge he has done, is still better than Stalin. I pretty sure that was the reason why Marx was worried about Communism starting in Russia. No one understands human rights there

 

[Buyetyen]

I mean, how many people were executed or jailed and work to death under Tsarist rule? I don’t have definitive numbers but just reading up on the subject, Stalin may be an improvements on Nicholas. Just like Putin, despite all the political, journalistic and minority purge he has done, is still better than Stalin. I pretty sure that was the reason why Marx was worried about Communism starting in Russia. No one understands human rights there

Eh, it was kind of a lateral move at best. The only real difference was that under the Tsar, it was far less of a surveillance state.

 

[Revnak]

Eh, it was kind of a lateral move at best. The only real difference was that under the Tsar, it was far less of a surveillance state.

It was basically the same surveillance state. Stalin largely just ported over the existing secret police.

 

[Buyetyen]

It was basically the same surveillance state. Stalin largely just ported over the existing secret police.

I didn't say it wasn't a surveillance state, I gave you the wrong idea. It was a police state for fucking ages, but for my money the Soviets are the ones who really industrialized paranoia. There's something about the particular coldness of Stalin and the party that chills me even worse than the abuses of the tsars.

Funny aside amidst all this rumination on atrocities, my grandmother is second generation Ukrainian American, only ever learned to speak English, but still picked up a lot of the Slavic stereotypes along the way. I was watching season 1 of American Gods and the first episode with Cloris Leechman as Zorya came up. About half-way through the episode when Zorya shit talks her own cooking in a fatalist dead pan voice, my roommate watching it with me was, "Dude, did they base this role on your grandmother?" It's just a Slavic thing. Pretty much everybody I've met with Slavic grandparents who watched the show were like, "Oh my god, she sounds exactly like my grandma!" I hope this little anecdote made some of you smile in all this bleak subject matter.

 

[Silvanus]

It was basically the same surveillance state. Stalin largely just ported over the existing secret police.

This is an enormous understatement. The Okhrana was a tiny fraction of the size of the Cheka or the NKVD, and its activities were nowhere near as large-scale. Internal political repression in the late Russian Empire was largely carried out by the regular police forces & military.

 

[Agema]

I mean, how many people were executed or jailed and work to death under Tsarist rule? I don’t have definitive numbers but just reading up on the subject, Stalin may be an improvements on Nicholas. Just like Putin, despite all the political, journalistic and minority purge he has done, is still better than Stalin. I pretty sure that was the reason why Marx was worried about Communism starting in Russia. No one understands human rights there

A lot of people died under Tsar Nicholas, for sure, but he was nothing compared to Stalin. Tsar Nicholas was probably about 2 million: 1 million in repressions, 1 million from malnutrition when WW1 broke Russia's food economy. Stalin racked up about three million dead in purges, gulags, and other enforcement, and another 5 million or so from starvation, deportations, etc.

But as for starvation under Stalin, despite the failure of harvests, the Soviets carried on transporting the food out of the affected areas to the rest of the USSR and didn't bother arranging any replacement. I suspect this is because its power derived from the urban proletariat rather than the rural peasants so it preferred to keep the former well fed, secondly because it was defensively secretive and refused to buy food from abroad (which would admit it had a problem), and finally - controversially - because Stalin thought it worthwhile to let less loyal parts of the USSR take a beating.