Latest experiment is socialism ending the same as always...

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Marso, Apr 30, 2019.

  1. spot261

    spot261 I don't want the game to end

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    8,792
    Ratings:
    +12,141
    False equivalence but beside the point anyway.

    Why are you so determined to prove your point about socialism (which sometimes fails badly) yet so willing to overlook similar or worse failings elsewhere?

    Last I checked Somalia has far worse human rights than Venezuala (worst in the world on many measures) yet is the literal embodiment of libertarian ideals.

    Sierra Leone is about as far from socialist as it is possible to be (a tax free economy based on private investment in nation resources). Yet despite those resources being massive a majority live in conditions of extreme poverty.

    The Democratic Republic of Congo has a far more pure capitalist system than any of the G7, yet is a failed economy whose geography is literally marked out with mass graves.

    Why the focus on Venezuela?

    Conversely why so quick to disregard the massive successes across Europe in implementing policies so much closer to "true" socialism than anything proposed by Bernie Sanders (who is a left leaning centrist as these things go internationally, arguably a conservative by many advanced nation's measure)
    • popcorn popcorn x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Useful Idiot

    Useful Idiot Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    May 28, 2020
    Messages:
    729
    Ratings:
    +1,785
    It's almost as if socialism and capitalism can be utilized together to benefit society without the need to outright ban either one.
    • Winner Winner x 6
    • Agree Agree x 4
  3. Ancalagon

    Ancalagon outta my way Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    43,427
    Location:
    Downtown
    Ratings:
    +34,287
    The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea agrees!
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  4. matthunter

    matthunter Ice Bear

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    18,684
    Location:
    Bottom of the bearstack, top of the world
    Ratings:
    +25,623
    Venezuela isn't a person. At best, a political party in Venezuela is calling itself socialist. Political parties are about marketing to their base.

    The GOP calls itself "the party of Lincoln" - and if you buy THAT bullshit, you need trepanning with C4.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,154
    Ratings:
    +30,829
    Dear Lord. "We either believe people or we don't"? The concept of lies has not occurred to you?

    Yes, Nova has informed us of her gender; so have most other posters. Many have also informed us as to the colour of their skin. But when TLS says he's black, he's lying. If I were to say I'm a woman, I'd be a liar. When Piers Morgan said his gender identity was 'penguin' (I kid you not), that wasn't true. And when Venezuela claims it's Socialist, and when East Germany claimed they were Democratic, and when Trump claims he's President elect, these people are just lying.
    • Agree Agree x 8
    • Winner Winner x 4
  6. Raoul the Red Shirt

    Raoul the Red Shirt Professional bullseye

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    10,201
    Ratings:
    +3,979
    Because governments should not be judged by what they call themselves, but what they do and what they are.

    Spoiler alert: 1984's Ministry of Truth wasn't about telling the truth.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 4
  7. matthunter

    matthunter Ice Bear

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    18,684
    Location:
    Bottom of the bearstack, top of the world
    Ratings:
    +25,623
    What am I, chopped flarn?!
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  8. Bailey

    Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    22,894
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Ratings:
    +25,347
    Or the US Department of Defence, who spend most of their time attacking others.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Sad Sad x 2
    • Fantasy World Fantasy World x 1
  9. Bailey

    Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    22,894
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Ratings:
    +25,347
    Always relevant:

    images (49).jpeg
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  10. Bailey

    Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    22,894
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Ratings:
    +25,347
    Hey Quest, you marked this Fantasy World. In the past two decades can you tell me the last time the US military defended the US against a threat to any of its states versus how many times it has launched strikes in countries far from US borders?
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • popcorn popcorn x 3
  11. Ancalagon

    Ancalagon outta my way Administrator Formerly Important

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    43,427
    Location:
    Downtown
    Ratings:
    +34,287
    Define defended. And ‘the US’.

    There were a couple planes on 9/11 that were a slow response from being dropped out of the sky.

    Are natural disasters a threat? The Guard has been useful in quite a few of those.

    Also, the Guard has been used for contact tracing for COVID.

    Cyber Command has been our biggest offensive weapon against state sponsored and criminal networks trying to attack US infrastructure.

    And of course the US Navy spends as much as the rest of the world combined on keeping sea lanes clear.

    Here’s the Combined Maritime Forces. For the last decade they’ve kept the Indian Ocean clear for shipping (mostly anti-piracy). While over 30 nations are a part of the Task Forces, guess who contributes the most assets and whose 5th Fleet commands it?

    HINT: This country isn’t actually on the Indian Ocean.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  12. Quest

    Quest Liberty and Justice Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    19,579
    Location:
    Chicago, U.S.A.
    Ratings:
    +22,321
    Threats to American interests are not limited to threats against the homeland. Better to ask how many U.S. military actions have tended to instigate rather than respond to a pre-existing crisis.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  13. RickDeckard

    RickDeckard Socialist

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    35,783
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +27,858
    "American interests" essentially means "whatever the fuck we feel like".
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  14. Asyncritus

    Asyncritus Expert on everything

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    20,587
    Location:
    Stuck at home most of the time. :(
    Ratings:
    +20,539
    That is the key to the problem. From "defending America" we have moved to "defending American interests". For example, if a country has resources we want and they are selling them to us at a cheap rate, then they elect a government that is hostile and doesn't want to sell, or not at the price we want, then that government is hurting "American interests". That then justifies an offensive attack, which with 1984 doublespeak can be called defensive, because we are "defending American interests".

    I have long opposed that term as a justification for American military action. When you have an actual attack against America, sure, defensive action is justified. But the change from "defending America" to "defending American interests" is not a minor change or just a question of wording, yet many people glibly throw it out there thinking that it automatically makes America the "good guy" no matter what.
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. Quest

    Quest Liberty and Justice Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    19,579
    Location:
    Chicago, U.S.A.
    Ratings:
    +22,321
    Pretty sure that's been true at least since the days of the Monroe Doctrine and the Guano Islands Act. :shrug:
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  16. Asyncritus

    Asyncritus Expert on everything

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    20,587
    Location:
    Stuck at home most of the time. :(
    Ratings:
    +20,539
    Doesn't make it right, and it still demonstrates Bailey's point that the "Department of Defense" is most often a question of offense, with the justification that it is "defending American interests". The Soviet Union sent the Red Army all over everywhere to "defend Soviet interests", but that was hardly defense. Advancing your own interests in countries that have not attacked you is the very definition of offense, yet you and others justify it as "defense". That is clear doublespeak.
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Agree Agree x 3
  17. Spaceturkey

    Spaceturkey you can't spell hatred without "red hat"

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    23,989
    Ratings:
    +19,525
    I agreed because of the second part, to which the answer would be pretty much all.
    Even with WW2 you guys held back until it was not only a matter of defense, but an opportunity to expand the empire.
    Since '46 "containment of communism" has been a charming euphemism for "extending influence".
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. MikeH92467

    MikeH92467 RadioNinja

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    8,183
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Ratings:
    +10,650
    Containment worked in the sense that nuclear war was avoided and the Soviet Union collapsed. Unfortunately, the obsession with communism led to the interventions in Iran, Vietnam, central and South America. It's amazing if you think about it that we found the collective wisdom to give up the Panama Canal.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  19. Spaceturkey

    Spaceturkey you can't spell hatred without "red hat"

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    23,989
    Ratings:
    +19,525
    perhaps... although the two of you superpowers trying to contain each other kept the rest of the world under the nuclear threat for decades.
    with America in the decline it's been in since the fall of the USSR, it's hard not to see the parallel outcomes of sphere of influence building...
    • popcorn popcorn x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. MikeH92467

    MikeH92467 RadioNinja

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    8,183
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    Ratings:
    +10,650
    Quite true. Note that I did not say it was all that great. There were worse alternatives. Kicking the can down the road and waiting for chickens to come home to roost (pardon the mixed metaphors) is probably human history in a nutshell.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. Demiurge

    Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    18,761
    Ratings:
    +11,711
    Nah. We were already in a shooting war with Germany before Pearl Harbor, extending US convoy protection to Iceland. The USS Reuben James was sunk by a U-boat in October '41.

    And the reason the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor is the pledge of security for allied colonies in Indonesia. Japan needed rubber and oil to continue their war in China after we cut them off (and they strafed US ships in China). The US cut off their oil after Japanese expansion into French Indo-China. The obvious target was the Dutch East Indies, which were in theory protected by the UK after the fall of the Netherlands. The Dutch were a government in exile in London. The Japanese attacked us because they were worried we would declare war if they went after the oil fields in Indonesia under nominal Dutch control.

    Hell, when the war started we had the 19th largest army in the world - right after Portugal.

    We certainly took advantage afterward, mind you, but we got our assess kicked just like everyone else at the beginning of the war.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  22. Quest

    Quest Liberty and Justice Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    19,579
    Location:
    Chicago, U.S.A.
    Ratings:
    +22,321
    Well, it’s true the Department of Defense is a somewhat euphemistically named replacement for what used to be called the Department of War. I’d say that’s more a product of evolving sensibilities rather than any change in the essential mission of the armed forces. Countries with far-flung interests have always been required to defend them, or at least to maintain the capability in order to deter aggression. This does not equate to “spend[ing] most of their time attacking others” which was the statement to which I initially reacted.
  23. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,154
    Ratings:
    +30,829
    Serious question: Does 'far-flung interests' mean anything other than 'wanting other people's stuff'?
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  24. Quest

    Quest Liberty and Justice Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    19,579
    Location:
    Chicago, U.S.A.
    Ratings:
    +22,321
    That’s a rather crude way of putting it. “Wanting other people’s stuff” can be the basis for peaceful commerce too.
  25. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,154
    Ratings:
    +30,829
    Only commerce usually doesn't employ an army. Except when it's so 'far-flung' it's better described as colonialism.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  26. Quest

    Quest Liberty and Justice Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    19,579
    Location:
    Chicago, U.S.A.
    Ratings:
    +22,321
    Trade routes and markets have been the focus of military conflict for millennia. Colonialism is indeed one example of “far-flung interests,” though use of the term may be prejudicial as it invariably implies an abusive or exploitative relationship.
  27. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,154
    Ratings:
    +30,829
    War and colonialism have indeed existed for millennia. Can you name an example of a more benign far-flung interest?
  28. Quest

    Quest Liberty and Justice Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    19,579
    Location:
    Chicago, U.S.A.
    Ratings:
    +22,321
    We’re specifically talking about interests which may need to be defended with military force, so I’m not sure how benign that can be. Even the most peaceful international relations could still come under threat from bad actors. Hard to see how benign relations would even be possible in an environment of unstable or uncertain security.
  29. spot261

    spot261 I don't want the game to end

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    8,792
    Ratings:
    +12,141
    Force projection =/= Defence

    "Bad Actors" seems to be a catch all phrase for competitors. By and large "protecting your interests" invariably seems to mean using the military to impose an advantage in competing against rivals and using pre emptive force against those who refuse to accept the legitimacy of de facto US sovereignty over international trade, "law enforcement", natural resources and allegiances.
    • Winner Winner x 4
  30. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,154
    Ratings:
    +30,829
    Exactly. But there is of course 1 armed endeavour we usually do consider benign: actual defense. Which line is erased by shifting from defense to the metaphor of 'defending far-flung interests'.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1