N. and S. Korea firing artillery at each other

[Commissar]

@straight_man

Might? Seriously? One of my relatives fought Russians (from behind a machine gun) who were armed with fucking sticks.

I am dubious of arguments by anecdote. After all, I can match your relatives’ accounts with contradictory experiences by my own ascendants. My maternal grand-grandfather died under German artillery fire after successfully leading an infantry division in a liberation of an occupied Russian village. My paternal grandfather fought NAZIs as a partisan, and then went on to serve with the Black Sea Fleet. One of my uncles was a tank commander stationed in Poland. My father was a captain of the Red Army. None of them were ever required to use a “stick,” either in practice or in battle.

Once again, with a large enough conflict, strange things will happen. There are many documented examples from history where soldiers were forced to fight using makeshift weaponry. This speaks of their heroism, rather than of a nefarious plan to deny them access to sufficient arms.

Unless your “relative” is of an Afghani persuasion, it follows that he must have been on the losing side of whatever armed conflict it was that he participated in. Why don’t you ask him how a bunch of stick-wielding guys managed to silence his machine guns?

How can you possibly claim any sort of moral authority when you support systems (like the DPRK or the USSR) that survive solely by treating their own people as if their lives don’t matter?

First of all, I avoid such terms as “morality,” given that they are philosophical dead-ends. There is no good or evil, moral or immoral. There are just us humans and the systems that make our lives better. Socialism is such a system, and I support it. The USSR cared deeply for its people, it attempted to improve their lives via socialism, and for this it has my eternal support and gratitude. As I have mentioned many, many times, I do not actually support North Korea on the basis that the government neither cares nor does a very good job at implementing socialism.

How do you rationalize supporting the Afghani insurgents against the NATO mission, but not against (say) your beloved Soviets?

I don’t. I am opposed to all unprovoked imperialism, regardless of who the actor happens to be. I oppose both current Imperial wars of aggression and the Winter War in equal measures.

I do, however, make an exception for nations that forcefully assimilate other states as long as the following two preconditions are met:
(1) The target state has had a long and established history as part of the aggressor state.
(2) The invasion is conducted as a good faith exercise of liberation for the benefit of the target state’s populace.

Thus, I fully support such events as the Bolshevik liberation of Belarus, the Soviet invasion of Poland to recover Bellarussian lands, and the Chinese liberation of Tibet.

But no, I offer no justifications for the Winter War. It should not have happened.

[Bryan_Ekers]

How about the Hungarian revolt of 1956 and the corresponding Soviet response. Justified?

[Commissar]

@Bryan_Ekers

How about the Hungarian revolt of 1956 and the corresponding Soviet response. Justified?

Absolutely. The Hungarians chose their own fate by siding with the NAZIs and attempting to invade our motherland. There is no question in my mind that a nation is justified in invading an aggressor in self-defense. Once such an invasion is accomplished, it is perfectly justifiable to continue an occupation lest the savages go back to their old tricks. I would not support an indefinite occupation of a nation against its collective will, but several decades are clearly not an unreasonable period of time. So, yes, we were justified in both occupying the aggressors and in pounding them back down when they attempted to revolt. One cannot afford to be too gentle when dealing with a dangerous animal.

[Uzi]

@Commissar

“Apeshit?” Hardly. A convicted criminal and outspoken enemy of the Chinese people has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize; they have good reason to be unhappy and to make said displeasure known.

I find it interesting that a person, who if he lived in China and said the things about that country that he says about the one he lives in currently, would be in a similar predicament as Liu Xiaobo. A person he claims to be an ‘enemy’ of the people and yet who’s only ‘crime’ is to speak for more human rights for his fellow citizens.
The freedom he deplores others using is one he doesn’t seem to have a problem with when it benefits him. Not only an idiot, but a hypocrite.

But I am quite sure he would think the link I posted is purely propaganda. Yet, people can question it, counter it, even dispute it wholly (like he probably will). Something that is difficult at best living in China or his beloved former USSR (and he even gives an example of a person spending time in a gulag for speaking out against Stalin:rolleyes:). Why does he think that the news or information from that sort of a government has any weight at all is beyond any sort of rational thought?

His contention that the glorious Red Army didn’t fight with sticks, etc. is firmly countered by the ratio of military deaths between it and the German army. Give similar armaments you’d think there would be a similar ratio of casualties. Yet there is at least a 2-1 ratio without accounting for the fact that at least some of the deaths in the German army were from other sources than the USSR. Either that or communism bred idiots as "Commissar"s. Given this thread, probably the latter.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Commissar

Absolutely. The Hungarians chose their own fate by siding with the NAZIs and attempting to invade our motherland. There is no question in my mind that a nation is justified in invading an aggressor in self-defense. Once such an invasion is accomplished, it is perfectly justifiable to continue an occupation lest the savages go back to their old tricks. I would not support an indefinite occupation of a nation against its collective will, but several decades are clearly not an unreasonable period of time. So, yes, we were justified in both occupying the aggressors and in pounding them back down when they attempted to revolt. One cannot afford to be too gentle when dealing with a dangerous animal.

But you still dislike what the Americans (and before them, the Soviets) are doing in Afghanistan?

[Uzi]

@Commissar

There is no question in my mind that a nation is justified in invading an aggressor in self-defense.

Ah, so the USSR was only defending itself back in 1939 when it invaded Poland, right? It is amazing how you can blindly ignore the fact that your communist brothers deliberately sided with the Fascists and would have continued to do so if they hadn’t turned on you.
What again is the real difference between the two?

[FinnAgain]

To appropriate a phrase: in Comunism men brutalize, dominate and seek to contol every aspect of other men’s lives. In Fascism, it’s exactly the opposite.

[Monty]

@Commissar

I notice that somewhere between your assertions concerning your educational background and your rather pedestrian insults, you have conveniently neglected to address any of my actual points. Are you trying to pull a FinnAgain on me? Bad Monty.

As FinnAgain so ably showed, you have no actual points and you certainly haven’t addressed mine, or anyone else’s for that matter.

I’ll ask you again: do you stand by your prior statement that “language is language,”

Having actually been trained in the science of Linguistics, your “pedestrian” comment notwithstanding, of course I stand by that comment. There is nothing more special about Russian human biology than about the human biology of other nationalities. Language is part of the human condition.

and that there are no differences in levels of complexity?

You see–well, you would see if you bothered to actually pay attention to other posters–this is what FinnAgain is talking about: You are making up stuff and pretending that’s what other posters have said. I dare you to actually–and even honestly–quote exactly where I said there are no differences in complexity regarding languages. Since I did not, that means you made it up and you just willingly told a lie. Sure, there are differences in complexity of certain aspects of one language when compared to another language; however, overall all languages are, essentially, equally complex. This, of course, only refers to what we real linguists, not pretenders such as you, refer to as natural languages. Auxiliary languages, such as Esperanto, do not fall into this as they are intentionally designed not to.

If we were to take a hypothetical Mandarin speaker, would you argue that it would be no more difficult for him to learn Russian than to learn English?

Well, Chinese is in a different language family than both Russian and English. As English and Russian are both in the Indo-European language family, they certainly do have similarities which would make it more comfortable for an English speaker to learn Russian or vice versa.

@Commissar

Ideally, it would of course be best to have a socialist that cares deeply. However, if we can only get one or the other, I would tend to favor socialism over caring.

As I expected, you simply don’t care about people. That is pretty much what communism is now and has been since both Russia and China adopted it: inhuman.

A socialist making decisions by rote would still leave us better off than a right-wing nut that, because he cares so much, eliminates all social benefits and sends us off to die in a crusade against Muslims.

So there you have it, folks. Commissar believes automaton is better than an actual human. And, for added laughs, he’s pretending that some rightist (which, as we’ve already seen here, is his term for anyone at all that likes democracy) has gotten or is trying to get rid of social benefits–said benefits, oddly enough that never exist in those communist countries but do exist in the democracies. And even more humor is that he believes there may be some kind of governmental crusade against Muslims.

He can go home any time, as long as he doesn’t mind being justifiably arrested on the spot. That’s kind of something that tends to happen when you betray your people and try to start a bloody uprising against your own government. Once your rebellion fails, it makes sense to stay away for a while. I have no sympathy or concern for that dangerous pro-Western fanatic.

The Dalai Lama’s rebellion? Wow. Anyway, how many words are we up to now folks, in Commissar’s redefinitions?

[Commissar]

@Uzi

But I am quite sure he would think the link I posted is purely propaganda. Yet, people can question it, counter it, even dispute it wholly (like he probably will). Something that is difficult at best living in China or his beloved former USSR (and he even gives an example of a person spending time in a gulag for speaking out against Stalin:rolleyes:). Why does he think that the news or information from that sort of a government has any weight at all is beyond any sort of rational thought?

Actually, the article you linked to is acceptable. Sure, it puts a Western spin on the subject matter, but that is easily discountable. What’s important is that it also presents all of the relevant facts, allowing reasonable minds to draw different conclusions from the source material.

My conclusion is aligned with that of the Chinese judicial system. This is a person that has dedicated a considerable portion of his life to undermining Chinese peace and stability. He has broken the law many times, has served time for his crimes, and has refused to cease his bourgeois agitation. Most recently, he has really outdone himself by calling for the collapse of the political system. Not only has he turned himself into the enemy of the people, but he also attempted to draw others into his criminal mindset. He has committed the crime, and thus been sentenced to serve the time by a court of law. I see nothing wrong with this scenario.

Indeed, I applaud the leniency of the Chinese judicial system. This type of high treason can easily be held to call for the death penalty. I am glad that the Chinese authorities are restraining themselves and choosing to err on the side of mercy. This is truly what socialism is all about; even an enemy of the people is given yet another chance to redeem himself and cease his nefarious ways.

Ah, so the USSR was only defending itself back in 1939 when it invaded Poland, right?

Nope. As mentioned previously, apart from self-defense, I also make an exception for wars of liberation intended to bring rogue and/or stolen territories back into the state’s fold.

It is amazing how you can blindly ignore the fact that your communist brothers deliberately sided with the Fascists and would have continued to do so if they hadn’t turned on you.

I fail to see the problem here. I do not subscribe to the school of socialism that holds that socialist states must actively encourage socialism elsewhere. It will come when the time is right; in the interim, it is not our place to tell other people how to live. There is nothing inherently wrong in respecting the right of a populace to embrace fascism. To each their own.

What again is the real difference between the two?

What is the difference between night and day? At its most fundamental level, authoritarian socialism is a system of justice, freedom, and equality - a system that wholeheartedly embraces fundamental positive rights and seeks to make the world a better place for its people. Fascism is the antithesis of this philosophy - it is a dark and corrupt ideology built on capitalist subjugation, the elimination of human rights, and a violent propensity for imperialist expansion. The two could not be more different.

[Chimera]

@Commissar

What is the difference between night and day? At its most fundamental level, authoritarian socialism is a system of justice, freedom, and equality - a system that wholeheartedly embraces fundamental positive rights and seeks to make the world a better place for its people.

I was going to ask if you were completely fucking crazy, but even that would be an understatement at this point.

Get off my planet.

[Monty]

@Bryan_Ekers

Ah, communism… a consensus of one.

Every so-called communist nation, including even “the glorious PRC,” has been a dictatorship. Isn’t that what dictatorships are, “a consensus of one”?

[Monty]

@The Tao's Revenge

And instead embraced a North Korean monster who murders his own people through starvation, and firing squads for incompetence and malice.
As well as murders South Koreans because someone made splashy in empty water.

Made splashy in empty water around an island occupied and controlled by, you guessed it, South Korea! There was nothing at all of North Korea threatened by nor even in danger of any munitions expended by South Korea.

[Frank]

@Commissar

Actually, the article you linked to is acceptable. Sure, it puts a Western spin on the subject matter, but that is easily discountable. What’s important is that it also presents all of the relevant facts, allowing reasonable minds to draw different conclusions from the source material.

My conclusion is aligned with that of the Chinese judicial system. This is a person that has dedicated a considerable portion of his life to undermining Chinese peace and stability. He has broken the law many times, has served time for his crimes, and has refused to cease his bourgeois agitation. Most recently, he has really outdone himself by calling for the collapse of the political system. Not only has he turned himself into the enemy of the people, but he also attempted to draw others into his criminal mindset. He has committed the crime, and thus been sentenced to serve the time by a court of law. I see nothing wrong with this scenario.

Indeed, I applaud the leniency of the Chinese judicial system. This type of high treason can easily be held to call for the death penalty. I am glad that the Chinese authorities are restraining themselves and choosing to err on the side of mercy. This is truly what socialism is all about; even an enemy of the people is given yet another chance to redeem himself and cease his nefarious ways.

Nope. As mentioned previously, apart from self-defense, I also make an exception for wars of liberation intended to bring rogue and/or stolen territories back into the state’s fold.

I fail to see the problem here. I do not subscribe to the school of socialism that holds that socialist states must actively encourage socialism elsewhere. It will come when the time is right; in the interim, it is not our place to tell other people how to live. There is nothing inherently wrong in respecting the right of a populace to embrace fascism. To each their own.

What is the difference between night and day? At its most fundamental level, authoritarian socialism is a system of justice, freedom, and equality - a system that wholeheartedly embraces fundamental positive rights and seeks to make the world a better place for its people. Fascism is the antithesis of this philosophy - it is a dark and corrupt ideology built on capitalist subjugation, the elimination of human rights, and a violent propensity for imperialist expansion. The two could not be more different.

At this point, my friend, you have ceased being internally consistent by any standard. Even a Jesuit, my friend, could not follow your gaps in logic and self-contraindications. Sadly, my friend, I have found that the gold ring of your communist fervor has left green marks on my finger. Alas, my friend, your arguments are merely cheap brass.

[Monty]

Oh, what the hey? I’m not convinced at all that ol’ Commi speaks, let alone, actually reads Russian. IIRC we have a couple of still-active posters who are quite conversant in said language. Mods: Would it be acceptable for them to post a few things in Russian in this thread?

[Frank]

@Monty

Every so-called communist nation, including even “the glorious PRC,” has been a dictatorship.

I’d consider the PRC today to be more of an oligarchy. But then, neither would I consider it to be–today–either communist or socialist.

So never mind.

[Commissar]

@Frank

At this point, my friend, you have ceased being internally consistent by any standard. Even a Jesuit, my friend, could not follow your gaps in logic and self-contraindications. Sadly, my friend, I have found that the gold ring of your communist fervor has left green marks on my finger. Alas, my friend, your arguments are merely cheap brass.

Well, I’m intrigued. Can you perhaps elaborate on how it is that my theories lack internal consistency? This is a serious question: if there are any logical flaws (rather than irrelevant differences of opinion) therein, I would like to be made aware of this fact so that I can streamline my theory.

[Frank]

@Commissar

Well, I’m intrigued. Can you perhaps elaborate on how it is that my theories lack internal consistency? This is a serious question: if there are any logical flaws (rather than irrelevant differences of opinion) therein, I would like to be made aware of this fact so that I can streamline my theory.

No, my friend, sorry, my friend, the part of foil is being adequately–indeed, more than adequately–portrayed by such as FinnAgain, Monty, et al. And, my friend, they seem to be enjoying it, my friend! More power to them, my friend.

I’ll simply note that in your perfect world, my friend, you would have already been shot or imprisoned by the Empire. But then, my friend, I suppose you see the failure of such an occurrence as a failing in the Empire.

[Monty]

Actually, Frank, in Commissar’s perfect world, he would most certainly have already been shot or imprisoned by now. And, if he had the (mis)fortune to be residing in that socialist paradise north of here, then three generations of his family would be imprisoned along with him.

An aside: I’m still laughing over an avowed communist saying any job is beneath him. How could that be when all are equal? How can oen job be more important than another when the only rubric is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? Saying a job is beneath one brands one as a classist!

[Tristan]

I am highly amused by this. It’s Orwell, writ large.

Commissar, your single minded devotion to a dictatorial system that would have liquidated you long since is admirable.

Also, anyone else entertained by his willingness to be IN this hypothetical “Peoples Government” but certainly not willing to shovel shit? Goes with his upbringing…

[Commissar]

@Monty

You see–well, you would see if you bothered to actually pay attention to other posters–this is what FinnAgain is talking about: You are making up stuff and pretending that’s what other posters have said. I dare you to actually–and even honestly–quote exactly where I said there are no differences in complexity regarding languages. Since I did not, that means you made it up and you just willingly told a lie. Sure, there are differences in complexity of certain aspects of one language when compared to another language; however, overall all languages are, essentially, equally complex. This, of course, only refers to what we real linguists, not pretenders such as you, refer to as natural languages. Auxiliary languages, such as Esperanto, do not fall into this as they are intentionally designed not to.

Intentionally or not, you are making it difficult to pin down your particular position, despite the fact that I have asked you to clarify it on several occasions now. At the moment, your stance appears to be: “All languages are equally complex, except that some are more complex in specific instances, except that this is irrelevant so all languages are equally complex, except for the handful of languages that are less complex than others.” Yeesh.

But let’s assume that you mean to state, unequivocally, that all languages are equally complex. Furthermore, let us assume that you are actually a linguist. Would your position reflect the general consensus among linguists? How do linguists measure complexity? Does a statement of equal complexity mean that you believe that all languages generally have the same number of words, tenses, etc.? If not, why does this have no effect on complexity?

Well, Chinese is in a different language family than both Russian and English. As English and Russian are both in the Indo-European language family, they certainly do have similarities which would make it more comfortable for an English speaker to learn Russian or vice versa.

Way to go. You completely dodged my question right there. I am not asking whether an English speaker will find it easier to learn Russian or Mandarin. I am asking whether a Mandarin speaker will find it equally easy to learn Russian or English. As you acknowledge, neither language is related to Mandarin, so the hypothetical Chinese person will not find it inherently easier to learn one or the other - as long as we assume that both are equally complex. So, what is your answer? Just as easy to learn Russian as English?