Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5,601
#5,601
Velo Vol said:
Why? [I confess I've read neither of the above.]
Click to expand...

Traditional Marxism/Leninism is, in a sense, post-national. Instead of envisioning a world of distinct nation-states led by elites with interests often counter to the populace, it envisions a worker's state. An international brotherhood of man, of sorts. It is not, theoretically, supposed to be nationalist in any shape or form. Trotsky was also in this school of thought.

Stalin and Mao changed the game. With them came nationalistic communism, which is really counter to conventional Marxism. Still expansionist though.

One thing, admittedly, that communism and fascism have in common is the belief in "ethical" violence. The ethics, however, are different, and both seem to fly in the face of conventional modern Western morality. Fascism's is a neo-pagan ethics of sorts, while communism's is a sort of quasi-Mosaic throwing off the Egyptian master's yoke (minus the God part but including the drowning them all in the Red Sea part). Serving the proletarian state, however, kind of replaces the 10 Commandments and the Law; it becomes the new dogma.
 
Last edited:
#5,603
#5,603
volprof said:
Traditional Marxism/Leninism is, in a sense, post-national. Instead of envisioning a world of distinct nation-states led by elites with interests often counter to the populace, it envisions a worker's state. An international brotherhood of man, of sorts. It is not, theoretically, supposed to be nationalist in any shape or form. Trotsky was also in this school of thought.
Click to expand...

OK. I thought you meant that communism must continue to expand to survive, in the sense that capitalistic corporations need to find new markets to keep their profits growing.


volprof said:
Happy Anniversary!
Click to expand...

I hear they're downing a big birthday cake at Langley.
 
#5,604
#5,604
Velo Vol said:
OK. I thought you meant that communism must continue to expand to survive, in the sense that capitalistic corporations need to find new markets to keep their profits growing.




I hear they're downing a big birthday cake at Langley.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, I would say. It could survive nearly on its own (see Cuba), but communist "high theory" (Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, et al.) isn't really satisfied until the entire world is a worker's state, or at least a brotherhood of worker's states. And the only way to achieve this ultimately is through violence and rebellion against the established state orders.
 
#5,605
#5,605
Sorry, just thinking out loud, because I like trying to make new idea connections.

I think Marxism is a kind of black sheep offspring of the Enlightenment. The idea that humans can form a rationally good state (albeit requiring "rational" violence to achieve these ends). Fascism, on the other hand, wants to resurrect an old order, one fueled by ethnic, nationalist, and/or regional identities (a tribalism of sorts).

Probably just another reason why Marxism gets lumped into liberalism/leftist causes while fascism gets lumped into reactionary/conservative causes, despite the fact that, in many ways, they're very similar. Both pretty much just want to control every action of every individual within the state.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,610
#5,610
I love watching crap like this. It's so hilarious.

World War 3 : The Russian Bear of Gog prepares for War with the Beast over Ukraine (Nov 14, 2014) - YouTube

The 1st gen Christians thought Jesus would come back in their time, and every generation to the 20th-30th (whatever we're on now), has been thinking it since.

Christianity would have been a lot better had they not, for God knows what reason, accepted that idiot John's rambling ruminations about the end of the world. Just absolute idiotic nonsense. Of course the world will end one day, and I'm sure some idiot will be around to remind us all, as we die, that John and Jesus told us so. No ****.
 
#5,611
#5,611
My military brethren, do you all think it's even possible for a superpower/great power to even invade another this day and age without getting completely *****-slapped in the process? I'm skeptical.

About the only thing I can figure would be half-way plausible (given satellite monitoring tech) is mounting up a lot of troops in one locale (under the pretense that it was "military exercises") and then to move on from there. Maybe even with a nuclear first strike, just under the understanding that you and yours are going to take some serious licks but might win in the process.

It just seems so unfeasible today to me. Maybe I'm wrong though. You never know when some idiot will pull a button somewhere, I guess.
 
#5,612
#5,612
volprof said:
My military brethren, do you all think it's even possible for a superpower/great power to even invade another this day and age without getting completely *****-slapped in the process? I'm skeptical.

About the only thing I can figure would be half-way plausible (given satellite monitoring tech) is mounting up a lot of troops in one locale (under the pretense that it was "military exercises") and then to move on from there. Maybe even with a nuclear first strike, just under the understanding that you and yours are going to take some serious licks but might win in the process.

It just seems so unfeasible today to me. Maybe I'm wrong though. You never know when some idiot will pull a button somewhere, I guess.
Click to expand...

I do not think it is feasible. Wars between superpowers are fought economically in today's operational environment.

In regards to the use of nuclear weapons, the country stiking first would have to have a complete psychopath for a leader. It is a war of mutual assured destruction. no side wins.
 
#5,613
#5,613
SergeantVol said:
I do not think it is feasible. Wars between superpowers are fought economically in today's operational environment.

In regards to the use of nuclear weapons, the country stiking first would have to have a complete psychopath for a leader. It is a war of mutual assured destruction. no side wins.
Click to expand...

That's what I've been thinking too. All these idiots on the Internet posting about the US trying to provoke Russia into a war are just, well, idiots.
 
#5,614
#5,614
You'd have to be the military tactician to end all military tacticians (armed with a ****-ton of luck) to win anything decisively against a superpower/great power today. Tech is just too advanced. People can see your ass coming from, not a mile, but 1,000 miles, away today.
 
#5,615
#5,615
volprof said:
You'd have to be the military tactician to end all military tacticians (armed with a ****-ton of luck) to win anything decisively against a superpower/great power today. Tech is just too advanced. People can see your ass coming from, not a mile, but 1,000 miles, away today.
Click to expand...

Or you just steal all the information on those referenced weapons systems/radar systems and find a way to exploit it. I mean EVENTUALLY it's going to happen.
 
#5,616
#5,616
#VFL__ said:
Or you just steal all the information on those referenced weapons systems/radar systems and find a way to exploit it. I mean EVENTUALLY it's going to happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you can do it, then presumably they can do it. Seems like you would nullify the other's advantage.
 
#5,623
#5,623
Velo Vol said:
I wonder if these ships will ultimately be withheld from Russia?

The Russia-France Warship Deal Is Turning Into a Total Mess

From what was posted here earlier, they're really not practical for anyone else to use.
Click to expand...

From Post #5323, just in case anybody missed it...

Rasputin_Vol said:
US Lawmakers Urge NATO To Buy French Mistral Ships Bound For Russia

The United States is also firmly opposed to the delivery at a time when sanctions are raining down on Russia to try and force Moscow to drop its support for rebels in Ukraine's east.

But if France cancels the deal altogether - the second ship is due to be delivered some time next year - it risks gaining the reputation of a country that does not honour its contracts.

And as the country suffers through a tough economic crisis, huge, job-creating manufacturing deals are more than welcome.

"Russia will make an official complaint and will demand that penalties be paid, and it will have strong chances of winning a trial," said Alexandre Goltz, an independent military analyst based in Moscow.

"France will also be seen as the country that had to yield to US pressure."

The fines for not honouring the contract could run into billions of euros.

A French source who is close to the case and wished to remain anonymous said that if Paris ditched the contract, it would earn the "esteem of Poland and the applause of Washington".

But, he added, "we're not going to get very far with that."

More worrying, "there is no plan B," says another source close to manufacturer DCNS.
Click to expand...

But wait... there is a Plan B. The US can force NATO to buy the ships... LOL, too bad NATO can't afford them.

NATO has no money, capability to buy out Russia-bound Mistral warships – source

"NATO’s budget is too small to not only purchase Russia-ordered Mistral helicopter carriers, but to even compensate France half of the penalties in accordance with the contract,” a military source in Brussels, Belgium told TASS news agency.

NATO’s military and civilian budget for 2014 amounts $ 1.6 billion, while the penalty for non-delivery of the two Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia could reach $ 3 billion, the source explained.

“Moreover, NATO simply doesn’t have a structure that that could receive the ships. The Alliance has almost no military equipment of its own. So there would be no use in the helicopter carriers even if the money to purchase them is found,” the source said.

The idea of buying the Mistral vessels is “absurd from a military point of view” because the ships are “custom-built in accordance with Russian standards, which makes their use by NATO highly problematic and will require additional, expensive refitting,” he stressed.
Click to expand...

:crazy:
Click to expand...
 
#5,624
#5,624
Velo Vol said:
I wonder if these ships will ultimately be withheld from Russia?

The Russia-France Warship Deal Is Turning Into a Total Mess

From what was posted here earlier, they're really not practical for anyone else to use.
Click to expand...

But the future of this deal is far from certain. France's Prime Minister Manuel Valls responded to Putin's threats by stating that France always honors its contracts, but it will not do so at the expense of destabilizing the Ukraine crisis any further. He reiterated that France is a sovereign country that is very capable of making its own decisions without being forced by external actors.
Click to expand...

France IS a puppet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top