Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If that had been the whole of the comment, yes, it would have been a fair comparison, but it was part of a post with a more substantive and serious content. Your post that was just removed was an entirely off-topic post that took the form of personal communication, so it was in breech of the forum rules:
1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.Interestingly, the situation there is not on the front page of the BBC news right now (it is at the front of the ‘World’ news if you click through there, slightly ahead of David McCallum dying).
They have this article up – this is an interesting case of how propaganda and focus pull together, in this case, there is no British interest nor rival, so it gets slipped in as ‘in other news’. As far as I can see, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh are being shamelessly used: the Armenian government says they are fleeing repression, Azerbaijan says they needn’t and they’ll be full citizens (but, it does seem they are blockading the enclave, which will cause shortages, which basically encourages people to leave).
Russia, from an article I’ve seen on RT, seems to be blaming Armenia for undermining the previous peace deal by recognising Artsakh.
I do wonder if Russia is playing to get Azerbaijan’s oil, and this is part of the price?
PGB,
given the Ukrainian state is functionally bankrupt, and now only exists due to funding by foreign powers, I think it is perfectly fair to start describing this as a proxy war: that in no way vitiates the agency of the Ukrainians, but describes the constraints on their actions and abilities in this situation: whatever the ‘justness’ of their cause, it is fair to question the motives of the US et al and whether they are entirely disinterested (and given their recent record of using invasion and military force for geopolitical ends, it makes little sense to see their intervention as about stopping Russia from using invasion and military force for geopolitical ends, except as a rival rather than as a malefactor).
Even within ‘just war’ theory, one of the criteria for a just war is likelihood of success: is a victory possible. Independence is off the agenda for Ukraine, and even if victorious now, it will be a satrapy of the backing powers. Given it has exhausted all its own military stockpiles and its state is bankrupt, it’s reasonable to say it has already lost: maybe with enough pressure Russia can be made to backdown, but that doesn’t, in my current view, seem likely.
I think we are entitled to ask, as human beings, whether dying in their thousands is worth it. We are also entitled to question the motives of the governments we live under, and their, it seems to me, treating the Ukrainians as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.
To be, uncharacteristically fair to the Geordies, we are united in opposition to the real enemy: Monkey Hangers.
More seriously, to be frank I’d not begrudge the players, it’s their talent that makes the spectacle, and every penny that doesn’t go into their pocket will just go to the club owners and the businesses that feed off the footy, which in turn are feeding of our (collective) desire for community and enjoyment. Most of their wages comes from advertisers, not from gates (so, in a big way, we are part of the product, working for free, ourselves).
@Lizzie45 : picking up on spelling errors or language use is a form of personal attack under rule 7, please don’t.
@Wez:
7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Please watch your tone.
@Almamater please ignore and only respond to the debating content of Wez’ post.
I’m not at the point of naming users, but I recently removed a post with no content other than personal abuse, and also a post that responded to personal abuse.
7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Also rule 1 is relevant:
1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
There is no limit on what users can contribute, as long as they are bringing something to discussion of the topic at hand.
Apologies @Lizzie45 your message hasn’t reached us, it might be better to normally go via the forum moderation thread in the WSM section. In this case your message got binned since it seemed to have no content, it seemed to be a quote followed by ‘It’s enough to make a cat laugh’.
So, it’s over, again, and hopefully this time for good: Armenia recognises Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities have surrendered: so the ongoing hope is this does not lead to repression of the Armenian minority, though we can probably expect some of the members of the autonomous region to flee.
It looks for now like this is played out, unless Armenia wants to reignite it sometime soon (and, certainly, there seem to be popular protests against this, seen as a loss of natiunal prestige).
“This Conference rules that it is policy that any socially useful regulatory measures will be retained in Socialism.(2006)
“That the 1984 Conference Resolution, ‘This Conference affirms that socialism will entail the immediate abolition and not the gradual decline of the State’, be rescinded and replaced with: ‘That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as the custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine in capitalism will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use’ (2004)
“This Conference affirms that any law concerned with the enforcement of class relations or property interests could have no place in socialist society, but that any regulation which may serve the needs of the community could become part of democratic organisation in socialism.(1998)
“That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word “law” means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society. (1991).”
If memory serves, the 2006 resolution was an attempt to remove the 1991 version, which was amended to buggery.
Of course, there were two reviews of that book in that issue. The key point is that urbanism did not require domination, nor did ‘the state’ arise from concentrated population.
I didn’t suggest it would be “smurf land where everyone agrees”, but, rather, that in cases of conflict it would involve prolonged discussion, debate and attempts at consensus, rather than one side (even a majority) being able to simply enforce its will by force.
I’d like to think that socialist humanity could find a solution to disputes different to the manner in which dogs resolve their disputes over the ownership of a bone.
At present politics is depressingly about ratting on rivals to teacher ‘surely XXXX can’t be allowed to do that’ and in a socialist society we’d rely on freedom and responsibility: with no group able to claim a monopoly of violence.
When I read Graeber and Wengrow’s ‘Dawn of everything’ I found their account of early anarchic cities a fascinating thought experiment: how could a group of humans without a central authority build a city, but fi they can, it must depend upon resolving disputes, and maybe resolving them without resort to force (and, maybe, sometimes living with being unable to resolve them because of one recalcitrant individual).
I suspect that dispute in socialism about driving speed would be resolved through long debates, late into the night, because we’d have the time to care about such things: or it’d be settled, and noone would dispute them.
And, just because ALB loves this article so much: The Pace that Kills
Absent the coercion of poverty, people in socialism would be free to choose to box: and many do box without leading to Parkinsons.
You’d get penalties for many of the moves of soccer when playing rugby (last time I played soccer, I had to restrain myself from shouting offside every time someone passed to a player in front of them).
Try some of the marvellous tricks of AFL in a soccer match: they literally are different ball games. They’ve banned the shoulder charge and the spear tackle in rugby, so it is very unviolent. I mean, even MMA has stopped kicking the head on the floor (which I did find disgraceful). The point of sport is the rules constrain what can be done.
The rules of soccer partially came about because one public school didn’t have a proper playing field and so had to modify their football code to avoid hitting the floor.
Now, where is my ticket for the chess boxing match…
Given some people pay to play rugby and boxing now, I think they will continue to exist in some form. Sport answers a need, I’ve heard the stories of the Cumbrian miners coming straight from the pit unwashed to play rugby because they needed that excitement and exercise. What capitalism did is it took popular sport, codified it and regulated it and then commercialised it, given back to the people it can be a beautiful thing.
(Also, I’ll dispute rugby is violent, physical, yes, but violent, no: and boxing is all about not being hit).
“When men stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing; they believe in anything.” – attrib CK Chesterton.
widely attributed, although not traced in his works; first recorded as ‘The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything’ in Emile Cammaerts Chesterton: The Laughing Prophet (1937)
I think we can add in there are those scientifically weaponising doubt and ambiguity for their own ends. It’s recorded the Putin regime propaganda involves stoking (weirdly) conspiracy theories, as they are also disempowering (“They” control everything, so action against them is futile).
