Whatcha reading?

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:00 pm

Duane, I make a valid point and you mention a dictatorship. Where did I imply that I wanted that? What you are implying is that humans have no capacity to be in solidarity, in political or economic issues. You can dredge the official and unofficial history, there is a vast network of success when it comes to the realm of people power. Just ask the Haitians, among many others.

Argentina has the beginnings of a Parecon, and according to Mike Albert, it works fairly well--at least, so far.

So, what want is some power elite to rule over us, is that what you are saying? Yea, let one manager or boss define the rules, while we dance in lockstep, like sheep on the assembly line. You need to read some Emma Goldman, my man.

That heavy metal has scrambled your brain.

Workers councils have to work better then the bought out, money centered congress and Senate that we have right now. At last count, I haven't seen them respond to public opinion, on even basic issues.

Workers councils can be experimented on. Certain kinks can be taken out or changed. The only reason this sounds odd, is because it is a new concept, especially in an indoctrinated culture, where the pr system has us in their little paws.

Eric_Martin
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:29 pm

Postby Eric_Martin » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:14 pm

>What you are implying is that humans have no capacity to be in solidarity, in political or economic issues. <

Bing! Frank suddenly acknowledges 6000 years of recorded history.

Oh, except for the Haitians.

User avatar
Duane
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Duane » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:32 pm

I'll put any further thoughts on this in your news corner. :roll:

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:31 am

Bringing things back to books, as I made my political statement for the day on the main page, I picked up a book called the Children of Cthulhu today to re-read.

With it being the summer solstice, I felt like reading a little strange fiction, for some reason. Ain't gonna read it right before bed, though.
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:51 pm

The more we learn, the more we can live in solidarity. Information is the key that opens every golden door.

Capitalism is social Darwinism of the worst kind. I will take any experiment over that odd world.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Postby Steve Evil » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:43 pm

I've been reading this thread. And before I move on like everybody wants, a couple (quick) things must be said.


History is full of precidents for human solidarity, 6000 years of history does not preclude it at all. Going way back, this includes most hunter gatherer societies, The Paris Commune, Pirate ships (oh yes, highly egalitarian. Read the "Golden Age of Piracy" and it can even be discussed in this thread!), the Irish Commune (forgive me, I forget the date), and the ongoing South American experiments just to rattle off a few. It is most certainly not against human nature, though it is against the Western cultural construct.

And I think a bunch of people getting together deciding how things should be done is hardly dictatorial. It strikes me as the complete opposite in fact.

On the other side, Frank you should step into the darkside and let Heavy Metal scramble your brains one of these days. It's the best trip there is man. Start with Chinchilla. Raise your fist and yell:

"Their standars are the evil laws imposed on the working class!"
or
"now it's the time to take it from the rich
And give it back to the people
Because they worked hard for it"

Also reading The Blitzkrieg Myth by John (or was it James?) Friasier.
For WWII buffs only, argues that Blitzkrieg doesn't work at all, and that France fell largely because of a lack of leadership and not all because the French couldn't fight. Raises the tantalizing possiblility that Germany could have been defeated in 1940, relatively easily. Well researched and argued, it's tough to dispute his points.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:48 pm

I am a heavy metal kid, no doubt.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Postby Steve Evil » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:53 pm

I was right the first time. It is JOHN Frasier.

Just started "The Forever War". What a romp!

Cary Bleasdale
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:50 am

Postby Cary Bleasdale » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:58 pm

In a moment, I will actually read through the entire thread, and maybe comment on this (apparently) fascinating political discussion.

What I am reading though?

Bob Dylan: Chronicles Volume One. I am amazed by the way he has with words, song or no song.

Jack Kerouac: On the Road. I figured I would start here, then move on the the rest of the Duluoz Books.

Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling. Picked this up at a bookstore today.

John Toland: Adolf Hitler. I just finished Shirer's "Rise and fall of the Third Reich" so this seemed a good place to go.

Bevin Alexander: How Hitler could have Won WWII. Interesting, some points I had thought of, some I hadn't.

Also, a biography of Ghandi, the authors name escapes me at the moment.

Thats not counting the numerous "Oneshot" books that I read in an hour or three....Star trek books (*blush*) Grisham novels (*double blush*) and other stuff. Still, I got some good ideas off of here...so thanks everybody.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Postby Steve Evil » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:40 am

I've read a couple theories of Axis victories. Most of them require Hitler to not invade Russia. What's Alexander's thesis?

Cary Bleasdale
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:50 am

Postby Cary Bleasdale » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:24 am

Steve: Mostly the usual suspects: should've attacked at Dunkirk. Should never, ever, ever, ever have invaded Russia. Not finishing off the RAF while he could. Also are other things like, not invading Malta, but going for Crete instead. Also, not using Rommel while they could.

I have always felt that Hitler made several large errors: not finishing England, turning to Russia while largely ignoring England, and declaring war on the US. I personally think that, if he had finished England, then headed East, and not been such a prick about keeping every inch of ground, then he could have taken Russia. That would be very close to Game over. With no Russia to attack in the east, and no England to base attacks from, Hitler would be forced into an uneasy standoff with the US, culminating in whoever got The Bomb first.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:22 pm

I still agree with Gore Vidal that Russia alone could have beaten Germany.

We need to come to terms with the bombing of Dresden, the fire bombing of Tokyo, the nuking of Nagasaki, all war crimes.

The secret document, NSC 68 started the Cold War. We wanted an excuse to start and arms race. It helped industry, and a permanent war footing helped with the propaganda, that we used to basically rule with an iron hammer.

Cary Bleasdale
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:50 am

Postby Cary Bleasdale » Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:11 pm

NO way Russia alone would have beaten Germany. The only thing that beat Germany was Hitler's resolve to not lose an inch, resulting in useless battles, such as Stalingrad. If Hitler had played it smart, he would have pulled back before the winter, then let the Soviets weaken while he finished the Brits. If he then left the US alone, they wouldn't be able to help the Brits at all. Then, next summer, after the Soviets were weakened by the aftermath of "Scorched Earth," Hitler could have fought again.

What really hurt the Soviets was Stalin. For some unfathomable reason, the only person Stalin EVER trusted was Hitler. This prevented the USSR from building up.

The secret document, NSC 68 started the Cold War. We wanted an excuse to start and arms race. It helped industry, and a permanent war footing helped with the propaganda, that we used to basically rule with an iron hammer.


Uh, yeah, because the USSR wasn't at all expansionist. What was with that whole Warsaw pact? Obviously peaceful people.

Many people I know say, and I agree, that the only thing preventing Soviet domination of Europe post WWII was American military power. Otherwise, the USSR would have simply continued. Despite the massive destruction done during WWII, they were still far more powerful than any other European nation.

Further, what is this "Rule with an Iron fist?" Yes, we made mistakes during the cold war (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, McCarthy, Cuban Missile Crisis) but overall, we were far preferable to any alternative. That and the fact that, it was the American military holding back the USSR (not to mention supporting many of their enemies) really makes your claim that the Cold War was some engineered power play for American World domination rather facetious.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Postby Steve Evil » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:42 am

Funny enough, Dunkirk is one of the things Frasier claims is partof the "Blitzkrieg Myth". He says that the Germans didn't take DUnkirk because the British and French successfully held them off. (pgs 146 in case I forget). Don't know if I buy it, but the records of the battles exist.

Regarding Russia; I don't think it's as simple as "Yes they could" or "no they couldn't". I mean, they might have. . . but maybe not. Germany had the capabilites of doing it; Russia had the capability to repel them.
Are we talking idealy or historically? Right up until Stalingrad, Germany had a shot at toppling the Soviet Union. Afterwards: no dice. The matter was decided by the time the allies landed in France.


I think the USSR was perfectly capable of holding back Germany. Not to say it WOULD have - that would depend ont he weather and strategic decisions - but it was CAPABLE of. It had the largest army in the world, the best tanks(T-34), it had far more industrial capacity, and it had geography on its side. If Hitler had waited, Russia would have gotten stronger, not weaker. His chances for victory depended on speed.

Regarding the Cold War:

Well, Stalin was capable of anything. No doubt he would have been quite pleased to "liberate" Western Europe had the allies not.
(there's an interesting conspiracy theory that has the politburo bumping him off before he did something REALLY rash)


By the same token, the allies were not blameless. Truman's decision not to allow the new mark in the Soviet occupation zone created all kinds of problems.

The situation had changed completely by the time Reagan decided to re-ignite things. By that time the Red Dawn scenerio was just paranoia.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:42 pm

Go to the National Security Archive and read NSC 68. Or, let me read it to you:

Furthermore, the United States could achieve a substantial absolute increase in output and could thereby increase the allocation of resources to a build-up of the economic and military strength of itself and its allies without suffering a decline in its real standard of living. Industrial production declined by 10 percent between the first quarter of 1948 and the last quarter of 1949, and by approximately one-fourth between 1944 and 1949. In March 1950 there were approximately 4,750,000 unemployed, as compared to 1,070,000 in 1943 and 670,000 in 1944. The gross national product declined slowly in 1949 from the peak reached in 1948 ($262 billion in 1948 to an annual rate of $256 billion in the last six months of 1949), and in terms of constant prices declined by about 20 percent between 1944 and 1948.

With a high level of economic activity, the United States could soon attain a gross national product of $300 billion per year, as was pointed out in the President's Economic Report (January 1950). Progress in this direction would permit, and might itself be aided by, a buildup of the economic and military strength of the United States and the free world; furthermore, if a dynamic expansion of the economy were achieved, the necessary build-up could be accomplished without a decrease in the national standard of living because the required resources could be obtained by siphoning off a part of the annual increment in the gross national product. These are facts of fundamental importance in considering the courses of action open to the United States (cf. Ch. IX). "

After World War 2, the economy was lowering, because the war did not finance the need for upper sectors of the economy to boom in their production of materials, for the war effort. As you should know, war helps economies. I also love how NSC 68 tarts up the power and intent of the Soviet system, which was always always quite weak, and could at least be manageable.

They made up this "missle gap" nonsense, as a way to get production up on nuclear toys. The 50's had a boom in production and major middle class expansion was a norm, mostly from the war economy.

"A more rapid build-up of political, economic, and military strength and thereby of confidence in the free world than is now contemplated is the only course which is consistent with progress toward achieving our fundamental purpose. The frustration of the Kremlin design requires the free world to develop a successfully functioning political and economic system and a vigorous political offensive against the Soviet Union. These, in turn, require an adequate military shield under which they can develop. It is necessary to have the military power to deter, if possible, Soviet expansion, and to defeat, if necessary, aggressive Soviet or Soviet-directed actions of a limited or total character. The potential strength of the free world is great; its ability to develop these military capabilities and its will to resist Soviet expansion will be determined by the wisdom and will with which it undertakes to meet its political and economic problems"

This is the main reason why America became a "leading terrorist state," using the unseen threat of the Soviet Union in support for fascist dictators, all over the world, as an excuse to quell the Soviet ideal, or so they said, when in actuality, it was the ideal of nationalized economic models they wanted to quell.

Roughly, this foreign line of logic has killed more innocent people than the Soviet system ever could or did. All for a buck. Evil doth jingle its change purse.


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests