A Soviet Prisoner's View on What's Important(butwhatfor.substack.com)
butwhatfor.substack.com
A Soviet Prisoner's View on What's Important
https://butwhatfor.substack.com/p/speech-at-the-stadium
98 comments
This also the view of Thomas Payne. Everyone should read “Common Sense”. Most topics are still relevant. Many problems you see in US politics are already foretold, and also how to get out of it.
Personal responsibility doesn’t mean taking care of yourself, and stop there, it means taking care of your world, your community and as you say, fix small things together. Insulation is the real pandemic imo.
Personal responsibility doesn’t mean taking care of yourself, and stop there, it means taking care of your world, your community and as you say, fix small things together. Insulation is the real pandemic imo.
I tried looking up things like "Thomas Payne" and "Common Sense" but nothing quite matched what you seem to be driving at. Is there something obvious I'm missing, or do you have a link for where to start looking further?
Common Sense by Thomas Paine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
Thanks!
Ah, it's the spelling. I took "Payne" too literally.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/147
On project Gutenberg!
On project Gutenberg!
I'm trying to read it ("Common Sense") and, it's making me feel pretty dumb. I'm only a couple of paragraphs in, and my eyes are already glazing over, and I can't follow what he's talking about.
The Wikipedia page says it's the highest selling book in American history, or something. And, people read this at taverns, apparently.
The Wikipedia page says it's the highest selling book in American history, or something. And, people read this at taverns, apparently.
It certainly takes a moment to get accustomed to it. More than 200 years separate us from his time and way of writing. I do think if you stick with it you will adapt to it. It’s not unlike reading a new coding language in that sense :)
There's a modern rhetorical trend where the phrase "common sense" just means "whatever I personally think to be obviously right", so that's given me a pretty strong distaste for anything/anyone using it.
But I maybe shouldn't make the assumption that that's how it's used here.
But I maybe shouldn't make the assumption that that's how it's used here.
Yeah, a semantic shift might have occurred. Remember we live in a hyper individual society compared to the time of Thomas.
It’s more about an appeal to our common humanity, if that makes sense :)
It’s more about an appeal to our common humanity, if that makes sense :)
Also, adding to my comment , this is the first paragraph: >Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
The work referenced here is an argument distributed as a pamphlet by Thomas Paine before the American separation from Great Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
Whether that corresponds to your modern rhetorical trend is, I suppose, up to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
Whether that corresponds to your modern rhetorical trend is, I suppose, up to you.
>big-picture politics should be a small part of our lives
I'd be happy to leave politics alone, if only politics would deign to leave me alone as well. Only it doesn't, it's a cancer that eats it's way through society until nothing outside of it is left. We either kill this cancer, or we die of it.
I'd be happy to leave politics alone, if only politics would deign to leave me alone as well. Only it doesn't, it's a cancer that eats it's way through society until nothing outside of it is left. We either kill this cancer, or we die of it.
Please think again about what "politics" means to you.
Some people just think of boring men and women in suits shouting in adverts, blaming the other person for all our failures. Yeah, we all hate that.
But politics is bigger than that. To my mind it is the process through which any group of humans decides how to work together (or possibly annihilate together).
Its how we agree to build roads, schools, hospitals. Its where we build them, who builds them, who gets to use them.
It's how fairly or not we share the burdens. It's about who is an enemy and who is a friend. It's about taxes and rebates, of course, but if we dont collect and spend the taxes to, say, build a school, politics is about do we want to have someone else build the school? Is that fair? Will it educate the children correctly. Even when government does not do something politics is still there.
Because its about everyone who is not us, and how we interact with everyone who is not us.
Some people just think of boring men and women in suits shouting in adverts, blaming the other person for all our failures. Yeah, we all hate that.
But politics is bigger than that. To my mind it is the process through which any group of humans decides how to work together (or possibly annihilate together).
Its how we agree to build roads, schools, hospitals. Its where we build them, who builds them, who gets to use them.
It's how fairly or not we share the burdens. It's about who is an enemy and who is a friend. It's about taxes and rebates, of course, but if we dont collect and spend the taxes to, say, build a school, politics is about do we want to have someone else build the school? Is that fair? Will it educate the children correctly. Even when government does not do something politics is still there.
Because its about everyone who is not us, and how we interact with everyone who is not us.
>> I propose in the following discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the "economic means" for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means." <<
Franz Oppenheimer (1908), "The State"
Please do not confuse the social and societal with the political, that's a fallacy.
Franz Oppenheimer (1908), "The State"
Please do not confuse the social and societal with the political, that's a fallacy.
My simplistic understanding of Oppenheimer is "we all lived in perfect harmony, then some strong men came along and forced everyone into hierarchies and pay tax. If only we could get rid of politics and go back to living in harmony."
It's a common reaction to bad politics - dictators and purges and so on. It's surprisingly common in post Cesaer Rome - but at least they wanted to go back to a Republic.
Sorry but humans work better when they work together - from hunting Mammoths to building skyscrapers. So the answer is to find better ways to work together. I see that outcome as society and the process as politics.
Edit: an interesting example is right in the front page - https://www.leidenmedievalistsblog.nl/articles/why-medieval-... which roughly says "video games allow private industry to grow a village into a town pretty linearly, it it never worked like that because (weather / war / some bugger owned the land and would take more surplus than would let you grow - plus it was often planned like urban planner planned)
Oppenheimers not wrong I guess, just the solution is a moderation of the politics not going back to a simpler time.
It's a common reaction to bad politics - dictators and purges and so on. It's surprisingly common in post Cesaer Rome - but at least they wanted to go back to a Republic.
Sorry but humans work better when they work together - from hunting Mammoths to building skyscrapers. So the answer is to find better ways to work together. I see that outcome as society and the process as politics.
Edit: an interesting example is right in the front page - https://www.leidenmedievalistsblog.nl/articles/why-medieval-... which roughly says "video games allow private industry to grow a village into a town pretty linearly, it it never worked like that because (weather / war / some bugger owned the land and would take more surplus than would let you grow - plus it was often planned like urban planner planned)
Oppenheimer would say that's evil politics, let's stop politics, I would say that's incentives and power balance and economics and military power imbalances and lack of medical and public health.
Oppenheimers not wrong I guess, just the solution is a moderation of the politics not going back to a simpler time.
> Sorry but humans work better when they work together - from hunting Mammoths to building skyscrapers. So the answer is to find better ways to work together. I see that outcome as society and the process as politics.
None of that requires politics, it requires a free market. Things do not get done forcibly, but voluntarily. Trying to get things done forcibly is immoral as well as inefficient, but it's an oh-so-sweet temptation for the profiteers of the arrangement.
Getting rid of politics will not get us back to a simpler time, it will bring us forward into a time where we can concentrate our energies on our own lives and endeavours of making the world a better place bit-by-bit instead of permanently having to fight off the incessant hectoring of wannabe know-betters, do-gooders and world-savers with grand schemes and utopian visions who think that everyone should do everything the way they think is best, "for their own good".
None of that requires politics, it requires a free market. Things do not get done forcibly, but voluntarily. Trying to get things done forcibly is immoral as well as inefficient, but it's an oh-so-sweet temptation for the profiteers of the arrangement.
Getting rid of politics will not get us back to a simpler time, it will bring us forward into a time where we can concentrate our energies on our own lives and endeavours of making the world a better place bit-by-bit instead of permanently having to fight off the incessant hectoring of wannabe know-betters, do-gooders and world-savers with grand schemes and utopian visions who think that everyone should do everything the way they think is best, "for their own good".
I dont understand how people think the "free market" works without politics. Free as in if you make money someone kidnaps your children till you had over the cash? Thats forcible and immoral. Or do we have a police force to stop that? If we have a police force, who pays for that, who regulates the police? We would need some politics to decide all that.
Honestly it seems politics is just the bits of the current system that you don't like.
We all don't like some bits. If we want to change them we need to, work together to compromise on which bits we keep and which we get rid of.
Like turtles, its politics all the way down.
Honestly it seems politics is just the bits of the current system that you don't like.
We all don't like some bits. If we want to change them we need to, work together to compromise on which bits we keep and which we get rid of.
Like turtles, its politics all the way down.
No "we" don't need politics to decide anything! Politics is only needed to decide for other people, without their consent. A market works by voluntary interaction of individuals.
And please stop trying to explain my own motivations to me, it's really grating. It's not "bits of the current system that I don't like", it's the whole inhumane, extortionary and murderous shebang that I don't like!
It's politics all the way down only until you hit what's been buried beneath, the bedrock and basis of a true society worthy of the name, as opposed to enslavement light: the individual's freedom to make their own choices!
And please stop trying to explain my own motivations to me, it's really grating. It's not "bits of the current system that I don't like", it's the whole inhumane, extortionary and murderous shebang that I don't like!
It's politics all the way down only until you hit what's been buried beneath, the bedrock and basis of a true society worthy of the name, as opposed to enslavement light: the individual's freedom to make their own choices!
I genuinely don't understand the idea that markets can somehow operate outside a social / political framework. Barter economies maybe but anything involving money or contracts. Imagine a free market without say any legal framework for contracts?
I remember a few years back the Libertarian party candidate saying "yes a driving license seems a good idea" and almost being forced from the job. Is that where you are coming from?
I disagree that politics is "deciding for others without their consent". That seems to describe violent dictatorships. (Yes that's a form of politics but not one I am advocating)
I remember a few years back the Libertarian party candidate saying "yes a driving license seems a good idea" and almost being forced from the job. Is that where you are coming from?
I disagree that politics is "deciding for others without their consent". That seems to describe violent dictatorships. (Yes that's a form of politics but not one I am advocating)
I'm giving up, you just keep conflating the social and the political this is getting tiring! And no, you don't need politics to draw up contracts or have money or a legal framework, that's a thoroughly confused point of view. And yes, politics is exclusively about coercion, because if you can convince somebody to do something voluntarily you don't need politics to make them. Ultimately, all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
> No matter how fairly the man you’ve elected will promise to cut the pie, it won’t grow in size; as a matter of fact
Pretty much the central tenet of western capitalism is that it can and will grow; indeed, all sorts of sacrifices of fairness are made in the name of increasing the total size of the pie. Nor is the total number of pie-consumers and pie-producers fixed.
It may be counter-intuitive, and it is certainly not obvious if you've spent your life in the Soviet system, but it's important to consider.
Pretty much the central tenet of western capitalism is that it can and will grow; indeed, all sorts of sacrifices of fairness are made in the name of increasing the total size of the pie. Nor is the total number of pie-consumers and pie-producers fixed.
It may be counter-intuitive, and it is certainly not obvious if you've spent your life in the Soviet system, but it's important to consider.
People unfortunately do not really care about the absolute amount of pie they get. They only care about getting the same amount of pie the others on the table have. They are angry if someone gets more than they get. Sometimes they do not see that this person actually has baked the pie. Others might not have had a chance to have lunch before. Unless people are starving, the absolute amount of pie does not really matter to them.
Brexit taught us people will vote for a much smaller pie if they think it will make others slices smaller and closer to theirs.
As an outsider, a lot of conservative politics in the US only make sense if you consider that certain people are willing to burn themselves to the ground as long as they get to use those they hate most as kindling.
That same observation is made of the other side as well - a willingness to blow up a system, even if it hurts the common man, in order to get to a supposed utopia.
[deleted]
It taught me a whole lot of other things, but definitely not what you propose.
The problem with capitalism is that while the pie does grow, most of the slices don't and when they do, so does the hunger they are meant to satiate.
It's true that even the poorest Americans often have smartphones or even cars but it's also true that for most of them smartphones and cars have become a necessity rather than a convenience and they may still go hungry or postpone important doctor's visits to offset the cost.
The widely cited IMF statistic "demonstrating" that poverty has globally gone down over the decades has been widely debunked for using an arbitrary and meaningless definition of poverty (where you could literally be unhoused and "food insecure" without being considered poor). Sliced more realistically, the data at best demonstrates that poverty is stagnant in total numbers. At worst, it's tracking population growth.
It's true that even the poorest Americans often have smartphones or even cars but it's also true that for most of them smartphones and cars have become a necessity rather than a convenience and they may still go hungry or postpone important doctor's visits to offset the cost.
The widely cited IMF statistic "demonstrating" that poverty has globally gone down over the decades has been widely debunked for using an arbitrary and meaningless definition of poverty (where you could literally be unhoused and "food insecure" without being considered poor). Sliced more realistically, the data at best demonstrates that poverty is stagnant in total numbers. At worst, it's tracking population growth.
Would you mind participating in a thought experiment?
I have a magic wand. When I wave it you will be reborn in any time of your choosing, past or present. You will be randomly assigned a race, gender, IQ, sexual preference, family wealth, health status, and country. What time would you choose?
I have a magic wand. When I wave it you will be reborn in any time of your choosing, past or present. You will be randomly assigned a race, gender, IQ, sexual preference, family wealth, health status, and country. What time would you choose?
I don't think this thought experiment is appropriate. On it's face you can use it to justify the status quo more or less at any time in the world. It's not a strong argument against the position that improvement is slow or stagnant.
Beyond that, no one believes that material wealth is fully useless. But we know that material wealth is not useful beyond a certain baseline to one's happiness, except as a means for the exertion of power. The hedonistic treadmill is inexorable.
If I could live in a world free of rent seeking and social domination with the equivalent of ~40k/year in material product each year, I would do it. Most of the reason most people work beyond that is to acquire fundamentally scarce goods such as housing ans land for which capitalism won't make the pie grow, is due to artifical demand brought forth by marketing, or simply doesn't actually benefit to individual happiness.
We already have fairly conclusive research on this, once you have enough money to be insulated against catastrophy and acquire stable living conditions as well as a sufficient social status, the marginal effect of increased income on your happiness is roughly zero.
Which is, by the way, not the opinion of the Soviet ideology, they were fairly committed to growth for a prolonged amount of time, though their economic system did not necessitate it to survive (geopolitically it was necessary for military reasons though)
Beyond that, no one believes that material wealth is fully useless. But we know that material wealth is not useful beyond a certain baseline to one's happiness, except as a means for the exertion of power. The hedonistic treadmill is inexorable.
If I could live in a world free of rent seeking and social domination with the equivalent of ~40k/year in material product each year, I would do it. Most of the reason most people work beyond that is to acquire fundamentally scarce goods such as housing ans land for which capitalism won't make the pie grow, is due to artifical demand brought forth by marketing, or simply doesn't actually benefit to individual happiness.
We already have fairly conclusive research on this, once you have enough money to be insulated against catastrophy and acquire stable living conditions as well as a sufficient social status, the marginal effect of increased income on your happiness is roughly zero.
Which is, by the way, not the opinion of the Soviet ideology, they were fairly committed to growth for a prolonged amount of time, though their economic system did not necessitate it to survive (geopolitically it was necessary for military reasons though)
Acknowledging that this is the best time to be alive in no way implies it can’t be better.
You don’t get bonus points for spreading a miserable worldview.
You don’t get bonus points for spreading a miserable worldview.
The problem with this thought experiment is that the chances of having an outcome that would be less preferable to what I have right now are extremely high regardless of my answer. There'd be a chance I'd turn into Bezos, but there's a higher chance I'd turn into a poor kid in some third world country that spends their day dumping circuit boards into vats of acid without protective equipment to make a living.
You're also completely sidestepping the original point. Defining all scientific and technological accomplishments as the products of capitalism because capitalism is the dominant system is begging the question. We know that scientific and technological accomplishments and improvements to the general quality of life were also made before capitalism existed. We don't know that capitalism has had a positive effect on these trends.
Plus if you want to take the primitivist route you could argue that if you believe the data on climate change, the status quo is literally built on killing us over the next few decades and "benefits" like getting a thousand new smartphone models each year or being able to choose between twenty nearly identical brands of bottled water are entirely offset by the externalities that are rapidly becoming tangible problems even to the wealthier among us.
You're also completely sidestepping the original point. Defining all scientific and technological accomplishments as the products of capitalism because capitalism is the dominant system is begging the question. We know that scientific and technological accomplishments and improvements to the general quality of life were also made before capitalism existed. We don't know that capitalism has had a positive effect on these trends.
Plus if you want to take the primitivist route you could argue that if you believe the data on climate change, the status quo is literally built on killing us over the next few decades and "benefits" like getting a thousand new smartphone models each year or being able to choose between twenty nearly identical brands of bottled water are entirely offset by the externalities that are rapidly becoming tangible problems even to the wealthier among us.
Whenever someone tries to spread their miserable worldview and I present them with this thought experiment they respond in one of two ways: total silence or a novel. It's telling.
Sliced more realistically, the data at best demonstrates that poverty is stagnant in total numbers. At worst, it's tracking population growth.
YouTuber Unlearning Economics addresses this point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo2gwS4VpHc
At some point, the pie is large enough that the social significance of inequality in its distribution is larger than the actual value of pie.
Beyond that in some sectors capitalism can't make the pie bigger. For example, housing in desirable localities will stay a roughly equivalent part of your income.
It's also wrong that people in the Soviet Union find growth unintuitive. Until the late stages of decline, the Soviet system saw incredibly significant growth even for the average person.
Beyond that in some sectors capitalism can't make the pie bigger. For example, housing in desirable localities will stay a roughly equivalent part of your income.
It's also wrong that people in the Soviet Union find growth unintuitive. Until the late stages of decline, the Soviet system saw incredibly significant growth even for the average person.
The factor people tend to be blind to (I was) is the magnitude of the effect of historical institutions to current state of affairs. American perhaps are more blind to this than others as their institutions start at a point when the relevant research material concerns things which at that point (18th century) were already centuries old.
Old institutions affect the prosperity and quality of current institutions surprisingly much:
Hapsburg empire:
https://voxeu.org/article/habsburg-empire-and-long-half-life...
An old inca highway:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/31/an-inca-...
LOTS of old borders which obviously demarcate centuries old polities, treaties and circles of influence (you need to know what they are to observe them in this map) - mapped nicely into how strongly higher education is inherited:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231211019890
As an example we can take Finland that has an obvious area more dark in the east than rest of the country. The funny thing is this area delineates a territory that fell under the Novgorod sphere of influence in 14th century in the treaty of Nöteborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_N%C3%B6teborg
Daron Acemoglu has a fantastic book discussing the tenacity of historical institutions make or brake current affairs centuries after: Acemoglu: Why Nations Fail (e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d... and so on)
Old institutions affect the prosperity and quality of current institutions surprisingly much:
Hapsburg empire:
https://voxeu.org/article/habsburg-empire-and-long-half-life...
An old inca highway:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/31/an-inca-...
LOTS of old borders which obviously demarcate centuries old polities, treaties and circles of influence (you need to know what they are to observe them in this map) - mapped nicely into how strongly higher education is inherited:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23780231211019890
As an example we can take Finland that has an obvious area more dark in the east than rest of the country. The funny thing is this area delineates a territory that fell under the Novgorod sphere of influence in 14th century in the treaty of Nöteborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_N%C3%B6teborg
Daron Acemoglu has a fantastic book discussing the tenacity of historical institutions make or brake current affairs centuries after: Acemoglu: Why Nations Fail (e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d... and so on)
> Hapsburg empire:
This was extremely interesting, and at the same time quite depressing that present-day corruption levels depend on last centuries instead of just the strength of current institutions.
This was extremely interesting, and at the same time quite depressing that present-day corruption levels depend on last centuries instead of just the strength of current institutions.
I'm not sure if it's depressing - generally institutions that attempt rapid reprogramming of population are not considered humane. As mantra goes - culture trumps process. Culture of society even more so than in companies.
I was sadly amused when Obama decided to get involved in gender and bathrooms.
Shouldn't the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, be instead concerned with issues like, say, nuclear destruction, defense of the realm, the economy, etc.?
But such involvement from the top in minor issues is characteristic when the top accretes too much power. Everyone lower just delegates it upwards because nobody wants to take responsibility.
Back in the 70s when the dorm at Caltech I attended went coed, the bathrooms weren't set up for that. So the students solved the problem themselves. A sign was made with a circle divided into 4 quadrants and a rotating pointer in the center. The quadrants were labeled:
1. men
2. women
3. don't know
4. don't care
which seemed to satisfy everyone.
Shouldn't the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, be instead concerned with issues like, say, nuclear destruction, defense of the realm, the economy, etc.?
But such involvement from the top in minor issues is characteristic when the top accretes too much power. Everyone lower just delegates it upwards because nobody wants to take responsibility.
Back in the 70s when the dorm at Caltech I attended went coed, the bathrooms weren't set up for that. So the students solved the problem themselves. A sign was made with a circle divided into 4 quadrants and a rotating pointer in the center. The quadrants were labeled:
1. men
2. women
3. don't know
4. don't care
which seemed to satisfy everyone.
>Shouldn't the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, be instead concerned with issues like, say, nuclear destruction, defense of the realm, the economy, etc.?
I think prioritisation is half the problem in politics, everyone thinks that their issues ought to be a priority and it's very hard to have a centralised authority wade in and decide that for people without looking at best out of touch and at worst actively malicious. It's a big reason I'm a fan of liberalism (in the British rather than American sense) and subsidiarity, central planning in my opinion usually leads to poorer results because the people on the ground in a given situation tend to make better and more informed decisions than someone sitting at a desk in London with many degrees of seperation from the situation at hand. The solution I think is to make government as local as possible so that different places can have different priorities without breaking things for other people.
I believe that politics ought to be as decentralised as practically possible and political abstractions are employed only when absolutely necessary (ie it'd be a bit silly to ask Ceredigion County Council to run its own nuclear energy programme). Not only does this reduce tensions between ideologically diverse areas, it also frees up what remains of the central government's power to focus on long-term globally important issues rather than flitting about with the issues of the day. We need to dispense with this "winner takes all" approach to politics where the most powerful ideological minority can lord it over everyone else for five years at a time and instead adopt a much more "each to their own" approach in my opinion.
The two big barriers to this approach are a) politicians that currently rule the roost of a highly centralised system would be loathe to give up their power - it's very rare that powerful people have the moral fibre to selflessly abandon power and influence for the greater good of humanity and b) current local government infrastructure is pretty atrocious, it's often made up of ridiculous retirees with nothing better to do than exercise their instincts for petty tyranny.
I think prioritisation is half the problem in politics, everyone thinks that their issues ought to be a priority and it's very hard to have a centralised authority wade in and decide that for people without looking at best out of touch and at worst actively malicious. It's a big reason I'm a fan of liberalism (in the British rather than American sense) and subsidiarity, central planning in my opinion usually leads to poorer results because the people on the ground in a given situation tend to make better and more informed decisions than someone sitting at a desk in London with many degrees of seperation from the situation at hand. The solution I think is to make government as local as possible so that different places can have different priorities without breaking things for other people.
I believe that politics ought to be as decentralised as practically possible and political abstractions are employed only when absolutely necessary (ie it'd be a bit silly to ask Ceredigion County Council to run its own nuclear energy programme). Not only does this reduce tensions between ideologically diverse areas, it also frees up what remains of the central government's power to focus on long-term globally important issues rather than flitting about with the issues of the day. We need to dispense with this "winner takes all" approach to politics where the most powerful ideological minority can lord it over everyone else for five years at a time and instead adopt a much more "each to their own" approach in my opinion.
The two big barriers to this approach are a) politicians that currently rule the roost of a highly centralised system would be loathe to give up their power - it's very rare that powerful people have the moral fibre to selflessly abandon power and influence for the greater good of humanity and b) current local government infrastructure is pretty atrocious, it's often made up of ridiculous retirees with nothing better to do than exercise their instincts for petty tyranny.
Wading into divisive, minority issues, seems foolish for a world leader unless the purpose is to sow division.
> Wading into divisive, minority issues, seems foolish for a world leader unless the purpose is to sow division.
I'm not so sure. It kinda seems required sometimes if you're going to keep your coalition together. For instance, there are some people who are part of the Democratic Party base, who of all the issues out there, care the most about gender and bathrooms (I know some of them). Their stridency has inflected a good fraction of the rest of the party.
I'm not so sure. It kinda seems required sometimes if you're going to keep your coalition together. For instance, there are some people who are part of the Democratic Party base, who of all the issues out there, care the most about gender and bathrooms (I know some of them). Their stridency has inflected a good fraction of the rest of the party.
You don’t pursue a coalition with a tiny vocal minority at the expense of a greater group of people.
Unless you are an empire and want to oppress the majority…
Unless you are an empire and want to oppress the majority…
> You don’t pursue a coalition with a tiny vocal minority at the expense of a greater group of people.
No? A coalition is A + B + C + ... ~= 50.1%, you might need that vocal minority to make the math work. And those factions won't agree on everything, so there will be intra-coalition tension, but they know they have to work together to get what they each want. However, there are limits, so if the coalition totally abandons C's issues (or even just severely de-prioritizes them), then C will leave.
No? A coalition is A + B + C + ... ~= 50.1%, you might need that vocal minority to make the math work. And those factions won't agree on everything, so there will be intra-coalition tension, but they know they have to work together to get what they each want. However, there are limits, so if the coalition totally abandons C's issues (or even just severely de-prioritizes them), then C will leave.
I wonder what LBJ would make of that statement?
One person's divisive, minority issue is another's fight for the fundamental right to be treated equally under the law.
One person's divisive, minority issue is another's fight for the fundamental right to be treated equally under the law.
Obama _far_ preferred focusing on domestic, societal issues over foreign policy and long-term strategy.
[deleted]
He was focused heavily in the economy in first term
Red colored glasses see what they want, invert the colors and it's the same of course.
I think you are gravely misremembering why the DOJ took a stance, North Carolina declared it illegal for transgendered people to use the bathroom that best represents their identity.
The backlash was immense with many companies and the NBA pulling support out of North Carolina. They "lost over $400 million in investments and jobs." [1]
As a result the governor that advocated this bill lost his election that year.
But no, Obama didn't "just decided" to "stick his nose" in the bathroom debates. The Republicans decided to take up a new culture war because attacking gay people after they were allowed to marry was no longer socially acceptable. The President responded because it was a stupid law put forth to attack vulnerable people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Facilities_Privacy_%26_...
The backlash was immense with many companies and the NBA pulling support out of North Carolina. They "lost over $400 million in investments and jobs." [1]
As a result the governor that advocated this bill lost his election that year.
But no, Obama didn't "just decided" to "stick his nose" in the bathroom debates. The Republicans decided to take up a new culture war because attacking gay people after they were allowed to marry was no longer socially acceptable. The President responded because it was a stupid law put forth to attack vulnerable people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Facilities_Privacy_%26_...
> Obama didn't "just decided" to "stick his nose" in the bathroom debates
You can interpret what I wrote as you like, but I'd appreciate it if your quotes were accurate.
You can interpret what I wrote as you like, but I'd appreciate it if your quotes were accurate.
Should the President of the United States have involved himself in race and restaurants?
> Society doesn't get better because we elect the right politicians, it gets better because the people in it decide to be better (in themselves, towards each other, etc). Politicians are just a (grotesque, exaggerated, warped) reflection of the rest of us
This thinking is nothing new. It was identified long back that the rulers/politicians are reflection of the society. There is a very well-known old proverb in the language Marathi: "Jashii prajaa, tasaa rajaa". It means, "A king is a reflection of his subjects". So that tells us, this understanding that the king/ruler/politician is reflection of the society was understood long back.
Some how, the way democracy is defined and taught has created this misunderstanding that the elected few will serve the electorate and do good for them.
This thinking is nothing new. It was identified long back that the rulers/politicians are reflection of the society. There is a very well-known old proverb in the language Marathi: "Jashii prajaa, tasaa rajaa". It means, "A king is a reflection of his subjects". So that tells us, this understanding that the king/ruler/politician is reflection of the society was understood long back.
Some how, the way democracy is defined and taught has created this misunderstanding that the elected few will serve the electorate and do good for them.
> I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Society doesn't get better because we elect the right politicians, it gets better because the people in it decide to be better (in themselves, towards each other, etc). Politicians are just a (grotesque, exaggerated, warped) reflection of the rest of us; they will never be our salvation.
I don't think that's quite right. IMHO, there's a feedback loop between those things and they're both important, especially on the negative side, but even on the positive side, too. So politicians won't be our salvation, but they will be part of it.
I don't think that's quite right. IMHO, there's a feedback loop between those things and they're both important, especially on the negative side, but even on the positive side, too. So politicians won't be our salvation, but they will be part of it.
>Society doesn't get better because we elect the right politicians, it gets better because the people in it decide to be better
>Politicians are just a reflection of the rest of us; they will never be our salvation. We should stay informed, we should vote, but big-picture politics should be a small part of our lives. Relationships with real people, solving small-scale problems that confront those we care about, are what really count.
I've added those to my personal list of Great Quotes! Not as poetic as the Russian, but more succinct.
I sometimes wonder if gems like this are scattered throughout the social media firehose "like tears in the rain." Maybe the singularity will pick 'em up one day...
>Politicians are just a reflection of the rest of us; they will never be our salvation. We should stay informed, we should vote, but big-picture politics should be a small part of our lives. Relationships with real people, solving small-scale problems that confront those we care about, are what really count.
I've added those to my personal list of Great Quotes! Not as poetic as the Russian, but more succinct.
I sometimes wonder if gems like this are scattered throughout the social media firehose "like tears in the rain." Maybe the singularity will pick 'em up one day...
Edit: I want to refine the above since this is ticking upward.
I think there are certain problems that do require top-down coordination from everybody, and there are certain moral issues that really are so fundamental they deserve to be enshrined in law. It's just that these days we tend to overestimate the size of these categories and target everything we think to be wrong with our society using this extremely large and imprecise "hammer". Many things, especially small and personal and compassionate and nuanced things, will simply be smashed instead of fixed. And people, in particular, have to improve from the inside out.
This (my part at least) also isn't a "government efficiency" argument, it's a "government precision" argument. Governments (and political factions, and corporations for that matter) cannot know things like morality; they can only respond to very imprecise signals sent to them by the populace. If you look to them as a personal north star, you will end up empty and broken inside. And as you look to them as levers of change, expect that everything they do will be at best a clunky, wide approximate of what you hope for. Factor that in when you set your expectations for which things they can and can't solve.
I think there are certain problems that do require top-down coordination from everybody, and there are certain moral issues that really are so fundamental they deserve to be enshrined in law. It's just that these days we tend to overestimate the size of these categories and target everything we think to be wrong with our society using this extremely large and imprecise "hammer". Many things, especially small and personal and compassionate and nuanced things, will simply be smashed instead of fixed. And people, in particular, have to improve from the inside out.
This (my part at least) also isn't a "government efficiency" argument, it's a "government precision" argument. Governments (and political factions, and corporations for that matter) cannot know things like morality; they can only respond to very imprecise signals sent to them by the populace. If you look to them as a personal north star, you will end up empty and broken inside. And as you look to them as levers of change, expect that everything they do will be at best a clunky, wide approximate of what you hope for. Factor that in when you set your expectations for which things they can and can't solve.
Very well put. Hans Rosling (RIP) in his book "Factfulness" talks about how the leaders of a nation or even the system of government make very little difference in the rising standard of living in a given country. What makes the difference is people getting up and going to work. Ie, incrementally and steadily improving what's actually in each of our spheres of control rather than losing our minds over celebrity politicians' latest tweets.
As Epictetus said, "If you wish to improve, be content to appear clueless or stupid in extraneous matters." As true today as it was 2000 years ago.
As Epictetus said, "If you wish to improve, be content to appear clueless or stupid in extraneous matters." As true today as it was 2000 years ago.
Nailed it! Well said.
Russian thought and art is fascinating. I have never known such a collectively depressed culture to produce such beauty.
It's almost like the cold and wintry weather makes for a lot of time with oneself to think and build the skills needed to create beauty, no?
I would blame more the cold messed up soviet-era society for this. Artists produce their best works during suffering, not when having the best time of their life. And there was/is plenty of suffering for non-conformists in Soviet Union/Russia.
Some of the world's most celebrated literary works come from pre-Soviet Russia though. Life wasn't exactly easy in the Imperial times either.
Don't forget the huge bias in all of the materials describing Russia/USSR in the West, even coming from Russians themselves (like Brodsky, Solzhenitsyn, and other defectors/traitors/dissidents).
One prominent goal of the Western world was always to destroy Russia (last prominent example: German invasion in 1941 which clearly stated that the final goal is to exterminate Slavs). There were and there are numerous plans in the current Europe and USA that continue the work of Hitler. Almost every day you can read in the news on the new plan of USA/NATO/GB to start a war with Russia.
So, all the news, all the books, all the history you get on the West is dedicated to one thing: paint Russia and Russians as the most evil savages, the history of Russia as a bloody bloodbath, etc, etc.
There's simply no English source on Russia/USSR/Russian-USSR history I've seen that was free from that bias. Even English prose contains absurd exaggerations when telling about Russia.
Speech of famous USSR/Russian dissidents require different explanation, but most of them exaggerate the rusophobic bullshit with even more zealousness than anglosaxons themselves. I think the main reasons are that they need to find vindication for their treason and they need to demonstrate to the Western world that they're loyal. Also, it's possibly the only source of income for many Russian emigrants that have some humanitarian degree (writers, journalists) is to write rusophobic pamphlets.
One prominent goal of the Western world was always to destroy Russia (last prominent example: German invasion in 1941 which clearly stated that the final goal is to exterminate Slavs). There were and there are numerous plans in the current Europe and USA that continue the work of Hitler. Almost every day you can read in the news on the new plan of USA/NATO/GB to start a war with Russia.
So, all the news, all the books, all the history you get on the West is dedicated to one thing: paint Russia and Russians as the most evil savages, the history of Russia as a bloody bloodbath, etc, etc.
There's simply no English source on Russia/USSR/Russian-USSR history I've seen that was free from that bias. Even English prose contains absurd exaggerations when telling about Russia.
Speech of famous USSR/Russian dissidents require different explanation, but most of them exaggerate the rusophobic bullshit with even more zealousness than anglosaxons themselves. I think the main reasons are that they need to find vindication for their treason and they need to demonstrate to the Western world that they're loyal. Also, it's possibly the only source of income for many Russian emigrants that have some humanitarian degree (writers, journalists) is to write rusophobic pamphlets.
I am of direct Russian descent. Soviet Russia was a hellscape. It is not Rusophobic to say this.
«О чем вся великая русская классика? Об абсолютной невыносимости российской жизни в любом ее аспекте. И все. Ничего больше там нет. А мир хавает. И просит еще… Для них это короткая инъекция счастья. Они на пять минут верят, что ад не у них, а у нас. Но ад везде, где бьется человеческая мысль. Страдает не одна Россия. Страдает все бытие. У нас просто меньше лицемерия и пиара.» -- Пелевин
So, your proofs of world-wide Russophobia are... posts on Facebook, travel forums and a quote from Pelevin?
Very fitting.
Very fitting.
LOL, Russophobia doesn't even need proofs. You can open any western media (BBC, CNN, DW, whatever), type Russia in the search box, and get tons of results that regurgitate the same thoughts over and over: "Russia is guilty for everything bad that is happening now", "Russia is guilty for everything bad that happened in the past", "Russia is guilty for everything bad that will happen in the future", "Russians are dangerous villains", "Russians are savages".
If you open social network, like reddit.com/r/worldnews, it would be even more obvious. If you open comments under any news about Russia there, you'll find even direct appeals to kill Russians (BTW, always ignored by Reddit, Facebook and Twitter moderators, but try to write the same about any other nationality and you'll be immediately banned).
My comment was about a small part of russophobes - Russians that emigrated abroad. Most of the time they become the most zealous russophobes.
I don't really know the explanation, nor do I really care. I've just made a rule to avoid Russians abroad as most of them hate themselves to the point of schizophrenia.
If you open social network, like reddit.com/r/worldnews, it would be even more obvious. If you open comments under any news about Russia there, you'll find even direct appeals to kill Russians (BTW, always ignored by Reddit, Facebook and Twitter moderators, but try to write the same about any other nationality and you'll be immediately banned).
My comment was about a small part of russophobes - Russians that emigrated abroad. Most of the time they become the most zealous russophobes.
I don't really know the explanation, nor do I really care. I've just made a rule to avoid Russians abroad as most of them hate themselves to the point of schizophrenia.
I grew up in the Soviet Union until my family and I immigrated to the US. I have no particular loyalty to "the west", but I can say with absolute certainty that Western culture is objectively better than Soviet culture.
The general feelings that permeated Soviet society were apathy and misery. It was so pervasive that modern Russians fetishize it and even feel nostalgia for it.
There was an excellent little movie from the 80s called Moscow on the Hudson, with Robin Williams, which beautifully portrays the Soviet immigrant experience. Robin Williams' character says the following lines, which resonate with me completely:
"When I was in Russia, I did not love my life... but I loved my misery. You know why? Because it was my misery. I could hold it. I could caress it. I loved my misery."
The general feelings that permeated Soviet society were apathy and misery. It was so pervasive that modern Russians fetishize it and even feel nostalgia for it.
There was an excellent little movie from the 80s called Moscow on the Hudson, with Robin Williams, which beautifully portrays the Soviet immigrant experience. Robin Williams' character says the following lines, which resonate with me completely:
"When I was in Russia, I did not love my life... but I loved my misery. You know why? Because it was my misery. I could hold it. I could caress it. I loved my misery."
I lived for years in various SEA countries. Most are significantly poorer that USSR/Russia ever was, lacking infrastructure (basic necessities like electricity, tap water, internet, access to medical care, good roads, etc). Many of them are also highly authoritarian. E.g. Cambodia, which is authoritarian, lacks electricity (even in the capital blackouts are frequent and long, in the summer they happen every day for the duration of the whole workday!), there's no qualified medical care (free or non-free whatsoever), no education (even highly expensive "western" schools are worthless, and I know from experience that there work many drunkards, drug addicts and pedophiles from the West).
Nevertheless Russian expats are praising these third world countries as "best in the world" and endlessly vilify Russia. In fact, vilifying Russia is the main talk topic everywhere where 2 or more Russian expats gather, main reason why I avoid making friends with Russians abroad. You can easily find lots of proofs on Facebook and travel forums.
Nevertheless Russian expats are praising these third world countries as "best in the world" and endlessly vilify Russia. In fact, vilifying Russia is the main talk topic everywhere where 2 or more Russian expats gather, main reason why I avoid making friends with Russians abroad. You can easily find lots of proofs on Facebook and travel forums.
> I would blame more the cold messed up soviet-era society for this
Please read The Prince, The Karamazov Brothers, Eugene Onegin, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, or Dead Souls before writing this kind of grotesque sweeping statements.
Please read The Prince, The Karamazov Brothers, Eugene Onegin, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, or Dead Souls before writing this kind of grotesque sweeping statements.
Pre-Soviet literature is dark, but it really doesn't compare to Soviet-era works. Soviet Russia was a fucked-up place, I hope you don't get your information from propagandists.
America is also a fucked up place where people walk around in fear of the police and the paramilitary forces (sorry, “patriots”) that occupy most of the US outside the major cities. You never know when one of them is going to pop into a synagogue or a grocery store with an AR-15.
This country is dystopian af too; the American dream died with 9/11. We’re just another empire that’s rotting from the core.
This country is dystopian af too; the American dream died with 9/11. We’re just another empire that’s rotting from the core.
Out of curiosity—do you live here?
America is beginning its decline, there's no question. I think you're worried about the wrong things, but that's simply a matter of opinion.
Thankfully, we're nowhere near the insanity of 40s-50s Soviet Russia. Here, we have a right to freedom of speech, and at least ostensibly a right to bear arms. Hopefully we can maintain those rights and avoid the hellish police state phase of the collapse.
America is beginning its decline, there's no question. I think you're worried about the wrong things, but that's simply a matter of opinion.
Thankfully, we're nowhere near the insanity of 40s-50s Soviet Russia. Here, we have a right to freedom of speech, and at least ostensibly a right to bear arms. Hopefully we can maintain those rights and avoid the hellish police state phase of the collapse.
Yup I live in America, and the black eye and tear gas I got from the cops last summer during the protests told me all I needed to know about the state violence that occurs in the US. Not to mention the “cops” showing up in unmarked vans and snatching people off the street, or secret prisons, or the cellular surveillance planes, or the vigilante “patrols” that continue to this day and are encouraged by the police captains.
The police state is here, and if you own guns they’ll just storm your house with a swat team, shoot your dog, and charge you for assaulting an officer.
The police state is here, and if you own guns they’ll just storm your house with a swat team, shoot your dog, and charge you for assaulting an officer.
So, you dislike the state, dislike vigilantism, dislike citizens defending themselves, and also have no viable solutions except organizing the state more to your liking.
You need some Socratic Method in your life.
You need some Socratic Method in your life.
> Pre-Soviet literature is dark, but it really doesn't compare to Soviet-era works.
That's a very werid take. I don't see how e.g. the Strugatskii are darker than Gogol. Have you read the books you allude to?
That's a very werid take. I don't see how e.g. the Strugatskii are darker than Gogol. Have you read the books you allude to?
[deleted]
>Of all the parts of your body, be most vigilant over your index finger, for it is blame-thirsty. A pointed finger is a victim’s logo — the opposite of the V-sign and a synonym for surrender.
This was powerful to me.
This was powerful to me.
"...No matter how abominable your condition may be, try not to blame anything or anybody: history, the state, superiors, race, parents, the phase of the moon, childhood, toilet training, etc… The moment that you place blame somewhere, you undermine your resolve to change anything; it could be argued even that that blame-thirsty finger oscillates as wildly as it does because the resolve was never great enough in the first place.
After all, a victim status is not without its sweetness. It commands compassion, confers distinction, and whole nations and continents bask in the murk of mental discounts advertised as the victim’s conscience — but try to resist it. However abundant and irrefutable is the evidence that you are on the losing side, negate it as long as you have your wits about you, as long as your lips can utter “No…”
On the whole, try to respect life not only for its amenities but for its hardships, too. They are a part of the game, and what’s good about a hardship is that it is not a deception."
This resonates with me-- it's something I have always held as a core belief. I made an appointment to be where I am today-- good or bad. The moment I blame my situation on someone or something I cede control of the situation.
After all, a victim status is not without its sweetness. It commands compassion, confers distinction, and whole nations and continents bask in the murk of mental discounts advertised as the victim’s conscience — but try to resist it. However abundant and irrefutable is the evidence that you are on the losing side, negate it as long as you have your wits about you, as long as your lips can utter “No…”
On the whole, try to respect life not only for its amenities but for its hardships, too. They are a part of the game, and what’s good about a hardship is that it is not a deception."
This resonates with me-- it's something I have always held as a core belief. I made an appointment to be where I am today-- good or bad. The moment I blame my situation on someone or something I cede control of the situation.
> The moment I blame my situation on someone or something I cede control of the situation
But it is oh so easy to do that; to his point, there is a sweetness to it; I find I have to remind myself of the idea of ownership and personal responsibility all the time... it's so easy to end up blaming something or someone else.
But it is oh so easy to do that; to his point, there is a sweetness to it; I find I have to remind myself of the idea of ownership and personal responsibility all the time... it's so easy to end up blaming something or someone else.
It's complicated, because a lot of people genuinely are victims whose suffering genuinely is someone else's fault, and they do deserve the help of others.
At the same time: for the victims themselves, their best chance of overcoming their circumstance is often to not think about it that way.
It's one of those tricky cases where a realistic mindset is not a useful mindset. You have to hold reality, and set it aside, and suspend your disbelief. It's hard to do that, so instead different people fully buy into one reality or the other and then get into conflict over the cognitive dissonance.
At the same time: for the victims themselves, their best chance of overcoming their circumstance is often to not think about it that way.
It's one of those tricky cases where a realistic mindset is not a useful mindset. You have to hold reality, and set it aside, and suspend your disbelief. It's hard to do that, so instead different people fully buy into one reality or the other and then get into conflict over the cognitive dissonance.
Essentially, to boil this message to its core, there are victims, but the victim mindset is counterproductive to recovery?
With depression it's common that in acute events the conversation with the patient is along the lines of "it's not you, it's chemicals etc. Your powerless, don't blame yourself" which is a pretty good short term strategy. But over time it robs you of agency to think this way.
Longer term, with recovery focusing on taking back agency the conversation does change to a "you were a party to your own depression, own it. be mindful etc"
But it's a pretty big view change.
Longer term, with recovery focusing on taking back agency the conversation does change to a "you were a party to your own depression, own it. be mindful etc"
But it's a pretty big view change.
Yeah. Depression by its nature is a bit of a special case where when you're in the throes of it, "this is your responsibility, only you can fix it" is the absolute worst thing you can possibly be told. It will definitely just shove you deeper down the hole. But once you've got some upward momentum a shift toward "I can fix this myself" can sometimes be helpful.
Duncan62(1)
[deleted]
Your freedom and your health: the only two things in life that actually matter. Everything else is just a game that we all play with each other.
I prefer what Solzhenitsyn said:
"What about the main thing in life, all its riddles? If you want, I’ll spell it out for you right now. Do not pursue what is illusionary - property and position: all that is gained at the expense of your nerves decade after decade, and is confiscated in one fell night. Live with a steady superiority over life - don’t be afraid of misfortune, and do not yearn for happiness; it is, after all, all the same: the bitter doesn’t last forever, and the sweet never fills the cup to overflowing. It is enough if you don’t freeze in the cold and if thirst and hunger don’t claw at your insides. If your back isn’t broken, if your feet can walk, if both arms can bend, if both eyes can see, if both ears hear, then whom should you envy? And why? Our envy of others devours us most of all. Rub your eyes and purify your heart - and prize above all else in the world those who love you and who wish you well. Do not hurt them or scold them, and never part from any of them in anger; after all, you simply do not know: it may be your last act before your arrest, and that will be how you are imprinted on their memory."
"What about the main thing in life, all its riddles? If you want, I’ll spell it out for you right now. Do not pursue what is illusionary - property and position: all that is gained at the expense of your nerves decade after decade, and is confiscated in one fell night. Live with a steady superiority over life - don’t be afraid of misfortune, and do not yearn for happiness; it is, after all, all the same: the bitter doesn’t last forever, and the sweet never fills the cup to overflowing. It is enough if you don’t freeze in the cold and if thirst and hunger don’t claw at your insides. If your back isn’t broken, if your feet can walk, if both arms can bend, if both eyes can see, if both ears hear, then whom should you envy? And why? Our envy of others devours us most of all. Rub your eyes and purify your heart - and prize above all else in the world those who love you and who wish you well. Do not hurt them or scold them, and never part from any of them in anger; after all, you simply do not know: it may be your last act before your arrest, and that will be how you are imprinted on their memory."
No matter how fairly the man you’ve elected will promise to cut the pie, it won’t grow in size; as a matter of fact, the portions are bound to get smaller. In light of that, or, rather, in dark of that — you ought to rely on your own home cooking, that is, on managing the world yourselves — at least that part of it that lies within your reach, within your radius."
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Society doesn't get better because we elect the right politicians, it gets better because the people in it decide to be better (in themselves, towards each other, etc). Politicians are just a (grotesque, exaggerated, warped) reflection of the rest of us; they will never be our salvation. We should stay informed, we should vote, but big-picture politics should be a small part of our lives (and heaven forbid it to be an integral part of our identities). Relationships with real people, solving small-scale problems that confront those we care about, are what really count. And the tragedy is that even as we've put more and more stock in the former, we've been actively sabotaging the latter.