Conquer Club

Ukraine looking for former President for War Crimes

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:17 am

mrswdk wrote:My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.


Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies... None of what you said shows how the revolution was a mass uprising. The CCP and the GMD fought as a united front early on. This is inside v. inside. As the GMD gained more ground, the CCP were pushed into minor control of some workers in some cities. Then, the GMD fights the CCP more heavily. This is still inside v. inside. It's two elite groups battling it out.

After the Japanese sweep through and the GMD has been fairly pummeled, the CCP forcibly conscripts more people, butchers innocents arbitrarily deemed as 'bourgeois', and rolls through the GMD and warlord-controlled regions. There was no mass uprising. It's obviously two elites, each using a minority of the population to attain their organization's goals. After the CCP won, of course they claimed to have represented "the People" and that "the People" led the revolution, but that's nonsense.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:19 am

DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.


Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden and fallacious arguments to further your resistance to saxi's and I's arguments. I can't effectively counter that, so good job.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby mrswdk on Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:29 am

The CCP's roots did not lie within China's ruling class. Like I said earlier, Mao was a nobody who worked in a university library prior to setting up the CCP. The CCP grew outside of China's power structures, not within them.

Yes, after the CCP got into power they became jus as much of a private clique as the KMT ever were, but that doesn't make the Communist Revolution an 'inside' job.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:58 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.


Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden


What is emotional about the arguments?

On one hand, saxi is arguing that a giant mastermind USA pulls all the strings in every revolution around the world, and on the other hand, you switch the defintion to say that anyone who wins a revolution, regardelss of whether or not they were "people" before cease to be "people" once they have won the revolution. It is both a tautology, and a convenient cop-out.

My cycle theory may not be perfect, but you haven't shown how it is incorrect. You also haven't shown any concept of revolutions as being any more complex than a game of RISK.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10728
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:00 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
mrswdk wrote:My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.


Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies...


But if he did, you would just say that he isn't part of the people. Doesn't that show to you how silly it is?
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10728
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:39 pm

mrswdk wrote:The CCP's roots did not lie within China's ruling class. Like I said earlier, Mao was a nobody who worked in a university library prior to setting up the CCP. The CCP grew outside of China's power structures, not within them.

Yes, after the CCP got into power they became jus as much of a private clique as the KMT ever were, but that doesn't make the Communist Revolution an 'inside' job.


Oh, I see. We're using different definitions of inside. By 'inside', I mean the institution of "meta-politics"--which refers to those guys who set the higher political rules (governments/bandits whose power varies over regions). Those 'inside' would be the CCP, GMD, and the various warlords of china during the 1910s-1930s. "The People" are largely tools, victims, and/or recipients who don't set the meta-politics, i.e. the internal mechanism of change.

The CCP developed within China's changing "power structures" during the 1920s to 1930s. They were part of the "ruling class" because not only did they effectively resist the GMD (until the Long March), but they definitely ruled over their subjects--just as other warlords did. Within the seemingly static concepts of "ruling class" and "power structures," there was plenty of individual mobility. To view the CCP as "non-rulers" is contradictory to history... (unless you arbitrarily bend these terms to conclude that the CCP and The People were magically united to fight the big evil bad guys/"ruling class").


RE: the underlined, that's somewhat correct, but you'd be surprised. I'm looking forward to this very interesting book called The Sun Also Rises which follows family names that re-emerge after countless revolutions, purges, and so on. E.g. those within the Qing Dynasty can re-emerge within the CCP. The average time of recovery was two generations, but there's a long tendency for the political incumbents to remain in politics--regardless of its changing face.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:47 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.


Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden


What is emotional about the arguments?


Usually when people crap out short, fallacious arguments, I imagine that emotion is mostly determining their decisions.


DoomYoshi wrote:On one hand, saxi is arguing that a giant mastermind USA pulls all the strings in every revolution around the world, and on the other hand, you switch the defintion to say that anyone who wins a revolution, regardelss of whether or not they were "people" before cease to be "people" once they have won the revolution. It is both a tautology, and a convenient cop-out.

My cycle theory may not be perfect, but you haven't shown how it is incorrect. You also haven't shown any concept of revolutions as being any more complex than a game of RISK.


I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

I don't see how the underlined is my position. "The people" is a misleading term; I mentioned three basic groups to simplify. I employed methodological individualism to explain the game theoretic considerations of joining a revolution. The implications of which are more complex than a Risk game. I don't know how you arrived at that summary of my position, and I'm not even sure what your "cycle theory" is. That's new.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:54 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.


But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:58 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
mrswdk wrote:My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.


Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies...


But if he did, you would just say that he isn't part of the people. Doesn't that show to you how silly it is?


How will your using "the people" concept yield useful insights?

I don't see what's so hard to understand the difference between "the people" and "<1% of Ukrainians protesting." In order for the "mass uprising" theory to make sense, you'd need much greater participation then 1%. That requirement is ignored when we start lumping details into the homogenizing "the people" concept. This has been one basic problem I've had with your view on Ukraine's recent protests.

If Bear Grylls history in political change was comparable to Zhou Enlai's, then I don't see what's so silly about discussing the different opportunities a Zhou Enlai would have compared to a "Farmer Joe."
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:03 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.


Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden


What is emotional about the arguments?


Usually when people crap out short, fallacious arguments, I imagine that emotion is mostly determining their decisions.

It's because you have a simplistic view of arguments.

DoomYoshi wrote:On one hand, saxi is arguing that a giant mastermind USA pulls all the strings in every revolution around the world, and on the other hand, you switch the defintion to say that anyone who wins a revolution, regardelss of whether or not they were "people" before cease to be "people" once they have won the revolution. It is both a tautology, and a convenient cop-out.

My cycle theory may not be perfect, but you haven't shown how it is incorrect. You also haven't shown any concept of revolutions as being any more complex than a game of RISK.


I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

I don't see how the underlined is my position. "The people" is a misleading term; I mentioned three basic groups to simplify. I employed methodological individualism to explain the game theoretic considerations of joining a revolution. The implications of which are more complex than a Risk game. I don't know how you arrived at that summary of my position, and I'm not even sure what your "cycle theory" is. That's new.


The people can be a misleading term. That is not mutually exclusive with my cycle position which is:
DoomYoshi wrote:You present a simplified narrative as if this entire protest was planned by a marketing firm. I don't disagree that there are vested interests involved in this. However, it is a feedback cycle in which activists activate something, interested parties find a way to capitalize and re-present the narrative to the activists who then activate something else. The Standing Man protests were not a deliberately marketed thing originally. It was one guy. It was then marketed and turned into an icon, but Political parties, like internet clowns, can't just create memes when they are trying to.


In other words, ruling parties (or soon to be ruling parties) can hatch a devious revolution plan, but they can also see a revolution happening and then capitalize on it. Likewise, the revolters can take the memes of the devious plan and build it into a stronger revolution. Both parties (people[meaning revolters and those that support them]; versus ruling class and exploiters) can feed into each other. If they feed into each other in a positive reinforcement cycle (where, for example the US interests align with those of the protestors) than the revolution can be a success.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
mrswdk wrote:My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.


Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies...


But if he did, you would just say that he isn't part of the people. Doesn't that show to you how silly it is?


How will your using "the people" concept yield useful insights?

I don't see what's so hard to understand the difference between "the people" and "<1% of Ukrainians protesting." In order for the "mass uprising" theory to make sense, you'd need much greater participation then 1%. That requirement is ignored when we start lumping details into the homogenizing "the people" concept. This has been one basic problem I've had with your view on Ukraine's recent protests.

If Bear Grylls history in political change was comparable to Zhou Enlai's, then I don't see what's so silly about discussing the different opportunities a Zhou Enlai would have compared to a "Farmer Joe."


Saying that only 1% of Ukrainanians support EuroMaidan is a fallacy. Those armored suits, weapons and foods are coming from direct supporters, while polls show there is moral support which in some regions of Ukraine is a majority, never mind the non-Ukrainians around the world who support EuroMaidan.

What useful insights do you want from a "people" concept? How do you know what my concept is?
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10728
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:04 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.


But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?


1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.

2. "Useful idiot," not idiot, but I don't deny that some number of voters are idiots. Politicians tend to be effective at exploiting voters' rational irrationality. In this sense, such voters are deemed "useful idiots."

If you want to continue this conversation, it'd be best to create a US-related thread for it.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:05 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.


But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?


I believe that, and the same goes for voting for Canadian politicians. The reprocrat system is too real, in both countries.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10728
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:06 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:mrswdk and Dukasaur, I appreciate your efforts. Saxitoxin and BBS like a neatly wrapped conspiracy narrative that has no complications whatsoever and is completely black and white.

Don't try to talk subtleties with them. The people are totally irrelevant. Right now in the Ukraine, there aren't even protesters, they are just hologrammed images put forth by the ruling classes.


Now you're mostly relying on emotionally laden


What is emotional about the arguments?


Usually when people crap out short, fallacious arguments, I imagine that emotion is mostly determining their decisions.

It's because you have a simplistic view of arguments.

DoomYoshi wrote:On one hand, saxi is arguing that a giant mastermind USA pulls all the strings in every revolution around the world, and on the other hand, you switch the defintion to say that anyone who wins a revolution, regardelss of whether or not they were "people" before cease to be "people" once they have won the revolution. It is both a tautology, and a convenient cop-out.

My cycle theory may not be perfect, but you haven't shown how it is incorrect. You also haven't shown any concept of revolutions as being any more complex than a game of RISK.


I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

I don't see how the underlined is my position. "The people" is a misleading term; I mentioned three basic groups to simplify. I employed methodological individualism to explain the game theoretic considerations of joining a revolution. The implications of which are more complex than a Risk game. I don't know how you arrived at that summary of my position, and I'm not even sure what your "cycle theory" is. That's new.


The people can be a misleading term. That is not mutually exclusive with my cycle position which is:
DoomYoshi wrote:You present a simplified narrative as if this entire protest was planned by a marketing firm. I don't disagree that there are vested interests involved in this. However, it is a feedback cycle in which activists activate something, interested parties find a way to capitalize and re-present the narrative to the activists who then activate something else. The Standing Man protests were not a deliberately marketed thing originally. It was one guy. It was then marketed and turned into an icon, but Political parties, like internet clowns, can't just create memes when they are trying to.


In other words, ruling parties (or soon to be ruling parties) can hatch a devious revolution plan, but they can also see a revolution happening and then capitalize on it. Likewise, the revolters can take the memes of the devious plan and build it into a stronger revolution. Both parties (people[meaning revolters and those that support them]; versus ruling class and exploiters) can feed into each other. If they feed into each other in a positive reinforcement cycle (where, for example the US interests align with those of the protestors) than the revolution can be a success.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
mrswdk wrote:My point was that the CCP's overthrow of the KMT does not fit Tilly's model of 'inside group vs inside group'. Zhou Enlai knowing Chiang Kai-Shek at military academy does not make the CCP an 'inside group'. By that logic Bear Grylls is on the 'inside' of the UK's power system, having attended the same high school as the current prime minister.


Bear Grylls didn't lead any armies...


But if he did, you would just say that he isn't part of the people. Doesn't that show to you how silly it is?


How will your using "the people" concept yield useful insights?

I don't see what's so hard to understand the difference between "the people" and "<1% of Ukrainians protesting." In order for the "mass uprising" theory to make sense, you'd need much greater participation then 1%. That requirement is ignored when we start lumping details into the homogenizing "the people" concept. This has been one basic problem I've had with your view on Ukraine's recent protests.

If Bear Grylls history in political change was comparable to Zhou Enlai's, then I don't see what's so silly about discussing the different opportunities a Zhou Enlai would have compared to a "Farmer Joe."


Saying that only 1% of Ukrainanians support EuroMaidan is a fallacy. Those armored suits, weapons and foods are coming from direct supporters, while polls show there is moral support which in some regions of Ukraine is a majority, never mind the non-Ukrainians around the world who support EuroMaidan.

What useful insights do you want from a "people" concept? How do you know what my concept is?


Great question. Would you care to unpack it a bit more?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:09 pm

The people is socially defined.

In the Ukraine, it probably includes everyone who isn't a Jew or Oligarch.

In Canada, it includes all taxpayers.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10728
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:21 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.


But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?


1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.


But if one acknowledges that one's individual role in the election/protest is negligible, then it's obviously not rational to engage in the rent seeking (for its own sake) because whether or not you get what you want is independent of whether you participate. So obviously there's something more to the story than just voting to "get mine."
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:25 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:The people is socially defined.

In the Ukraine, it probably includes everyone who isn't a Jew or Oligarch.

In Canada, it includes all taxpayers.


Then that concept is just as accurate as "socially" defined. It's definitely useful in the sense that you can always say, "the People support X," without having to unpack the necessary explanation of how the individuals within "the People" actually do support X.

The People agree with me! The People disagree with you! The People do as I imagine!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby Dukasaur on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:26 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

There's nothing wrong with that position, except that it's incomplete.

Intelligence agencies are forever plotting coups and uprisings. They mostly fail unless the conditions are right. There has to be a significant watershed of genuine support.

When you say A is a cause, that doesn't mean B is not. Just because smoking causes lung cancer doesn't mean that genetic predisposition does not. Almost everything results from a confluence of multiple causes. It's fine to assert cause A, but when you go out of your way to insult people who are talking about cause B and tell them that "because A exists, everyone who thinks B is a moron" you're taking it too far.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 28161
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:30 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.


But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?


1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.


But if one acknowledges that one's individual role in the election/protest is negligible, then it's obviously not rational to engage in the rent seeking (for its own sake) because whether or not you get what you want is independent of whether you participate. So obviously there's something more to the story than just voting to "get mine."


That doesn't follow. "Rational" for economics is in terms of "using the right means to attain one's expected goal," and the chances of getting a certain rent varies by individual. And, you're applying your argument only to the early stage of the revolution. The payoffs change over time, so people's perceived profit opportunities change, thus their behavior can change over time.

Sure, there's other ends: "the awesome feeling of promoting democracy--however imagined," "protesting to bang hot chicks," "better than being unemployed and homeless," etc.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:31 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:The people is socially defined.

In the Ukraine, it probably includes everyone who isn't a Jew or Oligarch.

In Canada, it includes all taxpayers.


Then that concept is just as accurate as "socially" defined. It's definitely useful in the sense that you can always say, "the People support X," without having to unpack the necessary explanation of how the individuals within "the People" actually do support X.

The People agree with me! The People disagree with you! The People do as I imagine!


The polled population support x. You are the one who made this conversation about the "people". You introduced this concept only to show how dumb it was. It was a straw man to begin with. Now that we are done talking about a waste of time argument that you brought up, can we go back to your conspiracy theory?
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10728
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:32 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

There's nothing wrong with that position, except that it's incomplete.

Intelligence agencies are forever plotting coups and uprisings. They mostly fail unless the conditions are right. There has to be a significant watershed of genuine support.

When you say A is a cause, that doesn't mean B is not. Just because smoking causes lung cancer doesn't mean that genetic predisposition does not. Almost everything results from a confluence of multiple causes. It's fine to assert cause A, but when you go out of your way to insult people who are talking about cause B and tell them that "because A exists, everyone who thinks B is a moron" you're taking it too far.


Sure, there's tipping points, and there's the problem of endogeneity (so the linear causality between the two variables--e.g. the CIA and 'the people' can go both ways). I'm just saying not to dismiss Saxi's explanation as DY has done with his mischaracterization.

But finding the answer is very costly (in time and resources), and there's a great chance that one's Freedom of Information appeal will get rejected until... 20 years later--when nobody cares (or when they're busy talking about how great another democracy movement is in place X).

I don't see how talking about the possibilities of rent-seeking, the self-evident existence of useful idiots, and the collective action problems with revolutions is "taking it too far." Some have offered competing explanations which rely on "the people" style of reasoning. I just don't find that convincing, so I got tired of it and offered a very short summary of what I've been reading.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:33 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.


But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?


1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.


But if one acknowledges that one's individual role in the election/protest is negligible, then it's obviously not rational to engage in the rent seeking (for its own sake) because whether or not you get what you want is independent of whether you participate. So obviously there's something more to the story than just voting to "get mine."


That doesn't follow. "Rational" for economics is in terms of "using the right means to attain one's expected goal," and the chances of getting a certain rent varies by individual. And, you're applying your argument only to the early stage of the revolution. The payoffs change over time, so people's perceived profit opportunities change, thus their behavior can change over time.


I'm not advancing a particular perspective so much as objecting to your argument that it is idiotic to vote even if I know my means of action are ineffective and negligible.

Sure, there's other ends: "the awesome feeling of promoting democracy--however imagined,"


Yes, almost. People often feel ethically obligated to participate in their democracy even if they know their vote doesn't matter. And if you're participating in a protest/revolution, you might have a similar reasoning. If you don't account for the likelihood that people generally are acting in an ethical manner and aren't just trying to improve their own lives, then you don't have a full understanding of the situation.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby DoomYoshi on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:35 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

There's nothing wrong with that position, except that it's incomplete.

Intelligence agencies are forever plotting coups and uprisings. They mostly fail unless the conditions are right. There has to be a significant watershed of genuine support.

When you say A is a cause, that doesn't mean B is not. Just because smoking causes lung cancer doesn't mean that genetic predisposition does not. Almost everything results from a confluence of multiple causes. It's fine to assert cause A, but when you go out of your way to insult people who are talking about cause B and tell them that "because A exists, everyone who thinks B is a moron" you're taking it too far.


Sure, there's tipping points, and there's the problem of endogeneity (so the linear causality between the two variables--e.g. the CIA and 'the people' can go both ways). I'm just saying not to dismiss Saxi's explanation as DY has done with his mischaracterization.

But finding the answer is very costly (in time and resources), and there's a great chance that one's Freedom of Information appeal will get rejected until... 20 years later--when nobody cares (or when they're busy talking about how great another democracy movement is in place X).


I haven't dismissed it so much as calling it an oversimplification.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10728
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:36 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:The people is socially defined.

In the Ukraine, it probably includes everyone who isn't a Jew or Oligarch.

In Canada, it includes all taxpayers.


Then that concept is just as accurate as "socially" defined. It's definitely useful in the sense that you can always say, "the People support X," without having to unpack the necessary explanation of how the individuals within "the People" actually do support X.

The People agree with me! The People disagree with you! The People do as I imagine!


The polled population support x. You are the one who made this conversation about the "people". You introduced this concept only to show how dumb it was. It was a straw man to begin with. Now that we are done talking about a waste of time argument that you brought up, can we go back to your conspiracy theory?


So, you reject the socially defined "people" concept? If so, then what do you think about my previous post of the simplified three groups of people?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:49 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.


But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?


1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.


But if one acknowledges that one's individual role in the election/protest is negligible, then it's obviously not rational to engage in the rent seeking (for its own sake) because whether or not you get what you want is independent of whether you participate. So obviously there's something more to the story than just voting to "get mine."


That doesn't follow. "Rational" for economics is in terms of "using the right means to attain one's expected goal," and the chances of getting a certain rent varies by individual. And, you're applying your argument only to the early stage of the revolution. The payoffs change over time, so people's perceived profit opportunities change, thus their behavior can change over time.


I'm not advancing a particular perspective so much as objecting to your argument that it is idiotic to vote even if I know my means of action are ineffective and negligible.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality

Metsfanmax wrote:
Sure, there's other ends: "the awesome feeling of promoting democracy--however imagined,"


Yes, almost. People often feel ethically obligated to participate in their democracy even if they know their vote doesn't matter. And if you're participating in a protest/revolution, you might have a similar reasoning. If you don't account for the likelihood that people generally are acting in an ethical manner and aren't just trying to improve their own lives, then you don't have a full understanding of the situation.





Are they behaving altruistically? If so, how can you tell? In other words, how can you separate the feeling of being altruistic from the complementary (and personal) feeling of doing good? No one can since that goal is tainted by its intertwined "getting mine" factor, so I don't find the "common good" explanation to be useful. It may explain some of it--e.g. how people behave in mutual aid societies, but after outlining the many direct avenues of profit (in sex, rents, and what not), we get a better picture which goes beyond the "common good" explanation. I generally disregard the "common good" explanation by comparing it within different contexts: it makes sense in mutual aid societies with its constraints and self-enforcement mechanisms. When it's scaled to revolutions, there's less effective constraints, thus more opportunism, and so on.

To give you some context, I'm mostly responding against the following position and its similar forms: "the Ukrainian people are stirred to promote democracy for the sake of promoting democracy."
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: So, the Ukraine is trying to pull an Egypt now.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:50 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

There's nothing wrong with that position, except that it's incomplete.

Intelligence agencies are forever plotting coups and uprisings. They mostly fail unless the conditions are right. There has to be a significant watershed of genuine support.

When you say A is a cause, that doesn't mean B is not. Just because smoking causes lung cancer doesn't mean that genetic predisposition does not. Almost everything results from a confluence of multiple causes. It's fine to assert cause A, but when you go out of your way to insult people who are talking about cause B and tell them that "because A exists, everyone who thinks B is a moron" you're taking it too far.


Sure, there's tipping points, and there's the problem of endogeneity (so the linear causality between the two variables--e.g. the CIA and 'the people' can go both ways). I'm just saying not to dismiss Saxi's explanation as DY has done with his mischaracterization.

But finding the answer is very costly (in time and resources), and there's a great chance that one's Freedom of Information appeal will get rejected until... 20 years later--when nobody cares (or when they're busy talking about how great another democracy movement is in place X).


I haven't dismissed it so much as calling it an oversimplification.


That's good. Your summary failed to convey what you intended.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users