Ah yes, the long rich democratic tradition of the 20 years between the World Wars, that were imposed by Woodrow Wilson's deranged fantasies, and managed to revert to authoritarianism even within that short timespan.
What is this meant to be a reference to please? Czechoslovakia? Because there was no reversion to authoritarianism in that case.
The attachment to democracy was so short that we were seriously debating if it's not better to take the Asian Tiger route, and only implement democracy after authoritarian reforms.
The Asian Tiger route was a strictly Southeast Asian (Confucian) phenomenon in the specific context of the Cold War and facilitated by generous and targeted American capital investment and the proto version of offshoring. None of that applied to Eastern Europe after 1989.
It can work if the stars align just right, but has the tendency of taking it's necessary conditions (like everybody having roughly the same values) for granted. The moment these conditions are not met the democracy enjoyers themselves will start begging for it's end, arresting opposition candidates, and seriously considering the banning of political parties, for the high crime of people voting the wrong way.
It was all a long-term consequence of German 'reunification' (the annexation of the former GDR into an unchanged federal state structure) being a complete shitshow which incidentally the Americans played no part in.
Botond173
16d ago
So the Russian army never actually managed to fight somewhat competently any time in history? Really?
Botond173
16d ago
I assume your basic HBD-related argument here is that democratic transition was largely successful in Eastern Europe in 1989 because White Christians live there, as opposed to Zimbabwe and South Africa (or something).
Either way, I don’t mean this as an insult of some sort, I’d rather go ahead and nitpick.
The obvious commonality among the Eastern European nations that more or less successfully transitioned to democracy in 1989 is that they all have some past legacy of applied democratic norms, rule of law, parliamentary systems, Western orientation and (some differing level of) Germanic cultural influence. Belarus, for example, is a clear exception. (And the question of whether the area of the former GDR was ‘properly’ democratized or not is seemingly an ever thornier one on the minds of West German normies.) In contrast, the Russian, Central Asian and Caucasian republics of the former USSR clearly lack this and continued the norms of authoritarianism and repression accordingly. Whatever marginal democratic tendencies might have even been present at the beginning clearly went nowhere. This was already clear as day back in 2003, and was available as an argument against rosy neocon predictions regarding Iraq’s future.
I won’t argue about the basket case Rhodesia has turned into; with respect to South Africa though I’d point out that it’s easy to get dispirited about developments there instead of comparing what ended up happening to the absolute bloodbath and misery the country could easily have slipped into after Apartheid collapsed.
Botond173
16d ago
What actually compelled the emperor to surrender unconditionally was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo, coincidentally on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki. This had two consequences: the possibility of negotiating a conditional surrender with Soviet mediation, which was the last hope the militarists were clinging to (as the USSR was the last remaining great power still neutral in the Pacific war), was obviously nil from that point; and that whatever remaining military units stationed in Manchukuo that they were planning to deploy es reinforcements against the final US invasion were going to be destroyed.
Botond173
17d ago
What's even the point in getting married if you don't want to have children?
Botond173
17d ago
A couple of things:
-
The “we pretend that we work, they pretend that they pay us” Soviet joke specifically originates from the post-Stalin era of thaw and stagnation and for a good reason, as the GULAG no longer existed
-
Marx was already convinced that revolutionary terror is necessary and described it as such
-
As you stated, the commies noticed that beating up selfish people for their acts of selfishness will successfully de-normalize selfishness socially; in a similar manner, beating people up for not caring about the common good will compel them to care about it or else – it’ll work just as much; however, this assumes that the goons and their commanders will never lose their stomachs for beating people up all the time
Botond173
18d ago
For the second - there is no found cure yet for people not giving a shit for the common good under socialism.
How about even more beatings?
Botond173
22d ago
Such modern women do exist but it's generally not that they refuse to act like that. It's that it never even occurs to them that they should act like that in certain contexts, have no concept of it at all in the first place, and don't know how to do it even if they consciously want to. It's generally something nobody ever explained to them, never talked with them about, and had no woman in their lives whom they ever had a chance to emulate in that regard.
Botond173
22d ago
Thanks for the detailed description. I assume these matters are relative in nature. Take the gas station on the corner, for example. Had it never been robbed before, as far as you can tell? Or yes, but only on occasions so rare that the whole neighborhood remembered afterwards for a long time? What about shootings and jogging women getting ambushed by rapists on the trails? Was it unheard of back in the days? And the loiterers and loud beggars?
Botond173
26d ago
There was indeed naive optimism throughout the non-Soviet member states of the collapsing Eastern bloc as well in 1989-91. What devisively killed it (besides economic collapse) was the Gulf War and the bungled Soviet intervention against separatists in the Baltics.
Botond173
26d ago
I think normies used to believe in 3 myths that all crumbled since 2008:
- there'll be no more inflation
- credit will remain cheap
- international trade will always remain free
All of these provided an illusion of everlasting modest welfare.
Botond173
26d ago
LOL...is this what you unironically associate late-stage capitalism and existing cyberpunk conditions with? "good conditions, decent income, nice job"? Do you think this is the lived experience of South Korean normies, for example? People who cannot even reproduce themselves?
"mostly functioning nations"
I meant "mostly well-functioning Asian nation". English isn't my mother tongue. Either way, I think Vietnam, as unified through force of arms, represents an overall outcome that is clearly preferable to both those of all other former COMECON member states and that of the partitioned Korean nation.
Botond173
28d ago
Is there a specific name for the culture war dictate/guideline of "my rules, applied unfairly > my rules, applied fairly > the opponent's rules, applied fairly > the opponent's rules, applied unfairly"?
Botond173
28d ago
Can't you muster up some level of genuine sympathy for a single woman who doesn't want to live as a girlboss? Why would she even want to?
Botond173
28d ago
Vietnam is just an average, mostly functioning Asian nation free of extremes of any sort. South Korea is a realized cyberpunk hellscape afflicted by every conceivable form of degeneracy and blight brought about by modernity and late-stage capitalism, whereas North Korea somehow managed to the realize the horror of Confucianism and Communism being combined and ruled over by a dynasty. And yet you’re arguing that the long-term outcome of US victory for the Korean Peninsula is preferable to the long-term outcome of US defeat for Indochina.
Botond173
28d ago
It changes everything. If he's unavailable for long-term commitment, he's no longer a potential catch for women who want that.
Botond173
29d ago
And if US didn't lose the war, Vietnam could be what South Korea is now. Which is better than what it is now.
How exactly?
Botond173
29d ago
the victorious British (if they were lucky) or French (if not) troops
Care to explain the distinction?
Botond173
29d ago
so long as that man is not looking for life long commitment or is demanding sex before taking things any further
Then he's not relationship material.
There are two glaring problems with that. Imperial Germany had a legacy of democratic norms already - there was a legislative assembly, elections, political parties, political discussions in a free press etc. Also, Germany isn't in Eastern Europe.
More options
Context Copy link