It's probably a mistake to see World War II as a war fought for ideological reasons. That's not to say that ideological reasons didn't play a role, particularly in the war propaganda, but World War II was fought for pretty much the reasons most wars are fought, which is rarely if ever primarily ideology. The Cold War is a little more complicated, but it wasn't just about ideology either (resources, spheres of influence, and what happens when you have two super powers with giant militaries, were more important than ideology).
Koz, under your theory, "Team Blue" has, at the same time, both the pernicious ideology that creates the difference between them and "Team Red" and leads to rampant increases in state power, and nothing but animus. Yeah, there's nothing dysfunctional about your H.S. football approach to politics and policy. Go team!
Koz, you've just expressed precisely the view to which I was referring. I'm not saying there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, or however we want to classify these people who make up the two poles of our mainstream political spectrum, but I am saying that separating them into teams, or viewing things as "us vs them" has not simply exaggerated those differences, but made dialogue between the two groups, who for all intents and purposes determine our political representatives, virtually impossible, to the point of it being almost comically (but, given its consequences, also tragically) dysfunctional.
Of course, capitalism is also a response to feudalism, in many ways, as any good Marxist will tell you.
And I suspect any good sociologist or social psychologist would tell you that extremism, whether it's Islamic or othwerise, tends to be a response to perceived helplessness, whether it's the result of strong-armism, imperialism, economics.
Calling them teams, or at least thinking of them as such, is a good way to get into the absolute mess of a political system we have today. Witness Koz.
Bob, right, he's not the boss of me, though I appreciate him calling me comrade like it would bug me! I'm sure you can set him straight on that one.
What do you disagree with Blaise on related to the Cold War? I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Communism (with a big C) was a worse enemy than Nazism, but that's mostly because I'm not sure what that means. Communism certainly lasted longer, and Stalin and Mao killed many more innocents than Hitler, to be sure, but deciding which is worse strikes me as the equivalent of trying to decide which is more deadly, being struck by a several-ton meteor or being struck by a several ton rock from Earth. But the rest of what he said, or at least the general sense that the Cold War led to all sorts of unnecessary craziness on our part, seems pretty true to me.
I do think it's odd to say we got whipped in the Korean War. We got whipped, then we whipped, then we got whipped, all in the first several months, and after that it was a pointless stalemate with no whipping being done by either side (except maybe in the skies). But his view of the Korean war seems like the least egregious of his hyperboles in this thread to me.
Blaise, point to where I've suggested anything but that the 50s economy was pretty darn good, and then you can tell me anything you've just said is relevant to what I've said.
If you must know, I think the 50s were a mess, culturally, though I focused on segregation and the rise of the military industrial complex, rather than your preferred targets, which is not to say that I disagree with you on the Cold War. As I said to Bob, the 50s were the beginning point of a cultural awakening -- the civil rights movement, the counterculture, a new wave of the women's rights movement, etc., that would carry us up to the 80s, and to some extent through today, though I tend to think much of what began there has been lost, at least in the form of momentum (there's my nostalgia). But with the exception of the civil rights movement, those things were mostly seeds or seedlings in the 50s, so the 50s still remained a bit of a social and cultural wasteland. So, if you think I disagree with you on the 50s generally, feel free to argue that. I just don't see what you'd be arguing against, or for.
Chris and the Dense One want to paint me as some Roosky Lover. It’s like watching so many barky chihuahua dogs. Would that either could write his way out of a paper bag, for there are substantive arguments against my points, any of which would be a welcome change from this ill-mannered Poo Flinging.
Haha... It's funny to see you flustered, Blaise. Since I haven't said anything about Russia, and really haven't said anything about the space industry, you've clearly lost it here. But whatever you need to tell yourself to keep going, General. It's also funny to see you bitch and moan about personal attacks in lieu of arguments when you've yet to actually address what I've said about the 50s, instead tearing down completely unrelated claims (like, say, the 50s were perfect).
By the way, I'll say this again, but the only personal comment I've made about you (you've now made several about me), is the suggestion that you might tell a tall tale now and then (you might, if you haven't already, look up Ivolgin). Everything else was directed at your statements here: that they were exaggerated, that they were further and further from the topic (the 50s economy), that they were unrelated to your theses, etc. If you can't recognize the difference between personal attacks (you're a teller of tall tales) and criticisms of what you've said (you haven't presented arguments, and what you have presented is a piss poor substitute for arguments), I don't know how to help you.
You, on the other hand, have suggested I'm a bad writer (never claimed I wasn't), that I ignore facts that don't conform to my opinions (which facts, I'm not sure, since you haven't given any related to my point, yet), that I resort to personal attacks because I have no argument (see above), that I'm a yappy dog, and I'm sure I'm missing a couple. So, to recap, I've accused you of telling tall tales, and otherwise addressed what I've said, whereas you've done little more, in relation to my point (that the 50s economy was pretty darn good -- again, massive increases in employment, massive increases in GDP per capita, and hell, the creation of the modern middle class, just for good measure) than call me names. What you think is a high horse is really just a toddler's rocking horse, dude.
Blaise, since you haven't argued that the 50s economy wasn't pretty darn good, merely stated it as fact, I don't know which facts I'm ignoring. I do, however, know that you are ignoring one fact: the actual meaning of ad hominem. My comments on you, which are limited to the nickname, aren't related to your argument, and my claim that your arguments are irrelevant to the original point isn't a personal attack.
Blaise, I wasn’t intending, in that particular analogy, to imply that you were lying. The analogy was just that, an analogy: bad arguments are like lies in that you have to keep covering the previous one with a new one, so that you get to the point that you don’t even know what you were arguing for in the first place. I suspect most of us have done that, at one point or another. That you are doing it in this case is evident by the way that nothing you say is related in any way to your original point, or to much of anything.
The hypocorism “General Ivolgin,” on the other hand, does imply…
On point: since we’re only talking about the 50s economy, and since the 50s economy was pretty good by pretty much any measure, especially when compared to the previous and subsequent decades (seriously, a 100% increase in GDP per capita is pretty fishin’ good, by any standard), and since you haven’t suggested any reason to think otherwise (though trashing the space program(s), talking about vaccines in Africa, etc., is a nice way of avoiding doing so), I’m not sure what you think you’ve accomplished. But I’ve wasted time on you when my policy is to ignore you, a mistake for which I apologize to you and myself. I'll go back to letting you tell your tales in peace.
At some point, the word phrase "non sequitur" becomes to weak to describe a lack of a relationship between the thesis and the arguments for it. You've reached that point, passed it, and moved on to a world in which you're basically talking to yourself about who knows what.
By the way, I don't think Krugman has ever suggested that the 50s were perfect, or even the best of times (though economically, in the U.S., they were pretty darn good, especially when compared forward and backwards), but they were good times in certain ways -- ways that Krugman is clearly nostalgic for, me less so (I wouldn't mind the tax rates, though).
But dude, you keep arguing whatever it is you're arguing at this point, 'cause man, it's kinda funny to watch you dig holes. I could put music to it, or even make it into a serial: "Next week, on General Ivolgin theater: The General tells us of his time saving stranded Ross Seal Pups from melting melting pack ice during a raging storm off the coast of Antarctica, and how it relates to the negative impact of Republican policies on pricing structures in the pop gun industry. You don't want to miss this episode!"
He's just stuck arguing for a wildly hyperbolic claim that he almost certainly didn't mean, but used in defense of an earlier wildly hyperbolic claim that he may or may not have meant (the bit about the 50s space program, which was, in a way, in defense of his wildly hyperbolic claims about the 50s economy). Bad arguments are like lies; in order to keep the first one going, you have to tack on another, and then another, and then another, until you have no idea what you're arguing for anymore.
I think you're wrong to identify spirituality with Christianity, or even organized religion. Other than that, sure, good and bad, all of that comes with being human, and in fact is a product of being human.
Yeah, my view of the 50s, spiritually, is probably very different from yours, since I associate the “spiritual” character of that age precisely with that segregation and misogyny, though I also see it as the age when people began to say enough is enough. There was something of a spiritual awakening going on, to be sure, though again, I suspect that awakening coincides with precisely the post-50s mindset that you see as inferior.
Besides, this generation is incapable of ever making a movie like “Casablanca.”
So was that one, though they made some pretty good films that were much more subversive (I think of Spartacus or Paths of Glory (yeah, I'm a Kubrick fan).
I also know quite well that the generations that grew up before the 50s thought the 50s were nothing compared to the 20s or 30s. My great grandfather was fond of pointing out to my grandfather that, sure, he (my grandfather) fought and lost an eye in Europe during the Second World War, but he (my great grandfather) fought in the First World War twice (for Italy, then for the U.S.), was wounded twice (once by the Austrians in the Alps, once by the Germans in the Argonne), and when he got home, he worked for the same mining company until he couldn’t work anymore (as a result of the black lung that eventually killed him), because that’s just how it was done back then. I’m not sure working yourself to death in unhealthy conditions, just to make enough money to get by and maybe buy a used Model-T someday is an ideal we should be shooting for, any more than is a heavily racially segregated, misogynistic culture that gave rise to, among other things, our wonderful military-industrial complex. Progress may not always be good, and good progress may not be inevitable, but a desire for an idealized past is rarely, if ever, very productive.
Nostalgia is the disease that generations suffer when they’re no longer defining the culture. And it’s one we’ll all be infected with at some point.
Oh, I don't think the 50s were perfect, but painting such a dire picture of a decade in which GDP per capita doubled, and employment skyrocketed, seems odd to me.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Nostalgia & Freedom”
Or put it another way, if we leave Team Red to its own devices, there will still be a United States in 20 years.
I'm genuinely saddened, for you, that you believe that. Marcuse feels vindicated though, I'm sure.
On “America, Forever At War”
It's probably a mistake to see World War II as a war fought for ideological reasons. That's not to say that ideological reasons didn't play a role, particularly in the war propaganda, but World War II was fought for pretty much the reasons most wars are fought, which is rarely if ever primarily ideology. The Cold War is a little more complicated, but it wasn't just about ideology either (resources, spheres of influence, and what happens when you have two super powers with giant militaries, were more important than ideology).
"
And Truman.
On “Nostalgia & Freedom”
Koz, under your theory, "Team Blue" has, at the same time, both the pernicious ideology that creates the difference between them and "Team Red" and leads to rampant increases in state power, and nothing but animus. Yeah, there's nothing dysfunctional about your H.S. football approach to politics and policy. Go team!
"
Koz, you've just expressed precisely the view to which I was referring. I'm not saying there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, or however we want to classify these people who make up the two poles of our mainstream political spectrum, but I am saying that separating them into teams, or viewing things as "us vs them" has not simply exaggerated those differences, but made dialogue between the two groups, who for all intents and purposes determine our political representatives, virtually impossible, to the point of it being almost comically (but, given its consequences, also tragically) dysfunctional.
"
Of course, capitalism is also a response to feudalism, in many ways, as any good Marxist will tell you.
And I suspect any good sociologist or social psychologist would tell you that extremism, whether it's Islamic or othwerise, tends to be a response to perceived helplessness, whether it's the result of strong-armism, imperialism, economics.
"
Calling them teams, or at least thinking of them as such, is a good way to get into the absolute mess of a political system we have today. Witness Koz.
On “Political Compass Open Thread”
It's calling me a damn dirty hippie too:
Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85
I like the older version of this better. This one felt a little forced.
On “Nostalgia & Freedom”
Bob, you made the General out Ivolgin himself.
"
Bob, right, he's not the boss of me, though I appreciate him calling me comrade like it would bug me! I'm sure you can set him straight on that one.
What do you disagree with Blaise on related to the Cold War? I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Communism (with a big C) was a worse enemy than Nazism, but that's mostly because I'm not sure what that means. Communism certainly lasted longer, and Stalin and Mao killed many more innocents than Hitler, to be sure, but deciding which is worse strikes me as the equivalent of trying to decide which is more deadly, being struck by a several-ton meteor or being struck by a several ton rock from Earth. But the rest of what he said, or at least the general sense that the Cold War led to all sorts of unnecessary craziness on our part, seems pretty true to me.
I do think it's odd to say we got whipped in the Korean War. We got whipped, then we whipped, then we got whipped, all in the first several months, and after that it was a pointless stalemate with no whipping being done by either side (except maybe in the skies). But his view of the Korean war seems like the least egregious of his hyperboles in this thread to me.
"
Blaise, that got a chuckle. Thanks.
"
Blaise, point to where I've suggested anything but that the 50s economy was pretty darn good, and then you can tell me anything you've just said is relevant to what I've said.
If you must know, I think the 50s were a mess, culturally, though I focused on segregation and the rise of the military industrial complex, rather than your preferred targets, which is not to say that I disagree with you on the Cold War. As I said to Bob, the 50s were the beginning point of a cultural awakening -- the civil rights movement, the counterculture, a new wave of the women's rights movement, etc., that would carry us up to the 80s, and to some extent through today, though I tend to think much of what began there has been lost, at least in the form of momentum (there's my nostalgia). But with the exception of the civil rights movement, those things were mostly seeds or seedlings in the 50s, so the 50s still remained a bit of a social and cultural wasteland. So, if you think I disagree with you on the 50s generally, feel free to argue that. I just don't see what you'd be arguing against, or for.
"
Chris and the Dense One want to paint me as some Roosky Lover. It’s like watching so many barky chihuahua dogs. Would that either could write his way out of a paper bag, for there are substantive arguments against my points, any of which would be a welcome change from this ill-mannered Poo Flinging.
Haha... It's funny to see you flustered, Blaise. Since I haven't said anything about Russia, and really haven't said anything about the space industry, you've clearly lost it here. But whatever you need to tell yourself to keep going, General. It's also funny to see you bitch and moan about personal attacks in lieu of arguments when you've yet to actually address what I've said about the 50s, instead tearing down completely unrelated claims (like, say, the 50s were perfect).
By the way, I'll say this again, but the only personal comment I've made about you (you've now made several about me), is the suggestion that you might tell a tall tale now and then (you might, if you haven't already, look up Ivolgin). Everything else was directed at your statements here: that they were exaggerated, that they were further and further from the topic (the 50s economy), that they were unrelated to your theses, etc. If you can't recognize the difference between personal attacks (you're a teller of tall tales) and criticisms of what you've said (you haven't presented arguments, and what you have presented is a piss poor substitute for arguments), I don't know how to help you.
You, on the other hand, have suggested I'm a bad writer (never claimed I wasn't), that I ignore facts that don't conform to my opinions (which facts, I'm not sure, since you haven't given any related to my point, yet), that I resort to personal attacks because I have no argument (see above), that I'm a yappy dog, and I'm sure I'm missing a couple. So, to recap, I've accused you of telling tall tales, and otherwise addressed what I've said, whereas you've done little more, in relation to my point (that the 50s economy was pretty darn good -- again, massive increases in employment, massive increases in GDP per capita, and hell, the creation of the modern middle class, just for good measure) than call me names. What you think is a high horse is really just a toddler's rocking horse, dude.
"
Blaise, since you haven't argued that the 50s economy wasn't pretty darn good, merely stated it as fact, I don't know which facts I'm ignoring. I do, however, know that you are ignoring one fact: the actual meaning of ad hominem. My comments on you, which are limited to the nickname, aren't related to your argument, and my claim that your arguments are irrelevant to the original point isn't a personal attack.
"
"word phrase" is a really funny typo, by the way.
"
Blaise, I wasn’t intending, in that particular analogy, to imply that you were lying. The analogy was just that, an analogy: bad arguments are like lies in that you have to keep covering the previous one with a new one, so that you get to the point that you don’t even know what you were arguing for in the first place. I suspect most of us have done that, at one point or another. That you are doing it in this case is evident by the way that nothing you say is related in any way to your original point, or to much of anything.
The hypocorism “General Ivolgin,” on the other hand, does imply…
On point: since we’re only talking about the 50s economy, and since the 50s economy was pretty good by pretty much any measure, especially when compared to the previous and subsequent decades (seriously, a 100% increase in GDP per capita is pretty fishin’ good, by any standard), and since you haven’t suggested any reason to think otherwise (though trashing the space program(s), talking about vaccines in Africa, etc., is a nice way of avoiding doing so), I’m not sure what you think you’ve accomplished. But I’ve wasted time on you when my policy is to ignore you, a mistake for which I apologize to you and myself. I'll go back to letting you tell your tales in peace.
"
At some point, the word phrase "non sequitur" becomes to weak to describe a lack of a relationship between the thesis and the arguments for it. You've reached that point, passed it, and moved on to a world in which you're basically talking to yourself about who knows what.
By the way, I don't think Krugman has ever suggested that the 50s were perfect, or even the best of times (though economically, in the U.S., they were pretty darn good, especially when compared forward and backwards), but they were good times in certain ways -- ways that Krugman is clearly nostalgic for, me less so (I wouldn't mind the tax rates, though).
But dude, you keep arguing whatever it is you're arguing at this point, 'cause man, it's kinda funny to watch you dig holes. I could put music to it, or even make it into a serial: "Next week, on General Ivolgin theater: The General tells us of his time saving stranded Ross Seal Pups from melting melting pack ice during a raging storm off the coast of Antarctica, and how it relates to the negative impact of Republican policies on pricing structures in the pop gun industry. You don't want to miss this episode!"
"
He's just stuck arguing for a wildly hyperbolic claim that he almost certainly didn't mean, but used in defense of an earlier wildly hyperbolic claim that he may or may not have meant (the bit about the 50s space program, which was, in a way, in defense of his wildly hyperbolic claims about the 50s economy). Bad arguments are like lies; in order to keep the first one going, you have to tack on another, and then another, and then another, until you have no idea what you're arguing for anymore.
"
That's pretty much the opposite of what Kant said about rational devils and government.
"
I think you're wrong to identify spirituality with Christianity, or even organized religion. Other than that, sure, good and bad, all of that comes with being human, and in fact is a product of being human.
"
Yeah, my view of the 50s, spiritually, is probably very different from yours, since I associate the “spiritual” character of that age precisely with that segregation and misogyny, though I also see it as the age when people began to say enough is enough. There was something of a spiritual awakening going on, to be sure, though again, I suspect that awakening coincides with precisely the post-50s mindset that you see as inferior.
"
Besides, this generation is incapable of ever making a movie like “Casablanca.”
So was that one, though they made some pretty good films that were much more subversive (I think of Spartacus or Paths of Glory (yeah, I'm a Kubrick fan).
I also know quite well that the generations that grew up before the 50s thought the 50s were nothing compared to the 20s or 30s. My great grandfather was fond of pointing out to my grandfather that, sure, he (my grandfather) fought and lost an eye in Europe during the Second World War, but he (my great grandfather) fought in the First World War twice (for Italy, then for the U.S.), was wounded twice (once by the Austrians in the Alps, once by the Germans in the Argonne), and when he got home, he worked for the same mining company until he couldn’t work anymore (as a result of the black lung that eventually killed him), because that’s just how it was done back then. I’m not sure working yourself to death in unhealthy conditions, just to make enough money to get by and maybe buy a used Model-T someday is an ideal we should be shooting for, any more than is a heavily racially segregated, misogynistic culture that gave rise to, among other things, our wonderful military-industrial complex. Progress may not always be good, and good progress may not be inevitable, but a desire for an idealized past is rarely, if ever, very productive.
Nostalgia is the disease that generations suffer when they’re no longer defining the culture. And it’s one we’ll all be infected with at some point.
"
Crap, that didn't work. The "/ thread" got cut off.
"
Lawn Darts.
"
Oh, I don't think the 50s were perfect, but painting such a dire picture of a decade in which GDP per capita doubled, and employment skyrocketed, seems odd to me.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.