Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Unrest in Hong Kong

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

The only different would be there is much less ideological involved in this "modern civil demonstration" campaign than during the Cold War. The agent provocateur can be any one from political parties, military, or foreign organization. Perhaps this is why the world is increasingly move toward policed state. We've always been lived in a police state during the cold war as part of our national war effort, when the war end we're loosen our counter-intelligence effort and it led to increase chaos, and in some case even the complete disintegration of a state. Realizing that, rather than transforming into something more authoritative - may be it just that we're going back to where we used to be.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.

The only different would be there is much less ideological involved in this "modern civil demonstration" campaign than during the Cold War. The agent provocateur can be any one from political parties, military, or foreign organization. Perhaps this is why the world is increasingly move toward policed state. We've always been lived in a police state during the cold war as part of our national war effort, when the war end we're loosen our counter-intelligence effort and it led to increase chaos, and in some case even the complete disintegration of a state. Realizing that, rather than transforming into something more authoritative - may be it just that we're going back to where we used to be.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 2:49:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.

I think you're right in that the Cold War is practically a nuclear war which ended in stalemate when both side are under the threat of mutual destruction. That's why the war is centred around, but do not fought with nuclear weapon. That's why I called it "Cold" battle - not war, the actual fighting between both side of the conflict has always been unconventional. Insurgency if necessary, coup if possible - that's why authoritarian regimes are proliferated with extensive network of counter intelligent operation. Even the American and European leaderships are noticeably became more authoritarian - possibly to counter the threat of internal revolt placed by military and non-military organization within one country.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 3:39:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 2:49:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.

I think you're right in that the Cold War is practically a nuclear war which ended in stalemate when both side are under the threat of mutual destruction. That's why the war is centred around, but do not fought with nuclear weapon. That's why I called it "Cold" battle - not war, the actual fighting between both side of the conflict has always been unconventional. Insurgency if necessary, coup if possible - that's why authoritarian regimes are proliferated with extensive network of counter intelligent operation. Even the American and European leaderships are noticeably became more authoritarian - possibly to counter the threat of internal revolt placed by military and non-military organization within one country.

Hmmm...the underlined is a comparative statement...so I have to ask what are you comparing it to? What was less authoritarian in your opinion?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 10:11:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hah! I get what you are saying about 'Cold War'.. sort of. Communism vs Capitalism. One party-Two systems. Democracy or Schizophrenia.

In my opinion this is more about a new world order, where fueled by arab spring movements sprout up like forest fires everywhere that our eyes can see.

Also, CNN's coverage of the Hong Kong #OccupyCentral movement has been good so far. Which is an anamoly because CNN is worse than foxnews (imho). Maybe CNN just loves China-bashing. Either way the viewers #WIN.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 11:31:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 3:39:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:49:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.

I think you're right in that the Cold War is practically a nuclear war which ended in stalemate when both side are under the threat of mutual destruction. That's why the war is centred around, but do not fought with nuclear weapon. That's why I called it "Cold" battle - not war, the actual fighting between both side of the conflict has always been unconventional. Insurgency if necessary, coup if possible - that's why authoritarian regimes are proliferated with extensive network of counter intelligent operation. Even the American and European leaderships are noticeably became more authoritarian - possibly to counter the threat of internal revolt placed by military and non-military organization within one country.

Hmmm...the underlined is a comparative statement...so I have to ask what are you comparing it to? What was less authoritarian in your opinion?

Thatcher's regime in UK, Military Dictatorship in South Korea (and of course, Thailand as well), Authoritative regime in South America, Indonesia etc.

Most of these countries has far more liberal government after the Fall of Communism.

the same could be even more so for most of the other side of the Iron Curtain, including Russia.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 11:35:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 10:11:59 AM, fazz wrote:
Hah! I get what you are saying about 'Cold War'.. sort of. Communism vs Capitalism. One party-Two systems. Democracy or Schizophrenia.

In my opinion this is more about a new world order, where fueled by arab spring movements sprout up like forest fires everywhere that our eyes can see.

Also, CNN's coverage of the Hong Kong #OccupyCentral movement has been good so far. Which is an anamoly because CNN is worse than foxnews (imho). Maybe CNN just loves China-bashing. Either way the viewers #WIN.

What? really? And I always thought Fox News is the worst News station in the US.

Anyway, from the journalism perspective, I think it's a good material though. Hong Kong becomes Viet Kong - who would have thought? -_-
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 11:53:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 11:31:20 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:39:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:49:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.

I think you're right in that the Cold War is practically a nuclear war which ended in stalemate when both side are under the threat of mutual destruction. That's why the war is centred around, but do not fought with nuclear weapon. That's why I called it "Cold" battle - not war, the actual fighting between both side of the conflict has always been unconventional. Insurgency if necessary, coup if possible - that's why authoritarian regimes are proliferated with extensive network of counter intelligent operation. Even the American and European leaderships are noticeably became more authoritarian - possibly to counter the threat of internal revolt placed by military and non-military organization within one country.

Hmmm...the underlined is a comparative statement...so I have to ask what are you comparing it to? What was less authoritarian in your opinion?

Thatcher's regime in UK, Military Dictatorship in South Korea (and of course, Thailand as well), Authoritative regime in South America, Indonesia etc.

Most of these countries has far more liberal government after the Fall of Communism.

Hmm...this risks confusing correlation with causation.

1) I don't think communism specifically had anything to do with authoritarian regimes, unless you equate "political communism" to a political movement associated with internal upheaval (which I think is fairly accurate).
2) Many of the place you speak of faced either colonization or outright destruction before such authoritarian regimes were put in place...given such a history, authoritarian governments have to be seen as an improvement over prior conditions in many places, and not a regression.
3) I don't think the end of communism "caused" the democratization of Asia...that occurred before the collapse of the USSR.

the same could be even more so for most of the other side of the Iron Curtain, including Russia.

I think the main reason why Russia no longer looks as authoritarian as it used to is because Russia is now wealthy. IMHO it's really that simple.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:14:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 11:53:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:31:20 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:39:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:49:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.

I think you're right in that the Cold War is practically a nuclear war which ended in stalemate when both side are under the threat of mutual destruction. That's why the war is centred around, but do not fought with nuclear weapon. That's why I called it "Cold" battle - not war, the actual fighting between both side of the conflict has always been unconventional. Insurgency if necessary, coup if possible - that's why authoritarian regimes are proliferated with extensive network of counter intelligent operation. Even the American and European leaderships are noticeably became more authoritarian - possibly to counter the threat of internal revolt placed by military and non-military organization within one country.

Hmmm...the underlined is a comparative statement...so I have to ask what are you comparing it to? What was less authoritarian in your opinion?

Thatcher's regime in UK, Military Dictatorship in South Korea (and of course, Thailand as well), Authoritative regime in South America, Indonesia etc.

Most of these countries has far more liberal government after the Fall of Communism.

Hmm...this risks confusing correlation with causation.

1) I don't think communism specifically had anything to do with authoritarian regimes, unless you equate "political communism" to a political movement associated with internal upheaval (which I think is fairly accurate).
2) Many of the place you speak of faced either colonization or outright destruction before such authoritarian regimes were put in place...given such a history, authoritarian governments have to be seen as an improvement over prior conditions in many places, and not a regression.
3) I don't think the end of communism "caused" the democratization of Asia...that occurred before the collapse of the USSR.

the same could be even more so for most of the other side of the Iron Curtain, including Russia.

I think the main reason why Russia no longer looks as authoritarian as it used to is because Russia is now wealthy. IMHO it's really that simple.

People in Russia love Putin. He is not a dictator in the old style.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:18:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:14:51 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:53:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

People in Russia love Putin. He is not a dictator in the old style.

By some accounts he's also one of the richest people in the world:

http://www.cnbc.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 1:08:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 11:53:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:31:20 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:39:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:49:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.

I think you're right in that the Cold War is practically a nuclear war which ended in stalemate when both side are under the threat of mutual destruction. That's why the war is centred around, but do not fought with nuclear weapon. That's why I called it "Cold" battle - not war, the actual fighting between both side of the conflict has always been unconventional. Insurgency if necessary, coup if possible - that's why authoritarian regimes are proliferated with extensive network of counter intelligent operation. Even the American and European leaderships are noticeably became more authoritarian - possibly to counter the threat of internal revolt placed by military and non-military organization within one country.

Hmmm...the underlined is a comparative statement...so I have to ask what are you comparing it to? What was less authoritarian in your opinion?

Thatcher's regime in UK, Military Dictatorship in South Korea (and of course, Thailand as well), Authoritative regime in South America, Indonesia etc.

Most of these countries has far more liberal government after the Fall of Communism.

Hmm...this risks confusing correlation with causation.

1) I don't think communism specifically had anything to do with authoritarian regimes, unless you equate "political communism" to a political movement associated with internal upheaval (which I think is fairly accurate).

that's pretty much what I said, I didn't say Communism caused the rise of authoritarian regime in the world - well, not in the way that we're some what tainted by the communism ideology. What I mean to say is the confrontation between the west and the USSR had caused the rise in authoritarianism, specifically because political upheaval had became pretty much the main instrument of war from both side of the world. The west instigate unrest and uprising in USSR control territory and vice versa - That's, in my opinion, the reason why authoritarianism had become more widespread - we're fighting war in a political front, authoritarianism allow our government to fight this war more effectively.

2) Many of the place you speak of faced either colonization or outright destruction before such authoritarian regimes were put in place...given such a history, authoritarian governments have to be seen as an improvement over prior conditions in many places, and not a regression.

Well, I guest it's depend on where specifically that we're talking about. It's not the context of my discussion though. I am more interested in its role as an effective cold war instrument of war (unconventional), and its possible resurgent in modern world because, obviously, the threat from political warfare had not disappear with the collapse of USSR and the end of east-west confrontation.

3) I don't think the end of communism "caused" the democratization of Asia...that occurred before the collapse of the USSR.

The end, or at least the decrease tension between US-USSR confrontation seem to be significantly influence this process. Korea's democratization for example, took place when USSR are in a much weaker state (thus decrease its degree of confrontation), than say during the Fall of Vietnam.
the same could be even more so for most of the other side of the Iron Curtain, including Russia.

I think the main reason why Russia no longer looks as authoritarian as it used to is because Russia is now wealthy. IMHO it's really that simple.

That's one of the reasons, but Russia is also so, so much more free compare to the USSR i.e. far more economic freedom, freedom of movement, financial freedom etc. Although political freedom is still pretty much lacking, we still don't see a 25 percent of their population working for spy agency as in case of KGB or German Stasi.

I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 1:25:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 1:08:21 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:


I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

One point. When was the USSR gdp high? I always thought communism failed, and ussr failed, so their gdp.. failed?

Or Not? (do you have a timeline for high and low gdp)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 1:26:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 1:08:21 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:53:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:31:20 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:39:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:49:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.

I think you're right in that the Cold War is practically a nuclear war which ended in stalemate when both side are under the threat of mutual destruction. That's why the war is centred around, but do not fought with nuclear weapon. That's why I called it "Cold" battle - not war, the actual fighting between both side of the conflict has always been unconventional. Insurgency if necessary, coup if possible - that's why authoritarian regimes are proliferated with extensive network of counter intelligent operation. Even the American and European leaderships are noticeably became more authoritarian - possibly to counter the threat of internal revolt placed by military and non-military organization within one country.

Hmmm...the underlined is a comparative statement...so I have to ask what are you comparing it to? What was less authoritarian in your opinion?

Thatcher's regime in UK, Military Dictatorship in South Korea (and of course, Thailand as well), Authoritative regime in South America, Indonesia etc.

Most of these countries has far more liberal government after the Fall of Communism.

Hmm...this risks confusing correlation with causation.

1) I don't think communism specifically had anything to do with authoritarian regimes, unless you equate "political communism" to a political movement associated with internal upheaval (which I think is fairly accurate).

that's pretty much what I said, I didn't say Communism caused the rise of authoritarian regime in the world - well, not in the way that we're some what tainted by the communism ideology. What I mean to say is the confrontation between the west and the USSR had caused the rise in authoritarianism, specifically because political upheaval had became pretty much the main instrument of war from both side of the world. The west instigate unrest and uprising in USSR control territory and vice versa - That's, in my opinion, the reason why authoritarianism had become more widespread - we're fighting war in a political front, authoritarianism allow our government to fight this war more effectively.

2) Many of the place you speak of faced either colonization or outright destruction before such authoritarian regimes were put in place...given such a history, authoritarian governments have to be seen as an improvement over prior conditions in many places, and not a regression.

Well, I guest it's depend on where specifically that we're talking about. It's not the context of my discussion though. I am more interested in its role as an effective cold war instrument of war (unconventional), and its possible resurgent in modern world because, obviously, the threat from political warfare had not disappear with the collapse of USSR and the end of east-west confrontation.

3) I don't think the end of communism "caused" the democratization of Asia...that occurred before the collapse of the USSR.

The end, or at least the decrease tension between US-USSR confrontation seem to be significantly influence this process. Korea's democratization for example, took place when USSR are in a much weaker state (thus decrease its degree of confrontation), than say during the Fall of Vietnam.

I had a feeling you would respond in such a manner and it's difficult to argue against.

I would point out though that Nouth Korea has instead become far more authoritarian and through this specific example your assertion that "Most of these countries has far more liberal government after the Fall of Communism" does not exactly hold. I suppose you are correct in the general pattern but there are specific exceptions that prevent you from turning this pattern into an actual political theory with explanatory powers.

In this sense, the fall of communism is IMHO less a factor than the fact that the security situation of these countries had deteriorated markedly. For Russia, it cannot deteriorate - they are a nuclear power. But for satellite states? Absolutely, and NK is exhibit #A for supporting such a theory. The Ukraine right now is exhibit #B.

the same could be even more so for most of the other side of the Iron Curtain, including Russia.

I think the main reason why Russia no longer looks as authoritarian as it used to is because Russia is now wealthy. IMHO it's really that simple.

That's one of the reasons, but Russia is also so, so much more free compare to the USSR i.e. far more economic freedom, freedom of movement, financial freedom etc. Although political freedom is still pretty much lacking, we still don't see a 25 percent of their population working for spy agency as in case of KGB or German Stasi.

Right, and I would say that oil wealth concomitant with Bush administration policies that caused an oil price spike are causal to why Russians enjoy far more freedoms now than they did before.

I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

That's an interesting assertion that I cannot support or deny. What I can point to is the exceptional economic growth that occurred during Putin's presidency, economic growth that coincided with a spike in energy prices.

http://www.forbes.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 1:36:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What I can point to is the exceptional economic growth that occurred during Putin's presidency, economic growth that coincided with a spike in energy prices.

http://www.forbes.com......

Yay for Putin!

God loves you, Putin. Even if we hate you.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 1:42:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 1:08:21 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:53:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 11:31:20 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 3:39:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:49:31 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.

I think you're right in that the Cold War is practically a nuclear war which ended in stalemate when both side are under the threat of mutual destruction. That's why the war is centred around, but do not fought with nuclear weapon. That's why I called it "Cold" battle - not war, the actual fighting between both side of the conflict has always been unconventional. Insurgency if necessary, coup if possible - that's why authoritarian regimes are proliferated with extensive network of counter intelligent operation. Even the American and European leaderships are noticeably became more authoritarian - possibly to counter the threat of internal revolt placed by military and non-military organization within one country.

Hmmm...the underlined is a comparative statement...so I have to ask what are you comparing it to? What was less authoritarian in your opinion?

Thatcher's regime in UK, Military Dictatorship in South Korea (and of course, Thailand as well), Authoritative regime in South America, Indonesia etc.

Most of these countries has far more liberal government after the Fall of Communism.

Hmm...this risks confusing correlation with causation.

1) I don't think communism specifically had anything to do with authoritarian regimes, unless you equate "political communism" to a political movement associated with internal upheaval (which I think is fairly accurate).

that's pretty much what I said, I didn't say Communism caused the rise of authoritarian regime in the world - well, not in the way that we're some what tainted by the communism ideology. What I mean to say is the confrontation between the west and the USSR had caused the rise in authoritarianism, specifically because political upheaval had became pretty much the main instrument of war from both side of the world. The west instigate unrest and uprising in USSR control territory and vice versa - That's, in my opinion, the reason why authoritarianism had become more widespread - we're fighting war in a political front, authoritarianism allow our government to fight this war more effectively.

After thinking about this specifically, maybe we don't disagree at all lol. What you say makes a lot of sense, especially given how communism was implemented as a world-wide revolutionary movement against all capitalistic countries.

That Russia and most other communist states no longer seem to advocate this kind of politics would explain why the world is (ostensibly) less authoritarian. You point out though that such authoritarian leanings are also resurfacing.

So your theory that "Cold war" conflicts involve internal upheaval does make a lot of sense in retrospect.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 1:51:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 1:25:02 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/30/2014 1:08:21 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:


I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

One point. When was the USSR gdp high? I always thought communism failed, and ussr failed, so their gdp.. failed?

Or Not? (do you have a timeline for high and low gdp)

Well, if I remember correctly, the IMF used to estimate that the USSR GDP is about 2.66 trillion USD in 1990 which is just about the same as the US (real number is impossible to estimate as the USSR do not published its real economic record).

For now I only have the wiki source for you..

http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 1:54:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 1:51:18 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 1:25:02 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/30/2014 1:08:21 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:


I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

One point. When was the USSR gdp high? I always thought communism failed, and ussr failed, so their gdp.. failed?

Or Not? (do you have a timeline for high and low gdp)

Well, if I remember correctly, the IMF used to estimate that the USSR GDP is about 2.66 trillion USD in 1990 which is just about the same as the US (real number is impossible to estimate as the USSR do not published its real economic record).

For now I only have the wiki source for you..

http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)

But then why is communism (plus Stalin) considered a failure. I thought the whole argument by PRO-capitalismos was that the Iron curtain collapsed in-on-itself?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 2:06:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
3) I don't think the end of communism "caused" the democratization of Asia...that occurred before the collapse of the USSR.

The end, or at least the decrease tension between US-USSR confrontation seem to be significantly influence this process. Korea's democratization for example, took place when USSR are in a much weaker state (thus decrease its degree of confrontation), than say during the Fall of Vietnam.

I had a feeling you would respond in such a manner and it's difficult to argue against.

I would point out though that Nouth Korea has instead become far more authoritarian and through this specific example your assertion that "Most of these countries has far more liberal government after the Fall of Communism" does not exactly hold. I suppose you are correct in the general pattern but there are specific exceptions that prevent you from turning this pattern into an actual political theory with explanatory powers.

Well, as you have capitalized it, I said most It's a sample of population, so of course we can draw a bad sample sometime.

But came to think of it, perhaps what you mentioned earlier is also true - communism caused the rise in authoritarianism, its very purpose is to usurp the every non-soviet government, thus initiated this "cold" battle.

North Korea is the only surviving Soviet-stlye government in this world, so it continues to fight its own little cold war after the fall of USSR. That's why they do not experience the process of liberalization as in other Post-Cold War countries.

In this sense, the fall of communism is IMHO less a factor than the fact that the security situation of these countries had deteriorated markedly. For Russia, it cannot deteriorate - they are a nuclear power. But for satellite states? Absolutely, and NK is exhibit #A for supporting such a theory. The Ukraine right now is exhibit #B.

the same could be even more so for most of the other side of the Iron Curtain, including Russia.

I think the main reason why Russia no longer looks as authoritarian as it used to is because Russia is now wealthy. IMHO it's really that simple.

That's one of the reasons, but Russia is also so, so much more free compare to the USSR i.e. far more economic freedom, freedom of movement, financial freedom etc. Although political freedom is still pretty much lacking, we still don't see a 25 percent of their population working for spy agency as in case of KGB or German Stasi.

Right, and I would say that oil wealth concomitant with Bush administration policies that caused an oil price spike are causal to why Russians enjoy far more freedoms now than they did before.

Probably, but also possibly because they've finally decided to use those oil for something other than tanks fuel.

I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

That's an interesting assertion that I cannot support or deny. What I can point to is the exceptional economic growth that occurred during Putin's presidency, economic growth that coincided with a spike in energy prices.

http://www.forbes.com...

They have been a very bad, bad shape after the collapse of USSR and Yeltsin's reform, so I think we can also look at it as some sort of rebound. After all they only managed just about 30 percent more than they used to have as a USSR (while, say, the US got more than 5 times the size of what you used to have in 1990)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 2:11:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:


Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.


Simply because countries have nuclear weapons does not mean they would be inclined to use them if they didn't fear nuclear retaliation. I don't see how eliminating nuclear weapons helps if the knowledge remains, and if the only countries that would manufacture them (rogue nations) are precisely those countries that shouldn't have them.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 2:17:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 1:54:05 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/30/2014 1:51:18 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/30/2014 1:25:02 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/30/2014 1:08:21 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:


I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

One point. When was the USSR gdp high? I always thought communism failed, and ussr failed, so their gdp.. failed?

Or Not? (do you have a timeline for high and low gdp)

Well, if I remember correctly, the IMF used to estimate that the USSR GDP is about 2.66 trillion USD in 1990 which is just about the same as the US (real number is impossible to estimate as the USSR do not published its real economic record).

For now I only have the wiki source for you..

http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)

But then why is communism (plus Stalin) considered a failure. I thought the whole argument by PRO-capitalismos was that the Iron curtain collapsed in-on-itself?

You asked a good question, and I don't need to have an answer :P

What I can say for certain though, is regardless of how much their overall GDP can be, the USSR is one of the most inflated nation in history. They have a trade-able currency which mean they can't buy resources from outside their sphere of influence, and even within the communist world it was more like a barter system than financial payment.

The government of USSR also print out their bank note like a toilet paper, their money are literally paper, and although people can received a lot of free or almost free goods and service from their government - the pervasive inflation take its toll in form of a ever longer line that you will have to wait to receive your rations or service.

Not to mention that you're also barred from travel, can't choose your jobs (and obviously can't choose to change or leave it), absolutely restricted political freedom, and sometime even forced to work for free if you lived in some other Soviet Republics that weren't Russia or Ukraine.

It's far from paradise, and compare to it, the Russia under Putin would be a bastion of enlightenment.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 2:19:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
that's pretty much what I said, I didn't say Communism caused the rise of authoritarian regime in the world - well, not in the way that we're some what tainted by the communism ideology. What I mean to say is the confrontation between the west and the USSR had caused the rise in authoritarianism, specifically because political upheaval had became pretty much the main instrument of war from both side of the world. The west instigate unrest and uprising in USSR control territory and vice versa - That's, in my opinion, the reason why authoritarianism had become more widespread - we're fighting war in a political front, authoritarianism allow our government to fight this war more effectively.

After thinking about this specifically, maybe we don't disagree at all lol. What you say makes a lot of sense, especially given how communism was implemented as a world-wide revolutionary movement against all capitalistic countries.

That Russia and most other communist states no longer seem to advocate this kind of politics would explain why the world is (ostensibly) less authoritarian. You point out though that such authoritarian leanings are also resurfacing.

So your theory that "Cold war" conflicts involve internal upheaval does make a lot of sense in retrospect.

Welcome to my book, mu hahaha
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 12:32:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 2:11:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:


Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

If this is an accurate characterization of the Cold war, it's a war that won't end until nuclear weapons are eliminated or superseded, and the world will get "colder" as nukes inevitably proliferate.


Simply because countries have nuclear weapons does not mean they would be inclined to use them if they didn't fear nuclear retaliation.

The US has set this precedence numerous times, in WWII (nuking Japan with impunity), and in strategic planning surrounding Korea and Vietnam (neither had nuclear weapons).

When nations are at war, the main objective is to win. Secondary objectives such as humanitarian causes, advocating a moral vision, etc, are just that...secondary.

I don't see how eliminating nuclear weapons helps if the knowledge remains, and if the only countries that would manufacture them (rogue nations) are precisely those countries that shouldn't have them.

Well, if nuclear weapons were somehow eliminated, rogue nations wouldn't have them either wouldn't they? =)

I know, not exactly realistic, but there are large proponents of this notion out there.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 12:58:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 2:06:04 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

But came to think of it, perhaps what you mentioned earlier is also true - communism caused the rise in authoritarianism, its very purpose is to usurp the every non-soviet government, thus initiated this "cold" battle.

lol, I thought this was your point. =)

I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

That's an interesting assertion that I cannot support or deny. What I can point to is the exceptional economic growth that occurred during Putin's presidency, economic growth that coincided with a spike in energy prices.

http://www.forbes.com...

They have been a very bad, bad shape after the collapse of USSR and Yeltsin's reform, so I think we can also look at it as some sort of rebound. After all they only managed just about 30 percent more than they used to have as a USSR (while, say, the US got more than 5 times the size of what you used to have in 1990)

After thinking about this a bit, it's not surprising that the USSR was the 2nd most dominant economy in the world for a time. Most of Europe was still in ruins, Japan as well, none of Asia was developed. So for a certain period of time I'm sure you're right in such an assertion. However, I sincerely doubt this was true once Europe finished reconstruction. Japan was #2 since the early 80s. I think if you look at this chart, you will see that Russia was #2 after WWII, and Japan overtook Russia around the 80s.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

On US GDP growing 5 times from 1990 to today, I'm almost sure that's 100% false. You're going to have to cite that information.

I'm pretty sure even given Yeltsin's mismanagement, that Russia's economy grew as fast if not faster than the US since the fall of the USSR.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 2:23:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 12:58:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:06:04 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

But came to think of it, perhaps what you mentioned earlier is also true - communism caused the rise in authoritarianism, its very purpose is to usurp the every non-soviet government, thus initiated this "cold" battle.

lol, I thought this was your point. =)

It partially is - I thought the wast-west confrontation caused the rise in authoritarian regime, not the very existence of communism (which you've pointed out that the confrontation is probably part of their existence as well)

I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

That's an interesting assertion that I cannot support or deny. What I can point to is the exceptional economic growth that occurred during Putin's presidency, economic growth that coincided with a spike in energy prices.

http://www.forbes.com...

They have been a very bad, bad shape after the collapse of USSR and Yeltsin's reform, so I think we can also look at it as some sort of rebound. After all they only managed just about 30 percent more than they used to have as a USSR (while, say, the US got more than 5 times the size of what you used to have in 1990)

After thinking about this a bit, it's not surprising that the USSR was the 2nd most dominant economy in the world for a time. Most of Europe was still in ruins, Japan as well, none of Asia was developed. So for a certain period of time I'm sure you're right in such an assertion. However, I sincerely doubt this was true once Europe finished reconstruction. Japan was #2 since the early 80s. I think if you look at this chart, you will see that Russia was #2 after WWII, and Japan overtook Russia around the 80s.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

On US GDP growing 5 times from 1990 to today, I'm almost sure that's 100% false. You're going to have to cite that information.

You're right, it is only 3 times more.

http://www.statista.com...

I'm pretty sure even given Yeltsin's mismanagement, that Russia's economy grew as fast if not faster than the US since the fall of the USSR.

Well, if you believe CIA Factbook then their economy is about 3 trillion in 1990 which even though still behind American 5 trillion is still a lot more than Japan. And the fact that Russia today only made slightly more than what they used to have 24 years ago even with all of those inflations - isn't impressive at all to me. But may be it is, given that they also lose almost all of their major cities following the collapse of USSR.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 2:52:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

This is simply a quite conventional understanding. In actuality the Cold War was less about combating the spread of the Soviet bloc's influence than it was about preventing societies from adopting a communist philosophy that would make them disinclined to submit their peoples and resources to the domination and exploitation of the capitalist world-system (euphemistically known as the Free World). And, needless to say, it was a pretext for the creation of the modern national security state and military-industrial complex, i.e. system of surveillance and control, and golden goose for certain military contractors and other elements of the corporate elite. And it also provided a rather serviceable excuse for spreading American hegemony by the skullduggery of the CIA, the use of client dictators, and the morally condemnable use of military force. The conventional understanding of the Cold War is pure ideology (in the Marxist sense of the word).
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 6:42:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 2:23:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/2/2014 12:58:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:06:04 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

But came to think of it, perhaps what you mentioned earlier is also true - communism caused the rise in authoritarianism, its very purpose is to usurp the every non-soviet government, thus initiated this "cold" battle.

lol, I thought this was your point. =)

It partially is - I thought the wast-west confrontation caused the rise in authoritarian regime, not the very existence of communism (which you've pointed out that the confrontation is probably part of their existence as well)

I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

That's an interesting assertion that I cannot support or deny. What I can point to is the exceptional economic growth that occurred during Putin's presidency, economic growth that coincided with a spike in energy prices.

http://www.forbes.com...

They have been a very bad, bad shape after the collapse of USSR and Yeltsin's reform, so I think we can also look at it as some sort of rebound. After all they only managed just about 30 percent more than they used to have as a USSR (while, say, the US got more than 5 times the size of what you used to have in 1990)

After thinking about this a bit, it's not surprising that the USSR was the 2nd most dominant economy in the world for a time. Most of Europe was still in ruins, Japan as well, none of Asia was developed. So for a certain period of time I'm sure you're right in such an assertion. However, I sincerely doubt this was true once Europe finished reconstruction. Japan was #2 since the early 80s. I think if you look at this chart, you will see that Russia was #2 after WWII, and Japan overtook Russia around the 80s.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

On US GDP growing 5 times from 1990 to today, I'm almost sure that's 100% false. You're going to have to cite that information.

You're right, it is only 3 times more.

http://www.statista.com...

This is more or less what I was looking at as well. 6 to 16 trillion is about 2.66 times.

For Russia, for the same period, from 1990 to 2012, it grew 3.6 times.

http://kushnirs.org...

That may not seem to be much of a difference, but we are talking about multiplicative differences, so what seems to be small differences become enormous when multiplied over time.

Regardless, Russia grew faster, much faster, than the US during this time, and this is still considering that from 1990-1999 Russia was a basket-case economy.

I'm pretty sure even given Yeltsin's mismanagement, that Russia's economy grew as fast if not faster than the US since the fall of the USSR.

Well, if you believe CIA Factbook then their economy is about 3 trillion in 1990 which even though still behind American 5 trillion is still a lot more than Japan. And the fact that Russia today only made slightly more than what they used to have 24 years ago even with all of those inflations - isn't impressive at all to me. But may be it is, given that they also lose almost all of their major cities following the collapse of USSR.

According to the website I sourced above, Russia's GDP in 1990 was $500 billion, 9th in the world. I'm not aware that the CIA factbook has data about Russia in 1990 specifically.
https://www.cia.gov...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 6:48:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 2:52:22 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

This is simply a quite conventional understanding. In actuality the Cold War was less about combating the spread of the Soviet bloc's influence than it was about preventing societies from adopting a communist philosophy that would make them disinclined to submit their peoples and resources to the domination and exploitation of the capitalist world-system (euphemistically known as the Free World).

I would simply note that the underlined is not a contrast but rather an equality - the spread of the ostensible Soviet bloc influence was the same as spreading a communist philosophy around the world.

And, needless to say, it was a pretext for the creation of the modern national security state and military-industrial complex, i.e. system of surveillance and control, and golden goose for certain military contractors and other elements of the corporate elite. And it also provided a rather serviceable excuse for spreading American hegemony by the skullduggery of the CIA, the use of client dictators, and the morally condemnable use of military force. The conventional understanding of the Cold War is pure ideology (in the Marxist sense of the word).

We may have a modern national security state and MIC (military industrial complex sure), but that's IMHO nothing new...there has always been a significant sector of the economy dedicated towards weapons production even if not in an industrialized form, and national security has always been paramount...such concerns are as old as the concept of polity itself.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 11:25:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 6:42:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:23:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/2/2014 12:58:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:06:04 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

But came to think of it, perhaps what you mentioned earlier is also true - communism caused the rise in authoritarianism, its very purpose is to usurp the every non-soviet government, thus initiated this "cold" battle.

lol, I thought this was your point. =)

It partially is - I thought the wast-west confrontation caused the rise in authoritarian regime, not the very existence of communism (which you've pointed out that the confrontation is probably part of their existence as well)

I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

That's an interesting assertion that I cannot support or deny. What I can point to is the exceptional economic growth that occurred during Putin's presidency, economic growth that coincided with a spike in energy prices.

http://www.forbes.com...

They have been a very bad, bad shape after the collapse of USSR and Yeltsin's reform, so I think we can also look at it as some sort of rebound. After all they only managed just about 30 percent more than they used to have as a USSR (while, say, the US got more than 5 times the size of what you used to have in 1990)

After thinking about this a bit, it's not surprising that the USSR was the 2nd most dominant economy in the world for a time. Most of Europe was still in ruins, Japan as well, none of Asia was developed. So for a certain period of time I'm sure you're right in such an assertion. However, I sincerely doubt this was true once Europe finished reconstruction. Japan was #2 since the early 80s. I think if you look at this chart, you will see that Russia was #2 after WWII, and Japan overtook Russia around the 80s.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

On US GDP growing 5 times from 1990 to today, I'm almost sure that's 100% false. You're going to have to cite that information.

You're right, it is only 3 times more.

http://www.statista.com...

This is more or less what I was looking at as well. 6 to 16 trillion is about 2.66 times.

For Russia, for the same period, from 1990 to 2012, it grew 3.6 times.

http://kushnirs.org...

That may not seem to be much of a difference, but we are talking about multiplicative differences, so what seems to be small differences become enormous when multiplied over time.

Regardless, Russia grew faster, much faster, than the US during this time, and this is still considering that from 1990-1999 Russia was a basket-case economy.

Perhaps, but don't forget that the information you have been looking now is for Russia, specifically. The USSR is so much more than just Russia though, Russia Soviet Republic is just one of the leading states within the USSR - they don't even be the sole dominant power within the Union, so often USSR leaderships were just came from one of the Slavic soviet states.

I will not be surprise at all if the dissolution of Soviet Union caused Russia GDP to drop from 3 trillion to just 500 billion - they only have 1/10 of their major cities left after the dissolution and it sound natural to me that their productivity will only show in that manner.

I'm pretty sure even given Yeltsin's mismanagement, that Russia's economy grew as fast if not faster than the US since the fall of the USSR.

Well, if you believe CIA Factbook then their economy is about 3 trillion in 1990 which even though still behind American 5 trillion is still a lot more than Japan. And the fact that Russia today only made slightly more than what they used to have 24 years ago even with all of those inflations - isn't impressive at all to me. But may be it is, given that they also lose almost all of their major cities following the collapse of USSR.

According to the website I sourced above, Russia's GDP in 1990 was $500 billion, 9th in the world. I'm not aware that the CIA factbook has data about Russia in 1990 specifically.
https://www.cia.gov...

The have some data about USSR in that period but on the second, I am not so sure as well. The website looks shady, and even if it isn't, trusting on American sources on Soviet economy during Cold War doesn't sound like the healthiest way of reference.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 12:20:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 11:25:35 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/2/2014 6:42:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:23:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/2/2014 12:58:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:06:04 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

But came to think of it, perhaps what you mentioned earlier is also true - communism caused the rise in authoritarianism, its very purpose is to usurp the every non-soviet government, thus initiated this "cold" battle.

lol, I thought this was your point. =)

It partially is - I thought the wast-west confrontation caused the rise in authoritarian regime, not the very existence of communism (which you've pointed out that the confrontation is probably part of their existence as well)

I would doubt if they are actually richer though, the USSR GDP used to be second only to the US. The current Russia economic level is far behind that level.

That's an interesting assertion that I cannot support or deny. What I can point to is the exceptional economic growth that occurred during Putin's presidency, economic growth that coincided with a spike in energy prices.

http://www.forbes.com...

They have been a very bad, bad shape after the collapse of USSR and Yeltsin's reform, so I think we can also look at it as some sort of rebound. After all they only managed just about 30 percent more than they used to have as a USSR (while, say, the US got more than 5 times the size of what you used to have in 1990)

After thinking about this a bit, it's not surprising that the USSR was the 2nd most dominant economy in the world for a time. Most of Europe was still in ruins, Japan as well, none of Asia was developed. So for a certain period of time I'm sure you're right in such an assertion. However, I sincerely doubt this was true once Europe finished reconstruction. Japan was #2 since the early 80s. I think if you look at this chart, you will see that Russia was #2 after WWII, and Japan overtook Russia around the 80s.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

On US GDP growing 5 times from 1990 to today, I'm almost sure that's 100% false. You're going to have to cite that information.

You're right, it is only 3 times more.

http://www.statista.com...

This is more or less what I was looking at as well. 6 to 16 trillion is about 2.66 times.

For Russia, for the same period, from 1990 to 2012, it grew 3.6 times.

http://kushnirs.org...

That may not seem to be much of a difference, but we are talking about multiplicative differences, so what seems to be small differences become enormous when multiplied over time.

Regardless, Russia grew faster, much faster, than the US during this time, and this is still considering that from 1990-1999 Russia was a basket-case economy.

Perhaps, but don't forget that the information you have been looking now is for Russia, specifically. The USSR is so much more than just Russia though, Russia Soviet Republic is just one of the leading states within the USSR - they don't even be the sole dominant power within the Union, so often USSR leaderships were just came from one of the Slavic soviet states.

Hmm...this would require a lot of precise research. According to that same website i sourced, the USSR's GDP was $700 bln in 1990 (http://kushnirs.org...), which other sources don't seem to corroborate. Not sure how PPP considerations could skew a nominal GDP number by this much.

I will not be surprise at all if the dissolution of Soviet Union caused Russia GDP to drop from 3 trillion to just 500 billion - they only have 1/10 of their major cities left after the dissolution and it sound natural to me that their productivity will only show in that manner.

I'm pretty sure even given Yeltsin's mismanagement, that Russia's economy grew as fast if not faster than the US since the fall of the USSR.

Well, if you believe CIA Factbook then their economy is about 3 trillion in 1990 which even though still behind American 5 trillion is still a lot more than Japan. And the fact that Russia today only made slightly more than what they used to have 24 years ago even with all of those inflations - isn't impressive at all to me. But may be it is, given that they also lose almost all of their major cities following the collapse of USSR.

According to the website I sourced above, Russia's GDP in 1990 was $500 billion, 9th in the world. I'm not aware that the CIA factbook has data about Russia in 1990 specifically.
https://www.cia.gov...

The have some data about USSR in that period but on the second, I am not so sure as well. The website looks shady, and even if it isn't, trusting on American sources on Soviet economy during Cold War doesn't sound like the healthiest way of reference.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 6:02:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 6:48:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/2/2014 2:52:22 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/29/2014 6:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:27:03 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Apparently the Hong Kong people is clashing violently with the pro-CPC authority.

https://www.youtube.com...

This make me thing though that although the Cold War is over, the "cold" battle that we invented and inherited from this war probably hasn't. From middle-east, to Thailand, and now Hong Kong? I reckon that the method used in all of this civil confrontation is very similar to the method used during the cold war to usurp the authority that local or foreign player deem unpalatable, replacing them with a more favourable regime.

Hmmm...that may be how the Cold War ostensibly ended, but I don't think the Cold war was characterized by internal uprisings causing coups or what not. The Cold war was a "war" fought between two nuclear superpowers, the US and the USSR, and was a stalemate due to the nuclear calculus predicating it be so else face mutual annihilation.

This is simply a quite conventional understanding. In actuality the Cold War was less about combating the spread of the Soviet bloc's influence than it was about preventing societies from adopting a communist philosophy that would make them disinclined to submit their peoples and resources to the domination and exploitation of the capitalist world-system (euphemistically known as the Free World).

I would simply note that the underlined is not a contrast but rather an equality - the spread of the ostensible Soviet bloc influence was the same as spreading a communist philosophy around the world.

You're making the common error of equating the Soviet empire with communism.

And, needless to say, it was a pretext for the creation of the modern national security state and military-industrial complex, i.e. system of surveillance and control, and golden goose for certain military contractors and other elements of the corporate elite. And it also provided a rather serviceable excuse for spreading American hegemony by the skullduggery of the CIA, the use of client dictators, and the morally condemnable use of military force. The conventional understanding of the Cold War is pure ideology (in the Marxist sense of the word).

We may have a modern national security state and MIC (military industrial complex sure), but that's IMHO nothing new...there has always been a significant sector of the economy dedicated towards weapons production even if not in an industrialized form, and national security has always been paramount...such concerns are as old as the concept of polity itself.

Not to be unkind, but this is a weak way of dismissing the significance of the modern national security state and DDO-corporate complex.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.