Syria Disintegrating: Part 2

[LaCroix]

But even the Stalin's of the world still have to get a lot of other people to go along with them, and not all of them do so from the direct threat of violence. Many do so because they believe in what the leader is selling, even if the leader could not care less.

well, yeah. middle-management goes with the flow in any organization. the top sets the tempo, and it goes down from there. very few are willing to buck against what's wrong. especially when the threat of potential violence exists. even when it doesn't exist, things like personal best interest keep people from going against the current even if they do feel something is wrong.

Sadly it was not true.

would you provide evidence for this? links, etc.

[LaCroix]

Now, I'm not good at naming fallacies, but surely it has to be some kind of sophistry?  "The fact that there are people in this thread who disagree with me is further proof that I'm right."     If it's not a fallacy, then I'm going to adopt this in all my debates here going forward, I don't see how I can lose.

is the irony intentional that you misconstrued malthus's post, turned it into a strawman, and then said if you create strawmen, you could win all arguments?

[Valmy]

We do this in corporate America as well, where we have huge companies (like HP as a perfect example) and we conclude that their success or failure is mostly, if not completely, driven by the CEO. In reality, of course, they succeed or fail based on the aggregate of a huge number of people, processes, technology, and markets. But that is complicated, so instead we say "Carly destroyed HP!".

Oh yeah if there is any problem in Corporate America it is the brutal and savage way CEOs are held responsible for leadership failures. Heaven help the poor CEO who fails even a little bit.

[Malthus]

Oh yeah if there is any problem in Corporate America it is the brutal and savage way CEOs are made responsible for leadership failures. Heaven help the poor CEO who fails even a little bit.

[Razgovory]

For myself, I judge the sincerity of people by what they do *after* they achieve power - and in the case of Stalin, it is obvious he never gave a toss about the good of the "people", even in the abstract sense of what was good for the state entity (except to the extent it served himself). He was just another brutal warlord, cynically *manipulating* the idealistic impulses of convinced Communist believers for his own benefit - the power of which can be seen by the fact that, as demonstrated in this thread, some people to this day *still*, despite all evidence to thre contrary, believe in his ideological bona fides.

This is surreal.  If someone adheres to a murderous ideology we decided he's not a sincere believer in it because he's a murderer?  That doesn't make a lick of sense.  Ruthless collectivization, murder of class enemies  and generalized terror are indicators that he didn't believe in an ideology of Ruthless collectivization, murder of class enemies and generalized terror?

[Valmy]

Can we start talking about how evil Lenin was? Just for a change of pace.

[Malthus]

For myself, I judge the sincerity of people by what they do *after* they achieve power - and in the case of Stalin, it is obvious he never gave a toss about the good of the "people", even in the abstract sense of what was good for the state entity (except to the extent it served himself). He was just another brutal warlord, cynically *manipulating* the idealistic impulses of convinced Communist believers for his own benefit - the power of which can be seen by the fact that, as demonstrated in this thread, some people to this day *still*, despite all evidence to thre contrary, believe in his ideological bona fides.

This is surreal.  If someone adheres to a murderous ideology we decided he's not a sincere believer in it because he's a murderer?  That doesn't make a lick of sense.  Ruthless collectivization, murder of class enemies  and generalized terror are indicators that he didn't believe in an ideology of Ruthless collectivization, murder of class enemies and generalized terror?

You are right - if I said what you imagine I said, it wouldn't make a lick of sense.

[Razgovory]

But even the Stalin's of the world still have to get a lot of other people to go along with them, and not all of them do so from the direct threat of violence. Many do so because they believe in what the leader is selling, even if the leader could not care less.

well, yeah. middle-management goes with the flow in any organization. the top sets the tempo, and it goes down from there. very few are willing to buck against what's wrong. especially when the threat of potential violence exists. even when it doesn't exist, things like personal best interest keep people from going against the current even if they do feel something is wrong.

Sadly it was not true.

would you provide evidence for this? links, etc.

You want me to provide evidence that Lenin did bad things?  Or do you want me to provide evidence that people argued that Stalin was "uniquely bad"?  The first one doesn't warrant a response, as for the second one, the collected works of Leon Trotsky and all Trotskist prior to 1989 and most of them after that.  Also all soviet historians after 1958, and pretty much every soviet sympathizer after 1960.

[Razgovory]

For myself, I judge the sincerity of people by what they do *after* they achieve power - and in the case of Stalin, it is obvious he never gave a toss about the good of the "people", even in the abstract sense of what was good for the state entity (except to the extent it served himself). He was just another brutal warlord, cynically *manipulating* the idealistic impulses of convinced Communist believers for his own benefit - the power of which can be seen by the fact that, as demonstrated in this thread, some people to this day *still*, despite all evidence to thre contrary, believe in his ideological bona fides.

This is surreal.  If someone adheres to a murderous ideology we decided he's not a sincere believer in it because he's a murderer?  That doesn't make a lick of sense.  Ruthless collectivization, murder of class enemies  and generalized terror are indicators that he didn't believe in an ideology of Ruthless collectivization, murder of class enemies and generalized terror?

You are right - if I said what you imagine I said, it wouldn't make a lick of sense.

The only way you didn't say that is if you somehow think that Marxism-Leninism is not a murderous ideology.  If that were true then I could see why you are so confused on this issue.  If that is so, then let me set you straight:  Marxism-Leninism is a murderous ideology.

[Berkut]

We do this in corporate America as well, where we have huge companies (like HP as a perfect example) and we conclude that their success or failure is mostly, if not completely, driven by the CEO. In reality, of course, they succeed or fail based on the aggregate of a huge number of people, processes, technology, and markets. But that is complicated, so instead we say "Carly destroyed HP!".

Oh yeah if there is any problem in Corporate America it is the brutal and savage way CEOs are held responsible for leadership failures. Heaven help the poor CEO who fails even a little bit.

WTF?

[Berkut]

Oh yeah if there is any problem in Corporate America it is the brutal and savage way CEOs are made responsible for leadership failures. Heaven help the poor CEO who fails even a little bit.

I don't know what I find more frustrating - people who make up entire arguments so they can smugly refute them, or the cheerleaders who egg them on.

[DGuller]

My point: that the system set up by the Bolshiveks enabled the party to be taken over by people who did not give a shit about Communism, other than as a route to power. Stalin was one such, but so were many of his close henchmen - look, for example, at Beria. Sexual predator and torturer, he very nearly replaced Stalin.

What does one have to do with the other?  You can't be a sexual predator and a communist?

Seriously, Malthus, you sound like someone who just recently finished a book you really liked, and now enthusiastically adopt every single thing written by one author in one book as the complete truth.

You think Beria was a convinced ideological communist, who committed his crimes because he loved the people?

I'm not saying he was or wasn't, but how is mentioning Beria's sexual predator behavior relevant one way or the other?  "A:  The sky is purple because sheep provide us wool.  B:  How are sheep relevant to the color of the sky?  A:    You think the sky is purple?"

Seriously, I'm just having such a hard time grasping any of the logical connections you're attempting to make in this discussion.  Stalin weakened his country by over-indulging in terror, and thus he obviously can't be an ideological communist?  Beria wasn't an ideological communist, he was a sexual predator!  Seriously, what the fuck is this?

[Valmy]

WTF?

First of all HP is a horrible example. They were in a declining market with antiquated technology and decided the best way to slow this decline was to buy a company with identical problems. They basically took a knife and plunged it into their own backs repeatedly. Nobody was giving HP crap for simply struggling in a difficult market. Nobody shits on IBM or Dell the same way.

Secondly I get basically what you are saying, I even agree a bit. We see it all over the place in politics, Presidents and Prime Ministers being held responsible for the economy when the overwhelming majority of the time their nations' economy is under the influence of international economic factors way outside the ability of local politicians to control.

But I had to giggle about the poor American CEOs being held responsible. Those people get millions and cushy jobs forever if they succeed, and millions and cushy jobs forever if they fail. It is only their egos that drive them onwards.

[Valmy]

Oh yeah if there is any problem in Corporate America it is the brutal and savage way CEOs are made responsible for leadership failures. Heaven help the poor CEO who fails even a little bit.

I don't know what I find more frustrating - people who make up entire arguments so they can smugly refute them, or the cheerleaders who egg them on.

Don't be that guy. You know I was joking.

[Malthus]

Oh yeah if there is any problem in Corporate America it is the brutal and savage way CEOs are made responsible for leadership failures. Heaven help the poor CEO who fails even a little bit.

I don't know what I find more frustrating - people who make up entire arguments so they can smugly refute them, or the cheerleaders who egg them on.

I didn't think it was an argument - I thought it was a joke. 

Edit: so did V.