Khaleesi did nothing wrong

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Khaleesi did nothing wrong

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 05/11/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,383 profile views
  1. Is Revolution The Only Viable Solution?

    Well, it might be necessary to reinstate capital and financial controls, to prevent the owners of the robots (and what have you) just moving their production facilities to countries with lower tax rates. So the globalized economic system of today might need to go, in such a scenario.
  2. Is Revolution The Only Viable Solution?

    If almost all jobs end up getting automated it will be possible to provide people with far more than just basic necessities. Total production of goods and services will be much higher than right now, just without much need for human input.
  3. Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)

    Another thing, if you want to read about how income inequality isn't necessarily bad (depending on how it is structured), then this paper by Sarah Voitchovsky is pretty interesting, and was part of the course literature at my university. It basically posits that income inequality among the wealthier segments of society is not necessarily negative, but can actually be good for stimulating economic growth, whereas the problems are more serious if the poorest segments of society end up getting very little of the overall share.
  4. Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)

    Capital gains is a form of income and should be included in the graphs above. I would not say that income inequality isn't a problem either. Rather that the increase in said inequality is a bit overblown when talking about most Western European countries. In the USA it is a different story, however. The Americans have indeed experienced a very large increase of it during the last 40 years, which is visible in Piketty's data.
  5. Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)

    No, although capital in general is mostly (though not only, no) valuable for the income streams it can generate.
  6. Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)

    France's level of income inequality today is pretty much the same as it was in the 1970's, and the 1940's as well for that matter, after you take into account the effect of taxation. Here it is from Piketty's own database, under "Fiscal income". It is mainly the Anglo-Saxon countries that have experienced spiraling levels of income inequality since the 1980's. Here:
  7. US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

    Well yes, and I think in that case it would be more tasteful to admit that actual socialism is a rather dangerous ideology which it should be important to maintain a distance from, but that some of its policies are nevertheless good and can be appropriated by other systems, than it is to say that Mao or Stalin weren't "true socialists" and that the ideology in question can't be blamed for any of the countless atrocities of the last century.
  8. US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

    Don't know if it would make that much of a difference. It seems to be a general trend among radical groups to be very aware of differences that to outsiders might seem rather small or trivial.
  9. US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

    Right, and see same argument can be used to answer the question why "socialist" is a bad word in many circles today. If individuals adhering to a certain ideology kill tens of millions of people and destroy numerous countries, it will probably get a bit of a sketchy reputation among many persons regardless of what its present day adherents self define as, claim to want, or if they attempt to wash their hands of the crimes of their predecessors or not.
  10. US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

    Still don't see how such a flagrant disregard for a number of core tenets of socialism (like, not being based around having a free market capitalist system) can make them more pure socialists than Stalin or Mao. If we go into what people self define as, though, how many of these Trump supporting "Neo-nazis" or "fascists" actually see or call themselves that? Very few, I would guess. Even Richard Spencer is an "identitarian". Then you have the "Alt-Right", "Ethno-Pluralists", "Paleconservatives", "Counter Jihadists", and a plethora of other kinds of nationalists and far right groups. I think actual self defining nazis and fascists are very rare these days. Most of said right wing ideologies do have certain ideological differences compared to one another, and definitely towards actual nazism and fascism as well. Is it thus wrong to lump them together like what I'm doing with various socialist movements and historical socialist/communist dictators?
  11. US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

    Well with Mao in particular a couple of tens of million people died starved to death because of his economic policies. I think starving to death seems pretty horrible, so in that sense I would argue that you are wrong in that economic policy wasn't one of (or the major) reason for why living in his China doesn't seem to have been very nice. But okay. So a planned economy a la Stalin or Mao isn't "real socialism", but a free market capitalist program with some government intervention and welfare polices, developed by a German liberal-conservative party, that is real socialism?
  12. US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

    That sure is a convincing counter argument. Person 1: "I don't like nazism because they killed millions of people and destroyed much of the continent I live on." Person 2: "If you think that's nazism, I can't help you. I'm rather surprised by the lack of understanding of what nazism actually is." It is also pretty funny that Stalin and Mao weren't socialists according to you, but the Western world after WWII has been. Even though we basically have had a standard capitalist system just as before, only with somewhat higher tax rates and more expansive welfare programs. But that is still enough to make politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton more socialist than Stalin and Mao, apparently. 10/10 for the mental gymnastics.
  13. US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

    Yes it was. Both Stalin and Mao tried to break down existing class barriers in tonnes of different ways. Like killing everyone of the upper classes, confiscating property through land reforms, making education more accessible to the lower classes, and so on. That it didn't work out very well, and that they thus weren't socialists, is like saying that Hitler wasn't an actual nazi because he didn't succeed in building the thousand year race-empire he was talking about.
  14. Political power and arms

    If we want to tie that discussion to the topic at hand, there's also an interesting argument to be had regarding the success of a dictatorship using the military to supress the people in a system with a professional military versus one based around conscription. If you have a professional, standing army like for example the US does, then the military basically evolves to become a bit of its own society. Soldiers and officers mostly know and work with other soldiers and officers, and can end up rather disassociated from the civilian society they are supposed to protect. Combine that with being reliant on paychecks from the government to keep their jobs, and you could well make the case that it would be easier to turn such an army against "the people" than one composed of everyday individuals from all walks of society, who only take up arms temporarily if called upon. The founding fathers of the USA didn't want a standing army, if I recall correctly.
  15. Political power and arms

    Depends on how many supply depots you have and how well concealed they are. In the system we had here during the Cold War they were very common, usually small, and could be literally anywhere. They rented barns from farmers and had the equipment for a platoon stored there, or hidden out in a nondescript shed in the forest, and so on. All in all the 800 000 men of the defense forces (during the 1980's) were supposed to be able to mobilize in 72 hours. I'm not too familiar with how the Norwegian system works, but generally how conscription functions is that your service period is actually just your training, then when you "graduate" from that you are placed in the wartime reserves* and released back into your normal life in civilian society, to be called in for repetition exercises (or war!) if necessary. Although in countries such as Israel and South Korea that need a constant high state of military readiness, conscripts also need to keep serving for a year or two after being done with their training as active military, before being replaced by a new batch. *I.e. the actual military formations of the country in event of a conflict.