yeah. it's kinda funny. hobbes is actually providing a summary of a number of arguments *against* capitalism. it's one of the better cases against the laissez-faire model that i've yet to come across.
it's not really an argument in favour of totalitarianism, and it doesn't seem to have anything remotely to do with socialism at all (despite some common apparent misperceptions). it's just a really clear and systemic rejection of the whole "free market" ancap perspective; the thesis of the text is most simply stated as "without strict regulation, markets are impossible".
i want to get this across clearly, so i'm going to be careful about writing this section up.
i'm actually going to be putting forth the idea that hobbes was a kind of proto-marxist, with his leviathan being the dictatorship of the proletariat.
what he's describing is something sort of like the borg, not an individualist liberal society, where the sovereign is the literal reflection of the people's will. that's not the type of authoritarianism he's usually associated with.
right-wing collectivism is generally understood today as synonymous with fascism, but i would also put marx and his followers on the collectivist right.
like i say - it's funny. this is currently being very badly taught.
i don't see anything about rights or individualism in here at all. nor do i see much about how princes ought to rule. i see the projection of a platonic and collectivist utopia, kept in line by a cross between thor and odin.
hobbes seems more at the end of a line of thought than at the beginning of one.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
4c1dr3fl3x
It's important to note that Ukraine is now only tangling with a largely irregular (but entrenched) force, and the little green men are not to be seen. Even when THEY were rolling around, it was with very outdated armored vehicles (BMP-2's and BTR-80's, same stuff the Ukrainians field), and none of their current fighting vehicles (BMD-4M's, T-80U's & T-90's, BTR-90's) they have. Given the current political dialogue, this means 2 things: 1. Due to their zealous assaults, ethnically Russian groups are actually being met with the violence they said they feared in the first place, that Putin used as an excuse to back his Crimean velvet glove invasion. Ironic, in a way. And a self fulfilling prophecy. 2. Ukraine still has to be cautious about how they deal with this insurgency. Putin may be pulling back support now that he at least has Crimea and is facing the looming reality of REAL political resistance, but if Ukrainian forces go batshit crazy or have one headliner scandal of counter-insurgency misconduct, they will give him an excuse to start a full-on invasion with his forces unmasked under a pretense of stopping a "fascist genocide", and he will take it. Oh, hey they do love to be hypocritical about what constitutes a Fascist.
PerfectDeath4
Yup, Putin doesn't have as strong of a reason for intervening in Eastern Ukraine. The irony is, if these separatists were in Russia, they'd be poisoned, rounded up, or just shot. That is how Russia deals with 'terrorists'. Heck, that is how Russia deals with politics and protests.
AndyHurd
Good points. Every time I watch ethnic Russians from the east rallying for independence I ask myself why anyone would want to bring such violence upon themselves. Self-fulfilling prophecy indeed.
XANX
+1 for commentary and for the Winrai icon
Светлая
SAVE DONBASS PEOPLE FROM KIEV NAZIS ARMY!
Mitkls
the same thing pretty much everywhere around the world actually. However Ukrainian government and forces just don't have enough power at the moment to do so.
PerfectDeath4
The whole, "Nazi" thing was inspired by a neo nazi group in Ukraine that gained a lot more influence in the government after helping to overthrow the old government during the Maidan riots. Thus, RT started blowing things out of proportion claiming the whole government was nazi controlled fascists.
The scary thing is there are nazis on both sides and they are doing a lot of the killing of innocent people because they can with all the chaos.
deathtokoalas
it wouldn't make sense to have russian troops face aerial bombardment when russia cannot retaliate or otherwise protect them - and they can't, an invasion is not on the table (turn cnn off, it's garbage). i wouldn't mistake a shift in military tactics for a greater shift in strategy.
putin doesn't want control of ukraine. unlike the eu, russia is still a welfare state. what that means is that the eu can take control and sell off the resources with little concern for the average ukrainian, but if russia rolls in they're going to have to pump billions in to fix the decaying social system. from the russian perspective, ukraine (and especially the east of ukraine) is an expensive parasite to be avoided. it's the reason the invasion didn't happen years ago. russia doesn't want them.
what russia does want is to control the puppet strings in kiev. nothing that happened in maidan has eliminated russian dominance in the region. it was a short term (and rather foolhardy) strategy to punish a sitting government, not a structural revolution that sent the russians packing for good. when russia finally does take control of kiev again, and it is a matter of time and not a matter of if, it will likely not be permanent, either.
the russians aren't really being coy about what they want in the east, so it's not really necessary to read between lines. what they want is to decentralize the government into a collection of semi-autonomous zones that they can influence without being responsible to upkeep. that way, russia can have it's cake (control the security situation on the ground) and eat it too (avoid being responsible for running and paying for the civilian government).
the russian speakers are really being mislead. they think they're going to get on russian welfare, but all they're really going to get is russian soldiers. if that becomes clear on the ground the allegiances may shift, or a third front may open up.
for now, the russians need to be thinking about delocalizing the conflict and shifting the instability further west. they can neither fight off the planes with their troops on the ground nor invade with a real army. so, other tactics include bullying and creating diversions.
the green men will be back when it's safe for them, but they're not going to bring a real army with them. or, at least, not so long as it would be viewed, internationally, as an invasion. long term strategy is of course to host russian bases within the autonomous zone.
but the prize is still kiev, not donetsk.
Kadaver85
I'm sorry, you lost me at "russian welfare"... What welfare? Krokodil and glue for everyone?
deathtokoalas
it's really astounding how ignorant westerners are.
yes - russia is a far more attractive place to live than ukraine, if you depend on the state to survive. and, ukraine is on the path to getting a lot worse, while russia is constantly recovering.
but, again, that's not happening. the russians don't want to pay.
vacomments
Regarding the second point, I don't think thats the case. We have been induced to, and the Ukrainian government appears to have been induced to forget that that country is still Ukraine and only Ukraine, a sovereign state. Thus, inside their borders, they should choose to combat any domestic threat, in any manner, without fearing or contemplating the possibility of a military invasion by any of the countries bordering it. In case irregularities occur during the combat of domestic threats, such occurrence should be given to the international community, the United Nations, so that it can be analysed, discussed and attempted to be resolved. From a strategic point of view, Putin's annexation of Crimea was a brilliant, almost immaculate move. And thats the problem. (I dont agree with what was done, but I admire the way it was done) Because the Crimea operation worked so brilliantly, that eluded Putin into thinking that it would work as well and as good for the rest of Ukraine. Maybe it is a cliché to say it, but thats exactly the same reasoning error which eluded Hitler in Czechoslovakia. When the soft, old strategy doesn't work any longer, since you are already committed, you will be tempted or forced to adopt a more aggressive model.
deathtokoalas
law only exists if it can be enforced. these ideas about ukrainian territorial integrity are just that - ideas - and only exist in the world we live in by proxy of various state powers that use force to assert them. that is to say that if ukraine cannot control the area, then it is no longer their area, and they can wave all the laws around in the world that they like but they can't reverse it unless they have the power to do so.
i don't know much about poroshenko, but his early actions have made it clear to me that he understands this. the russians certainly understand it. and, the americans are the architects of a global order that does not care about constraints on the behaviour of states.
what the law states is really truly irrelevant. liberals need to get their heads around the reality that this world order has failed and come up with ideas about a new one, not continue trying to enforce the fantasy.
Kadaver85
Yes, because being suppressed by the government is really a good place to live. I'm from a country with one the worlds best welfare system, and when you say that Russia is a welfare state that just cracks me up. How about getting your info from somewhere other than Russian media and history pages/books? You have people living in poverty in every corner of your "great" country. Just take Sotji as an example, they got forced to live in huts with no sanitary facilities because they wanted to build huge hotels where they used to live. You call that a WELFARE STATE!? God damn you're brainwashed. Just look at any damn OECD index or any other index that shows any info about how people are doing in other countries. You're not any good.
deathtokoalas
well, i wouldn't want to live in either of these places, but the blunt reality is that the reason people on the ground are siding with russia is that they potentially offer a better economic alternative. but, i'll state for a third time that this is a false perception, because the russians aren't ponying up.
lavish, corrupt petro-state or imf austerity reforms? it's not a complex choice.
...but, for the fourth time, it's not a real one.
It's important to note that Ukraine is now only tangling with a largely irregular (but entrenched) force, and the little green men are not to be seen. Even when THEY were rolling around, it was with very outdated armored vehicles (BMP-2's and BTR-80's, same stuff the Ukrainians field), and none of their current fighting vehicles (BMD-4M's, T-80U's & T-90's, BTR-90's) they have. Given the current political dialogue, this means 2 things: 1. Due to their zealous assaults, ethnically Russian groups are actually being met with the violence they said they feared in the first place, that Putin used as an excuse to back his Crimean velvet glove invasion. Ironic, in a way. And a self fulfilling prophecy. 2. Ukraine still has to be cautious about how they deal with this insurgency. Putin may be pulling back support now that he at least has Crimea and is facing the looming reality of REAL political resistance, but if Ukrainian forces go batshit crazy or have one headliner scandal of counter-insurgency misconduct, they will give him an excuse to start a full-on invasion with his forces unmasked under a pretense of stopping a "fascist genocide", and he will take it. Oh, hey they do love to be hypocritical about what constitutes a Fascist.
PerfectDeath4
Yup, Putin doesn't have as strong of a reason for intervening in Eastern Ukraine. The irony is, if these separatists were in Russia, they'd be poisoned, rounded up, or just shot. That is how Russia deals with 'terrorists'. Heck, that is how Russia deals with politics and protests.
AndyHurd
Good points. Every time I watch ethnic Russians from the east rallying for independence I ask myself why anyone would want to bring such violence upon themselves. Self-fulfilling prophecy indeed.
XANX
+1 for commentary and for the Winrai icon
Светлая
SAVE DONBASS PEOPLE FROM KIEV NAZIS ARMY!
Mitkls
the same thing pretty much everywhere around the world actually. However Ukrainian government and forces just don't have enough power at the moment to do so.
PerfectDeath4
The whole, "Nazi" thing was inspired by a neo nazi group in Ukraine that gained a lot more influence in the government after helping to overthrow the old government during the Maidan riots. Thus, RT started blowing things out of proportion claiming the whole government was nazi controlled fascists.
The scary thing is there are nazis on both sides and they are doing a lot of the killing of innocent people because they can with all the chaos.
deathtokoalas
it wouldn't make sense to have russian troops face aerial bombardment when russia cannot retaliate or otherwise protect them - and they can't, an invasion is not on the table (turn cnn off, it's garbage). i wouldn't mistake a shift in military tactics for a greater shift in strategy.
putin doesn't want control of ukraine. unlike the eu, russia is still a welfare state. what that means is that the eu can take control and sell off the resources with little concern for the average ukrainian, but if russia rolls in they're going to have to pump billions in to fix the decaying social system. from the russian perspective, ukraine (and especially the east of ukraine) is an expensive parasite to be avoided. it's the reason the invasion didn't happen years ago. russia doesn't want them.
what russia does want is to control the puppet strings in kiev. nothing that happened in maidan has eliminated russian dominance in the region. it was a short term (and rather foolhardy) strategy to punish a sitting government, not a structural revolution that sent the russians packing for good. when russia finally does take control of kiev again, and it is a matter of time and not a matter of if, it will likely not be permanent, either.
the russians aren't really being coy about what they want in the east, so it's not really necessary to read between lines. what they want is to decentralize the government into a collection of semi-autonomous zones that they can influence without being responsible to upkeep. that way, russia can have it's cake (control the security situation on the ground) and eat it too (avoid being responsible for running and paying for the civilian government).
the russian speakers are really being mislead. they think they're going to get on russian welfare, but all they're really going to get is russian soldiers. if that becomes clear on the ground the allegiances may shift, or a third front may open up.
for now, the russians need to be thinking about delocalizing the conflict and shifting the instability further west. they can neither fight off the planes with their troops on the ground nor invade with a real army. so, other tactics include bullying and creating diversions.
the green men will be back when it's safe for them, but they're not going to bring a real army with them. or, at least, not so long as it would be viewed, internationally, as an invasion. long term strategy is of course to host russian bases within the autonomous zone.
but the prize is still kiev, not donetsk.
Kadaver85
I'm sorry, you lost me at "russian welfare"... What welfare? Krokodil and glue for everyone?
deathtokoalas
it's really astounding how ignorant westerners are.
yes - russia is a far more attractive place to live than ukraine, if you depend on the state to survive. and, ukraine is on the path to getting a lot worse, while russia is constantly recovering.
but, again, that's not happening. the russians don't want to pay.
vacomments
Regarding the second point, I don't think thats the case. We have been induced to, and the Ukrainian government appears to have been induced to forget that that country is still Ukraine and only Ukraine, a sovereign state. Thus, inside their borders, they should choose to combat any domestic threat, in any manner, without fearing or contemplating the possibility of a military invasion by any of the countries bordering it. In case irregularities occur during the combat of domestic threats, such occurrence should be given to the international community, the United Nations, so that it can be analysed, discussed and attempted to be resolved. From a strategic point of view, Putin's annexation of Crimea was a brilliant, almost immaculate move. And thats the problem. (I dont agree with what was done, but I admire the way it was done) Because the Crimea operation worked so brilliantly, that eluded Putin into thinking that it would work as well and as good for the rest of Ukraine. Maybe it is a cliché to say it, but thats exactly the same reasoning error which eluded Hitler in Czechoslovakia. When the soft, old strategy doesn't work any longer, since you are already committed, you will be tempted or forced to adopt a more aggressive model.
deathtokoalas
law only exists if it can be enforced. these ideas about ukrainian territorial integrity are just that - ideas - and only exist in the world we live in by proxy of various state powers that use force to assert them. that is to say that if ukraine cannot control the area, then it is no longer their area, and they can wave all the laws around in the world that they like but they can't reverse it unless they have the power to do so.
i don't know much about poroshenko, but his early actions have made it clear to me that he understands this. the russians certainly understand it. and, the americans are the architects of a global order that does not care about constraints on the behaviour of states.
what the law states is really truly irrelevant. liberals need to get their heads around the reality that this world order has failed and come up with ideas about a new one, not continue trying to enforce the fantasy.
Kadaver85
Yes, because being suppressed by the government is really a good place to live. I'm from a country with one the worlds best welfare system, and when you say that Russia is a welfare state that just cracks me up. How about getting your info from somewhere other than Russian media and history pages/books? You have people living in poverty in every corner of your "great" country. Just take Sotji as an example, they got forced to live in huts with no sanitary facilities because they wanted to build huge hotels where they used to live. You call that a WELFARE STATE!? God damn you're brainwashed. Just look at any damn OECD index or any other index that shows any info about how people are doing in other countries. You're not any good.
deathtokoalas
well, i wouldn't want to live in either of these places, but the blunt reality is that the reason people on the ground are siding with russia is that they potentially offer a better economic alternative. but, i'll state for a third time that this is a false perception, because the russians aren't ponying up.
lavish, corrupt petro-state or imf austerity reforms? it's not a complex choice.
...but, for the fourth time, it's not a real one.
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)