Russia's Gazprom Oil Wars. Why does the left let them trade blood for oil?

[HoverBoarder]

Some people like to equate any attempt to explain a situation with justifying it. In their narrow view of the world if you adopt a slightly more nuanced view than "Russia bad, America good" then you're obviously a Putin loving Russiophile

I have never met or seen anyone who believes that way, do you have any examples?

 

[bit_pattern]

Then this must be a phantasm I conjured up... http://www.zombietime.com/climate_movement_drops_mask_admits_communist_agenda/

So because one communist sets up a book stall at a rally that means... what exactly?

Of course, you wouldn't be quite so so dishonest as to equate all forms of socialism with communism, would you?

ETA: Oh, and thanks for linking to a RWNJ climate denying blog to make my point for me

 

[WildCat]

So because one communist sets up a book stall at a rally that means... what exactly?

One?

One?



PS - what do you think the difference between "socialism" and "communism" is?

 

[bit_pattern]

One?

One?



PS - what do you think the difference between "socialism" and "communism" is?

One. Please provide evidence that there was more than one photo of communist organisations on the RWNJ blog page.

As for your PS - here, why don't you see if YOU can spot the difference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

[HoverBoarder]

Internationally I'm 'center' but that makes me 'left' in the US, and I have many left friends too. None of them are supportive of Russia's crap, and several (like myself!) are extremely critical of Putin and Russia's actions. That the useful idiots that do support Russia in it's latest asshattery are on the left should be no more surprising than that Nazi apologists are on the right.

I'm not sure what protests would do, or why anyone would go to them in the west. Most of the west is already opposing Russia. There isn't enough support on the left or right for more extreme actions currently for those kinds of protests and the like.

Being someone who has been a lifetime member of the Left myself, it is disheartening that attention is selectively placed almost entirely only on the accepted boogeymen (largely the West, the US, and Israel), while ignoring some of the worst abusers in the world.

it's not that a protest or article is the only way to voice your opinion, but if enough worldwide attention (especially from the general UN assembly) was placed on illegally invading Ukraine in the first place, than there would have been no war there. If Russia was not allowed to use it's security Council veto to allow Assad to slaughter civilians by the tens of thousands, there would have been no Syrian war (and no Al-Nursa or ISIS either).

Putin has for the most part been bullying and killing his way across Eastern Europe and the Middle East with the interests of Gazprom placed first above all else (including Russia) in order to personally enrich himself with corrupt blood oil money. Yet I hardly ever hear anyone talking about it.


It is good that you and your friends have rational opinions about Russia, but it was not enough to stop Russia's many oil wars. Unless anyone else hears your conversations, it stays as just a conversation among friends.

Protests are generally not my preferred method of enacting change, but my point in bringing them up was more to highlight the disparity in a situation where you have such a glaring case of blood for oil. Yet I don't see hardly any of the same groups who protested against the Iraq war even bring up Putin's many oil wars.

McHrozni phrased it very well:

I think that the issue is mainly the leftist option that sees US as the universal boogeyman that does everything wrong. Chomsky is a good example. Has he condemned Russia recently? He did condemn US and Israel this year, but the death toll in Ukraine exceeded that in Gaza by a factor of at least 2.

McHrozni

One phrase to describe this unfortunately rather common Chomsky attitude on the Left is "selective mock outrage," and more simply it could just be called "dishonesty."

My primary problem with this is that while I wholeheartedly agree with a struggle for increased global Human Rights that has largely been championed by the Left, if you have a pursuit of human rights that ignores some of the worst abusers of it, than it demeans and degrades the entire struggle for it.

 

[WildCat]

One. Please provide evidence that there was more than one photo of communist organisations on the RWNJ blog page.

As for your PS - here, why don't you see if YOU can spot the difference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these."

Man, those are completely different! Social ownership vs. common ownership, totally different!

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Then this must be a phantasm I conjured up... <link removed, not enough posts>

So, because a certain number of left-wing parties recognise climate change (including US communists) and have rightly deduced that the capitalistic economic model is inherently disposed to ignoring the problems of climate change, you run around waving your hands in the air shouting "RED DAWN! RED DAWN! RED DAWN!!!!!"

Forgive me for not being at all impressed with your logic or your debating skills.

 

[bit_pattern]

Man, those are completely different! Social ownership vs. common ownership, totally different!

Yup. They are.

 

[bit_pattern]

So, because a certain number of left-wing parties recognise climate change (including US communists) and have rightly deduced that the capitalistic economic model is inherently disposed to ignoring the problems of climate change, you run around waving your hands in the air shouting "RED DAWN! RED DAWN! RED DAWN!!!!!"

Forgive me for not being at all impressed with your logic or your debating skills.

Not only that - his original point that "communist" countries had a worse environmental record than capitalist countries, while probably true in a lot of ways, doesn't hold when it comes to climate change. CO2 emissions have historically been inextricably linked to economic growth. And capitalism is without question the most efficient means of achieving growth. So much so that the only "communist" country that has managed to outdo America in terms of the current rate of carbon emissions has been China, who only managed to do so by embracing capitalist economics with wild abandon. That being said, in terms of accumulated atmospheric carbon, the capitalist US still bears the greatest responsibility for the environmental harm that has already been inflicted.

But, anyways, welcome to the forum - I'm sure WildCat will have ample opportunity to impress you with the cogency of the arguments he cooks up yet!

 

[epepke]

Because the Soviet Union collapsed, and they haven't regrouped well enough to find a substitute mythos.

Which, I guess, falls into the second category.

 

[WildCat]

So, because a certain number of left-wing parties recognise climate change (including US communists) and have rightly deduced that the capitalistic economic model is inherently disposed to ignoring the problems of climate change, you run around waving your hands in the air shouting "RED DAWN! RED DAWN! RED DAWN!!!!!"

Forgive me for not being at all impressed with your logic or your debating skills.

You should read my posts and learn. Notice I said it's the radical environmentalists that call for communism/socialism as the solution.

Yup. They are.

Then do explain the difference, as they are extremely similar. In fact Marx saw socialism as the path to communism. It's sometimes called lower-stage communism.

But what would he know about his own theory?

 

[bit_pattern]

Then do explain the difference, as they are extremely similar.

Australia has publicly owned electricity networks - does that make Australia a Communist country? No, of course it doesn't, your original point was absurd hyperbole and you know it.

 

[WildCat]

CO2 emissions have historically been inextricably linked to economic growth. And capitalism is without question the most efficient means of achieving growth.

The socialists/communists managed to pull off quite a trick though - they found a way to spew CO2 and other pollutants into the environment without economic growth!

They were so successful that post-unification Germany was able to meet its Kyoto objectives simply by closing former East German industrial plants that in practical terms weren't producing anything except pollution.

 

[WildCat]

Australia has publicly owned electricity networks - does that make Australia a Communist country? No, of course it doesn't, your original point was absurd hyperbole and you know it.

You do not understand what socialism or communism is, just as I suspected.

Hint: a few state-owned companies (especially a public utility) doesn't socialism make. Talk to me when they nationalize the food distribution companies and such. Or the farms and vegemite factories. Whatever the hell vegemite is, an industrial lubricant or something?

 

[timhau]

Not only that - his original point that "communist" countries had a worse environmental record than capitalist countries, while probably true in a lot of ways, doesn't hold when it comes to climate change. CO2 emissions have historically been inextricably linked to economic growth.

Are you sure about that? I googled the CO2 emissions of Poland, and came up with this website. If you scroll down a bit, you'll find that the peak CO2 production in Poland happened during the 1980s, i.e. under communism; the 2009 emissions were about 70% of the 1989 figure. During the same time period, the Polish economy almost tripled. The difference is plainly visible if you look at CO2 emissions per $2000 of GDP -- the 2009 figure is only 40% of the 1990 figure (older numbers are not available).

 

[greybeard]

One?

One?



PS - what do you think the difference between "socialism" and "communism" is?

The fact that a few lefties are jumping on a band wagon proves nothing. Any more than extreme right wingers taking up Republican causes. You are also ignoring the fact that a lot extreme right wingers say that AGW is a hoax. Also conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.

It doesn't invalidate more than a century of scientific research and whatever the answer is to the hole we are digging for future generations it certainly isn't Communism. Nor is it unbridled Capitalism.

 

[WildCat]

The fact that a few lefties are jumping on a band wagon proves nothing. Any more than extreme right wingers taking up Republican causes. You are also ignoring the fact that a lot extreme right wingers say that AGW is a hoax. Also conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.

It doesn't invalidate more than a century of scientific research and whatever the answer is to the hole we are digging for future generations it certainly isn't Communism. Nor is it unbridled Capitalism.

Good thing we have nothing close to "unbridled capitalism" then, isn't it?

 

[greybeard]

Good thing we have nothing close to "unbridled capitalism" then, isn't it?

Of course. There are many people in power and many people lobbying those in power though that would like to see unbridled capitalism. Or something close to it. My belief is that the future of mankind is more threatened by them than a few misguided individuals with placards at a protest.

 

[3point14]

The left of what?

This would be the 'left' of the political spectrum as laid out based solely on french revolutionary (I think) politics.

It's pointless, when 'the left' tries to define 'the right' and equally so when 'the right' tries to define 'the left'

It's an utterly impossible thing to define the full range of opinions, thoughts and emotions one person has in respect of every political topic ever by picking a single point in one dimension.

Really it's just well poisoning on a grand scale accepted by anyone and everyone doing political commentary or discussing politics. Shorthand for those that aren't nuanced enough to understand that a persons political feelings cannot be defined in one dimension.

 

[jimbob]

Are you sure about that? I googled the CO2 emissions of Poland, and came up with this website. If you scroll down a bit, you'll find that the peak CO2 production in Poland happened during the 1980s, i.e. under communism; the 2009 emissions were about 70% of the 1989 figure. During the same time period, the Polish economy almost tripled. The difference is plainly visible if you look at CO2 emissions per $2000 of GDP -- the 2009 figure is only 40% of the 1990 figure (older numbers are not available).

Does that maths work?

Assuming 1990 was not too different from 1989, then you have 3*40%~70% (GDP tripling but tonnes of CO₂ per dollar falling to 40%

or have I misunderstood?