Michael Hardner Posted March 27, 2018 Report Share Posted March 27, 2018 7 hours ago, August1991 said: Hardner, where does one draw the line between Left and Right? Are you "progressive" or now "conservative"? I'm pretty conservative on a 1970s scale if that's what you're getting at. 7 hours ago, August1991 said: ======= Some changes work; many other changes don't. At present, in my opinion, too many foolish people want to change things simply because they believe change is good. They may *say* change is good but I suspect they just feel that they want change and are unable to articulate it. Rather than "change is good" I would say "change in inevitable" and "Humans fall over themselves trying to mitigate change" 7 hours ago, August1991 said: In the 1910s, some so-called "progressive" Americans thought the same about alcohol - they managed to pass a constitutional amendment. "Progressive" does not always mean good; sometimes it means disaster. And yet over time things always get better. Why is that ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penderyn Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 On 24/03/2018 at 1:40 PM, Michael Hardner said: Incorrect. Your blind spot keeps coming up. The "West" was open, so they modified their pure capitalist model, when "the" public demanded it. Even Americans like FDR and LBJ increased the government involvement in the social sphere and government control of the economy. The people, on the whole, wanted it. The USSR had no equivalent realization that led them towards a middle-ground between pure socialism and pure capitalism. China did and they are still around. The remaining contest is between the "dear leader, he's so clever" model and the "enlightened public vs. dumb masses" model. Always and everywhere the real model is 'Oh God, let's keep the mugs confused, or they'll start caring about their own interests and cut our profits!' The two you mention are surely just secondary variations on the lie machine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 You seem to have a limited knowledge of history. I already mentioned democratic openness leading to reforms, why are you ignoring that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Penderyn said: Always and everywhere the real model is 'Oh God, let's keep the mugs confused, or they'll start caring about their own interests and cut our profits!' The two you mention are surely just secondary variations on the lie machine? "Mugs confused"? Sorry, I have always thought that ordinary people - people like me - are not "mugs". Pendeyr, Am I a mug? Edited March 29, 2018 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: You seem to have a limited knowledge of history. I already mentioned democratic openness leading to reforms, why are you ignoring that? Michael, you seem to believe knowledge "progresses". It doesn't. Time is not a proxy for knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 6 hours ago, August1991 said: Michael, you seem to believe knowledge "progresses". It doesn't. Have you ever heard the term 'standing on the shoulders of giants' ? The existence of this term alone disproves your point. 6 hours ago, August1991 said: Time is not a proxy for knowledge. How does knowledge not progress ? Do you invent the wheel every morning before you ride it to work ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penderyn Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 7 hours ago, August1991 said: "Mugs confused"? Sorry, I have always thought that ordinary people - people like me - are not "mugs". Pendeyr, Am I a mug? Since farming was introduced a small minority have lived off the back of those who did the work, and so it has continued They produced such civilization as we inherit, but also all sorts of religious nonsense and a great deal of killing, all justified by bullshit to keep the majority keeping them. Very few of this majority know their arse from their elbow, and believe what they are told. I call such people mugs, since I don't have to kid them. Your own position is best known to your goodself, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 (edited) On 27/03/2018 at 7:03 AM, Michael Hardner said: 1) Rather than "change is good" I would say "change in inevitable" and "Humans fall over themselves trying to mitigate change" 2) And yet over time things always get better. Why is that ? 1) Change is inevitable, but its pace needs to be controlled and its extent, blunted. Not all changes are good solutions to a perceived problem. 2) Always? All things? Pollution, global warming, mass extinction, nuclear weapons... Edited March 29, 2018 by OftenWrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 On 16/05/2017 at 1:30 AM, August1991 said: Around 1900, from Lemberg to Hermannstadt to Pressburg to Vienna, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was an example of a modern, progressive, multicultural, multilingual, civilized, even federal State. Minorities were respected; intellectuals thrived. And then, it ceased to exist. Why? The empire had enemies from within and without, but it always did. The political will of that age was shifting away from the Monarchy towards that of a Republic. The sceptre of power was changing hands, as it is doing again today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 2 hours ago, OftenWrong said: 1) Change is inevitable, but its pace needs to be controlled and its extent, blunted. Not all changes are good solutions to a perceived problem. 1) Humans think they control everything. I love humans. 2 hours ago, OftenWrong said: 2) Always? All things? Pollution, global warming, mass extinction, nuclear weapons... 2) All of those threats have become or will become better over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 2, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2018 (edited) I fear that that the Austrian-Hungarian Empire is the model for a multi-cultural, bi-lingual State. Yet, in Canada, we are still a civilized State - despite being bi-lingual, and even multi-cultural. (In Canada, we have no official State cultural - but our federal State has two languages.) ==== I think that Canada is sustainable - and even civilized. Doable but not certain. Edited April 2, 2018 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) On 3/29/2018 at 9:47 AM, OftenWrong said: The empire had enemies from within and without, but it always did. The political will of that age was shifting away from the Monarchy towards that of a Republic. The sceptre of power was changing hands, as it is doing again today. Don't forget that Hungary didn't technically cease to be a monarchy. They appointed Admiral Horthy as "regent" of the Kingdom of Hungary, in which post he remained for a while. Republics, monarchies...today these words are little more than two-dimensional terms for what can be very similar, sometimes very different, things. Edited April 5, 2018 by JamesHackerMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penderyn Posted April 12, 2018 Report Share Posted April 12, 2018 On 05/04/2018 at 11:19 AM, JamesHackerMP said: Don't forget that Hungary didn't technically cease to be a monarchy. They appointed Admiral Horthy as "regent" of the Kingdom of Hungary, in which post he remained for a while. Republics, monarchies...today these words are little more than two-dimensional terms for what can be very similar, sometimes very different, things. I can hardly see that the distinctions matter much, except that an established Head of State, tends to be less hated tghan a political one. I think the main problem with these antique Empires though was the rise of nationalism. There is scarcely a European state consisting of a single nationality, so this notion breaks 'em up. Hungary was particularly full of minorities, and had been very bossy. As far as I can see, only France has ever got away with a 'national' state that wasn't, God knows why. It was the Revolution possibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted April 12, 2018 Report Share Posted April 12, 2018 I don't understand what you mean by a "national state that wasn't..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penderyn Posted April 13, 2018 Report Share Posted April 13, 2018 20 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said: I don't understand what you mean by a "national state that wasn't..." Bretons, Basques, Languedoc etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted April 13, 2018 Report Share Posted April 13, 2018 ohhhhhhh OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.