Russian airstrikes in Syria

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

They did do a poor job of it, the thieves of the 90s have been systematically driven from power and the economic assets of Russia are now managed in such a way as to benefit the people of that country.

Well... kinda depends on your time horizon. In the immediate near term, I guess you could say that, what with more people employed by the state sector now than there were at times in the USSR. But if you look a little bit in the future, Putin's social contract has become largely about the oil price. Presumably there are plenty of smart folks in Russia who know this and can see how unsustainable it all is. For some details, see here: http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iaiwp1524.pdf

This is a crazy expensive exercise in Putin thinking he can demonstrate how Russia is some sort of world power by "fixing" what he sees as the US having fucked up. But the truth is that Russia can't afford to be a world power. I guess Putin doesn't want to accept that (as I guess would be the case for many Russian people), and at any rate, he's not going to be around for long enough for that realisation to have serious consequences for him. And if anything, in the short run demonstrations like this one serve to strengthen nationalism and thereby distract from all the stuff that's going wrong. So yeah, from the perspective of Putin and his inner circle, this all makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why so many people in Russia are not more seriously questioning the sustainability of the system Putin offers.

But I guess that's common across a lot of countries... easier to benefit in the short-run and be happy with that than to do something uncomfortable today to be in a better place tomorrow.

Putin was KGB from '75-'91. Need I say more?

[Imperializt Russia]

Yugoslavia was known for having high unemployment and inflation during most of its history.

Why would someone want a communist/extremely socialist nation to succeed. It sucks for the average person. Capitalism is not perfect, but it's better for the average person than that economic system. Besides, for the leftist among you, there is no pure capitalism, at least in the US, because there are social safety nets like food stamps and unemployment insurance for those at the bottom. Even our poor do better than most in some other nations, especially as time goes on and state-of-the-art things become less expensive due to "shelf-life" and efficiency in production that results from the success of businesses when the government gets its foot off of their throat.

"Not all the poor starve to death" is hardly a convincing argument in support of capitalism. That's only because we're talking about the west, which is a series of affluent nations. If we had an affluent socialist state, we wouldn't see those problems either.

[Geilinor]

Why would someone want a communist/extremely socialist nation to succeed. It sucks for the average person. Capitalism is not perfect, but it's better for the average person than that economic system. Besides, for the leftist among you, there is no pure capitalism, at least in the US, because there are social safety nets like food stamps and unemployment insurance for those at the bottom. Even our poor do better than most in some other nations, especially as time goes on and state-of-the-art things become less expensive due to "shelf-life" and efficiency in production that results from the success of businesses when the government gets its foot off of their throat.

"Not all the poor starve to death" is hardly a convincing argument in support of capitalism. That's only because we're talking about the west, which is a series of affluent nations. If we had an affluent socialist state, we wouldn't see those problems either.

What's the point of socialism if nothing changes?

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

Why would someone want a communist/extremely socialist nation to succeed. It sucks for the average person. Capitalism is not perfect, but it's better for the average person than that economic system. Besides, for the leftist among you, there is no pure capitalism, at least in the US, because there are social safety nets like food stamps and unemployment insurance for those at the bottom. Even our poor do better than most in some other nations, especially as time goes on and state-of-the-art things become less expensive due to "shelf-life" and efficiency in production that results from the success of businesses when the government gets its foot off of their throat.

"Not all the poor starve to death" is hardly a convincing argument in support of capitalism. That's only because we're talking about the west, which is a series of affluent nations. If we had an affluent socialist state, we wouldn't see those problems either.

My argument is that none of them starve to death (Well, they might if they got lost in the woods or refused public assistance and were dirt poor.). The problem is that you can't have affluence if you have socialism. That type of economy is not conducive to a healthy and prosperous market. The only way a socialist state can be rich is if it mixes in lots of market economy (capitalist) principles, or had money from a strong market beforehand.

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

"Not all the poor starve to death" is hardly a convincing argument in support of capitalism. That's only because we're talking about the west, which is a series of affluent nations. If we had an affluent socialist state, we wouldn't see those problems either.

What's the point of socialism if nothing changes?

Can I get an "Amen"?

[Imperializt Russia]

"Not all the poor starve to death" is hardly a convincing argument in support of capitalism. That's only because we're talking about the west, which is a series of affluent nations. If we had an affluent socialist state, we wouldn't see those problems either.

What's the point of socialism if nothing changes?

Russia and China were poorly industrialised states until quite late in their forays into socialism. The west has always been very well-industrialised and with eager, educated workforces.

Socialism would probably work much better in the west than it fared in the east.

[Socialist Czechia]

What's the point of socialism if nothing changes?

Russia and China were poorly industrialised states until quite late in their forays into socialism. The west has always been very well-industrialised and with eager, educated workforces.

Socialism would probably work much better in the west than it fared in the east.

Actually, it can be said that both Russia's and China's very existence was saved by Reds, literally.

White Russian victory: Russian own tragic Warlord Era and conquest much of it by foreign powers later.

Kuomintang victory: constant widespread corruption, civil wars, rebellions, coups upon coups...and same abuse from foreign powers like in old Qing times.

[Imperializt Russia]

Again, "better than alternatives" is by no means necessarily "good".

[Geilinor]

What's the point of socialism if nothing changes?

Russia and China were poorly industrialised states until quite late in their forays into socialism. The west has always been very well-industrialised and with eager, educated workforces.

Socialism would probably work much better in the west than it fared in the east.

China only began to industrialize quickly once it adopted parts of capitalism and opened its economy.

Kuomintang victory: constant widespread corruption

Implying that the CPC doesn't have widespread corruption.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well yes, China is still fairly poorly industrialised, particularly in electronics.
I feel the Cultural Revolution is probably to blame.

[Neu Leonstein]

Well yes, China is still fairly poorly industrialised, particularly in electronics.
I feel the Cultural Revolution is probably to blame.

What do you mean? Most of your electronic equipment is made either in China, or assembled elsewhere from parts probably made in China. And there are several huge Chinese electronics companies that are even starting to sell their products abroad, after having made a lot of money selling domestically.

[The balkens]

Well yes, China is still fairly poorly industrialised, particularly in electronics.
I feel the Cultural Revolution is probably to blame.

What do you mean? Most of your electronic equipment is made either in China, or assembled elsewhere from parts probably made in China. And there are several huge Chinese electronics companies that are even starting to sell their products abroad, after having made a lot of money selling domestically.

But not invented in.

[Unabashed Skeptofascist]

Russia's interest is to preserve Assad's murderous regime, not combating ISIS. But hey screw the Syrians, Assad-Putin is the Lesser Evil(tm) and we'll allow them to massacre as many civilians as they desire as long as it's not the IS/American intervention!

[Imperializt Russia]

Well yes, China is still fairly poorly industrialised, particularly in electronics.
I feel the Cultural Revolution is probably to blame.

What do you mean? Most of your electronic equipment is made either in China, or assembled elsewhere from parts probably made in China. And there are several huge Chinese electronics companies that are even starting to sell their products abroad, after having made a lot of money selling domestically.

China builds western electronics to western spec - assembly, not design.
It can't build its own electronics for shit.

[Neu Leonstein]

But not invented in.

What does "invented in" really mean though? The vast majority of technological process is not some sort of paradigm-shifting new device that someone comes up with. Most of it is incremental, in figuring out better ways of doing a particular thing. Those Chinese companies are involved in that as much as manufacturers anywhere else are. Plus, imperfect measure though it may be, as far as patent applications are concerned, China is way up there.

And remember that we are talking about a developing country here with GDP per capita almost 8 times less than in the US. If there is a difference in the rate of technological progress, I don't think we need to blame it on anything specific to China.

[Neu Leonstein]

It can't build its own electronics for shit.

"It can't", or "I've never heard of them doing it"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenovo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haier

[Uxupox]

It can't build its own electronics for shit.

"It can't", or "I've never heard of them doing it"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenovo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haier

Chinese brands are fucking shit.

[Geilinor]

"It can't", or "I've never heard of them doing it"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenovo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haier

Chinese brands are fucking shit.

This is the first time I've heard of Lenovo being shit.

[Uxupox]

Chinese brands are fucking shit.

This is the first time I've heard of Lenovo being shit.

I had a Lenovo laptop. It didn't last 6 months. Though it was a Vista, that might had a factor or two.

[New Werpland]

Chinese brands are fucking shit.

This is the first time I've heard of Lenovo being shit.

It's what lets me post here, but that isn't a great feat.

[Neu Leonstein]

Chinese brands are fucking shit.

Look, your opinion is as valued as that of anyone else. But the fact of the matter is that these companies are multinational corporations with billions of dollars in revenue from people who apparently think their electronics (and other goods and services) are worth buying. And they are Chinese.

So to say that the Chinese can't build electronics is a statement that can be questioned, at the very least. And I for one think it's pretty obviously wrong.

And that'll be all I have to say on the matter in this thread. If you want to discuss Chinese electronics further, I'd suggest opening a separate thread for that.

[Uxupox]

Chinese brands are fucking shit.

Look, your opinion is as valued as that of anyone else. But the fact of the matter is that these companies are multinational corporations with billions of dollars in revenue from people who apparently think their electronics (and other goods and services) are worth buying. And they are Chinese.

So to say that the Chinese can't build electronics is a statement that can be questioned, at the very least. And I for one think it's pretty obviously wrong.

And that'll be all I have to say on the matter in this thread. If you want to discuss Chinese electronics further, I'd suggest opening a separate thread for that.

I never said that Chinese can't build electronics. I just said their product is less than acceptable. Most people probably buy from China just because it's half the price from what you get over here. My ink cartridges for example, if I buy a pack here it costs me around $35 but if I buy from China directly it costs me a whopping $10. So obviously I'll go with the cheap. But cheap is expensive sometimes.

[Grand Britannia]

Chinese brands are fucking shit.

This is the first time I've heard of Lenovo being shit.

...

Well it is pretty crap, tbh...

[Socialist Czechia]

Russia's interest is to preserve Assad's murderous regime, not combating ISIS. But hey screw the Syrians, Assad-Putin is the Lesser Evil(tm) and we'll allow them to massacre as many civilians as they desire as long as it's not the IS/American intervention!

Russia's interest is to purge all the terrorists.
Just because someone is called 'freedom fighter' because of hypocritical western realpolitik, doesn't mean he's not terrorist.

I wonder what Britons would told me, if I told them, that I still consider Irish Republican Army being freedom fighters and Northern Ireland is not legitimate part of UK and never was.
More like occupied and colonized by foreign invaders, who should go back to England. All of them.

Or, that UK's governments should simply let Irish Republic to annex northern part in spite of will of english colonists.

[Risottia]

Russia's interest is to preserve Assad's murderous regime

Utter idiocy.

Russia's interest is having close allies in the area, and they are quite willing to support Assad as a means to that end. As soon as ISIS and Al-Qaeda aligned rebels are eliminated, Assad's usefulness will expire.

So far, it looks like Russia has been able to form a coalition linking the Levant (supporting Hezbollah, the Lebanese government, and Assad) with the Middle East (Kurds, Iran). This has always been a key strategic goal of Russia, so to have a direct access to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, especially in the light of an expansive strategy of the US allies in the Black Sea (that's why annexing Crimea was so important for Russia), in the Caucasus (see: Georgia) controlling the Straits, and the aggressive politics of the Saudi bloc in the Middle East-Levant-North Africa region (see: ISIS, Al-Qaida, Talibans). Russia is playing a game that's far more important for them than supporting or not supporting Assad.