Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

It's absolutely important. It decides what kind of ideas we end up with, who the power goes to. Does it go to self-appointed authoritarians or to populists? Does it go to people who identify with the few or the many? Does it go to people driven by ideas or people driven by attitudes?



False. Power goes to whoever can establish the widest power base.

That is the definition of politics...it is the difference between politics and thuggery.

Armed thugs running around may be able to intimidate individual people and "steal their ball", but they can't consolidate their power and govern a country.

American right-wing survivalist/gun nut/libertarian/militia/etc types are by their very nature a marginal group and that will not change. A bunch of people neatly defined as "armed ignorance" do not have the ideas or broad appeal to supplant the status quo. This is true of the Tea Party, which ultimately finds much of its support in those kinds of people, and it will be true of any movement that finds its heart in those "suit up and go" types.

Then on the left side you have OWS. No discipline, no structure, unwilling to use might to make right.

Left/right wing movements are characterized by populism and intellectualism married to a willingness to establish an authoritarian power structure and use violence to achieve their goals.



Yes...are you?
What's your knowledge of history?

Do you think the Romans won the Social War by having swords pointed at everyone?
Or did they compromise, give up some power and afford the Latins some rights?

Much of Roman history is the story of endless political compromise and combining a savage, even sickening, ruthlessness, with a shrewd willingness to compromise and subvert their own convenience to a certain set of ideas and a moral code. This applied to both their internal politics as well as their relationships with other powers.

Did the Greeks win the Persian Wars by everyone doing their own thing?
Or did they compromise with the other city-states, give up some control to ensure their collective long-term goals would be achieved?

What about the establishment of Greek democracy? Did the Greeks develop socialism with all property held in common and split equally, or did they revert to aristocracy, or did they develop a system based on a compromise between property rights legitimizing inequality, and the protection of the poor?

The founding of Germany. Did Bismark and his fellow Prussians try to dominate the new combined country? Or were they willing to give up some power so they could hold onto overall control?

Post-Napoleonic Europe. Did the remaining kingdoms duke it out? Or did they establish the tacit and explicit understandings that laid the foundation for the Victorian Era?

The Catholic Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The Catholic Church's willingness to step back a bit, to compromise with itself and other faiths, and accept the long-term existence of non-Catholic Christian sects, Judaism and Islam ultimately strengthened the faith in the long term, allowed it to hang on.

How did the Hundred Years War end? The Crusades? The Mongol dynasts? Did those conflicts end with the annihilation of any one party, or did they end with some sort of compromise that resulted in a cultural synthesis?

The very founding of this country. Did the delegates all do their own thing, look out for number one?
Or did they compromise?

Post WWII. Did America establish its power by setting up military dictatorships all over Europe and the East? Or did we make certain compromises with allies and enemies alike, giving up total control so that we could maintain a better long-term relationship?

People often make some pretty stupid decisions but they also have a remarkable power to make the right ones as well. History's moral slope is, in fact, an overall upward curve. People are willing to compromise when the cultural and political conditions are right and they have both the freedom and incentive to do so.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Boredalt asks one, three word question... and he get's 19 questions in return. lol

The questions are rhetorical. I'm sorry you don't like thinking.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I'm not referencing political compromise within a group to make them powerful enough to kick the living shit out of everyone within striking range. Your own examples underscore the futility of universal compromise. How do you think the Gauls or the Persians, or the other millions rolled over by the Romans or the Greeks felt about the compromises being offered by their brother humans to fulfill their needs? "Capitulate or die." What's not to like about that? How many of your other examples have stood the test of time?

You proposed that human beings would/could come to some global accord fulfilling the needs of everyone at some future time. How has this worked out for the human race historically? I just don't believe human nature allows for this. I would never attempt to debate history with you; I admit to being outgunned. However, I believe human beings are predisposed to mistrust that which is different. Combined with the fact that any cooperative effort requires organization and that any organization requires hierarchy and that hierarchy means that someone is in power over others, this inherent mistrust is the basic stumbling block over any kind of global accord. Any progress we can note in one area of the world almost always seems to get counter-balanced by some setback somewhere else. I just don't believe in the capacity of the human race to pull it off.

tl;dr Humans don't have the capacity for global kumbaya.

Edit: Questioning the long term viability of many of the compromises referenced.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. None of the examples I gave were "winner-take-all", which is why I chose them.



All of them.

Classical ideas endure. There are about a billion Catholics worldwide, as well as about a billion Muslims. Germany and America haven't reverted back to being a bunch of squabbling little princedoms. The Japanese and Judeans have successfully Westernized and integrated themselves into mainstream civilization.

And where are those who did not understand the art of compromise? The Kremlin hardliners? The political groups that started World War I?



Where do you live again?

Your own home state kept the blacks in bondage for over a hundred years. Did this end with armed insurrection? Or did it end with a series of complex, messy compromises?

Your own home state is governed according to the US Constitution. Did Hamilton and Jefferson go at it with pistols, or did they and several dozen other white guys shack up in a stifling mansion in Philadelphia and reach a compromise?

Your own home state is founded on territory stolen from Mexico. Did the US go for the whole enchilada or did we have the wisdom to see that compromise would be wiser in the long run?

Your own home state got the shit beaten out of it by the North during the Civil War. The Civil War ended on terms of unconditional surrender. If the North felt like it, they could have ruled Texas as a military province into perpetuity. But that's not what happened, is it?

You, your state, owes literally everything you have, to compromise.

And the only people who think otherwise...are people who are ignorant of even their own history.



This is the fundamental failure of the right-wing mentality.

Right-wingers do not understand that the strongest power is based on consent and rule of law - not mere force.



And yet we've made some progress that was previously thought impossible.

The US and EU may be deeply flawed organizations, but France and Germany or New York and Pennsylvania aren't going to go to war anytime soon. The Greek and Roman empires may be long gone, but I don't see Sparta and Athens or Milan and Naples drawing lines in the sand.

It might have occurred to the Romans to nuke Vietnam or Afghanistan just like they did Jerusalem or Corinth, but something in the American mindset says that's not acceptable, and something in the mindset of the rest of the world says that they won't take from the Americans what they were willing to from the Romans.



The pendulum swings shorter every time.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I think Mutually assured destruction functions to prevent all out war/destruction.


In terms of compromise...I think human beings will sing kumbaya when they have no other choice.

With our global economies becoming increasingly intertwined as debt passes around nations - I don't see why we won't eventually have to just all STFU and be frenz....at least the major players. We're already seeing this.

Wow, Azelma actually gets it.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Really? All of them. Let's just talk about the Romans and Greeks. They made their internal compromises which held together as long as those empires were expanding and they were taking from others. Why are those huge empires not still with us? Because the compromises they made couldn't withstand the basic human shortcomings, namely greed, jealousy and selfishness. Toss in a heavy dose of nepotism, as well (really a product of greed and selfishness, I suppose) Those empires imploded. Do you deny this? When trouble started brewing in these empires, why didn't they just compromise, again? (I fear the same thing will happen in the U.S). And, how to compromises made between one group with common goals to afford them the power/strength to crush others point to some innate human ability to come together as a race for the benefit of all?



No. They used the pistols against their government a few years earlier when they couldn't reach a compromise with their King.




You know very well that the U.S. picked a fight with Mexico then forced Santa Anna into a "compromise" because they wanted everything between Texas and the Pacific Ocean. That's NOT a compromise, and the only reason the rest of Mexico isn't divided into States is because our forefathers wanted a place to send the Mexicans. The Mexicans were lucky. We all know how compromise worked with the Indians when there was no good place to put them.



Not a single battle of any import was fought in Texas. If your contention that Texas "got the shit beaten out of it by the North" is based on the fact that Texas was a fringe part of the Confederacy... this is just silly. But you know that so your real purpose with this is to demean me because I live in a conservative state and/or you're attempting to strike some kind of a state loyalty nerve. Sorry. I don't feel those things on a state level. Beneath you.



Let's not leave out military conquest. You keep conveniently forgetting the "compromises" forced on the vanquished.


I'm not saying that human beings don't have the ability to compromise. You can pull out thousands of examples of large compromises, and we all make small compromises every day, but the idea that humans can come together globally and form some kind of consensus form of cooperation where everyone works for everyone else and no one needs for anything, and they can do this without any kind of enforcing mechanism... I just can't buy it. Almost all compromises work until they are put under pressure, then they fail. Someone always pisses in the punch.




I hope you're right, but I saw 9-11. I see it in Africa, the Middle East, Mexico.... I'll never live to see this coming together in mutual harmony, and would bet that you won't either. You told me once of a vision you had of your future... is this it what you're planning to accomplish? I wish you the best of luck.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

Earths population reached 6 billion in 1990 something iirc. Just hit the 7 billion mark within the last year. By 2050 it's supposed to reach 9 billion according to most projections.

Along with this, the demand for energy will grow retardedly all while the supply continues to be exhausted. Whether oil is 'all gone someday' or not is irrelevant, in the very near distant future it will become extremely impractical due to expense.

70% or so of global energy consumption is used to transport goods. Not to power homes. Not to grow food. Not for military applications. For transporting goods to be sold.

When's the last time this received major media coverage though?

We are already seeing the effects in third world nations. It's just not a 'real issue' because it hasn't yet reached America.

I really think this is going to get really, really ugly. My guess is right around 2020.

I think urban areas will have it the worst. I think lower populated areas that can more or less sustain themselves will be the places with the highest survival rates.

It sounds crazy, believe me I think it does too. If things continue, this is the future. If we don't account for this, don't alter our present course...GG.

Tldr: kumbaya or brown shirts, we're basically fucked anyway

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

The Social War was a civil war, so no.

The Persian War was won only because of dramatic compromises made amongst the Greek city-states.



Like most right-wing people who talk in vague generalizations about classical history, you know nothing of it. There's a reason you talk in those vague generalizations and not the specifics.

What you don't grasp is that those empires were successful because of their ability to compromise.


Perhaps. But you don't understand why it happened to the Romans, or the US, even though the reasons are very similar.

People became jaded and disaffected with the government and military when they saw the rich get richer and their lives and gold frittered away in stupid wars that did nothing to enhance their security.

You like most right-wing people probably believe that nationalism and militarism were what was wanting for Rome to survive. No - it's the other way around - it was because the hypocrisy and futility of nationalism and militarism were revealed that the Roman state lost the confidence of its citizens, and that the economy crumbled due to the inability of the government to spend money on anything but the army.


It's almost never that black and white. In every example I mentioned, these people found the courage to set aside their own self-interest and subscribe to some greater good.



The point stands. Disparate groups and individuals worked together for something bigger than they were. Any individual colony or delegate could have just as easily sat back and waited for a winner to emerge, or sold their loyalty to the highest bidder.

The Founding Fathers were wealthy British citizens, with a great deal to lose, who chose to become traitors to the British Empire. They could have come out quite a bit better for themselves if they made the choice to work with the Loyalists.



Call it luck or whatever, but it happened as a result of a conscious decision.

The US chose to compromise rather than wipe the Mexicans out or try to assimilate them.



I'm not sure what you're alluding to here.



You're right, I am. It's not "beneath me", taking an approach believe your opponent will identify with is a good way of getting your point across.

I'm not talking about the battles themselves. I'm pointing out that at the end of the war, the South lay prone and defenseless and there were many who wanted to take revenge on the South, or keep it under military jurisdiction into perpetuity. Lincoln saw a better way.

Compromising, reintegrating the South on equal terms, rather than as a subject, made the Union stronger in the long run. And what made that possible in the first place were the ideas of federalism and representation, more than rule by force of arms, that were the basis for the Union.



Not really. Military conquest comes and goes. It's cheap stuff.
Culture and ideas endure. A nation endures.

Were the Spanish better off, in the long term, for conquering the New World? 200 years later, the rest of Europe hand-picked their leaders.

What about England and India? Who's holding the switch now? Better question - why do the Indians still have a relationship with England?

The Jews. They've gotten run over by pretty much every single power in the history of the world...yet somehow...they are one of the most ancient and influential cultures...and somehow...they've never seen their future at such great a risk as when they can't approach their problems with anything more clever than a cruise missile.

Can you bulldoze a vanquished city? Sure. It doesn't really get you anything in the end. And getting to that point - conquest - involves things that are usually self-destructive in the end.

Conquest has a way of conquering the conqueror.



Let me ask you very simply and leave it there:

If we can build the US, if we can build the EU, never mind Germany, Italy, China, Japan, and every single other modern nation that was a patchwork of disparate feuding little tribes not so long ago...

...why can't we do again, what we've done already, take the many and forge a unified whole?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Nope.

Go read about the Crisis of the Third Century.

Same thing happened to Rome. When the trade network broke down, the standard of living plummeted and Roman power was broken.

Gibbons, who literally wrote THE book on why Rome fell, said (in the 18th century!) that one of three major causes of the fall of the empire was the squandering of natural resources. This guy was about as far from a Green Party dude as you can get, 300 years before global warming was even conceived, and he said it was one of ONLY THREE major factors.

What happened as a result was that people abandoned their cities and went to live in small villages that became medieval Italy. Technology regressed. Banditry and feudalism took hold. The population of Rome plummeted from about 1M to less than a tenth of that. Many people died of starvation, disease, and violence.

I don't think it will happen to us quite that way. Soylent Green is generally thought of as a movie about eating people, but what it's actually about is the dangers posed by the squandering of natural resources.

I think our future will probably look like that - dangerous, unstable, authoritarian, and highly stratified.

Now how do I square this with my prior remarks about hope etc? Simple. I don't. We're at a historical crossroads here. And we may stand here for quite some time - centuries even - before we head decisively down one fork or the other.

We will definitely see things get worse in our own lives, but I don't think that we will necessarily be the only generation to live in this story arc.

That said, I don't believe that the Earth is anywhere near its sustainable human population cap. I honestly think that we could comfortably house 100 billion people on Earth, all with a middle-class American standard of living, without any permanent damage to the environment or further destruction of natural habitats, provided we used our resources wisely.

Population isn't the problem - our political and economic systems are.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

While I agree that population isn't the issue, or at least the only issue, the last part of the quoted section is also the most important. The resources would not be used wisely. This isn't defeatism, this is simply a fact backed by historical patterns as well as modern day trends. This is a very real problem we face, without even bringing up global warming. I just know someone will latch onto that phrase and nitpick it to Hell and back so why bother.

Without even mentioning global warming, our rising population and dwindling energy supply will present major challenges of unprecedented consequences. That was Rome, with one million people. Modern day Earth, with 9 Billion..I'm not gonna say 'we're fucked' like that, but we will be if radical changes aren't implemented on the global scale. It's all well and good to say 'If you want to change the world, it has to start in your own back yard' however this thinking neglects to consider that humanity as a whole cannot be trusted to do what is needed simply because it is needed.

Case in point: you mentioned squandering natural resources. United States is the world champion of abusing the shit out of the planet and producing the largest ratio of waste : resources per capita in the world.

The importance of this issue cannot be stressed enough, and yet it gets very little attention from the media and elected officials.


Taking care of the planet and minimizing our impact is NOT A PARTISAN issue, so I fail to see why it gets made into one. We have so much more to gain from it than we do to lose. Will it hurt production and manufacturing industries? Yeah, no shit. However think of all the potential economic benefits from the R&D involved in minimizing the severity of this issue.

It's just absolutely stupid that giving a fuck about the environment is tantamount to being a radical these days.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Conservation will follow the absence of choice to not do so. It is unfortunately that simple.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

@This thread




Old School Quittermike style!