No I don't. I could, for example, assume merely that the chance of any two "groups" trying to exploit the other is dependent entirely on random factors that emerge only when the two groups encounter each other.
Ah, but your initial argument was the chance that an "exploiter" would exploit the "big, happy, family", not that two groups would attempt to exploit each other. That is a different case altogether. And besides, even within a group that wouldn't be considered diverse, people will still find ways to divide themselves into subgroups based on, for example, religious beliefs, political viewpoints, etc. Even Nazi Germany's concept of "Volk" only excluded people based on their heritage (yet they still purged German Communists).
Besides, I don't believe in dividing exploitation along "group" boundaries. Exploitation is exploitation regardless of the color of skin, religious beliefs, etc. of the person responsible for it.
Since more people, per capita were taken out by the Trotsky/Lennin/Stalin purges than were taken out of the nations participating in WW II, it is certainly reasonable to declare the Soviet Empire more destructive than Nazi Germany.
If the Nazi party were in power as long as the Soviets, I can guarantee you they would have purged more people per capita (ie. if they had stuck to ethnic cleansing instead of invading their neighbors, thus drawing the attention of the world).
You seem fairly preoccupied with how destructive the Soviet government was, but have you ever investigated the destruction the U.S government/multinational corporations are responsible for? To use examples from South America (an area of the world that doesn't seem to fall under the radar scope of the American media):
Nationalism can be compared to Marxism because the "one big happy family" promised by Marxism is even bigger and more diverse, therefore the occurance of exploiters is far greater.
How does diversity increase the chance of exploitation? In order to argue that, you must assume that the ratio of "exploiters" to "non-exploiters" in each culturally distinct group is different (and larger in the ones that aren't part of the predominant national group). Thus, by including people from other culturally distinct groups in the "big happy family" (rather than including more people from the same group), you are increasing the ratio of "exploiters" to "non-exploiters" in that group.
Then again, the assumption that there is a gene that makes people "exploiters" is ludicrous IMHO (asbestos suit on). That fits in the same category as assuming there is a pre-defined human nature (beyond a survival instinct). Genetic theory meets Thomas Hobbes... or in your terms "evolutionary prisoner's dilemma".
I don't believe in free will, but I don't believe that our will is completely determined by our genetic makeup. I believe that our will is determined by a large number of factors (possibly some genetics, but more likely our external environment -- not just "childhood imprint", but more like "lifelong imprint").
As bad as it was, Nazi Germany wasn't as destructive as Soviet empire.
Guess it all depends on whose point of view you look at it from, doesn't it? And also what you define as "destructive"...
Nationalism is certainly is less hypocritical than JudeoChristianity, Marxism and Political Correctness, but a very good example is the difference between pre-unification Prussia (attacked by Marx) and post-unification Germany (that spawned National Socialism):
Funny, and I always though Nationalism was just a manifestation of the social alienation people feel in their everyday lives. A way for people to divide themselves into groups based on abstract notions such as "national interests". How can the concept of Nationalism be hypocritcal or even be comapred to Marxism? Hypocrisy is holding that a viewpoint and then acting contrary to that viewpoint. Nationalism may be self-contradictory (ie. end result of nationalism on the world is further alienation --racism, etc.--, but the reason for engaging in Nationalism is to eliminate alienation by grouping around "national interests" and attempting to unite for a "common good"), but it certainly isn't hypocritical. And Marxism is a theory of historical processes and human relations manifesting itself in a critical analysis of Capitalism and attempting to provide a solution (Communism) to the problem of trying to eliminate the restrictions on human freedom that cause self-alienation (ie. wage-labour relations, religion (identification and governing of self through the intangible -- which can also be said about many things we do)). How can this be compared to the concept of Nationalism?
And btw, National Socialism was just a term coined by the Nazi party to try and identify themselves with the popular political movement of the day in that area of the world (Socialism). I'm sure if the Nazi party existed in present-day United States, they'd call it Democratic Libertarianism (or something along those lines). They're political agenda had nothing to do with Socialism (in fact, large corporations dictated the agenda of the Nazi government -- Volkswagen even built tanks for the German military).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but your initial argument was the chance that an "exploiter" would exploit the "big, happy, family", not that two groups would attempt to exploit each other. That is a different case altogether. And besides, even within a group that wouldn't be considered diverse, people will still find ways to divide themselves into subgroups based on, for example, religious beliefs, political viewpoints, etc. Even Nazi Germany's concept of "Volk" only excluded people based on their heritage (yet they still purged German Communists).
Besides, I don't believe in dividing exploitation along "group" boundaries. Exploitation is exploitation regardless of the color of skin, religious beliefs, etc. of the person responsible for it.
Since more people, per capita were taken out by the Trotsky/Lennin/Stalin purges than were taken out of the nations participating in WW II, it is certainly reasonable to declare the Soviet Empire more destructive than Nazi Germany.
If the Nazi party were in power as long as the Soviets, I can guarantee you they would have purged more people per capita (ie. if they had stuck to ethnic cleansing instead of invading their neighbors, thus drawing the attention of the world).
You seem fairly preoccupied with how destructive the Soviet government was, but have you ever investigated the destruction the U.S government/multinational corporations are responsible for? To use examples from South America (an area of the world that doesn't seem to fall under the radar scope of the American media):
The involvement of the American government in the overthrow of democratically elected Brazilian president Salvador Allende, whose government was in turn replaced by the brutal dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. A list of Pinochet's crimes can be found here. Documentation of the connection between the CIA and DINA (the Chilean secret police -- responsible for carrying out Pinochet's brutality) can be found here. There are literally hundreds of references on this...
The United States involvement (CIA, AID, MILGP) in the creation of military, police, and paramilitary agencies, which in turn were responsible for the torture and death of hundreds of thousands of people in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile (as mentioned above), and Bolivia. You can find large lists of MILGP (U.S. Military Group) officers still to this day in these and other countries.
I don't condone destruction of human life caused by anyone, but it is wrong to only selectively look at the sources of it.
How does diversity increase the chance of exploitation? In order to argue that, you must assume that the ratio of "exploiters" to "non-exploiters" in each culturally distinct group is different (and larger in the ones that aren't part of the predominant national group). Thus, by including people from other culturally distinct groups in the "big happy family" (rather than including more people from the same group), you are increasing the ratio of "exploiters" to "non-exploiters" in that group.
Then again, the assumption that there is a gene that makes people "exploiters" is ludicrous IMHO (asbestos suit on). That fits in the same category as assuming there is a pre-defined human nature (beyond a survival instinct). Genetic theory meets Thomas Hobbes... or in your terms "evolutionary prisoner's dilemma".
I don't believe in free will, but I don't believe that our will is completely determined by our genetic makeup. I believe that our will is determined by a large number of factors (possibly some genetics, but more likely our external environment -- not just "childhood imprint", but more like "lifelong imprint").
As bad as it was, Nazi Germany wasn't as destructive as Soviet empire.
Guess it all depends on whose point of view you look at it from, doesn't it? And also what you define as "destructive"...
Funny, and I always though Nationalism was just a manifestation of the social alienation people feel in their everyday lives. A way for people to divide themselves into groups based on abstract notions such as "national interests". How can the concept of Nationalism be hypocritcal or even be comapred to Marxism? Hypocrisy is holding that a viewpoint and then acting contrary to that viewpoint. Nationalism may be self-contradictory (ie. end result of nationalism on the world is further alienation --racism, etc.--, but the reason for engaging in Nationalism is to eliminate alienation by grouping around "national interests" and attempting to unite for a "common good"), but it certainly isn't hypocritical. And Marxism is a theory of historical processes and human relations manifesting itself in a critical analysis of Capitalism and attempting to provide a solution (Communism) to the problem of trying to eliminate the restrictions on human freedom that cause self-alienation (ie. wage-labour relations, religion (identification and governing of self through the intangible -- which can also be said about many things we do)). How can this be compared to the concept of Nationalism?
And btw, National Socialism was just a term coined by the Nazi party to try and identify themselves with the popular political movement of the day in that area of the world (Socialism). I'm sure if the Nazi party existed in present-day United States, they'd call it Democratic Libertarianism (or something along those lines). They're political agenda had nothing to do with Socialism (in fact, large corporations dictated the agenda of the Nazi government -- Volkswagen even built tanks for the German military).