This is actually a quite major nit, and, with all due respect, you are absolutely wrong. "Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
You cannot define socialism as a system where the government provides varying levels of service and economic remuneration, because every government in every social system does that. In the US, which is arguably the most capitalist society in the world, the government provides lots of services including education, retirement, and welfare benefits, and employs thousands of people. Even in a feudal society the government, i.e. the nobles, provided defense at the very least. So the question is not whether the government provides services, but how much. In socialism, the government provides all or almost all the services and economic remuneration.
As far as the Scandinavian countries, no I would not characterize them as totalitarian. I would not characterize them as entirely socialist either. They are hybrid systems which have a huge public sector, but still allow private enterprise. They do, however, seem to have a lower level of personal freedom compared to the US (see the post by Kjella below).
Also, keep in mind that all the Scandinavian countries are much smaller than either the USSR or the US. Socialism, or even communism (e. g. Israeli kibbutzim) does seem to work on a small scale in some circumstances. However, it definitely does not scale up. One reason is simply the complexity of the problem of centralized management of a large economy, like the USSR. Another is the lack of incentives and lots of opportunities for the abuse of such a system.
Using 'socialism' as a scare-word started after the Soviet Union fell apart and 'communism' lost its ability to cause knees to jerk.
And that makes more sense, because 'socialism' was the name of the socioeconomic system of the USSR. 'Communism' is a name for a utopian society based on the principle "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which Khruschev promised to build in the USSR by 1980, but never did.
As someone who was born and raised in the USSR, I can tell you that socialism was exactly what we had there: state ownership of the means of production, and centrally planned economy (for a country of 180 million people stretching across 8 time zones!), with the prices of everything set by the state with no regard for demand.
Oh, and, of course, there was totalitarianism as well. The two are by no means mutually exclusive. In fact, they do seem to correlate quite well.
I was in Jerusalem two years ago. Saw lots of Arabs. Bought a T-shirt from one in the Old City. Didn't see any cleansing going on.
And speaking of getting "deeper and deeper into the West Bank", you do realize that we are talking about a strip of land about 10 miles wide, do you not?
"Communism" is the term often used in the West for the political and social system in the USSR and its satellites. In the USSR itself the system was termed "Socialism". "Communism" was a term for the utopian society that they were supposedly striving to build. So, no it is not stupid to say "Communism". One should simply clarify what one means.
"Stalinism" on the other hand is not really any particular political system or ideology. One term used in the USSR to refer to what went on under Stalin's rule is the "cult of personality". In essence Stalinism is a bloody dictatorship with the glorification of the dictator by the state-run propaganda. The only difference between Stalinism and most other bloody dictatorships is the shear scale of the atrocities and the degree of control over the population.
And no, Trotsky was not killed over ideological differences. Stalin had him killed because he was a political rival, and Stalin never allowed any of his rivals to live, whether real or perceived ones.
Strange... I thought this was capitalism, where the user's point of view is "is it worth it for me to keep the service at the increased price". Since when does any business have to justify their prices? Last I checked the movie theaters in the US were still charging outrageous prices for sodas and snacks, simply because they can. Similarly, Netflix will probably get away with charging higher prices, now that they have put most video rental stores out of business.
It makes no sense to complain about the price increase, and even less sense to demand there to be a reason for it. You simply decide whether or not you are willing to pay the higher price and vote with your credit card.
A price increase does not have to be justified by value added at all. It only has to be justified by enough demand to keep the company profitable. This is very simple really. If enough people cancel their subscription as a result of this, Netfilx will either fold, or lower its prices. On the other hand, if enough subscribers eat the increase, so much the better for Netflix.
There are plenty of other possible and even plausible events that can make the Earth uninhabitable or at least extremely uncomfortable: collision with an asteroid or a comet, eruption of a super-volcano, another ice age, a gamma ray burst, etc. And such an even can occur at any moment, so having all our eggs in one proverbial basket is a bad idea.
I am not implying that anybody is worth more than anybody else. I am simply stating that Jews have lost a greater percentage of their number than any other group, except maybe the Gypsies, for which I do not have the data. As you have pointed out, Poland lost 16% of its population (including Polish Jews, by the way). The USSR lost 14.4% of its population, which also includes the Soviet Jews. European Jews have lost about 60% of their number. The reason for that is that Jews were specifically targeted for systematic extermination, and so were the Gypsies. On the other hand, while millions of Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, and others were murdered, and while numerous atrocities have been committed against these groups, they were not targeted for extermination.
And, yes, you are correct, Himmler came up with the idea of the death camps. And Eichmann worked out and managed the logistics. Those are details, which are certainly important, but which do not absolve Hitler of any personal responsibility for the Holocaust. Nor do they change the fact that there was a "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", but not a "Russian Quesiton" or a "Polish Question".
By the way, if you read the wiki article of the "Final Solution" that you've cited, you will see that Himmler put together his plan in 1942, after tens of thousands of Jews of Kiev had already been shot in Baby Yar, and after thousands of Jews had already starved to death in the Warsaw Ghetto.
No, you should not have bitten. Jews weren't the only ones who were slaughtered, but Jews and Gypsies were the only ethnic groups who were targeted for complete and systematic extermination. Yes more Russians were killed in WWII than Jews in absolute numbers, simply because there were more Russians to begin with. Jews lost a far greater fraction of their number than anyone else, except maybe the Gypsies. 2/3 of European Jews were slaughtered.
And no, this is not an American point of view. Hilter was out to conquer the world, but he only devised the "final solution" for the "Jewish question".
With all due respect, I am going to have to go ahead and disagree. Spolsky is reporting his own experience, and he is generalizing from it. A valid argument against that would be to say that this is a single example from one small company which does not reflect a general trend. Of course, one would also need to cite some counterexamples. On the other hand, "Who is this guy, anyway? He is nowhere nearly as cool as those other guys who programmed the Voyager," is definitely an ad hominem.
Ad hominem much? If you would rather hear from all these other people, you should write them an email. Nobody is forcing you to read Joel's articles, let alone to agree with them. By the way, Joel also runs stackoverflow.com, which is huge.
I did, even though it is up to the one making a claim to back it up. The only references to the 1998 quote about bombing the Aswan Dam I could find were reprints of this very list from electronicintifada.com. I certainly believe he said something to that effect, however I want to know the exact words and their context. Otherwise, what we have is a list of out-of-context quotes without sources being endlessly copied and cited.
FYI, the Russian military has fought two major wars in Chechnya in the 1990's. Over 200,000 civilians have been killed there. That does make "Cast Lead" look like an episode of Romper Room by comparison.
Your "quotes" are from electronicintifada.com, hardly an unbiased source. Actual quotations, together with context would be much more helpful.
I will only comment on one other point. What exactly is wrong with the offer to transfer parts of Israeli territory with predominantly Arab population to the Palestinian Authority? Your "source" refers to "Israeli territory with Palestinian populations". If these people are Palestinians, then is it not reasonable for them to live in the Palestinian state? And if they absolutely must remain Israeli citizens, then why are the called "Palestinians"?
Is this the only Israeli friend you have? If you talk to another Israeli you are likely to get a diametrically opposite opinion. There are over 30 political parties in Israel, a country of 7 million people.
Also, you really should see what Lieberman has to say before calling him "psycho".
You may want to read up on those wars and see who started them. You should also look up exactly how many times Israel invaded Lebanon, and what exactly prompted it to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot define socialism as a system where the government provides varying levels of service and economic remuneration, because every government in every social system does that. In the US, which is arguably the most capitalist society in the world, the government provides lots of services including education, retirement, and welfare benefits, and employs thousands of people. Even in a feudal society the government, i.e. the nobles, provided defense at the very least. So the question is not whether the government provides services, but how much. In socialism, the government provides all or almost all the services and economic remuneration.
As far as the Scandinavian countries, no I would not characterize them as totalitarian. I would not characterize them as entirely socialist either. They are hybrid systems which have a huge public sector, but still allow private enterprise. They do, however, seem to have a lower level of personal freedom compared to the US (see the post by Kjella below).
Also, keep in mind that all the Scandinavian countries are much smaller than either the USSR or the US. Socialism, or even communism (e. g. Israeli kibbutzim) does seem to work on a small scale in some circumstances. However, it definitely does not scale up. One reason is simply the complexity of the problem of centralized management of a large economy, like the USSR. Another is the lack of incentives and lots of opportunities for the abuse of such a system.
Using 'socialism' as a scare-word started after the Soviet Union fell apart and 'communism' lost its ability to cause knees to jerk.
And that makes more sense, because 'socialism' was the name of the socioeconomic system of the USSR. 'Communism' is a name for a utopian society based on the principle "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which Khruschev promised to build in the USSR by 1980, but never did.
As someone who was born and raised in the USSR, I can tell you that socialism was exactly what we had there: state ownership of the means of production, and centrally planned economy (for a country of 180 million people stretching across 8 time zones!), with the prices of everything set by the state with no regard for demand. Oh, and, of course, there was totalitarianism as well. The two are by no means mutually exclusive. In fact, they do seem to correlate quite well.
I was in Jerusalem two years ago. Saw lots of Arabs. Bought a T-shirt from one in the Old City. Didn't see any cleansing going on. And speaking of getting "deeper and deeper into the West Bank", you do realize that we are talking about a strip of land about 10 miles wide, do you not?
Definitely! Too bad I don't have any mod points.
"Communism" is the term often used in the West for the political and social system in the USSR and its satellites. In the USSR itself the system was termed "Socialism". "Communism" was a term for the utopian society that they were supposedly striving to build. So, no it is not stupid to say "Communism". One should simply clarify what one means. "Stalinism" on the other hand is not really any particular political system or ideology. One term used in the USSR to refer to what went on under Stalin's rule is the "cult of personality". In essence Stalinism is a bloody dictatorship with the glorification of the dictator by the state-run propaganda. The only difference between Stalinism and most other bloody dictatorships is the shear scale of the atrocities and the degree of control over the population. And no, Trotsky was not killed over ideological differences. Stalin had him killed because he was a political rival, and Stalin never allowed any of his rivals to live, whether real or perceived ones.
Not comparing Marx's writings and states like the USSR who tried to implement his theories is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No not really. In Communism a man exploits men too. Google "Stalin" if you don't believe me.
Strange... I thought this was capitalism, where the user's point of view is "is it worth it for me to keep the service at the increased price". Since when does any business have to justify their prices? Last I checked the movie theaters in the US were still charging outrageous prices for sodas and snacks, simply because they can. Similarly, Netflix will probably get away with charging higher prices, now that they have put most video rental stores out of business. It makes no sense to complain about the price increase, and even less sense to demand there to be a reason for it. You simply decide whether or not you are willing to pay the higher price and vote with your credit card.
A price increase does not have to be justified by value added at all. It only has to be justified by enough demand to keep the company profitable. This is very simple really. If enough people cancel their subscription as a result of this, Netfilx will either fold, or lower its prices. On the other hand, if enough subscribers eat the increase, so much the better for Netflix.
There are plenty of other possible and even plausible events that can make the Earth uninhabitable or at least extremely uncomfortable: collision with an asteroid or a comet, eruption of a super-volcano, another ice age, a gamma ray burst, etc. And such an even can occur at any moment, so having all our eggs in one proverbial basket is a bad idea.
And, yes, you are correct, Himmler came up with the idea of the death camps. And Eichmann worked out and managed the logistics. Those are details, which are certainly important, but which do not absolve Hitler of any personal responsibility for the Holocaust. Nor do they change the fact that there was a "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", but not a "Russian Quesiton" or a "Polish Question".
By the way, if you read the wiki article of the "Final Solution" that you've cited, you will see that Himmler put together his plan in 1942, after tens of thousands of Jews of Kiev had already been shot in Baby Yar, and after thousands of Jews had already starved to death in the Warsaw Ghetto.
No, you should not have bitten. Jews weren't the only ones who were slaughtered, but Jews and Gypsies were the only ethnic groups who were targeted for complete and systematic extermination. Yes more Russians were killed in WWII than Jews in absolute numbers, simply because there were more Russians to begin with. Jews lost a far greater fraction of their number than anyone else, except maybe the Gypsies. 2/3 of European Jews were slaughtered. And no, this is not an American point of view. Hilter was out to conquer the world, but he only devised the "final solution" for the "Jewish question".
With all due respect, I am going to have to go ahead and disagree. Spolsky is reporting his own experience, and he is generalizing from it. A valid argument against that would be to say that this is a single example from one small company which does not reflect a general trend. Of course, one would also need to cite some counterexamples. On the other hand, "Who is this guy, anyway? He is nowhere nearly as cool as those other guys who programmed the Voyager," is definitely an ad hominem.
Ad hominem much? If you would rather hear from all these other people, you should write them an email. Nobody is forcing you to read Joel's articles, let alone to agree with them. By the way, Joel also runs stackoverflow.com, which is huge.
The point is that in his capacity as the foreign minister Lieberman has been making statements that make sense, even though his manners can use a lot of work. http://www.danielpipes.org/6258/avigdor-liebermans-brilliant-debut
FYI, the Russian military has fought two major wars in Chechnya in the 1990's. Over 200,000 civilians have been killed there. That does make "Cast Lead" look like an episode of Romper Room by comparison.
Here are some actual quotes from Lieberman's inaugural speech: http://www.danielpipes.org/6258/avigdor-liebermans-brilliant-debut Does not sound like a psycho to me. Sounds like someone who is actually seeing the reality of the situation.
I will only comment on one other point. What exactly is wrong with the offer to transfer parts of Israeli territory with predominantly Arab population to the Palestinian Authority? Your "source" refers to "Israeli territory with Palestinian populations". If these people are Palestinians, then is it not reasonable for them to live in the Palestinian state? And if they absolutely must remain Israeli citizens, then why are the called "Palestinians"?
Is this the only Israeli friend you have? If you talk to another Israeli you are likely to get a diametrically opposite opinion. There are over 30 political parties in Israel, a country of 7 million people. Also, you really should see what Lieberman has to say before calling him "psycho".
You may want to read up on those wars and see who started them. You should also look up exactly how many times Israel invaded Lebanon, and what exactly prompted it to do that.
Putting your stuff into a version control system, such as subversion and checking it out to a remote machine is a great way to do distributed backups.