[rroseperry]

I am staying out of the political ideology fight here, as I never got past Marx for Dummies. However, as an ex-evolutionary biologist, I will say that Darwinism is an out-dated term, that can only be regarded as an historical relict. Darwinian evolution was limited by what Darwin could observe, He had no idea of underlying mechanisms. Still his framework and explanatory system has proven robust over all the years since Origin.

 

[DigitalFreak]

@mutador
 
With all due respect, and I do mean with all due respect, although I don't completely disagree with your stance and in essence I applaud certain things you have said you're still taking your overall views to far into left center field of the ball park. I can appreciate where you're coming from in that you grew up under a very oppressive system but I'll see your communist regime and raise you a totalitarian regime which was the key reason why my parents left their native Portugal along with over 350 000 others and immigrated to a very alien Canada/USA. I usually keep my more personal thoughts to myself and if truth be really known I'm probably one of the more extreme thinking people in the world who thinks society in general needs a very radical change in it's perception of how things should be run if society is to continue to function at an acceptable level that would guarantee an acceptable happy life for everyone. The problem is as much as I hate some of the current systems in place governing the social/economical aspect of things the question still remains what exactly should we replace it with. I'm not trying to flame you with the question it's simply an honest and very important question that needs to be asked and answered. We both obviously want change but change things with what exactly?

 

[billybob_jcv]

It was a wall of propaganda on every level. Every student book in school ( from primary to high school) and at the universities was full of quotes of Lenin, Stalin, Marx. Even in such subjects like music they had to tell us what music Lenin listened and stories how he cried over Kreutzer Sonata of Beethoven. We had a special subject where we studied theory of Marxism-Leninism.

On science classes we were taught that there was no God and religion was an opium to people and primitive tales from old times. There were numerous books, movies about Lenin. As a child I even loved Lenin. I had to learn poems about him and declared them in front of class. 

We couldn't study opposing theories because that kind of literature was banned. 

Nowadays it is accepted by the vast majority of our intellectuals that Bolshevik revolution was a tragedy. It's not true that it was Stalin who spoiled great idea. It was Lenin who brought chaos and violence which led to severe Civil War where millions of people died.

It's hard to imagine a world where the rise of Marxism/Leninism/etc did not happen. How would Russia's role in WWII have changed? Would Hitler have perceived Russia as stronger or weaker than he did with it under Stalin? Would the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact have been created? Would Hitler have believed he could march East if the royal family was still there? Fascinating stuff - and that's just the tip of the iceberg! It would make a great alternate history series by someone like Harry Turtledove or Orson Scott Card. You could carry forward from WWII - what would have happened in China? Korea? Vietnam? Cuba? The Space Race? Nuclear research? The topics are endless!

 

[eke2k6]

The problem isn't the idea. It's humanity.
 
You could apply mutabor's argument to pretty much any other philosophy/religion to date.
 
Christianity brought about the crusades. Islam brought about radical jihadism. Pop culture brought us Justin Bieber.
 
My point is that, although your argument is heartfelt, it is ultimately invalid.

 

[DigitalFreak]

Quote:

It's hard to imagine a world where the rise of Marxism/Leninism/etc did not happen. How would Russia's role in WWII have changed? Would Hitler have perceived Russia as stronger or weaker than he did with it under Stalin? Would the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact have been created? Would Hitler have believed he could march East if the royal family was still there? Fascinating stuff - and that's just the tip of the iceberg! It would make a great alternate history series by someone like Harry Turtledove or Orson Scott Card. You could carry forward from WWII - what would have happened in China? Korea? Vietnam? Cuba? The Space Race? Nuclear research? The topics are endless!

What stopped the Nazis in the east was Hitler stupidly splitting his invading force into two driving prongs. Something his generals disagreed with that he none the less ignored. Throw in the fact they overextended themselves and their supply lines during a brutal Russian winter that became even more problematic when a retreating Red Army who practiced a scorched earth policy leaving nothing behind they could utilize. The Red Army would later smartly bunker their people down and hold their lines and bring more and more warm bodies up from the rear to enforce their numbers. End result, a later reorganized and vastly bigger Red Army counter attacks envelops and cuts off the Nazi's from any supply support and completely overwhelms them with the shear force of their numbers. It was Hitler a brutal winter and a viciously angry Red Army that cost Germany the eastern front not Stalin being able to outsmart Hitler in war tactics.

 

[DigitalFreak]

Quote:

The problem isn't the idea. It's humanity.
 

Bravo, that's what I've been waiting for someone to finally say
 

 

[mutabor]

Quote:

The problem isn't the idea. It's humanity.
 
You could apply mutabor's argument to pretty much any other philosophy/religion to date.
 
Christianity brought about the crusades. Islam brought about radical jihadism. Pop culture brought us Justin Bieber.
 
My point is that, although your argument is heartfelt, it is ultimately invalid.

 
My argument was that false ideas should fall into oblivion. I said that Leninism is dead. The next goes Marxism. My opponent says no way. That's basically it. What other argument are you talking about? I don't get you.
 
Or you think that Marxism still has perspective? Do you believe that humanity develops by antagonism between social classes? Do you believe that proletariat ( working class) will kick bourgeoisie's ass? 

 

[billybob_jcv]

What stopped the Nazis in the east was Hitler stupidly splitting his invading force into two driving prongs. Something his generals disagreed with that he none the less ignored. Throw in the fact they overextended themselves and their supply lines during a brutal Russian winter that became even more problematic when a retreating Red Army who practiced a scorched earth policy leaving nothing behind they could utilize. The Red Army would later smartly bunker their people down and hold their lines and bring more and more warm bodies up from the rear to enforce their numbers. End result, a later reorganized and vastly bigger Red Army counter attacks envelops and cuts off the Nazi's from any supply support and completely overwhelms them with the shear force of their numbers. It was Hitler a brutal winter and a viciously angry Red Army that cost Germany the eastern front not Stalin being able to outsmart Hitler in war tactics.

Alternate history is not about what did happen, but what could have happened. You are describing a history that occurred based on the world that actually existed. My post was on what would have changed had the world at that time been different. Of course we'll never know if Hitler would have acted in the same way if he had been facing the Tsar's army instead of the Bolshevik's, or if the Tsar would have agreed to the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact - or if the Japanese would have attacked them in the first place - it's all just a speculative fiction idea. As I recall from past reading, Hitler linked the Bolsheviks to his hatred of Jews and there was tons of anti-Soviet propaganda from the Nazis before they moved into Poland & the USSR. It would not surprise me if Hitler believed the Bolshevik's were unsophisticated and easily fooled, but we can't know how he would have viewed the Tsar - perhaps the propaganda would have simply shifted to consider the Russians just another capitalist threat like the rest of Europe and the US.

 

[mutabor]

The tsar Nikolai II was overthrown by liberals in February of 1917 ( which Lenin called bourgeois revolution). Bolshevik revolution took place in October 1917. Hitler would have faced either Bolsheviks or Republican Russia.

 

[billybob_jcv]

The tsar Nikolai II was overthrown by liberals in February of 1917 ( which Lenin called bourgeois revolution). Bolshevik revolution took place in October 1917. Hitler would have faced either Bolsheviks or Republican Russia.

Doh! Of course! I'm showing my public school education again...

So - let's move back a little more in history - without Marx & Lenin, would the progressives have been as influential as they were in calling for strikes and riots leading up to 1917?

 

[DigitalFreak]

Guys I went to a mini meet today. I finally got to listen to an LCD 2 rev 2 as well as got another shot at listening to the HE-6. If that wasn't enough I also got to hear the LCD 2 paired with a Lyr/Bifrost setup and the Schiit stuff really impressed me. What a nice musical sounding setup.

 

[333jeffery]

Thrak, I haven't listened to the Mobile Fidelity version of Thick as a Brick, but the 40th anniversary edition is miles better than any of the other cd releases I've heard of it. The details present in this new version, I've never heard before. And that's just the cd version, not the dvd-audio 24/96 disc which is also included. I haven't tried that one yet. Nice booklet/liner notes, too.

 

[333jeffery]

DF, the Lyr/Gungnir setup is even better. It's what I'm using with my HE500's until I get the balanced cables for my Mjolnir. The Gungnir is all kinds of awesome. Level of detail is much improved over the Bifrost without sounding dry and analytical. Nice open and airy sound to it.

 

[C.C.S.]

Quote:

Guys I went to a mini meet today. I finally got to listen to an LCD 2 rev 2 as well as got another shot at listening to the HE-6. If that wasn't enough I also got to hear the LCD 2 paired with a Lyr/Bifrost setup and the Schiit stuff really impressed me. What a nice musical sounding setup.

 
What did you think of the LCD 2? I still see some conflicting opinions about the Audez'e headphones. I'm curious to hear what your take on them is.

 

[DigitalFreak]

Quote:

DF, the Lyr/Gungnir setup is even better. It's what I'm using with my HE500's until I get the balanced cables for my Mjolnir. The Gungnir is all kinds of awesome. Level of detail is much improved over the Bifrost without sounding dry and analytical. Nice open and airy sound to it.

That sounds like bad news for my wallet. I never gave any thought concerning a Lyr/Gungnir setup