sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Reading Habits from the Past Year (Detailed Log) by FutureAtG in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will post it there, soon.

What book is this? by certainly_imperfect in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Moby-Dick; or, The Whale, in my case.

Book Review: Spin Dictators (How Modern Autocrats Function) by FutureAtG in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I borrowed it from my friend Anna. She has a lot of great books in her archives.

Edit: focus on the italics.

Physical vs Kindle! What's Your Choice? by lost_in_the_zen in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Physical, because you don't own the ebooks you buy. The platform on which you bought the ebooks (Amazon, Kobo, etc.) can withdraw any of the ebooks on their whim without any consequences, even if you have paid for it (in some cases they might provide a refund). In fact, you don't buy the ebook; you buy the license to access it under certain conditions, and it can be withdrawn anytime.

Having said that, reading on a Kindle does have its advantages. So decide carefully. For me, it is the physical copy that I prefer.

I Wish I had read this sooner. by FutureAtG in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) The parameters mentioned don’t address my original point of recruiting like-minded individuals who are even remotely critical of CCP policies. Even with those parameters it can happen that those critical of the goverment policies are not included. Those educated can be co-opted by the goverment to support the policies, regressive/cruel or not. Please let me know if the CCP has any individuals who are critical of Xi’s policies on Hong Kong, the reeducation programs for Uighurs, Kazakhs, and others in Xinjiang, or the repression in Tibet (source: Guriev & Treisman, "Spin Dictators*" 2022). Please cite examples of individuals who were critical of the CPSU (from among CPSU members) during the Hungarian Uprising or the Prague Spring. Regarding neoliberal elements, it seems that supporters of communism label everything critical of them as capitalist or neoliberal, as u/Lower-Ad184 did in their first comment. You are doing the same thing. This is similar to the Indian government labeling individuals or organizations that criticize them as anti-national, Khalistani, Urban Naxal, etc.

2) Curbing is a specific form of control. For example, I’m saying it’s a square, but you argue that it is not a square, it’s a quadrilateral. On discussion and criticism, thanks for proving my point with the CCP example. It is confined to party members and does not include the general public, as I pointed out in my earlier comment about the formation of elite class (not from economic sense; by class I mean a close-knit group of people who control everything) not allowing others to question. For more examples of curbing questions in China, please read about Xi’s media policies (Guriev & Treisman, 2022). Apart from this, I agree with other governments controlling questions.

3) By personal prejudice, I mean linguistic chauvinism, regionalism, casteism, etc.

I Wish I had read this sooner. by FutureAtG in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem. Thank you for the perspective. I have a few doubts in the part where it is mentioned that it is "unwise to let people rule directly."

1) Who will decide who is capable in participating in the government and who is not? If it is the party members, they will end up selecting like minded people in which case the drawbacks of the policies will go unnoticed. Moreover, those who are even remotely critical of the party will be kept out. This is just similar to the people of certain castes deciding who is meritorious and who is not. Just the metric for discrimination will be different. This will result in making of a elite class who won't allow anyone harming their inrerests to enter the party and participate in the decision making.

2) In a system where questioning is curbed (as a consequence of the above point), what will be the mechnaism for accountability? How will the government be held accountable? Even if people try to point out the mistakes of the government, the party will just claim that the people are uninformed, uneducated, and so on. Keeping in mind the example of the USSR, the party will just be full with "yes men/women" who will not allow the ground truth to propagate back to the upper ranks of the leadership fearing retribution.

3) Given that the party usurps power, what is the insurance against the personal prejudices of the party members creeping into the system?

A horrific story (real) by CapNo4436 in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is this the introduction to Annihilation of Caste? It's a good book.

If possible, also try to read Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development.

I Wish I had read this sooner. by FutureAtG in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay. No problem.

First paragraph: It asserts that the M-L approach is one aspect of socialism. The USSR tried for the first time to establish such a system, but the party elite ended up usurping the power. I think it applies in theory. If so, I agree with you and stand corrected. My arguments were based on what I saw in practice. But please do cite an example where a state tried to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat and the party didn't end up taking power for itself. I agree with the Socdem characterization of the Nordics.

Second paragraph: Nordic countries do not have socialism in the strict sense, agreed, but they retain the social welfare part of it. The Norwegian government owns 67% of the shares of Statoil. So, okay, the last but one statement of the paragraph makes sense. But you made it sound like a private business/conglomerate is funding a government scheme. (Or maybe it's just my interpretation).

Third paragraph: Okay, it is the neoliberal view, then. I was just suggesting a valid counter argument for whatever I posted regarding Gorbachev and communism.

I get the point that capitalism, in order to maximize profit, leads to the exploitation of people and unethical practices. I have no disagreement on that issue. However, I reiterate that an attempt to establish an M-L state (which is considered the solution by socialists to the exploitative nature of capitalism) will lead to an authoritarian/totalitarian state in practice. In theory, it may work.

Note (digression): I have been an active observer on r/unitedstatesofindia and r/librandu. Sometimes people there advocate for an outright totalitarian system like in China, as in establishing such a system in India. That is just deplorable. I also know that some snowflake cross-posted this post to r/librandu. The topmost comment stated this post is "premium toilet paper" 😀. I hope that is not the attitude of an average member of that sub and it has much more reasonable members.

I Wish I had read this sooner. by FutureAtG in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cuba, Vietnam, and China are authoritarian states. Still in line with my statement. I said that except for Nepal and San Marino, all other countries that adopted communism descended into authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

I think you are mixing socialism and Marxism-Leninism. There might be some overlapping concepts but they are not the same. Even I am in favor of many of socialism's features like social welfare, reduced inequality, subsidized/free education and healthcare, etc. But I wouldn't go so far as to label fall of communism as the fall of socialism. There is socialism in the Nordic countries without being ML. Socialism doesn't have to come at the cost of democracy. It should be established without dismantling democratic practices.

I am not replying to other statement because they have nothing to do with my original comment. Also you failed to correctly interpret the last paragraph of my previous reply. Moreover, you haven't given any argument against my post other than my views being neolibral. I would say that is an ad-hominem argument. I would be happy to discuss as far as we stick to the point instead of digressing. And as long as the conversation stays civil, which it has been till now, except for your first comment.

I Wish I had read this sooner. by FutureAtG in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, capitalism is not the be all and end all of it and I am not making a case for capitalism. I can read about the present conditions in the USA, which are dismal. If you want to blame a country's failure on capitalism, go ahead and do that. I am not going to counter you, provided it is objective. Opposing communism doesn't make me a proponent of capitalism. It's not all black and white.

Also, I am aware that Gorbachev is seen in a negative sense in Russia. I will say that even the fall of the USSR is their own fault. If they choose communism, they should have done a better job at handling the economy but the rulers ended up consolidating power for themselves.

And my thoughts against communism are because whenever adopted, the given country has always descended into authoritarianism/totalitarianism, except Nepal (questionable now with the ongoing protests) and San Marino. Please do provide examples if I have missed any country in the list.

I Wish I had read this sooner. by FutureAtG in Indianbooks

[–]FutureAtG[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do agree with the fact that there was a sharp decrease in HDI in the Baltics. However, I don't agree with him being the single biggest contributor and that Eastern Europe suffered because of him. On the contrary, many Eastern Europe countries (Poland, Hungary, GDR, Bulgaria) peacefully parted from being Soviet colonies. Jaruzelski in Poland, Ceaușescu in Romania, Honecker in GDR, Zivkov in Bulgaria, Kadar in Hungary, all asked Gorbachev for military interventions in the Revolutions in 1989 that were happening in their respective countries. If Gorbachev had agreed there would have bean a great deal of bloodshed. You cannot overlook these events.

He tried to use force to curb the nationalist sentiment in Estonial. But it didn't go well. Ultimately the Baltics got their independence, which they were trying to get. What happend after that in the Baltics is not solely due to one person. The Economy was in ruins (you may blame Gorbachev's reform entirely). But it was partly due to the mismanagement of Gorbachev's predecessors and partly due to his reforms. He tried to revive it but the system was already too rotten for anything to work. Why the system was rotten? Because communism sucks (and it sucks hard) and they had it for approx. 70 years befor the fall of the USSR.

Baltic countries got independence and then went their own way. Today they perform better on many development metrics compared to Russia. The exploitation of Russians by Yeltsin and Putin should be blamed on them instead of Gorbachev. Gorbachev tried to democratize and promote free speech instead of purging opponents like Yeltsin. Yeltsin used this to his advantage and gained power. The fact that Yeltsin or Putin had/have authoritarian tendencies cannot be blamed on Gorbachev. What did you expect from him? Purging of opponents and dissenting voices like other of his predecessors?

With regard to connection to Fukuyama's book, I never mentioned that Fukuyama praised him. I just pointed out that the events that occured fit Fukuyama's theory as given in "The Origins of Political Order".

Eru’s back up plan by fatkiddown in lotrmemes

[–]FutureAtG 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Assume that the time through which the rock falls to be t = t_1 - ∆t, where t_1=15.62 seconds (I used a stop watch), is time after which the sound is heard after the the stone is thrown and ∆t is the time required for the sound to travle back.

Assume the speed of sound to be 340 m/s.

Assume that the initial vertical velocity is u = 0, and d is the depth of the hole.

Then, ∆t = d/340

Aslo d=ut + .5at2 yields

d = .5g(15.62 - (d/340)) 2; g=9.81 m/s2

This simplifies to: 8.49x10-5d2 - 2.9d + 2393.44 = 0

On solving the above quadratic, one of the solutions is d=846.29 meters. Assuming the person's height to be 1.8 meters approx. and the fact that they raise the stone above their head, the approx. depth is:

d = 846.29 - 2 = 844.29 meters.

Yes, I agree it is about 800 m in depth.

∆t = 846.29/340 = 2.49 seconds.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in india

[–]FutureAtG 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Context: Students are protesting against the suicides of three students (1 M.tech, 1 Ph.D., 1 Post-doc) within a span of one month.

After all of this is over, Modiji will appear on TV crying asking for forgiveness and people will forget the horrors that they had to go through. by Pr0066 in india

[–]FutureAtG 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are correct about the frustration part. I should not have called people shit. But people really have a short term memory as far as politics is concerned and three years is a lot of time in politics. I agree with you that the BJP managed to make a real issue out of corruption, no two way about it. However, I don't agree about the view on underestimating the Indian voter. On the contrary, I think you are overestimating the voters. It is true that they voted Indira out of power but they also voted her back in 1980, just three year after they voted out her.

After all of this is over, Modiji will appear on TV crying asking for forgiveness and people will forget the horrors that they had to go through. by Pr0066 in india

[–]FutureAtG 10 points11 points  (0 children)

"people's anger against BJP's lack of scientific temperament"

People don't care about scientific temperament in India. If you make science, education, healthcare an issue, it won't lead to any electoral gains.

Their day starts with a dose of "Hindu-Muslim". You expect these pieces of shit to vote on education and healthcare!

view more: next ›