Peti oktobar na bliskom istoku i arapskom svetu

[namenski]

 

pride, o saudijskoj ili ruskoj ulozi u sirijskoj (ili bilo kojoj) krizi... ne sudim na osnovu saudijskog uređenja, niti na osnovu onoga što Putin radi u Rusiji, niti na osnovu toga što su Ameri pristojnija i lepša država od jednih i drugih. potpuno irelevantno.

 

ako ćemo o Siriji, sudimo na osnovu onoga što se dešava u Siriji, i na osnovu onoga što su navedeni radili vezano za Siriju.

 

Ne, ne  :D

[Gandalf]

mene mišljenje Amerikanaca, Rusa, ovih i onih, u ovom slučaju prosto ne interesuje. da li Ameri Asada smatraju diktatorom, a podržavali su Somozu, nema ama baš nikakav uticaj na moj stav o Asadu ili o Somozi. tebi je to bitno. meni ne.

[namenski]

OK, protokolisano, mada previse to onako malo deklarativno, lepo zvuci, skoro pa nesvrstano^tm, praksa se ipak razlikuje.

Cenim i postujem u svakom slucaju  :)

[Gandalf]

OK, protokolisano, mada previse to onako malo deklarativno, lepo zvuci, skoro pa nesvrstano^tm, praksa se ipak razlikuje.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm

Let us assume that rebellion breaks out tomorrow in the French colony of Algeria under the banner of national independence and that the Italian government, motivated by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send weapons to the rebels. What should the attitude of the Italian workers be in this case? I have purposely taken an example of rebellion against a democratic imperialism with intervention on the side of the rebels from a fascist imperialism. Should the Italian workers prevent the shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any ultra-leftists dare answer this question in the affirmative. Every revolutionist, together with the Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians, would spurn such an answer with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike broke out in fascist Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an exception in favor of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists – not proletarian revolutionists.

...

In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each time orient itself independently in the internal as well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to the interests of the proletariat.

[Meazza]

Nego, ti si ono bese tvrdio da KSA ne finansira ISIS?

[namenski]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm

Let us assume that rebellion breaks out tomorrow in the French colony of Algeria under the banner of national independence and that the Italian government, motivated by its own imperialist interests, prepares to send weapons to the rebels. What should the attitude of the Italian workers be in this case? I have purposely taken an example of rebellion against a democratic imperialism with intervention on the side of the rebels from a fascist imperialism. Should the Italian workers prevent the shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any ultra-leftists dare answer this question in the affirmative. Every revolutionist, together with the Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians, would spurn such an answer with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike broke out in fascist Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an exception in favor of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists – not proletarian revolutionists.

...

In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases however they are forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each time orient itself independently in the internal as well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to the interests of the proletariat.

Nemam reci  -_-

[Eraserhead]

Nego, ti si ono bese tvrdio da KSA ne finansira ISIS?

 

ja sam cuo da Erdoganov sin trguje naftom i tako finansira ISIS.

[Gandalf]

Nego, ti si ono bese tvrdio da KSA ne finansira ISIS?

Yep.

 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[iDemo]

Nego, ti si ono bese tvrdio da KSA ne finansira ISIS?

KSA ili ne - svi su izgledi™ da neko od njih - direktno ili preko posrednika - kupuje naftu kao da su oni licno kontraktori shell-a, bp-ja ili armaco-a... 

Ko ce i kada (ako ikad) listu tih kupaca i/ili posrednika da objavi - pa ono - da se osevapi - da mi je da znam, ne? 

[Gandalf]

https://twitter.com/mikeduncan/status/786418316592066560

[Anduril]

Ne znam.

Znam da se ovom klasifikacijom takođe uspostavlja vertikala moći, jer oni moralni (što poštuju norme) sede na vrhu a oni nemoralni (jadni i čemerni) sede na dnu, i njima ne pripada pravo da imaju interese, želje i htenja, jer su, jbg, nemoralni, i dok ne postanu moralni ništa od toga. E sad što međunarodni sistem baš i ne poznaje taj nivo normativne uređenosti kao unutrašnji sistem, pa se i moralnima omakne zločin i sranje i haos bez da plate kaznu - šta da se radi. O tome ko je moralan naravno odlučuju ovi moralni jer su moralni a oni nemoralni nisu i tako.

 

Interese imaju svi - ovde se govori o tome da se ti interesi definisu razlicito u zavisnosti od unutrasnjih normi. Pisao o tome vec - recimo danasnja Nemacka ili nekakva potencijalna neonacisticka Nemacka ce definisati svoje spoljne interese sasvim razlicito. Slicno je i sa Rusijom - KGB garda ima sasvim drugi pogled od nekog normalnog politicara.

To da postaje hijerarhija nije nikakva klasifikacija nego prosto realnost posto visoke eticke norme i vladavina prava idu hand in hand sa ekonomskom snagom zemlje i dugogodisnjem stabilnoscu a time i uticajem. Sutra da Putin dozivi srcani udar taj piramidalni sistem bi dosao u ozbiljne probleme i unutrasnja razracunavanja.

[Prospero]

Naravno da unutrašnji odnosi definišu (informišu) i spoljnopolitičke ciljeve. To je teoretski dovoljno dobro i ubedljivo razrađeno zadnjih decenija u konstruktivističkoj i liberalnoj teoriji MO, pa čak i neorealisti usvajaju elemente pristupa strateške kulture koja naglašava ono što se rogobatno zove "široko deljeni društveni stavovi i norme".
 
Evo šta Moravčik (kao možda najvažniji teoretičar liberalne teorije) kaže o prvoj premisi teorije:
 

 
...

 

Assumption One: States Represent Societal Preferences

The first assumption shared by liberal theories is that states represent some subset of domestic society, whose views constitute state preferences. For liberals, the state is a representative institution constantly subject to capture and recapture, construction and reconstruction, by domestic social coalitions. These social coalitions define state “preferences” in world politics at any point in time: the “tastes,” “ends,” “basic interests,” or “fundamental social purposes” that underlie foreign policy. Political institutions constitute a critical “transmission belt” by which these interests of individuals and groups in civil society enter the political realm. All individuals and groups do not wield equal influence over state policy. To the contrary, their power varies widely, depending on the context. Variation in the precise nature of representative institutions and practices helps define which groups influence the “national interest.” Some states may represent, ideal-typically, the preferences of a single tyrannical individual, a Pol Pot or Josef Stalin; others afford opportunities for broad democratic participation. Most lie in between. The precise preferences of social groups, weighted by their domestic power, shape the underlying goals (“state preferences”) that states pursue in world politics. Sometimes, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other actors may form transnational alliances to assist social forces. “State-society relations”—the relationship between a state and its domestic (and transnational) society in which it is embedded—lies at the center of liberal theory.

Liberals believe that state preferences cannot be reduced to some simple metric or preference ordering, such as seeking “security” or “wealth”. Most modern states are not Spartan: They compromise security or sovereignty in order to achieve other ends, or, indeed, just to save money. Nor do modern states uniformly seek “wealth.” Instead they strike rather strike complex and varied trade-offs among economic, social and political goals. Nor, finally do they seek “power” in the sense of “domination”: Many countries would clearly rather spend money on “butter” rather than “guns.” To see how consequential the variation in goals can be, one need look no further than the implications for international relations of Germany's evolution from Adolf Hitler's preference for militant nationalism, fascist rule, autarky, and ruthless exploitation of German Lebensraum under Das Dritte Reich to the social compromise underlying the postwar Bundesrepublik Deutschland, which favored capitalist democracy, expanding German exports, and peaceful reunification. Similarly one can look at the striking change in policy between Maoist and post-Maoist China, Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, Imperial and post-Imperial Japan, and so on. 

...

 

 

Sad, ti svodiš društvenu dinamiku i složeni skup procesa kojim se dolazi do definisanja "nacionalnog interesa" na "poštovanje normi" i "moral", što je besmisleno, tj predstavlja tačno ono što je Moravčik rekao u podvučenom delu teksta. Nema jednostavne metrike, svakako ne one koja kaže "ovi poštuju norme a oni ne poštuju". 

 

Ni konstruktivisti (Vent, Kratohvil...) ne kažu ništa drugačije u tumačenju nastanka "ponašanja" države, tj svi se slažu da je po sredi složen proces zarad čijeg razumevanja se mora ući i u detalje (nekad često trivijalne, poput ličnog odnosa aktera).

Edited October 13, 2016 by Prospero

[iDemo]

Za to vreme - negde dole juzno... 

Edited October 13, 2016 by iDemo

[Filozof manijak]

Očekujemo Erasera & co da osude ovo neprilično mešanje i rasplamsavanje konflikta na Arabijskom poluostrvu...

[mackenzie]

To je podrška legitimnom predsjedniku koji je dao ostavku, pa se predomislio.