History is...

[giegs]

I have my degree in history. Making fun of how ridiculous history can be was sort of a running joke in the department. Pulling broad themes and such still amuses me. So, what are your impressions on this illegitimate academic discipline?

...based on the premise of "fuck you, you're a twat"

[Scarecrow]

I have my degree in history. Making fun of how ridiculous history can be was sort of a running joke in the department. Pulling broad themes and such still amuses me. So, what are your impressions on this illegitimate academic discipline?

...based on the premise of "fuck you, you're a twat"

We had a major running joke on Heidegger when I studied philosophy. Also, Nietzsche's late life was used constantly in comparisons, as was Epicurus, Berkeley and Camus' "Sisyphos".

- I guess every department has their witticisms. The funniest tunes I've ever heard were drinking songs of medical students.

[puzzled-observer]

I've recently come to understand that history is more like philosophy or art than it is like a science. The scientific aspect of history seems to be such a tiny percentage of what historians actually do.
It's useful in the way that art is, I think. It just tells a story and some of those stories teach us lessons about humanity and life.

[MacGuffin]

"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today."

[manza]

Fictional.

[Anonymous]

History is context. You look like an idiot if you try to talk about anything of importance without any context.

[vSv]

Lies, and written by the conquerors.

[Ferrus]

"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today."
'Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' - George Santayana

[MacGuffin]

'Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' - George Santayana

That dude may have taken the Alamo, but he didn't win the war!

[socrateez]

History is context. You look like an idiot if you try to talk about anything of importance without any context.I agree history has this value but, the context is usually from this perspective:

Lies, and written by the conquerors.

[Anonymous]

I agree history has this value but, the context is usually from this perspective:

It is most readily available from that perspective, but that doesn't mean that you should just give up on historical study. An easy example is the Soviet Revolution. History as written by capitalists, the "conquerors", tends to be pretty terrible with this period, but there's a good number of great histories that were written by people who didn't want to see anything communist burn to the ground. They include all the events as told by capitalists, but add a context that changes the light of how they want it perceive. Though once Stalin came around, this ended due to his tactic of blatant historical lies.

[Ferrus]

That dude may have taken the Alamo, but he didn't win the war!
[Hah, no. - Ferrus]

[Neville]

.....why the fuck did I major in this again?

[MacGuffin]

[Hah, no. - Ferrus]
Aww, what did I miss?

[Ferrus]

Aww, what did I miss?
Rambling induced by half a bottle of whisky.

[theory]

I remember when I wanted to be a "historian"... I realized I just needed to beat people at trivia to fill that desire.

History is more or less there to learn from our mistakes. Is there a specific philosophy that covers that concept?

[eyebyte_atWork]

Crazy.

Seems to me that History is often a casualty of social and political agenda. Usually mirroring the popular opinion - which is inherently flawed (most people are idiots).

[Ferrus]

Crazy.

Seems to me that History is often a casualty of social and political agenda. Usually mirroring the popular opinion - which is inherently flawed (most people are idiots).
But for all that, people get driven by forces beyond their comprehension, and I personally find the tangled web fascinating.

Espying the process of self-delusion as always captivated me in any case.

[giegs]

... useless until applied to exploitation.

[Harion]

Lies, and written by the conquerors.

umm. so what's your opinion of the Holocaust?

[socrateez]

You weren't addressing me specifically but here is my $.02
I think the Holocaust would have been called something else had the Nazis taken the world. Sure history has lies and all sorts of inaccuracy. I don't think its all lies but things do get a spin depending on who is telling the story.

[djarry]

"The science of politics is the one science that is deposited by the streams of history, like the grains of gold in the sand of a river; and the knowledge of the past, the record of truths revealed by experience, is eminently practical, as an instrument of action and a power that goes to making the future." - Lord Acton

[djarry]

Not that I give a shit what a bunch of faggot economists and whoever the fuck else think is a good way to spend their time. (like trying to make the future by their own merit; or at least spread information that would suggest to do so is a good idea)

[Freeloader]

Lies, and written by the conquerors.

I don't know, that seems like the kind of bullshit people say all the time, but is it really true. I mean, not a lot of history about the fall of Rome seem to be written from the perspective of barbarians (just the fact that we call them that seems to indicate whose side that part of history is told from).

[Harion]

You weren't addressing me specifically but here is my $.02
I think the Holocaust would have been called something else had the Nazis taken the world. Sure history has lies and all sorts of inaccuracy. I don't think its all lies but things do get a spin depending on who is telling the story.
so you don't think it's just some massive lie made by the Allied forces to demonize Hitler and the Axis powers?

[giegs]

A way to justify your personal opinions.


I had an interesting attempt at a discussion with an Indian (dot) woman this evening. She was claiming that India is the next big thing when it comes to empire building. I disagreed, mentioned India's general history, the particulars of geography that helped shape that history, the instability of its most productive region, and its general reliance on the prominence and needs of outside powers for its economic strength. Then I mentioned I have a minor in Indian history. "Well you can only learn so much from books."

FUCK. Is there something you learned about the role of the Indian subcontinent in world history that didn't come out of a book? No? Just disagreeing because you're Indian and you think India is the shit? Attempting to discredit an education in order to legitimize your unsupported disagreement? I run into this all the time when arguing topics in the context of history. Most people buy into popular narrative so readily it's impossible for them to consider alternatives even when those alternatives are glaringly obvious.


History is far too difficult for the majority of the population to use in a practical manner. The only useful purpose history can be put to is manipulation.

[echoes]

I think history has some predictive power but none that can't be explained by human psychology.

[jyng1]

A way to justify your personal opinions.


I had an interesting attempt at a discussion with an Indian (dot) woman this evening. She was claiming that India is the next big thing when it comes to empire building. I disagreed, mentioned India's general history, the particulars of geography that helped shape that history, the instability of its most productive region, and its general reliance on the prominence and needs of outside powers for its economic strength. Then I mentioned I have a minor in Indian history. "Well you can only learn so much from books."

FUCK. Is there something you learned about the role of the Indian subcontinent in world history that didn't come out of a book? No? Just disagreeing because you're Indian and you think India is the shit? Attempting to discredit an education in order to legitimize your unsupported disagreement? I run into this all the time when arguing topics in the context of history. Most people buy into popular narrative so readily it's impossible for them to consider alternatives even when those alternatives are glaringly obvious.


History is far too difficult for the majority of the population to use in a practical manner. The only useful purpose history can be put to is manipulation.

Sounds like several conversations I have with my fathers family about religion. I remember a response from my Aunt when I mentioned I would like to take a class or two of Religious Studies at Uni and she proceeded to warn me about how "you can't trust those University people".

Obviously, the popular view doesn't take kindly to too much external analysis.

[socrateez]

so you don't think it's just some massive lie made by the Allied forces to demonize Hitler and the Axis powers?:theclap: No. Just pointing out that you don't read or see "history" through the eyes of the Nazis. History tends to be full of "perspectives".
Archaeology, now that I would venture is a more scientific aspect of historical discovery and interpretation.


A way to justify your personal opinions.


I had an interesting attempt at a discussion with an Indian (dot) woman this evening. She was claiming that India is the next big thing when it comes to empire building. I disagreed, mentioned India's general history, the particulars of geography that helped shape that history, the instability of its most productive region, and its general reliance on the prominence and needs of outside powers for its economic strength. Then I mentioned I have a minor in Indian history. "Well you can only learn so much from books."

FUCK. Is there something you learned about the role of the Indian subcontinent in world history that didn't come out of a book? No? Just disagreeing because you're Indian and you think India is the shit? Attempting to discredit an education in order to legitimize your unsupported disagreement? I run into this all the time when arguing topics in the context of history. Most people buy into popular narrative so readily it's impossible for them to consider alternatives even when those alternatives are glaringly obvious.


History is far too difficult for the majority of the population to use in a practical manner. The only useful purpose history can be put to is manipulation.
Imagine if history were only written by folks like that. I agree with your last statement. Many are doomed to repeat the past. I have been told that our past is what defines us today. Recent memorable history is all that matters to most.
What isnt remembered or experienced is history and in the realm of fantasy for most. The further back in time, the cloudier things get. Fewer perspectives to consider so we rely on other fields to support or refute historical data.
Still, I find all manner of history fascinating because of its non absolute nature. A puzzle that lasts a lifetime.

[C.J.Woolf]

A way to justify your personal opinions...
And then you have the people who say "This time it's different" and history doesn't apply, when history is contrary to their opinions.

[Agent of Chaos]

History is written by the winners and then re-written again and again until no one actually knows for sure what really happened.

[Madrigal]

so you don't think it's just some massive lie made by the Allied forces to demonize Hitler and the Axis powers?

It IS a massive lie told by the Allied forces. It is the hugest fucking lie of the 20th Century. Because WWII was not a struggle between Democracy and Fascism. It was a struggle between Revolution and Capitalism. The Allied powers didn't do shit for Spain, they preferred to watch it sink into decades of Francoism before seeing Socialism conquer Spain, and then, naturally, spread to Europe. Wait for Fascism to crush the European revolution, and then step in as the liberating heroes, after millions are dead and some democratic freedoms are lost for generations.

The Allies were not moved by democratic aspirations, it was just a fight for world markets between rival capitalist factions. The only real losers were the European people. Any other bedtime stories you wanna talk about?

.

[MacGuffin]

Because WWII was not a struggle between Democracy and Fascism. It was a struggle between Revolution and Capitalism.

Who were the Revolutionaries? The Chinese?

[Madrigal]

Who were the Revolutionaries? The Chinese?

Spain! Can't you read!

[MacGuffin]

Spain! Can't you read!

Apparently not because:


WWII was not a struggle between Democracy and Fascism. It was a struggle between Revolution and Capitalism.

The Reds in Spain were doneski by WWII.

[stigmatica]

Spain! Can't you read!

Spain? What the hell are you talking about? Just... what?

I was under the impression we were fighting empire building. Spain? My heads about to pop. :mellow:

[Madrigal]

Apparently not because:



The Reds in Spain were doneski by WWII.

Thanks, I had no idea when the Spanish Civil War occured. I only spent my adult life studying it and eight of my uncles fought in it, but I forgot the date. <_<

Lemme say it differently: the "democratic" powers didn't give a shit about democracy, because when a real battle was being waged against the rise of fascism in Europe, with the potential to crush it and change the balance of power in Europe against Hitler, they preferred to see Franco conquer Spain before the socialist revolution did. And before they did anything they let fascism kill millions of more people and erase certain democratic freedoms for decades. That tells you one thing, which is that despite the "democratic" and "fascist" forms adopted by the powers involved in WWII, they had a common interest which was saving capitalism. In essence it was a fight for markets, not a fight for democracy.

Spain was lost by 1937 (despite ending in 1939), but it meant EVERYTHING to the fate of Europe under fascism. WWII would not have occurred - or would have been completely different - if Spain had won.

[stigmatica]

Thanks, I had no idea when the Spanish Civil War occured. I only spent my adult life studying it and eight of my uncles fought in it, but I forgot the date. <_<

Lemme say it differently: the "democratic" powers didn't give a shit about democracy, because when a real battle was being waged against the rise of fascism in Europe, with the potential to crush it and change the balance of power in Europe against Hitler, they preferred to see Franco conquer Spain before the socialist revolution did. And before they did anything they let fascism kill millions of more people and erase certain democratic freedoms for decades. That tells you one thing, which is that despite the "democratic" and "fascist" forms adopted by the powers involved in WWII, they had a common interest which was saving capitalism. In essence it was a fight for markets, not a fight for democracy.

Spain was lost by 1937 (despite ending in 1939), but it meant EVERYTHING to the fate of Europe under fascism. WWII would not have occurred - or would have been completely different - if Spain had won.
So you're suggesting there should have been more outside assistance in this civil war? That's not your usual position on these things. There was, I believe, private non-government sanctioned assistance on both sides. I will agree that Spain would have been a powerful ally against the natzi's had the civil war been shorter, ended with different winners, and maintained more economic strength into WWII. Those are a lot of if's, though. I need much more convincing as to the motives of the allies during the Spanish Civil war. Hindsight's always 20/20. War sucks. I like to think no population wants too much involvement in any war until it's on their front porch.

[Madrigal]

So you're suggesting there should have been more outside assistance in this civil war? That's not your usual position on these things.
Of course not outside assistance from imperialist powers. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy in the democratic rhetoric.

The Spanish Republicans (that is to say, the "democratic" bourgois forces of Spain) progressively dismantled the genuinely democratic aspects of the Spanish resistance, under the pretext that England and France were not helping Spain because the reds were scaring them off with all their grassroots control of things, socializing lands, organizing production and the militias. This was actually the lifeblood of the Spanish resistance to fascism, and where their real strength was in advancing against such a technologically superior enemy. In that way, they crippled the resistance and sat around waiting for military aid that never arrived. Of course England and France were not going to step in because they would only have helped the (truly democratic) revolution crush capitalism.

It is very reasonable to conclude that if Spain had defeated fascism through socialist revolution, which was the real threat at the moment, all of Europe - Germany, Italy, France - would have incorporated that lesson. And I mean the popular resistance to fascism would have learnt from it, Spain would have become "the" example to follow, and Spain would have aided struggling nations in the fight against fascism beyond its borders. A socialist victory in Spain against fascism would have changed the face of Europe and the history of the 20th Century.

[LongSilence]

The Allies were not moved by democratic aspirations, it was just a fight for world markets between rival capitalist factions.

I thought it was clear that all the Allied nations were still most moved by national concerns. The British Empire was actually the only major player that lifted a finger and sent forces when another nation was under attack. Admittedly, their international standing and position in the world was under grave threat not to mention the potential for subsequent invasion of their own territories.
[/QUOTE]
It IS a massive lie told by the Allied forces. It is the hugest fucking lie of the 20th Century.[/QUOTE]
You're talking about the Holocaust here? Lie's still kind of an awkward word to use here cos it's pretty clear that the widespread application of Hitler's Final Solution wasn't a myth. If you're trying to bring up the huge amount of special attention the genocide received in a century peppered with them, fair enough. But that should be dealt with as an objective question of comparison, not competitive hyperole.


Because WWII was not a struggle between Democracy and Fascism. It was a struggle between Revolution and Capitalism.Not sure what this has to do with the Holocaust but still- no, I'd have to say WWII was really rather lacking in its successful revolutions.


The Allied powers didn't do shit for Spain, they preferred to watch it sink into decades of Francoism before seeing Socialism conquer Spain, and then, naturally, spread to Europe. Wait for Fascism to crush the European revolution, and then step in as the liberating heroes, after millions are dead and some democratic freedoms are lost for generations.
Similarly, they didn't do shit to stop Hitler or Mussolini rising to power. Now, to talk about a socialist revolution they did try to stop- if the Bolsheviks had kept Russia in the Great War the Allied nations would have invested so much less trying to counter that revolution themselves.

Basically, the War that really was a struggle between Capitalism and Revolution was the Cold one, surely?

[Madrigal]

Basically, the War that really was a struggle between Capitalism and Revolution was the Cold one, surely?

You're not getting it. Read the last post. Fascism found a rival in Socialism. "Democracy" watched it flounder while fascism took over, before stepping in. Therefore, the great lie of WW2 was that it was a fight between democracy (represented by imperialist powers) and fascism. It was just an imperialist fight for markets in which nobody gave a shit about human rights or democracy. Capiche?

I never denied the Holocaust, which would be ridiculous. That too could have been avoided with a Spanish victory.

[LongSilence]

It is very reasonable to conclude that if Spain had defeated fascism through socialist revolution, which was the real threat at the moment, all of Europe - Germany, Italy, France - would have incorporated that lesson. And I mean the popular resistance to fascism would have learnt from it, Spain would have become "the" example to follow, and Spain would have aided struggling nations in the fight against fascism beyond its borders. A socialist victory in Spain against fascism would have changed the face of Europe and the history of the 20th Century.

I think you might be being a bit idealistic about the consequences of one successful revolution. You can't really say whether they would have been a Paris Commune, Soviet Russia or something else entirely.


You're not getting it. Read the last post. Fascism found a rival in Socialism. "Democracy" watched it flounder while fascism took over, before stepping in. Therefore, the great lie of WW2 was that it was a fight between democracy (represented by imperialist powers) and fascism. It was just an imperialist fight for markets in which nobody gave a shit about human rights or democracy. Capiche?

I never denied the Holocaust, which would be ridiculous. That too could have been avoided with a Spanish victory.

Yeah... scratch "a bit".

Seriously, a Spanish victory could have stopped the Holocaust happening? Mussolini and Hitler had been in power for years with troops being sent to help Franco as you know. I'm not sure how you're picturing a socialist success in Spain would have suddenly resulted in any change in Germany or Italy who were quite firmly in the thrall of their dictators at that point. Nor can I imagine the revolutionaries being able to settle things easily and then being able to invest too heavily either fending off the Fascist invasion of Europe or in spreading their communism quickly themselves.

I'm guessing you're imagining all the European proletariat being awed by the success in Spain and all the speculatively revolutionary outfits suddenly rising up, buoyed by the tide of another nation's still nascent commune. Or not?

[stigmatica]

Well, most of this idea of Spain as a pivot point relies on the assumption that all of Europe was on the verge of a socialist revolution. I would greatly appreciate some words of wisdom to back that idea up.

[MacGuffin]

Who were the WWII Revolutionaries again??

[Madrigal]

Seriously, a Spanish victory could have stopped the Holocaust happening?

Let me put it this way: If not them, who? They were the only ones with a genuine interest in stopping fascism. The Spanish socialists were giving their lives for their revolution out of their own free will, not because an imperialist government was sending them off as cannon fodder to defend a market.


Mussolini and Hitler had been in power for years with troops being sent to help Franco as you know. I'm not sure how you're picturing a socialist success in Spain would have suddenly resulted in any change in Germany or Italy who were quite firmly in the thrall of their dictators at that point. Nor can I imagine the revolutionaries being able to settle things easily and then being able to invest too heavily either fending off the Fascist invasion of Europe or in spreading their communism quickly themselves.
That's because you're simply unaccustomed to studying history as a completely related chain of events, and more importantly, you haven't been educated to consider the class struggle as one of the defining elements in the course of world history. If crummy little Cuba could set Latin America on fire in a fight between socialism and fascism, I'm pretty damn well sure Europe would have at least stood a real chance of stopping fascism cold in its tracks with a Spanish revolution. Spain is not Cuba. Spain's serious business, and it's no island.

Would all of Europe have become socialist if Spain had won? Maybe not. But it is extremely probable that fascism would have been stamped out much earlier by popular resistance, before bourgois-democratic forces - on the crest of this resistance, which is where they like to position themselves, as France has taught us - reaffirmed their own control. The worst case scenario would have been quite different, in any case.


I'm guessing you're imagining all the European proletariat being awed by the success in Spain and all the speculatively revolutionary outfits suddenly rising up, buoyed by the tide of another nation's still nascent commune. Or not?
I'm imagining exactly that, so good job, you undertsand now.

That's what tends to happen. Cuba inaugurated a socialist resistance in Latin America, the Russian Revolution inaugurated an era of revolutions in Europe. It will always be that way. Why do you think USA crushed revolutions in insignificant countries it had no economic interest in, such as the little known massacre of Grenada. Because: the powers-that-be understand better than you do that socialism is a highly infectious... trend. :grin:

[stigmatica]

Who were the WWII Revolutionaries again??

Spain, and potentially, all of Europe. I think? :grin:

[LongSilence]

Well, most of this idea of Spain as a pivot point relies on the assumption that all of Europe was on the verge of a socialist revolution. I would greatly appreciate some words of wisdom to back that idea up.

I dunno. Maybe with Spain being a beacon of hope to the downtrodden common man, the Fascist juggernaut would have been stalled but thousands of men saying 'You know what? Fuck Hitler and his SS. Let's take back the power and show it to the man.' Or maybe England and France would have fought back more effectively against the Axis powers with the words of Marx to inspire their people.

[Madrigal]

Who were the WWII Revolutionaries again??

Your grandma. The Reds loved her.

[MacGuffin]

Let me put it this way: If not them, who?

That's not a reasoned response!








My grandma was pretty ornery...

[socrateez]

I always saw the struggle of WW2 as primarily Western Fascism vs. European Fascism.

The U.S. entered the war as late as possible. Reason #1 IMO was the huge profits that mainly American based Corporations were making supplying money and material to every side.
One thing I do know about History is that the prime motivators are always wealth and power...and more of the same. Peace rarely occurs if it ever really existed.

See how many different historical accounts of WW2 cropped up in this thread? Thats history for you...Perspective.

[LongSilence]

Let me put it this way: If not them, who? They were the only ones with a genuine interest in stopping fascism. The Spanish socialists were giving their lives for their revolution out of their own free will, not because an imperialist government was sending them off as cannon fodder to defend a market.

They fought so hard because it was about their nation, their livelihoods and their emancipation. Those were their primary concerns, not the Fascism of the world. Even Communist China, with more stability and in this age of relative peace [at least between the major powers] doesn't seem to be engaging in too many pro-actively 'Anti-Fascist' efforts. (I am aware that all communist entities are different by the way).

But yeah, I guess it's good to know I have the glimmer of an idea of how you like to imagine things would be "if only... people loved socialism as much as I do". Honestly though, a big spanner in the works of this 'Domino theory' of European revolution is that, well, it ignores the way the world works and has always reacted to revolutions. You may like to think of your revolutionaries as forward-thinking men who think above and beyond national borders and they may well be but the general populace are not. Particularly back then, the political designs of other nations are typically viewed with suspicion. There have been dozens of major social revolutions all throughout history but almost universally their spread outside their nation of origin has been relatively slow and always faced significant opposition.

You're ignoring that nationalistic sentiments can actually undermine attraction to other nation's political systems. The same feeling that stops regular people embracing the commands of extra-national leaders denigrates the ideologies that other countries adopt. When the English King was killed and the country handed to a minor gentleman there was not a rash of European regicides. When the French revolted and more drastically tore their aristocracy asunder their example did not immediately inspire the success of lots of other popular uprisings. In truth, the successes of Left-wing extremists more often than not inspire their right-wing rivals to greater prominence as people become anxious of having their way of life stripped from them, particularly in a bloody revolution that the majority of people don't like the idea of.

But anyway, back to our little Spanish commune of 1936- what makes you so sure that they would have been able to deal with internal factionalism and counter-revolution satisfactorily enough as to present such an example that other regular people would not be turned off by the bloodshed and strife? Would they really have been able to make such a remarkable leap forward that it would change minds before things got more complicated by war? Also, why would the Spanish be so much more active about combating external Fascism than the Russians? [Who I might add hardly seemed to have much of an ideological problem with Hitler or his holocaust. Hell, they could probably have exchanged notes on genocidal techniques]

[Madrigal]

They fought so hard because it was about their nation, their livelihoods and their emancipation. Those were their primary concerns, not the Fascism of the world.


You may like to think of your revolutionaries as forward-thinking men who think above and beyond national borders and they may well be but the general populace are not.

Erm, no. If you took the time to listen to the popular anthems sung by the masses during the Spanish Civil War or read the wealth of flyers, proclamations and articles in grassroots publications which have long since disappeared (I collect them), you would know as I do that the Spanish revolutionaries (and by that I mean every socialist and anarchist Spaniard fighting fascism - which was a lot of people) had international perspectives for their revolution. Add to this the many men and women from Europe and beyond who joined the International Brigades despite not being in the organizing Communist Party, to lend their solidarity to the Spaniards. The Spaniards fought alongside comrades from all over the world and were well aware of the international importance of their revolution, because they couldn't not be. Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, great times make great people and that was one of those times in which people look beyond the here and now and their own personal fate.

In that post you are only writing what is your personal prejudice about the common man in hypothetical revolutionary contexts, and not looking at what historical evidence and documents actually indicate.


In truth, the successes of Left-wing extremists more often than not inspire their right-wing rivals to greater prominence as people become anxious of having their way of life stripped from them, particularly in a bloody revolution that the majority of people don't like the idea of.
This is just a de-contextualized notion once again. Evidently a leap forward in revolution mobilizes the counter-revolution because you cannot have one without the other. However, take a Europe under the advance of fascism without a successful example of popular resistance, and imagine a Europe armed with that example. NOBODY can say what would have happened for sure. It's basically algebra. I believe my algebra is more than plausible.


But anyway, back to our little Spanish commune of 1936- what makes you so sure that they would have been able to deal with internal factionalism and counter-revolution satisfactorily enough as to present such an example that other regular people would not be turned off by the bloodshed and strife?
Dude, half of Moscow was wiped out in Russia. Even more of Petrograd. Revolution still spread throughout Europe regardless, particularly the Germans. In times of world war and revolution, the question is not whether people will die but what they will die for.


Would they really have been able to make such a remarkable leap forward that it would change minds before things got more complicated by war?
Well, if they didn't have a leadership that didn't know where its balls were, yeah. That's a whole other issue (the anarchist leadership). There's a whole thread on that. I am merely pointing out here that the purported "democratic struggle" of the allies is an historical lie, in answer to someone's question.


Also, why would the Spanish be so much more active about combating external Fascism than the Russians?
Stalin didn't want a fresh and democratic socialist revolution in Europe challenging his bureaucracy and the Third International. Stalin helped disarm the revolutionary militias and politically disarm the Spanish resistance in favor of the (cowardly) Spanish bourgoisie.

[starjots]

History is a top notch object of study. You can deconstruct all you want about victors writing it or being a fairy tale, but at least it (at its best) history tries to capture what people have done in different situations throughout time. The way I look at it, it is an attempt to capture the vast number of experiments people *just like us* have made over the last five thousand years or so. This can be genuinely useful.

If the field of historical study seems like bullcrap I'd venture a guess that the majority of people in academic hard sciences aren't doing anything that will ever amount to a hill of beans either. This doesn't mean the whole field is pap.

For a searing example - look at the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan. Notice how Bush I avoided this during the First Gulf War in large part because we were still smarting from that fiasco (Vietnam) while Bush II went all in to a disturbingly similar situation (corrupt allies who we prop up, victory means converting hearts and minds, perfect proxy war for others to sap our strength by giving aid, fuzziness about why we are even there) because he thought this time it would be different. I'll bet a nickle the US won't be doing anything of the sort for at least a generation after we get out of that mess. If people study history, maybe it will be a couple of generations. You can hope anyway.