Montmorency 00:29 12-04-2015
Originally Posted by :
Communists sought the destruction of the state though, not random individuals who have nothing to do with the institutionalised state.
When I was referring to destruction of states, I said "collapse with maximum internal damage", which is to say that the states would be destroyed in order to precipitate a collapse of the society, with concomitant human catastrophe.
So it's basically just what you said. Communists sought to transition - forcibly or not - capitalist societies to (Communist-run) socialist societies. Meanwhile, Islamists at the extreme perceive that they already have their society and the existence of other societies is both an active and passive threat; moreover, there is some motivation to simply accumulate as much territory and as many subjects as possible for the glory (more-or-less).
Pannonian 00:38 12-04-2015
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
When I was referring to destruction of states, I said "collapse with maximum internal damage", which is to say that the states would be destroyed in order to precipitate a collapse of the society, with concomitant human catastrophe.
So it's basically just what you said. Communists sought to transition - forcibly or not - capitalist societies to (Communist-run) socialist societies. Meanwhile, Islamists at the extreme perceive that they already have their society and the existence of other societies is both an active and passive threat; moreover, there is some motivation to simply accumulate as much territory and as many subjects as possible for the glory (more-or-less).
With the Communist MO, while the capitalist state was still in being (and we now know there wasn't ever any danger of them collapsing), individuals in capitalist states were not individually in danger, other than maybe the odd terrorist attack independent of the Communist institutions (who had open channels with us throughout). Contrast with the Islamist MO, which is to cause as much damage to the softest targets possible. There are some Communist ideals and achievements that I will readily laud, space exploration not least among them (and many other scientific fields). Islamism has contributed nothing to the good of humanity, nor will it ever do. It is entirely destructive in ethos.
Montmorency 00:51 12-04-2015
The nice thing about the Communist frontrunners - USSR and PRC - is that they developed around very anxious and unstable societies, which meant that for most of their history (though of course the PRC isn't likely changing fundamentally anytime soon) their governments were very inwardly focused on managing their internal affairs. Major expansionist periods, such as Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe and China's reaching out toward Central Asia and the Indian peninsula and supporting the North Korean regime was a dual matter of maintaining buffer zones and economic clients for security and a callback to the maximum extents of the historical Russian and Chinese empires. When they reached out far abroad, it was usually to secure resources for themselves or to balance Western attention away from the core territories - and that's just basic politics since ancient times, really.
Pannonian 01:22 12-04-2015
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
The nice thing about the Communist frontrunners - USSR and PRC - is that they developed around very anxious and unstable societies, which meant that for most of their history (though of course the PRC isn't likely changing fundamentally anytime soon) their governments were very inwardly focused on managing their internal affairs. Major expansionist periods, such as Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe and China's reaching out toward Central Asia and the Indian peninsula and supporting the North Korean regime was a dual matter of maintaining buffer zones and economic clients for security and a callback to the maximum extents of the historical Russian and Chinese empires. When they reached out far abroad, it was usually to secure resources for themselves or to balance Western attention away from the core territories - and that's just basic politics since ancient times, really.
These nationalist interests weren't alien to us since, as you said, they've been basic politics since ancient times. Everyone does it, and everyone knows the rules of the game. We know what the boundaries are, which no side will step over, since all sides are orthodox states. Islamism is jihad transplanted into modern society, themselves abiding by rules which we've left behind centuries ago, yet who game our modern society to allow them to inflict maximum damage in areas which we consider off limits by the rules recognised by orthodox states. That's why I despise them, and almost as much, the bleeding heart liberals who genuinely believe that liberal rights apply to these Islamists. No they don't. Rights come with responsibilities. Islamists deny all their responsibilities as a matter of principle, and hold those that value them as their enemy.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO