Milos Uzelac

It's a pretty irreverent comment to say to people who are dead and have died [sacrificed themselves] in a war because they thought they were serving and doing it for the safety and well-being of the citizens of their own country and the citizens that their country is in alliance with. The issue is, it seems on the outset and from the most probable psychological motives for saying such a comment, exclusively viewed from his own narrow life experience and social standing perspective of having the status that he is successful in life, and I was probably wrong in saying: since if the comment came from only his POV and life-experiences perspective it might signal contempt and detachment from regular people who allow themselves to be drafted into a war and die as a result of it, while he avoided the same fate by dodging his draft in Vietnam and went on to inherit and expand his father's real-estate, financial enterprises and win the nomination for president in 2016. I am guessing that was what prompted him to say those comments, in order for him to detach himself and rationalize to himself why he avoided to get drafted in war that the U.S. engaged with North Vietnam in the 1960's and 1970's.

Yes, I agree (on the topic's supposition) that the governance system the U.S. power elite have been able to set up and work on for almost a century is genius: 1.) in its consistent ability to distort the majority of the public's perception of 1.) what it is compromised of, 2.) what it all encompasses, and 3.) what complex, interconnected and interrelated systems go into its efficient sustainment and functioning as a whole. 2.) In its ability to absorb or to adapt to any internal or external change while remaining fundamentally the same in its basic layers in the society of class dispossession and distribution structure: ''The social system in America is a dynamic one. One of the key values of the system is change. And at the same time, changes [in the dominant values in the system] serve the purpose in order for everything to stay the same [the pre-existing structure's of class and wealth distrubution].'' For Parsons change is the main way of retaining order in contemporary society: ''There is no fundamental difference between the processes that change the system and the processes that retain its foundational structures.'' (I found these quotes from an excerpt of a pp presentation of his work when I find the original work where they originated from I will reference them here). My sources: Wright Mills, The Power Elite (1956) Talcott Parsons quote on the 1968-74 counter-culture revolution, and the black civil rights movement.

Seems like a coincidence that this circulating now, and not at the time of the commemoration of the dead in WWI. I am guessing they plan on using this as ammo during the debate with Biden given that one of Biden's sons, Beau who later died, served in Iraq. The Atlantic, really did a nice hit-piece on Trump it seems, because of the timing and the fact that everyone is jumping on it so suddenly, for something that was said 2 years ago, and less than 70 days before the election, as if it reflects Trump's wholesome view on the US military servicemen in general. The publication and news outlet is indirectly helping the Biden election campaign with resurfacing this info now.

An insightful quote, I thought was useful in sharing here given the question posed about alternatives of democracy in this thread, from a German 20th-century sociologist Robert Michels, who wrote a widely scientifically acclaimed social study on Political Parties, titled, ,,Sociology of political parties in modern democracies and oligarchical tendencies generally in the life of social groups", regarding prospects of the constraints of democracies and democratic-decision making in political organizations, the general limits of democratic decision-making in contemporary structures of government and alternative way of looking at the advancement of democracy through a spectrum model of its presence: ,,The tendency towards a formation of oligarchical elites at the top, governing the rest of human societies, compromises a historical necessity, it constitutes an iron law of historical progression, which up until this point no society, even the most democratic and modern were unable to avoid. However, even though full democracy doesn't exist, there is exist gradients in a spectrum of its presence in oligarchical orders, and the historical progressivism in the development of the rest of society lies in advocating and fighting for the degree of that presence to constantly widen, more and more."

As in not aware of the long term consequences of what role your actions play to perpetuate your suffering? In the video about Devilry , Leo accentuated that ignorance is but one of the components for understanding what is what we call evil and how you play role, if not aware of it, in perpetuating it and therefore causing evil to yourself in the end. If I understood it correctly. BTW you don't have to respond to this. I realize I went off topic here and I still owe you a response on what I see are the characteristics and signs of propaganda in the Chinesse state affiliated media vidéo criticising the US Post I made in July. Sorry for that, I don't want you think that I purposefully ignored you, I was just procrastinating, lazied out and eventually forgot to extract it from the massive ranty text I wrote. ?

Thanks for taking the time to write out and elaborate on a quick explanation regarding the examples of signs and characteristics of Pre-Trans fallacy and how it usually manifests in perception and understanding in tier I spiral dynamics consciousness dominant stages. Sorry for not answering you earlier, somehow I missed the post when accessing this forum thread in the last two days. I thank you and I hope you are doing well.

@Leo Gura Does being dumb equal being in a state of numbness as response to the suffering you experience, numb to the suffering included in some aspects of society and the natural world and being numb, as being unable to see or take the perspective of others? I had this thought about it today what it means when you call someone dumb or a dumbass in some contexts. Don't know if I am oversimplifying so I am asking you if I am on the right track when thinking about this.

Cannot order my thoughts to summon up the words so as to write out what I think are my deepest personal issues and life direction and purpose doubts and "missed" opportunities. Will write in here in order for it to be available to the public eye so I can better put pressure on myself to motivate myself to start writing out the problems I need to deal with in more detail (and readable English) and a.) strategies and b.) visions that I need to work on, develop and solidify in 1.) how I want to live my life, 2.) what is the purpose of my living and 3.) why I want to live life (on this note I am not suicidal when writing this). Currently, I cannot muster the mental and cognitive ability to start to write out points, plans, and a framework of how I want to approach this, for it not appear to be a mental circle-jerk in pitying myself and complaining about my current self. When I can muster that willpower and have a plan about how to approach writing this journal, I will continue writing it, though I have a plan now to try to add new things day by day (or two or three days apart in a row) and to manage it somehow during a busy exam period that I will have in the next weeks. Till my next input, whoever is reading this, I wish you well and to find and muster ways to be happy about yourself, to love yourself and your life. Be well. 1st Input: 3.) Why I want to live life? Why I want continue living? Answer: a) I feel like I was born and put in the current situation and context for a purpose - a purpose higher, than the existence I am experiencing now currently. Something that's bigger and encompasses more than my current self, and therefore feels more of life. That something, the closest currently I have felt over the past weeks, of what it is exactly that would give purpose to be happy about my life circumstances and more life to my existence, when I thought about it: is helping others who need it in some ways out of their situational and life circumstantial suffering, by educating them and broadening their perspective via knowledge about the world, about themselves and about their position in the world (as a human being, cultural background and member of a wider global and societal system). Even though I feel a guilty conscious pattern that repeats it's within me, with the patterns of feelings I experience when I think about this. I am not just relying on my casual relationship thinking about this state that I currently am in, as being, generally speaking, an end result of accumulated consequences of past low-conscious, desire-driven and fear-based choices and decisions I made up until this point since I discovered this channel, started as a student and legally became an adult at 18 and 19 years old or in short the result of some karmic chain of events, but also I intuit, from other experience that I had up until this point, that I had and/or was by some intelligent design, which's given path I failed to last on and accomplish, in the way it was intended for and set, given a purpose around the subject matter of studying sociology, me being a successful student of it and graduating from it in time, so that I could, in the ideal linear progression scenario of the imagined past, gain knowledge, experience, relationships and friendships with it could which fulfill my felt inner need to truly work on helping and inspiring people (I imagined mostly immigrants and people in poverty) to have an easier time in society and to give them an explanation of why their suffering is not all their doing, but also a product of an extremely unjust historical and societal systems and world situation they found themselves in not by their own volition alone but by systemic reasons as well, on which's gradualistic fight to change it for the better for the majority, and I could work on with them and friends I gained, who's purpose aligns with mine in a similar way and feel and think in a similar way as me on this subject. Do I still believe this, all this mentioned above, about what's the purpose of my living and my life on this planet, yes I still feel this within me to an extent. Either I want to be of service, that not only accomodates and allow's the system to function as previously as it was efficiently, but also to change it for the betterment for some who felt it's rough edges and had gained up until now only the crumbs from it's abundant luxuries that were closed off for them specifically, for inadequate reasons, for a long time, during my lifetime or I want to team up with someone or raise someone who will be able to succeed in doing this better than I should have done. Maybe this seems like fantasy writing or revolutionary LARPing on the outset, when reading this and in retrospect when I communicate the rest of my current life experience up until this point and contrast it with these wishes and desires, but I still when I introspect myself about my life purpose feel an emotional and mental pull towards them. However I also feel contrasting feeling's and thought's when thinking about other's people life positions, as being maybe the product, like my position now, of their own unconscious actions that are more likely to happen to them because of past karmic actions and chain of events that had led them up till this point in life (of maybe they selfishly tortured, killed an another human being or multiple other or dozens of human beings in their past life or committed some other exclusively self-preserving crime, having only their own immediate well being in mind or going along with the toxic beliefs that the majority of society had at the moment developed, perhaps as is often the case in a time of collective ego crisis, in committing some atrocities, without a second-thought, doubt or attempt to stand against it or avoid doing it), I can know for sure I am using this as a justification in my mind when I see intense suffering around me, which I believe I am unable to alter in my lifetime. I think I have gone at this point, off tangent and in long-winded, broad strokes so I will have to introspect, read again, revise, edit and add more tommorow of what I have started in decoding and exposing my own currents feelings and beliefs about my self, my purpose and others here.

I am currently a still a second-year sociology student, but I have kinda neglected to study it consistently and comprehensively these past two semester's passing only one exam (it was Advanced English for reading expert literature from the field, basic academic papers and basic scientific papers and wasn't even directly connected or necessary for the field of study of sociology). So even though I have basically almost entirely failed this year (though there are still some exams left, that I plan on to pass), I can perhaps give you useful advice on what we focused on from mandatory literature on my faculties sociological department first-year student program. This how the program is conducted on state-funded faculties in Belgrade, Serbia. I am not sure, to what extent, if these first-year sociological study programs are universal and to what extent differ from one another in their literature or subjects they allocate most time to focus on studying, from one country to another country - kinda clueless on that department because I haven't bothered to research much about it and to compare and contrast them with the study program schedule I had on the first year. But I will try to give you here a generalized overview, of what the subjects that we most focused on studying where on my first semester and the expert literature that was most recommended that is used to have a better grasp of what sociology actually as a scientific field focuses on studying: 1.) Social histories of different European countries (and partially America) in the wake of the 18th-century political revolutions and 18th to 19th-century industrialization of those countries. In short, studying the shift in organizing of society from pre-modern and pre-industrial societies to modern and industrial societies. 2.) We had a history of political and social philosophies and philosophers (mostly in Ancient Classical Greek and Roman times, Medieval times and Renaissance times in Europe) and what society and politics were understood to be about then and how they functioned in pre-modern and pre-industrial times before the political and industrial revolutions in the 18th and 19th century. 3.) We had Introduction to 1.) What Sociology is about as Scientific Discipline, 2.) What is its field of study and what is interested in studying and about (you will see mostly it's an intersection between politics, economics, history, and other social science disciplines) and 3.) The first basic concepts used in society that sociology determines what they are and studies further (poverty, wealth, class, gender, sex, family, jobs (aka social roles), social status, power, history, modern, times and world, culture, ideology, nationality, crime, religion, language, communication, and media, etc.) concepts taken mostly from excerpts from a large sociology study book written by Mike Haralambos and other authors, intended for first-year graduate students. Literature (that I haven't read all), but recommend to you by way of other people who recommended it to me to read it first when I was a first-year graduate to get a solid grasp and connect the dots of what sociology is about and how does it approach it's a field of study, early on, are: 1.) Wright, Mills- Sociological Imagination (gives basic guidelines (and critiques regarding other approaches to these questions) of what is the purpose of a sociologist, what sociologist are looking to do with sociology as scientific field and discipline, what sociology ought to be and how sociology is conducted and what role did have earlier/and does now in modern times) 2.) Ralf Dahrendorf - Homo sociologicus (gives a philosophical background and his approach of how human beings, society and the relationship between them, mostly understood from a sociological perspective in contemporary sociological literature) 3.) Karl Marx - the lightest and easiest work - Communist Manifesto, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Civil War in France, The German Ideology, The Gotha Programme, etc. + some stuff from Engels - like for the start his own study on family called the - The Holy Family(I haven't read all of this, but I am listing it because it is more interesting to read than other authors have written drier (more scientifically and conceptually, and not with a lot of passion and vigor - as Marx did) and than more expertly and scientifically terminological filled and written work later on in higher years - Marx, on the other hand, is read more like an interesting history book or a novel in some instances - in a good way - and I will think get you interested in reading other sociological work (because a lot of other's classical sociological author's work was written also as an indirect response because of an impact of his theories). (I am listing him because he is the (in my opinion, and in sociology when first studying him, he is rarely studied because of politics and ideology, but because he introduced some key scientific and social concepts (class, ideology, etc.) that are the bread and butter when studying sociological literature, works and in sociological studies) the most easily understood and easily readable classical author and founding father of sociology and of the main theoretical approaches within in it (among the three (four, depending on the perspective) him (conflict theories in sociological thought), Emil Durkheim (functionalist theories), Max Weber (Interpretative, nominalist, subjectivist and actor theories)(Auguste Comte - as the proto- founding father and the beginner of positivist scientific theoretical approach (natural sciences approach = social sciences approach - when studying a subject matter) on social sciences)) This is my own view from some personal experiences, bad decisions and missed opportunities, of what is best to read (as a part of your studies or at the side as an added reading material to get you more interested and motivated in what you are studying) to understand of what sociology is and is about and pique your interest in the question of what is the purpose and subject matter of sociology in general. Hope this is some useful advice for you (from my first-year experience POV) to get a good start and to motivate and interest you in the matter from the beginning.

I hope this isn't ironic an response based on some preconceived notion about what my answer about my opinion will be about EU's aims, plans and goals of penalising or sanctioning (dunno haven't researched about their exact measure) the Polish governments recent Anti-LGBTQ moves and legislations, since I wrote this way about my interpretation and criticism of the contemporary discussion regarding globalisation and progression. I am just too tired to research and write about your posed question to me rn. Sorry my man ?

I think he specifically meant the current mode of unrestrained consumption and unregulated production - today's consumer capitalism in short when he titled his book that way. Which is to mean the end of orange consciousness based dominanted societies in the developed world. Here's a cool chapter contents summary of (Rupert Read's and Samuel Alexander's conversation turned small book) which I have a plan to print and read, I'll post picture of it for you too see if the content piques your interest enough in coming about to consider giving it a read. Here are chapter's:

It does sound really grim from the snippets of it I read elsewhere (This Civilisation is Finished by Rupert Read and Simon X (can't rember his last name now) is the most grim perspective I have found on it) , and it seems to me to call for one to consider now how to prepare on a personal moral level in one's life and in one's stance in society towards it when such situations and conditions may indeed demand it from you, to take a clear stance towards in society.

Yes in a perfect linear progression contradiction free and injustice free world where everyone gets the same outcome from an event. But the real world of relationships between humans in different countries, societies and cultures doesn't work that way, it is full of perceived commited mutual injustices and ills where one group, country, culture is treated better and fairer than the other, which makes linear progression growth path where everyone gets on board with it literally impossible. These contradictions and injustices from technological and cultural progression stem exactly from the way they are generated by favoring one part of a world over another or using and exploiting one part of the world for a benefit another, essentially making, equal treatment and progression where everyone can get on board impossible, without backclashes, conflicts and internal contradictions within the way progression in the world is manifested. Globalization and globalism in today's form and written and spoken usage (related to a contemporary globalised form of capitalism as our dominant way of production and consumption that makes our survival in contemporary complex and interconnected societial systems possible) is another ideological worldview point, of the ruling classes in the countries that espouse it, that is prescribing their norms of what progression of the world ought be like and look like and that suits their own interests in having the meaning of the word progression entail that narrow meaning and viewpoint that coincides with their perspective on the world and how and in which way it should go and develop. In short it rids the word progression of it's internal contradictions and conflicts that go into its full meaning.

Yeah, I trust you are probably right in having that perspective and prediction about future outcomes regarding this topic of discussion. However I intend to research more about the possible outcomes the effects of climate change in the future will have on world as a whole and in some specific parts of it, to better inform my views regarding the probability of worst case scenarios of it possibly manifesting themselves in the functioning of society in the near future, in about of couple of decades from irreversible effects and changes in world climate point. Thanks a lot, for setting time to answer me when I posed you these questions. I really appreciated your perspective on them.

Yeah we should probably discuss this topic in a private discussion or another thread since this the topic is intended for discussion about Afghanistan and the ongoing Afghanistan War. I would advise you to muster the patience since at that 11 minute time stamp in the documentary I am pretty sure that he is still only going through a (I admit biased regarding some presentation of certain facts and events , since noneones chosen background perspective is perfect and without slight error though) historical recap of events, but slightly later in the doc he is main point is in detailing the availabile factual evidence about the role and interests that other powerful influences and centers of power in the world had in the dissolution and collapse of Yugoslavia, so his main point is in presenting the overarching narrative with his found evidence that the main great powers at that time were involved and had an interest in the break-up of Yugoslavia going in a certain direction and revealing why did they have that interest and incentive to want to that and be involved in helping that happen. The background history and historical data during and of Yugoslavia as country before it collapsed is a side issue in this doc and not the main point of the narrative. I advise not taking the whole doc because of it at face-value thinking that because of it everything else that is discussed is purely ideological (though ideological in it's meaning doesn't mean something is not the truth at all, it is rather a certain approach and relationship you have with certain topics) and detached from truth of the matter in this doc.

Yeah I will address it a bit later shortly after I do some stuff I have to, though I don't think, personally, it's not a critical issue for understanding the EU 's role and goals for Europe.

@Opo Heh sorry I didn't realize we were basically neighbours, I thought you were in a more farther away and richer and more developed EU country (though sorry I am not desiring to sh*t talk Croatia on that front she has made quite a bit of a progress over the last few years) , sorry mb for stereotyping you into a preconceived notion of mein when someone says he is in an EU country ? Hehe... We could have had this discussion in former one of Yugoslavia official languages Serbo-Croatian (almost the same cultural development of almost the same spoken language) couldn't we not, well not here but in private messaging correspondence ?

Could you maybe be kind to perhaps set time later explain to me exactly how does that fallacy manifest itself in this context? Is that I am not a high enough consciousness stage of development to see these global developments and events from a contextual and bird's-eye view? If I understood correctly, if that is what you are saying?

@sonnaroo Hey thank you first and foremost for opening up this topic, that makes an interesting discussion possible. Also read your point about spiral dynamics contemporary relationship between different stages of consciousness playing more of a role today possibly producing different outcomes more so than in the past and higher consciousness stage level environments to consider for these newer movements, that is also, I think, à key to understanding them more contextually and holistically as a phenomena in the 21st century.

@Leo Gura Yes, I agree on the range of what would be today acceptable and allowed as political and social behaviour for them to gain any support in the first place in the contemporary political climate. I think you right on the point of even extremer right-wing movements being more civil and morally evolved in what would they consider acceptable to achieve their aims of gaining power within the state in the material, legal and technological conditions of contemporary times in developed countries. However, I am of the layman's opinion, that those conditions and moral and civil constraints might face their hard test ever and get severely altered and eroded if the effects and conditions extreme climate changes are throw into the mix in the next couple of decades. Do you think these movements steaming from a conservative consumer lifestyle and mindset base would be willing to go much further (i.e. aim to find ways to legalize increasing deportations of existing population's from different backgrounds that came as migrants from less developed places in the world, aim to try to make it legal to deport and persecute Muslim populations in their countries and/or be even more brutal and perhaps even aim to make it legal to kill migrants and refugees on the border from the third world trying to enter the country and escape the effects that extreme drought, increased storms, resource shortages and rising sea levels as parts of the consequences of extreme climate change will have on their poor, underdeveloped and unprotected countries most likely in the near future) in order to horde and retain privelleges over more scarce and limited resources and shield their perceived necessary parts of the domestic population's to secure their votes and support in the conditions that the effects of climate change and global warming will possibly create in the next couple of decades or will they be able to evolve in time and accept people of different cultures and ethnicities, forced to migrate to escape the effects of global warming in their countries, into their midst as inevitable new part of their societies because of the unavoidable consequences that global warming would have for human habitation on some parts of the planet? Sorry for being a bit long-winded in my question, just wanted to ask about your view of how do you see these contemporary right-wing movements in their current mindset and behaviour reacting and responding to increasingly worsening and/or rapidly changing living conditions and possible global impact in the international world order due to the effect that the extreme climate change may have in the world over the upcoming decades?

@Opo Appreciate the honesty in coming out with the intent with you behaviour. I am sorry as well for comingtoo much defensive and as if I am personally attacked (when mentioning and writing about those ee countries and their EU relationship abstractly online) and also accusatory with my attitude towards your, from my perceived attitude and POV about your intentions and beliefs in this thread. Just felt that personally attached, since I am currently located and a part, as citizen, of this ee bloc of countries and their EU relationship, and I felt obligated to set the record straight from the way this thread was going when talking about this topic and tell a perspective from my POV about it in a role as a relatively active participant of this sub-forum on society and politics. So I apologise again for the perhaps on my side the sprunged up unpleasant attitude towards you personally on my part in this discussion about other countries EU relationship and citizenship topic. I think I am in a slightly different timezone than you, since it's long past am, so I would see to answer the question that you asked me regarding some moves of the EU on the mostly cultural front in their member states tommorow if it is not a problem. Thanks for being kind to ask my personal opinion on it anyway, as if I am some kind of expert on it and not really just partially, and mostly lazily informed on international politics stuff and really modest at best in my knowledge currently ??

H@Leo Gura The term "Right-wing populism" serves today, as an advertising label and tool for a respective ideology within the Republican Party in the US and other "populist" parties around the world, the almost the exact same identitical purpose, in the beggings of their conception, that ambiguous label's and idiosyncratic ideologies such as national syndicalism, national socialism and fascism served for the new and on the rise authoritarian and nationalist movements in Spain, Germany and Italy in the 20's and 30's of the last century. That purpose was to garner away support of domestic working classes and lower-middle classes away from supporting and joining socialist and communist parties and affiliated labor unions and to present themselves and brand themselves as the real movements that truly care about the wellbeing of all their countrymen during a global economic crisis and international relations crises and that they are the only authentic ones willing and able to pressure and work with their respective countries states to better all their countrymen's economic condition during them, and are therefore respectively the only ones that will fight against actors that want to use the domestic working and lower classes of their countries as trojan horses for some esoteric international elite scheme that is in the interest and for the sole benefit of fulfilling murky plans that a small and powerful, rich global elite has for the whole world or as tools for the aims of outside foreign powers that want to politically manipulate them to serve the goals of their own states (e.g. USSR). It is basically almost the same labelling and branding tactics, that these contemporary political movements use, that 20th century fascist movements used to get and steal support from middle-class conservative and working class folk during time of extreme economic hardships to dissuade and scare them from supporting and even trying to vote for actual populist and economic reformist platforms put forward by socialist and/or anarchist parties by distracting them with added conspiratorial non-sense as part of their campaigning on their own disingenuous and false promises economic platforms. Same tactics and political aims with slightly different labels.

Perfect dissmisive mental attitude towards reading and engaging with written text and for taking visual and spoken propaganda as fact and reality and not being critical towards it, just so you know. That's how they get you not protest anything or to fight to hold them to account for their lies and harmful interventions elsewhere in the world. I would really appreciate if you could muster a counter-argument towards what I have written because it would at least show your willing to be in mental state to critically engage with politics and world-events in which you indirectly participate as citizen and taxpayer of a country or countries that engages in them for it's own corps and bussiness benefit.

I don't why you there is isn't at least an attempt at more rigour and skepticism in your guys appraoch to international poltical news events that you get from whatever sources you might be getting them from and atleast trying to formulate your own authentic takes on them. This sub-forum is indeed generally intended for the purpose of cultivating and practicing on giving a nuanced take on politics, not just mindlessly repeating phrases what news sources with entrenched intrerests have in an event in the world. The name of this thread: ''EU want's to help Belarusian people'' is such an disingenious, heavily biased or ignorant way to phrase and incorrect way to frame a move by the EU to put sanctions on Belarus because of repeated election fraud and irregularities and violence against pro-Western and EU protesters (that are 17-20% of the country) and some large state industrial worker unions that joined them in urbanized areas in the capitol for now, form what I have seen on the news. Such phrasing in my opinion is not proper political discussion about the topic it's just confirmation bias of a worldview and an intent to convince more people in uncritically adopting it and in going along of what you have to say - which is the point of any ideology, it's targeting and indoctrination of the audience, only today it's done in subtle way for people who think they live in the apex places of human and technological progress to buy them, when forming their opinions on the rest of the world's countries that don't encompass that sphere. The terming of oopsie for the EU's and other affiliated international monetary institutions policies for the post-soviet bloc of countries is incredibly biased and ignorant which produces and reveals a coldly callous, introspection free and irreverent attitude in wanting to know the people's of those countries historical and political experiences with EU, IMF, WB and European Bank privatization and market economic shock doctrine policies effect on the decline of general living standard and wages of massive swathes of the population in those countries and their contemporary job security and employment rates in comparision to their employment rates, job security and wages in state-owned industries and services that were bought and privatized over night by oligarchic bussiness cliques allowed to do that and run rampant with their, sometimes barely legal investing and profiteering with no state regulation or economic and labor legal constraint - in what was general academic consensus in terming a gangster capitalist's economies in the 90's and early 00's, which remnants are still overbearinlgy present in the reality of living in post-Soviet bloc countries. And also the recorded mass of more debt all those countries states are in now towards international monetary institutions and European and American Banks than before and the relative debt peonage positions that the populations of those countries are now subjected towards and are forced to compensate by importing cheap products produced by Western corporations and countries which undermines the possibility and ability of them once again having independent and competitive domestic industries and service sectors. The EU and it's affiliated international political and economic institutions are not at now presently at what's asociated with green consciouness stage based policy and political advocacy, they are orange oportunists and instrumentalists - whose foremost aim is to contain and undermine Russia geopolitically in the region and get those surviving massive and successful state industries remnants in Belarus that survived the collapse of the Soviet Union in private foreign and loyal investor hands and to ideally install a model of government and parties in it that would allow them do so as much as possible, for them to have a part of economic resource import sway over Belarus as Russia currently has. Using spiral dynamics in this deceptive ideological unilineral evolutionist way (these bloc of countries are closer to green, so therefore according to my personal subjective biased view (as citizen living in them and paying taxes to them) and research unsubstantiated assesment I wont criticize or be skeptical of it's officials, institutions, agencies and bussiness narrative to the public (who are somehow in this worldview representitive of the whole consciousness stage of the most conscious part or minute sector of the population of that country) intent to ''help'' by sanctioning or trying to meddle or nefariuosly influence the internal affairs of predominatly blue countries to achieve their business, market and ideologically oriented short-term and long-term goals that benefit their most wealthiest bussinesses and most succesful company conglomerates in their countires, is mind-boggingly biased (akin to nationalist discourse which is against conduct and posting guidelines in this sub-forum) and is almost akin to using the ''white man's burden'' and ''the civilizatory role of the British Empire'' arguments that 19th and 20th century colonial powers used to justify contemporary economic and political neocolonial imperialism of the bloc of countries that are the most economically powerful and dominant in the world that are just now more subtle in it in their narrative framing and PC in their rhetoric (democracy, human rights buzzwords) towards eastern countries and the developing third world whose labor their transnationals now again exploit. You may think we are not serious but you people sometimes truly look to some of us and sound like complacent sheep with the phrasing of your political beliefs and opinions that justify the always meddling and interventionist attitude and justify global injustices perpetuated in your countries favor. They sound and appear like in an online text format as if they were only exclusivelly swalowed and reguirated from western media corps and their partnered big companies narrative about a particular country not being fully aligned with Western countries interests, that they try to sell to the general public watching to justify at the worst case a foreign interevention by their countries militaries, meddling and propagandistic performance of their ambassdors, and/or politicians (check out, if you haven't, the example of what did the current Democratic Presidential Candidate Biden, then as the Vice-President of a another massive global influential country, do in the beginnings of the Ukraine crisis 2014 and which people and parties did he endorse as fighting for Ukrainine independence and democracy against Russian influence (hint- they were leaders and members of extreme right Russophobic Ukrainine fascists and neo-Nazis parties) at the best case their bought and ideologically loyal candidate to further their business and more broadly geostrategic interest in the region that now has another internal crisis that they had their eye on for a longer time.

Give this guys amazing, nicely edited and drawn work and mindbreaking analysis some à definite views (He's got less than 5000 views after 3 days, while analysing now this possibly extremely pivotal geopolitical moment and how it came to be!) and likes and maybe a subscribe (I would advise you regardless of ideological prédilections, because I think this just top-notch political analysis that he made, for anyone if you are interested in knowing the reasons how a crisis situation came to be in the country and how did the develop in that certain specific way). Here's the video, the beginning is historical analysis and (if you are not interested or don't have time for a detailed history class and analysis) the analysis of contemporary crisis situation starts at 19:37: Here is the transcript from the 19:37 mark of the video if you can't follow his fast pace at this point (which I couldn't), to hammer home some of his points: "The syncretism, contradictions and contrast between perspectives of Marxist Internationalism and Russian Imperialism contained within the political composition and aims of the former USSR at various periods in the 20th century: 1.) National sovereignty and self-determination v "Greater Russian Chauvinism". 2.) Historical and materialist basis fir national identity v Ethnic/racial essentialism 3.) Social Progressivism v Social Traditionalism 4.) Abolition of class v Preservation of old social hierarchies Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme, In Essential Writings of Karl Marx, St. Petersburg, 2010:,, The old realities did not die overnight nor did the new system appeared into the world entirely mature and categorically distinct from it's predecessor. On the contrary, the new system is stamped with birthmarks of the old order." World Bank Report 1991: "When Belarus became independent in 1991., it was the richest of the twelve republics of the Commonwealth of Idependent States (CIS), in terms of per capita income, a status reflecting the republics steady growth during the 1970's and early 1980's. It had developed an industrial sector that, in terms of the share of total GDP, made it one of most heavily industrialized countries in the world. The agricultural sector was modernized and came not only to depend on heavy equipment, much of which was manufactured in Belarus, but also imported fuel and fertilizers." Even during the democratisation era, Belarusians were reluctant to rally around the nationalist banner. Without the nationalist wing of the Communist Party, Belarussia was the republic that most associated it's identity with sovietness. In the 1991. popular referendum, 81.97 % of the population voted to preserve the Soviet Union. Compared to the 76.4 % average across the republics. The period of 1965. to 1980. has came to be known as the Mashrao period. At this time the BSSR was headed by a popular leader and veteran of WWII Pyotr Mashrao. Mashrao's time in office is rembered as one of economic prosperity and political stability, especially in relation to the other soviet republics. Experts disagree on the nature of Mashrao's relationship with Moscow in that period, but there is a consensus that those relations cooled by the end of Mashrao's administration. Marples and many others label Mashrao was an ardent communist who probably adhered more to leninist ideas far more than the party itself had by the second half of the 20th century. Regardless of his position towards Moscow, Mashrao remains a widely popular historical figure even today, associated both with his military contributions during WWII and his personal leadership during Belaruses era of stability. The final years of the Soviet Union brought two major events for Belarussia. One was the Chernobyl disaster, which disproportionately affected Belarus, both in the context of the USSR and Europe. The other was Gorbachev's reformist policies which brought some cultural and linguistic freedom for the Belarusian people. Both events sparked considerable debate and drew some attention to the Belarusian national identity. Bids were made by marginal nationalist groups to denounce the party altogether for it's many shortcomings. However groups like the Belarusian Popular Front, we're presented by authorities as having clear connections to nationalist entities, who collaborated to some degree or another with Nazi occupiers. Even the events at the end of the Soviet Union, were not enough to jolt awake a functioning nationalist movement that was analogous to the movements gaining traction in neighbouring republics. It could be argued that the dialectical process within the Soviet nationality policies in Belarus resolved itself definitevly in the camp of regression, the camp of Russian supremacy over the BSSR, and yet what has emerged from Belarussia's Soviet experience is a unique identity that withstood a major geopolitical orientation. 19:37 Mark in the video - Contemporary Belarussian crisis context: Though the Soviet Union is now gone, many people describe Belarus and the Belarusian people as quintessentially Soviet. After 1994., statistical data from country wide polls shows that only 42% of Belarusians identified with the republic itself, while 33% of the people considered the core of their personal identification as former Soviet Union and 17% considered themselves as citizens of European or the world community. The Bellarussian national identity seems far less developed, the question of Belarussian national identity brings us to the present day crisis. Following the August 2020. presidential elections the country erupted in unprecedented civil unrest. Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus's president, since the collapse of the USSR, secured another electoral victory, with the official incumbent reporting over 80% of the votes. There is no doubt that opposition in Belarus never stood a real chance in the electoral process. Indeed nothing about the outcome of the recent elections has been a surprise, but why then did the country became suddenly engulfed in the flames of civil resistance? The answer inevitablely brings us back to the question of Belarusian national identity. The identity that emerged from the Soviet era is demonstrating it's inherent instability and suggesting that, perhaps there was no resolutions in the contradictions that scarred Belarusian history. At the heart of the crisis is the unresolved question of where Belarus belongs and who the Belarusian people are? Though Belarus spent most of its post-Soviet years very closely tied to its large eastern neighbour who supplied country with critical natural resources. The question of how close Belarus should be to Russia is once again emerging. In the late 1990's Belarus signed the so-called the Union State Treaty with Russia. A document demonstrating intent for close political, economic and social integration. The basis of the Treaty rested on the assumption that both countries were entering an equal partnership. One in which Belarus and Russia, dictated the terms of the Union eye-to-eye. Unsurprisingly Moscow never saw it this way, the Kremlin continued to demand more political concessions from Minsk,in a fashion that revealed its imperialist aspirations. Belarus has been similarly hesitant, without also pushing forward it's own political objectives, but the power dynamic has always been dictated by Russia military preponderance and its umacthed subsidization of natural resources exports to Minsk. It is this dependence that has left an uneasy air in Belarus, expressed as well even by Lukashenko himself, in the past years. The solution to this dillema is far out of reach Belarus is standing at the crossroads, with many dangerous paths ahead: 1) The path of continuing warm relations with Russia is rife with dependency and capitulation to Moscow's demands. 2) The path towards Europe and the West leaves a similiar complication and leaves open a possibility of a serious civil conflict, as it is unlikely that Putin will allow Russia's last ally to turn towards NATO and the EU. Here we can encounter an outcome chillingly similiar to the ongoing war in Ukraine. The problem of course that in spite of being a stagnant and politically closed society, it is among the stable of the former Soviet republics, with low levels of inequality and high levels of economic development. The conflict on Russia's border would be the second most favorable situation for the West, the US and NATO have been working hard to destroy the vestiges of Russian political influence in Eastern Europe, enchroaching further and further on the part of the world, that Moscow has considered theirs for centuries. It geographic and geopolitical position makes Belarus an inviting target for both sides. On the other hand the decision will be largely insignificant, Belarus like its other Eastern European neighbours, is caught between the interests and influences of two massive nexuses of power. Much like Ukraine it can easily become victim of another imperialist proxy war. The double threat of foreign domination then opens the gate to a third threat, a less than adequate status quo that justifies it's existence by demonstrating the dangers of both the East and the West. Caught between all three nightmares the Belarusian people will liberate themselves by freeing themselves of both domestic and foreign capital's entrenched and concentrated power. As we continue to observe the unfolding situation in Belarus, we should keep in mind the key theoretical structures to assist our analysis. The Belarussian crisis is an overdetermined moment in which multiple contradictions have coalesced and escalated into an open antagonism. These contradictions are spatially and temporally diverse, between the historical question of Belarusian national identity and geopolitical maneuverings of Russia and the West. The overdetermined moment can only be understood, by understanding social strands that produced it. Moreover the moment demonstrates how a smaller contradiction constitues and is constituéd by larger contradictions. Only an analytical framework informed by materialist dialectic, can lay bear the realities that turned the unsurprising outcome of a predetermined election into a geopolitically pivotal moment."