Ukraine looking for former President for War Crimes

[BigBallinStalin]

The people is socially defined.

In the Ukraine, it probably includes everyone who isn't a Jew or Oligarch.

In Canada, it includes all taxpayers.

Then that concept is just as accurate as "socially" defined. It's definitely useful in the sense that you can always say, "the People support X," without having to unpack the necessary explanation of how the individuals within "the People" actually do support X.

The People agree with me! The People disagree with you! The People do as I imagine!

[Dukasaur]

I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

There's nothing wrong with that position, except that it's incomplete.

Intelligence agencies are forever plotting coups and uprisings. They mostly fail unless the conditions are right. There has to be a significant watershed of genuine support.

When you say A is a cause, that doesn't mean B is not. Just because smoking causes lung cancer doesn't mean that genetic predisposition does not. Almost everything results from a confluence of multiple causes. It's fine to assert cause A, but when you go out of your way to insult people who are talking about cause B and tell them that "because A exists, everyone who thinks B is a moron" you're taking it too far.

[BigBallinStalin]

Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.

But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?

1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.

But if one acknowledges that one's individual role in the election/protest is negligible, then it's obviously not rational to engage in the rent seeking (for its own sake) because whether or not you get what you want is independent of whether you participate. So obviously there's something more to the story than just voting to "get mine."

That doesn't follow. "Rational" for economics is in terms of "using the right means to attain one's expected goal," and the chances of getting a certain rent varies by individual. And, you're applying your argument only to the early stage of the revolution. The payoffs change over time, so people's perceived profit opportunities change, thus their behavior can change over time.

Sure, there's other ends: "the awesome feeling of promoting democracy--however imagined," "protesting to bang hot chicks," "better than being unemployed and homeless," etc.

[DoomYoshi]

The people is socially defined.

In the Ukraine, it probably includes everyone who isn't a Jew or Oligarch.

In Canada, it includes all taxpayers.

Then that concept is just as accurate as "socially" defined. It's definitely useful in the sense that you can always say, "the People support X," without having to unpack the necessary explanation of how the individuals within "the People" actually do support X.

The People agree with me! The People disagree with you! The People do as I imagine!

The polled population support x. You are the one who made this conversation about the "people". You introduced this concept only to show how dumb it was. It was a straw man to begin with. Now that we are done talking about a waste of time argument that you brought up, can we go back to your conspiracy theory?

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

There's nothing wrong with that position, except that it's incomplete.

Intelligence agencies are forever plotting coups and uprisings. They mostly fail unless the conditions are right. There has to be a significant watershed of genuine support.

When you say A is a cause, that doesn't mean B is not. Just because smoking causes lung cancer doesn't mean that genetic predisposition does not. Almost everything results from a confluence of multiple causes. It's fine to assert cause A, but when you go out of your way to insult people who are talking about cause B and tell them that "because A exists, everyone who thinks B is a moron" you're taking it too far.

Sure, there's tipping points, and there's the problem of endogeneity (so the linear causality between the two variables--e.g. the CIA and 'the people' can go both ways). I'm just saying not to dismiss Saxi's explanation as DY has done with his mischaracterization.

But finding the answer is very costly (in time and resources), and there's a great chance that one's Freedom of Information appeal will get rejected until... 20 years later--when nobody cares (or when they're busy talking about how great another democracy movement is in place X).

I don't see how talking about the possibilities of rent-seeking, the self-evident existence of useful idiots, and the collective action problems with revolutions is "taking it too far." Some have offered competing explanations which rely on "the people" style of reasoning. I just don't find that convincing, so I got tired of it and offered a very short summary of what I've been reading.

[Metsfanmax]

Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.

But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?

1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.

But if one acknowledges that one's individual role in the election/protest is negligible, then it's obviously not rational to engage in the rent seeking (for its own sake) because whether or not you get what you want is independent of whether you participate. So obviously there's something more to the story than just voting to "get mine."

That doesn't follow. "Rational" for economics is in terms of "using the right means to attain one's expected goal," and the chances of getting a certain rent varies by individual. And, you're applying your argument only to the early stage of the revolution. The payoffs change over time, so people's perceived profit opportunities change, thus their behavior can change over time.

I'm not advancing a particular perspective so much as objecting to your argument that it is idiotic to vote even if I know my means of action are ineffective and negligible.

Sure, there's other ends: "the awesome feeling of promoting democracy--however imagined,"

Yes, almost. People often feel ethically obligated to participate in their democracy even if they know their vote doesn't matter. And if you're participating in a protest/revolution, you might have a similar reasoning. If you don't account for the likelihood that people generally are acting in an ethical manner and aren't just trying to improve their own lives, then you don't have a full understanding of the situation.

[DoomYoshi]

I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

There's nothing wrong with that position, except that it's incomplete.

Intelligence agencies are forever plotting coups and uprisings. They mostly fail unless the conditions are right. There has to be a significant watershed of genuine support.

When you say A is a cause, that doesn't mean B is not. Just because smoking causes lung cancer doesn't mean that genetic predisposition does not. Almost everything results from a confluence of multiple causes. It's fine to assert cause A, but when you go out of your way to insult people who are talking about cause B and tell them that "because A exists, everyone who thinks B is a moron" you're taking it too far.

Sure, there's tipping points, and there's the problem of endogeneity (so the linear causality between the two variables--e.g. the CIA and 'the people' can go both ways). I'm just saying not to dismiss Saxi's explanation as DY has done with his mischaracterization.

But finding the answer is very costly (in time and resources), and there's a great chance that one's Freedom of Information appeal will get rejected until... 20 years later--when nobody cares (or when they're busy talking about how great another democracy movement is in place X).

I haven't dismissed it so much as calling it an oversimplification.

[BigBallinStalin]

The people is socially defined.

In the Ukraine, it probably includes everyone who isn't a Jew or Oligarch.

In Canada, it includes all taxpayers.

Then that concept is just as accurate as "socially" defined. It's definitely useful in the sense that you can always say, "the People support X," without having to unpack the necessary explanation of how the individuals within "the People" actually do support X.

The People agree with me! The People disagree with you! The People do as I imagine!

The polled population support x. You are the one who made this conversation about the "people". You introduced this concept only to show how dumb it was. It was a straw man to begin with. Now that we are done talking about a waste of time argument that you brought up, can we go back to your conspiracy theory?

So, you reject the socially defined "people" concept? If so, then what do you think about my previous post of the simplified three groups of people?

[BigBallinStalin]

Now, why would anyone join the revolution/uprising? There's many avenues of profit. One is rent-seeking, which is self-explanatory. Another is that they don't realize how little their individual efforts matter in (a) swaying the success of the revolution and (b) swaying the probability of getting a government, which they expect they'll get. Even if you're contributing to (a), you might not be contributing to (b) accidentally. For example, you're out in the streets hoping for change, and if you win, you get something which Ukrainian insiders and their US-NATO backers have developed. Thus, the term "useful idiots" is applicable here. Many well-intended people who voted for Obama come to mind; they have this unreal view of politics.

But by this logic, voting at all in a presidential election in the US makes one an idiot. Do you believe that?

1. That's not the only conclusion that can follow.
It can be rational to rent seek.
"Rationality irrationality" does exist (information/learning is costly).
etc.

But if one acknowledges that one's individual role in the election/protest is negligible, then it's obviously not rational to engage in the rent seeking (for its own sake) because whether or not you get what you want is independent of whether you participate. So obviously there's something more to the story than just voting to "get mine."

That doesn't follow. "Rational" for economics is in terms of "using the right means to attain one's expected goal," and the chances of getting a certain rent varies by individual. And, you're applying your argument only to the early stage of the revolution. The payoffs change over time, so people's perceived profit opportunities change, thus their behavior can change over time.

I'm not advancing a particular perspective so much as objecting to your argument that it is idiotic to vote even if I know my means of action are ineffective and negligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality

Sure, there's other ends: "the awesome feeling of promoting democracy--however imagined,"

Yes, almost. People often feel ethically obligated to participate in their democracy even if they know their vote doesn't matter. And if you're participating in a protest/revolution, you might have a similar reasoning. If you don't account for the likelihood that people generally are acting in an ethical manner and aren't just trying to improve their own lives, then you don't have a full understanding of the situation.

Are they behaving altruistically? If so, how can you tell? In other words, how can you separate the feeling of being altruistic from the complementary (and personal) feeling of doing good? No one can since that goal is tainted by its intertwined "getting mine" factor, so I don't find the "common good" explanation to be useful. It may explain some of it--e.g. how people behave in mutual aid societies, but after outlining the many direct avenues of profit (in sex, rents, and what not), we get a better picture which goes beyond the "common good" explanation. I generally disregard the "common good" explanation by comparing it within different contexts: it makes sense in mutual aid societies with its constraints and self-enforcement mechanisms. When it's scaled to revolutions, there's less effective constraints, thus more opportunism, and so on.

To give you some context, I'm mostly responding against the following position and its similar forms: "the Ukrainian people are stirred to promote democracy for the sake of promoting democracy."

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't fully agree with saxi's interpretation because the USG varies in its control over foreign affairs. But of course, their intelligence community is pretty effective, and the US has had a long history of intervening subtlety within other countries' affairs (see: Dulles Brothers), so I'm not as skeptical about Saxi's position as you are. Nor would I characterize it as the US pulling all strings in revolutions. The USG certainly has an interest in curbing Russia's power, and the series of "Flower/Color Revolutions" throughout Central Asia and Ukraine aren't coincidental. There's also an inconsistency in US foreign policy in admonishing countries x, y, and z during some internal strife while ignoring (or subsidizing) other country's with their internal strifes.

There's nothing wrong with that position, except that it's incomplete.

Intelligence agencies are forever plotting coups and uprisings. They mostly fail unless the conditions are right. There has to be a significant watershed of genuine support.

When you say A is a cause, that doesn't mean B is not. Just because smoking causes lung cancer doesn't mean that genetic predisposition does not. Almost everything results from a confluence of multiple causes. It's fine to assert cause A, but when you go out of your way to insult people who are talking about cause B and tell them that "because A exists, everyone who thinks B is a moron" you're taking it too far.

Sure, there's tipping points, and there's the problem of endogeneity (so the linear causality between the two variables--e.g. the CIA and 'the people' can go both ways). I'm just saying not to dismiss Saxi's explanation as DY has done with his mischaracterization.

But finding the answer is very costly (in time and resources), and there's a great chance that one's Freedom of Information appeal will get rejected until... 20 years later--when nobody cares (or when they're busy talking about how great another democracy movement is in place X).

I haven't dismissed it so much as calling it an oversimplification.

That's good. Your summary failed to convey what you intended.

[DoomYoshi]

The people is socially defined.

In the Ukraine, it probably includes everyone who isn't a Jew or Oligarch.

In Canada, it includes all taxpayers.

Then that concept is just as accurate as "socially" defined. It's definitely useful in the sense that you can always say, "the People support X," without having to unpack the necessary explanation of how the individuals within "the People" actually do support X.

The People agree with me! The People disagree with you! The People do as I imagine!

The polled population support x. You are the one who made this conversation about the "people". You introduced this concept only to show how dumb it was. It was a straw man to begin with. Now that we are done talking about a waste of time argument that you brought up, can we go back to your conspiracy theory?

So, you reject the socially defined "people" concept? If so, then what do you think about my previous post of the simplified three groups of people?

Humans like to categorize shit. Look at biologists with their categorizing species. Yet, there is not one definition of species that fits across all "species". Yet we can still use the term species, even with its variable definition. Likewise, whatever simplification you present about groups of people is likely to have a variable definition. So, without even looking, I can dismiss it as probably useful in some context, but an oversimplification.

Group 1:

It's just inside group v. inside group with the help of a few friends.

Here we have 3 groups. How can you tell who is in what inside group and where the friends are. Where does everyone else fit?

Group 2:

One group of "the people" supported the defeatists, but they won't get up to object because they'll get crapped on even more. Another group, which supported the victorious elite group--at different degrees throughout the revolution, will rah-rah and cheer their favored side. Another group, which I believe is the largest, are the ones that don't care enough.

Sure, but you could say this about almost anything. To homogenize a group into a simple Support: Check Yes or No box is dumb.
Do I support the Christian Reform party? Not at all. I haven't given them money or votes. Do I support them if asked in a poll? No, but I don't answer political polls. Do I support their position that abortion should be illegal? No. Do I support their preposition that the Bible should be core curriculum in school? Yes I do. Support is such a multivariate term.
I know for Canada, and it is probably the same for Ukraine: it doesn't matter who you support, they all abuse the system and the populace the same way. So why even bother making up groups like this?
No group a)has any significant impact on the lives of the populace or b)can be easily defined.

The main difference then is not one of supporting a political party or not, but supporting Russia or EU or US or isolationism or some combination. There will be winners, losers, disagreements, alliances, plots and cool youtube videos.

[DoomYoshi]

That's good. Your summary failed to convey what you intended.

Ok, so when I said:

You present a simplified narrative as if this entire protest was planned by a marketing firm.

that didn't jump as the leading line of my paragraph. That was the crux of my argument, and saxi's response was "Correct."

[Metsfanmax]

Are they behaving altruistically? If so, how can you tell? In other words, how can you separate the feeling of being altruistic from the complementary (and personal) feeling of doing good? No one can since that goal is tainted by its intertwined "getting mine" factor, so I don't find the "common good" explanation to be useful. It may explain some of it--e.g. how people behave in mutual aid societies, but after outlining the many direct avenues of profit (in sex, rents, and what not), we get a better picture which goes beyond the "common good" explanation. I generally disregard the "common good" explanation by comparing it within different contexts: it makes sense in mutual aid societies with its constraints and self-enforcement mechanisms. When it's scaled to revolutions, there's less effective constraints, thus more opportunism, and so on.

You are going wrong in your assumption that "acting altruistically" is synonymous with "taking actions that are best for the common good." I can concede for the purposes of this discussion that the only reason for acting altruistically is that it feels good to do things that matter on scales larger than your personal experiences. So they are behaving altruistically, they're just often doing it using irrational means. This is some of what the rational irrationality hypothesis argues -- they don't usually know what's actually best for the common good. (I certainly don't on most national policies.)

To give you some context, I'm mostly responding against the following position and its similar forms: "the Ukrainian people are stirred to promote democracy for the sake of promoting democracy."

So if we accept that hypothesis, then it's quite possible to believe that they are doing this. They may be promoting democracy simply because that's what it means to them to act altruistically, and people generally like to act altruistically even if it is not good for the people they want to help.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are they behaving altruistically? If so, how can you tell? In other words, how can you separate the feeling of being altruistic from the complementary (and personal) feeling of doing good? No one can since that goal is tainted by its intertwined "getting mine" factor, so I don't find the "common good" explanation to be useful. It may explain some of it--e.g. how people behave in mutual aid societies, but after outlining the many direct avenues of profit (in sex, rents, and what not), we get a better picture which goes beyond the "common good" explanation. I generally disregard the "common good" explanation by comparing it within different contexts: it makes sense in mutual aid societies with its constraints and self-enforcement mechanisms. When it's scaled to revolutions, there's less effective constraints, thus more opportunism, and so on.

You are going wrong in your assumption that "acting altruistically" is synonymous with "taking actions that are best for the common good." I can concede for the purposes of this discussion that the only reason for acting altruistically is that it feels good to do things that matter on scales larger than your personal experiences. So they are behaving altruistically, they're just often doing it using irrational means. This is some of what the rational irrationality hypothesis argues -- they don't usually know what's actually best for the common good. (I certainly don't on most national policies.)

I'm just using "common good" to refer to attempts to attain a good perceived as beneficial to more than the individual attempter. The attempters don't actually have to achieve the common benefits. See below for a better explanation:

To give you some context, I'm mostly responding against the following position and its similar forms: "the Ukrainian people are stirred to promote democracy for the sake of promoting democracy."

So if we accept that hypothesis, then it's quite possible to believe that they are doing this. They may be promoting democracy simply because that's what it means to them to act altruistically, and people generally like to act altruistically even if it is not good for the people they want to help.

Sure, some might be pursuing the goal of promoting the common good, but the public choice approach is similar in its application toward bureaucratic chiefs and politicians. For example, they may be attempting to promote the common good--however they see fit, but that coincides neatly with expanding their budget, increasing their personal prestige, maximizing votes, increasing personal profit (monetary and non-monetary).

After outlining the many direct avenues of profit (in sex, rents, votes, budgets, prestige, and what not), we get a better picture which goes beyond the "common good/promoting democracy for the sake of democracy" explanation. I generally disregard the "common good" explanation by comparing it within different contexts: it makes sense in mutual aid societies with its constraints and self-enforcement mechanisms. When it's scaled to revolutions, there's less effective constraints, thus more opportunism, and so on.

The underlined is the part deserving more focus. There are ethical motivations, but they neatly coincide with individually profitable goals.

[BigBallinStalin]

Group 1:

It's just inside group v. inside group with the help of a few friends.

Here we have 3 groups. How can you tell who is in what inside group and where the friends are. Where does everyone else fit?

The domestic political players are conflicting against the political incumbents. Each is most likely getting foreign support in various forms. That's the game at that level.

This game then bleeds into the 'lower game', within which the political actors play with their supporters (as you've talked about).

Group 2:

One group of "the people" supported the defeatists, but they won't get up to object because they'll get crapped on even more. Another group, which supported the victorious elite group--at different degrees throughout the revolution, will rah-rah and cheer their favored side. Another group, which I believe is the largest, are the ones that don't care enough.

Sure, but you could say this about almost anything. To homogenize a group into a simple Support: Check Yes or No box is dumb.
Do I support the Christian Reform party? Not at all. I haven't given them money or votes. Do I support them if asked in a poll? No, but I don't answer political polls. Do I support their position that abortion should be illegal? No. Do I support their preposition that the Bible should be core curriculum in school? Yes I do. Support is such a multivariate term.
I know for Canada, and it is probably the same for Ukraine: it doesn't matter who you support, they all abuse the system and the populace the same way. So why even bother making up groups like this?
No group a)has any significant impact on the lives of the populace or b)can be easily defined.

The main difference then is not one of supporting a political party or not, but supporting Russia or EU or US or isolationism or some combination. There will be winners, losers, disagreements, alliances, plots and cool youtube videos.

My categorization is more useful because it adds a group which you're omitting from your post:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=202502&start=60#p4428133

I don't quite understand your "supporting X is dumb position," because in your post (linked above), you do exactly that.

[Metsfanmax]

After outlining the many direct avenues of profit (in sex, rents, votes, budgets, prestige, and what not), we get a better picture which goes beyond the "common good/promoting democracy for the sake of democracy" explanation. I generally disregard the "common good" explanation by comparing it within different contexts: it makes sense in mutual aid societies with its constraints and self-enforcement mechanisms. When it's scaled to revolutions, there's less effective constraints, thus more opportunism, and so on.

The underlined is the part deserving more focus. There are ethical motivations, but they neatly coincide with individually profitable goals.

That may be true for those organizing the protest, but not necessarily the rank-and-file members, who may not actually be better off with person X in power instead of person Y. And even if they would be better off, as we've discussed, that would basically happen independent of whether a particular individual participates in the protest. Yet they still participate, and it is their participation that ultimately makes the protest effective.

[DoomYoshi]

This game then bleeds into the 'lower game', within which the political actors play with their supporters (as you've talked about).

This is a convenient way to look at it, and is the entire problem. You refuse to consider that protests can bleed up.

My categorization is more useful because it adds a group which you're omitting from your post:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=202502&start=60#p4428133

I don't quite understand your "supporting X is dumb position," because in your post (linked above), you do exactly that.

What effect does this extra group have? What difference does it make to the protestors and/or politicians? Remember that I'm not the one who said the rest are "the people" supporting a party. You brought up that argument out of the blue. I know they have an effect, but I mean specifically what difference does it make to us trying to distinguish between two versions of events. Since you are bent on going off-track, I will rephrase the two events we are trying to distinguish between. a)the protest was planned by Americans; all protests are planned by maleficent forces b)the protest was planned by Ukrainians; all protests feature maleficent forces acting opportunistically on this.

Which supporting x is dumb position are you referring to?

[DoomYoshi]

BBS, Let me try to reword this.

You are claiming that a revolution is party x supplants party y OR party x fails to supplant party y.

I am saying that a revolution is a bunch of people going out to play captain hero-pants. The politics doesn't matter one shit - we agree on this point. That doesn't make protestors dumb people because only your ivory tower viewpoint makes party x and y matter. You are looking at the big picture, from the States. They are looking at the Square with its barricades.

[Dukasaur]

To give you some context, I'm mostly responding against the following position and its similar forms: "the Ukrainian people are stirred to promote democracy for the sake of promoting democracy."

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there, horsie!

That certainly has never been my position. I'm sure the average Ukrainian doesn't give two shits about "democracy" as an abstract ideal. It's just a means to an end, and the end is ending exploitation by Russian overlords.

For a thousand years Russian masters have treated the Ukraine as a farm where cheap slaves are bred, to be conscripted into wars when required and sent home without a pension when not. Or a farm where cheap whores can be bred, to be handed out as party favours to ugly apparatchiks. Or a farm where cheap wheat is grown to feed hungry Russians. Or a farm where Russian iron ore is turned into high-quality steel at bargain-basement prices, by hungry Ukrainian slavesworkers who are happy to make a quarter of what the workers make in the same steel mill on the Russian side of the border.

Grand Dukes, Tsars, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, perestroikists or whatever the new regime calls itself, it's all the same shit. Russia is the bully of the local schoolyard, and she'll punch you in the nose if you don't turn over your lunch money. That hasn't changed in over a thousand years.

After the disbandment of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine theoretically became independent, but the Russian overlords could bide their time. It's much like the Old South after the American civil war. The landowners knew it was only a matter of time before the slaves would have to come back and become slaves again, only that they would no longer be slaves under the law but still bound to their old masters through more clever stratagems like share-cropping and mortgages and stuff. The Russian overlords still knew that the biggest market for Ukrainian goods would be Russia, and that just a few key mercantilist interventions would be sufficient to send the Ukrainian economy into a tailspin whenever it suited them.

The only question would be which interventions would actually benefit the Russian overlords. (And despite bullshit propaganda about a free market, nobody has any pull in the Russian economy unless they're either a former KGB agent or sucking a former KGB agent's dick.)

So the Ukrainians got an offer from Europe, and the Russians thought (correctly) that it might reduce their stranglehold on their little captive market. Unfortunately, in the short term Russia has more to offer, although wiser Ukrainians know that any Russian benevolence is very short-lived, whereas Europe actually honours its treaties.

So that is the basic conflict. Stupid Ukrainians with no sense of history are attracted by what Russia can give them now, blind to the fact that the goodies will be taken away once the current crisis is over. Wiser Ukrainians who can read know that Europe is the long term salvation, although it's not as attractive in the short term. And yeah, the 1% are the tip of the iceberg. The 60% who smile and wave when the 1% walk by are the real story.

And yeah, talk about what is democratic or undemocratic is a smoke screen regardless of which side does it. They both know that democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[saxitoxin]

They mostly fail unless the conditions are right. There has to be a significant watershed of genuine support.

True. However, it's mostly established that people are acting out a rational egoism when they vote or revolt; they think doing something will personally improve their own life. A small elite is almost always able to create the conditions to offer that improvement. The "revolt" against Morsi in Egypt was a revolt against perceived incompetence - specifically the perception that there was increasing lawlessness. But, according to the NYT - after he was elected - the police immediately stopped patrolling and responding to aid calls. This predictably caused crime in Egypt to skyrocket. After he was overthrown they went back about their business. A small elite - maybe 10 or 20 police commanders - was able to create the conditions by which hundreds of thousands of people started to revolt.

In any country there are a few hundred to a few thousand people who occupy "command centers;" resource monopolies that are able to directly influence some segment of living. Back in the 50s the sociologist C. Wright Mills said that, in the U.S. anyway, command centers include the CEO's of a handful of the largest corporations, senior staff in the Executive Office of the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and UCCs, (since the destruction of the southern aristocracy) the heads of polite families, and a few others. If this is an enduring sociological phenomenon, as posited, presumably there are similar command centers in Ukraine (we know that the Ukrainian "revolution" is supported by some of the richest corporate chiefs in that country).

[BigBallinStalin]

After outlining the many direct avenues of profit (in sex, rents, votes, budgets, prestige, and what not), we get a better picture which goes beyond the "common good/promoting democracy for the sake of democracy" explanation. I generally disregard the "common good" explanation by comparing it within different contexts: it makes sense in mutual aid societies with its constraints and self-enforcement mechanisms. When it's scaled to revolutions, there's less effective constraints, thus more opportunism, and so on.

The underlined is the part deserving more focus. There are ethical motivations, but they neatly coincide with individually profitable goals.

That may be true for those organizing the protest, but not necessarily the rank-and-file members, who may not actually be better off with person X in power instead of person Y. And even if they would be better off, as we've discussed, that would basically happen independent of whether a particular individual participates in the protest. Yet they still participate, and it is their participation that ultimately makes the protest effective.

I wasn't clear enough. Coincidental goals can apply to individuals of lesser influence--e.g. having greater chances of getting laid while 'fighting the good fight'. And, we got to keep in mind the different chances of success for different goals. So, even if one sits out the fight, they might have lesser chances of getting laid. If they choose to fight and even if the revolution fails, they'd still have higher chances of getting laid (before the revolution fails).


More importantly, I want to address vulnerability and coincidental goals. So, with mutual aid societies, they know each other better, they have a definite common goal, and they can and will make sure people aren't abusing the system. The potential of opportunism is constrained within their self-governing club that provides public goods. They have good incentives and information feedback which reinforce their institution (rules of the game) over their little organization. They can effectively address shirkers/opportunists.

With a revolution, the common goal is not so common since people would desire different political outcomes. We're dealing with more than one organization over a larger and more heterogeneous population of multiple of subgroups. The incentives align toward more conflicting goals, and information feedback becomes more asymmetric and disparate. The vulnerability to opportunism increases.

So... we can see the difference in people's constraints toward attaining a common or "common" good. The coinciding goals of "ethical goals" and "all other goals" becomes less coincidental overall as we scale up the analysis. In my view, it's best to cut through the clutter by focusing more on the self-interested/all other goals. We'd have to hold "ethical motives" constant since at this larger level of analysis they become more conflicting, different, and less useful for analysis. (Afterward, if ya really want, you can write that 30 page paper on the ethical/moral aspect and how that impacts institutions and what not, but I'd want the economic/public choice/institutional analysis first--to see how much that can be explain).

[BigBallinStalin]

This game then bleeds into the 'lower game', within which the political actors play with their supporters (as you've talked about).

This is a convenient way to look at it, and is the entire problem. You refuse to consider that protests can bleed up.

Sure, there's interaction. I just think the causal link is dominated more by the elite/political groups at the higher level. The more organized and informed one's group is, the greater they can wield influence. Think of special interest politics v. unorganized/lesser organized voting blocs. At the higher level, you've got the special interests, the politicians, chief bureaucrats, and their in-the-know groups. At the lower level, you've got nearly all of those participating and not participating in the protests--being organized and/or framed by those on top, or not at all (since most do not care enough). Sure, the lower level sends influence/information to the upper level, but the upper level has a greater capacity to organize and guide.

It's the basic "concentrated benefits, dispersed costs" argument which is my strong prior for this scenario. When it comes to political institutions, my first bet won't rely on an "equally bicausal" explanations or a "predominantly bottom-up" explanation.

Now, this event might be largely 'bottom-up', and I don't immediately reject that explanation it since it's possible (see: Elinor Ostrom's Governing the Commons), but in this geo-political scenario with the high stakes and perverse incentives at play, I'd surmise it is being dominated by the 'higher level'.

I'm dividing between 'higher' and 'lower' levels just for the sake of simplicity, so I don't have to type out a few more paragraphs.

My categorization is more useful because it adds a group which you're omitting from your post:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=202502&start=60#p4428133

I don't quite understand your "supporting X is dumb position," because in your post (linked above), you do exactly that.

What effect does this extra group have? What difference does it make to the protestors and/or politicians?

Remember that I'm not the one who said the rest are "the people" supporting a party. You brought up that argument out of the blue. I know they have an effect, but I mean specifically what difference does it make to us trying to distinguish between two versions of events. Since you are bent on going off-track, I will rephrase the two events we are trying to distinguish between. a)the protest was planned by Americans; all protests are planned by maleficent forces b)the protest was planned by Ukrainians; all protests feature maleficent forces acting opportunistically on this.

The group which hardly cares matters because it serves as a standard of comparison for weighing the relative seriousness, importance, and imagined "collective" efforts of "Ukrainians" in driving the political change. When the Westboro Baptist people are being dicks, I wouldn't say, "the protest was planned by Americans." You slip into that erroneous thinking by ignoring the larger relatively uncaring group--with your (a) and (b) explanations: 'the Ukrainians do this, the Americans do that'. It's not accurate, and it's vague (for me). That's why I'll keep bringing it up. It reminds me of Juan_Bottom and how he mischaracterized the entire Free Syrian Army/"the good guys" as one homogeneous blob.

Regarding the (a) and (b), I generally find people to be well-intended--even though the intentions which some perceive as good may be perceived as bad to others. My position doesn't rest on assuming bad intentions on all actors. I'll grant that the dual-power thesis doesn't apply to all revolutions/protests, but the logic of collective action and the public goods problem do apply to all. My first three paragraphs pretty much sum up my position on this event.

RE: the relatively uncaring, consider them as untapped markets which can change the outcomes of the event. They're a persistent problem or opportunity for others, and they themselves face constantly changing relative benefits and costs throughout the protest. "Should I get off my couch now.. or later? Should I donate money/resources now... or later?" They should be in our analysis.

Which supporting x is dumb position are you referring to?

DY: "To homogenize a group into a simple Support: Check Yes or No box is dumb."
DY: "Both parties (people[meaning revolters and those that support them]; versus ruling class and exploiters) can feed into each other."

Just trying to make sense of the two positions. They seem contradictory, but I'll assume you don't mean that. Maybe it's irrelevant. I wasn't sure where you were going with that one.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, Let me try to reword this.

You are claiming that a revolution is party x supplants party y OR party x fails to supplant party y.

I am saying that a revolution is a bunch of people going out to play captain hero-pants. The politics doesn't matter one shit - we agree on this point. That doesn't make protestors dumb people because only your ivory tower viewpoint makes party x and y matter. You are looking at the big picture, from the States. They are looking at the Square with its barricades.

To be brief, they're either rent-seekers, looking to get laid, and/or useful idiots. Playing hero can be a complementary goal with the previous three goals, so I don't really buy it. There's likely to 'pure heroes' out there (increasing prestige, perhaps), but they're the 'first-movers'. That's the relatively smallest group--if political change is similar to technological change at the 'lower level'. I never said that they're all dumb because they're protesting.

To get a better understanding of my view on the possibility of heroes, I had this conversation with Mets:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=202502&start=75#p4428212
(Heroes can fit in the category of the "common good" attempters).

[Phatscotty]

WOW!

[BigBallinStalin]

WOW!

Sorry, PS. We're having an intelligent conversation here. You might want to move this to the suggested OT subforum or supply a few more insightful words with your "WOW."