On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:54:47 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:

> True. However, this won't affect the 2023 Hugo results.

It should; they should be considered invalid, due to political
interference by a dictatorial government. The decision to hold
the 2023 Worldcon in the PRC should be retroactively invalidated,
so that the _real_ 2023 Worldcon can be held in 2024 in the
United States, during which the _real_ 2023 Hugos can be
awarded.

Denying someone a shot at a Hugo because of the political
wishes of the evil Beijing regime is a thing that should not be
allowed to stand. Period. Ever.

John Savard

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:14:25 PM UTC-7, Moriarty wrote:
> On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:06:26 PM UTC+11, Chris Buckley wrote:
> > https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
> >
> > I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
> > intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
> > content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
> > is being reported correctly?

> When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
> RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
> realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
> a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP took offense.

The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in U.S. courts...
then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places like, say,
Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political censorship,
although of a different kind.

Anything that involves handing out awards to books or movies or other things
that may have political content... would strictly be confined to safe countries
thoroughly aligned with the United States.

Next step is to figure out how to achieve the same result with respect to the
Olympics, for the sake of the safety of all athletes.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.

Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
in that direction.

>Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
>allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.

This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
was for a while.

>Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
>not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.

Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
subject to that government.
--scott
>
>John Savard

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 10:41:09 PM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person
> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
> >without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
> >that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
> >sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
> >philosophical sense.

There's a reason it was called the Union of Soviet _Socialist_ Republics.

Acc to Marx, the proletarian revolution was supposed to happen in an
advanced, industrial state, that had progressed into a capitalist economic
system. Candidates for that were Germany, Britain and even the USA, once
it had rid itself of chattel slavery. The world revolution was to spread from
the advanced economies, which would progress further into socialist societies,
as the more primitive societies became capitalist, then socialist.

Russia hadn't shed itself of the hallmark of feudalism, serfdom, until 1861..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861

It's middle class (bourgeoise) was tiny compared to that of the various
industrializing states of Europe and the Americas. Lenin's hope was
that a revolution in Russia would spark the predicted uprising in Germany.
Instead, there was anti-communist reaction that prevented such revolts
from succeeding.

> Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
> conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
> then the same could be said of Stalin.
>

Stalin came up with "socialism in one country" to justify the USSR
existing without world revolution, which was supposed to happen,
any day now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country

> Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
> has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
> were Comunist.
>
> By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism should get another try
> since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
>
> Yeah sure.....

Hitler being the "Nazi pope," he could change his goals at any time.
My "favorite" of these diktats was designating the Japanese as
"honorary aryans."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan

Nazi race theory was batshit crazy, but that really pushed things.

--
Kevin R

On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 1:49:52 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.
> Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
> Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
> Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
> in that direction.
> >Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
> >allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.
> This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
> to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
> country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
> was for a while.
> >Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
> >not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.
> Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
> subject to that government.
>

Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
The Mandate of Heaven?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

[/PoliSci wonkery]

--
Kevin R

On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 1:15:46 PM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:

> Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

What with January 6th and all that, one could say the U.S. is having
a crisis of some sort, but is it really a crisis of _legitimacy_?

At first glance, Trump's lie about the "stolen election" could make it
appear that legitimacy is the issue. But one would have to be a sucker
to believe that lie.

Perhaps the real crisis is demographic change in the United States.
And instead of obviously discriminatory measures to ensure black
voters stand in long line-ups at the polls, at least one state is
considering a measure to truly fix the problem, Arizona, with a
measure introduced by John Fillmore. If the state legislature, not the
voters, picks the electors, then as long as the process of picking the
state legislature is suitably gerrymandered, black Americans can be
thoroughly disenfranchised.

*Then*, after the Republicans get their way, you will see a *serious*
crisis of legitimacy.

John Savard

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:29:33 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>(Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
>>short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
>>acceptable even in 2023)
>
>Not in Canada, perhaps.

What are you suggesting? That giving a friendly intro to a Waffen SS
veteran would be acceptable in 2024 by a Speaker of either the US
Senate or House of Representatives? That would certainly be a surprise
to me - I would expect a Speaker who actually did that would be
swiftly removed from office just as the Canadian speaker was.

On 10 Feb 2024 18:49:46 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
>to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
>country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
>was for a while.

Not sure precisely what you mean though assuredly any Muslim cleric
who offended the powers that be in RIyadh would quickly be removed
(and if he was lucky that would be all that happened to him)

>>Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
>>not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.
>
>Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
>subject to that government.

Very true.

On 10/02/2024 03:41, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person
> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
>> without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
>> that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
>> sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
>> philosophical sense.
>
> Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
> conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
> then the same could be said of Stalin.
>
> Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
> has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
> were Comunist.
>
> By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism should get another try
> since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
>
> Yeah sure.....

I do wonder whether Communism would have
run better if all the other countries of
the world hadn't been vigorously at war
against it from day zero. Huge effort
and a vast amount of money was invested
by us to nobble it. And still is.

On 10/02/2024 17:16, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:14:25 PM UTC-7, Moriarty wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:06:26 PM UTC+11, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
>>> intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
>>> content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
>>> is being reported correctly?
>
>> When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
>> RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
>> realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
>> a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP took offense.
>
> The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
> money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in U.S. courts...
> then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
> holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places like, say,
> Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political censorship,
> although of a different kind.

They would have to prove that a Hugo award
or nomination comes with "a pile of money".

It doesn't.
<https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/#Is%20there%20a%20monetary%20award?>
"No."

On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 4:41:38 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> I do wonder whether Communism would have
> run better if all the other countries of
> the world hadn't been vigorously at war
> against it from day zero. Huge effort
> and a vast amount of money was invested
> by us to nobble it. And still is.

Unlike Nazism, with its doctrine of racial supremacy, Communism
seems like it isn't obviously and/or inherently evil. One could think
of Karl Marx as being like Henry George, someone who proposed an
economic reform that would better the lot of the working class.

However, I think that Lenin, Kim Il Sung, and Fidel Castro all proved
that they were evil dictators seeking power first and foremost right
from day one, and this was not a consequence of those mean
capitalists picking on them.

None the less, the phenomenon of which you speak is very real.

Military action was taken against the nascent Soviet Russian state
in the 1920s.

After World War II was over, the U.S. stopped the advance of
Communism in Korea, and attempted to do so in Vietnam.

Contrast that with waiting until Pearl Harbor, instead of
confronting the Nazis in Spain and the Fascists in
Ethiopia. And Imperial Japan in China.

It is transparently obvious, at least to me, that this is a
consequence of a number of wealthy businessmen viewing
Communism as an _existential threat_ while other forms of
dictatorship were just business as usual.

And this is still a factor - it is what let Putin's regime in Russia
attack Georgia and then Ukraine "under the radar" until the
attack on Kyiv itself.

John Savard

In article <u21hsi538mt7a7m19995cpij7qll4vvfs8@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:29:33 -0800, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>(Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
>>>short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
>>>acceptable even in 2023)
>>
>>Not in Canada, perhaps.
>
>What are you suggesting? That giving a friendly intro to a Waffen SS
>veteran would be acceptable in 2024 by a Speaker of either the US
>Senate or House of Representatives? That would certainly be a surprise
>to me - I would expect a Speaker who actually did that would be
>swiftly removed from office just as the Canadian speaker was.

The GOP crazies might protest at an actual Nazi but only because they
think Hitler was too woke.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:26:45 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:29:33 -0800, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>(Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
>>>short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
>>>acceptable even in 2023)
>>
>>Not in Canada, perhaps.
>
>What are you suggesting? That giving a friendly intro to a Waffen SS
>veteran would be acceptable in 2024 by a Speaker of either the US
>Senate or House of Representatives? That would certainly be a surprise
>to me - I would expect a Speaker who actually did that would be
>swiftly removed from office just as the Canadian speaker was.

I'm suggesting that, in the present situation, /all bets are off/.
Anything might happen.

Exciting times indeed!

And the last Speaker was removed for ... what, trying to do his job?

Something that the current Speaker may well experience. It's going to
be a long hot summer for him.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:06:24 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 10:41:09?PM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person
>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
>> >without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
>> >that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
>> >sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
>> >philosophical sense.
>
>There's a reason it was called the Union of Soviet _Socialist_ Republics.
>
>Acc to Marx, the proletarian revolution was supposed to happen in an
>advanced, industrial state, that had progressed into a capitalist economic
>system. Candidates for that were Germany, Britain and even the USA, once
>it had rid itself of chattel slavery. The world revolution was to spread from
>the advanced economies, which would progress further into socialist societies,
>as the more primitive societies became capitalist, then socialist.
>
>Russia hadn't shed itself of the hallmark of feudalism, serfdom, until 1861.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861
>
>It's middle class (bourgeoise) was tiny compared to that of the various
>industrializing states of Europe and the Americas. Lenin's hope was
>that a revolution in Russia would spark the predicted uprising in Germany.
>Instead, there was anti-communist reaction that prevented such revolts
>from succeeding.
>
>> Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
>> conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
>> then the same could be said of Stalin.
>>
>
>Stalin came up with "socialism in one country" to justify the USSR
>existing without world revolution, which was supposed to happen,
>any day now.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country
>
>> Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
>> has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
>> were Comunist.
>>
>> By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism should get another try
>> since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
>>
>> Yeah sure.....
>
>Hitler being the "Nazi pope," he could change his goals at any time.
>My "favorite" of these diktats was designating the Japanese as
>"honorary aryans."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan
>
>Nazi race theory was batshit crazy, but that really pushed things.

IIRC, in /When the Sleeper Wakes/, an Oriental explains to Our
Protagonist that the White man had long-since decided that Yellow men
were White.

If that sounds excessively racist, you have to remember that Our
Protaganist died at the end preventing imported African troops from
quelling the riots because "you can's use Black men against White
men". IOW, from the explicit racism viewpoint, it just gets worse and
worse.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 13:04:03 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 1:15:46?PM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.
>
>What with January 6th and all that, one could say the U.S. is having
>a crisis of some sort, but is it really a crisis of _legitimacy_?
>
>At first glance, Trump's lie about the "stolen election" could make it
>appear that legitimacy is the issue. But one would have to be a sucker
>to believe that lie.
>
>Perhaps the real crisis is demographic change in the United States.
>And instead of obviously discriminatory measures to ensure black
>voters stand in long line-ups at the polls, at least one state is
>considering a measure to truly fix the problem, Arizona, with a
>measure introduced by John Fillmore. If the state legislature, not the
>voters, picks the electors, then as long as the process of picking the
>state legislature is suitably gerrymandered, black Americans can be
>thoroughly disenfranchised.

Have to be very subtle, as the Supreme Court's treatment of Alabama
shows.

The Supremes may have removed the "Jim Crow days voting discrimination
requires judicial supervision forever" part of the law, but /current/
attempts to discriminate are still illegal and the Courts can still
draw the maps and force them on the State.

The threat of which, IIRC, "encouraged" Alabama to finally redraw the
map as directed to avoid having one imposed on them from outside.

>*Then*, after the Republicans get their way, you will see a *serious*
>crisis of legitimacy.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:15:43 -0800 (PST), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 1:49:52?PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.
>> Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
>> Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
>> Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
>> in that direction.
>> >Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
>> >allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.
>> This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
>> to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
>> country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
>> was for a while.
>> >Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
>> >not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.
>> Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
>> subject to that government.
>>
>
>Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
>Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
>replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
>The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
>history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
>The Mandate of Heaven?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
>
>Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

It has been my impression that mainland China /does/ believe its
rulers have the Mandate of Heaven and so are the rightful rulers of
the entire world.

Never underestimate the power of megalomania.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:48:46 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/02/2024 17:16, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:14:25?PM UTC-7, Moriarty wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:06:26?PM UTC+11, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
>>>> intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
>>>> content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
>>>> is being reported correctly?
>>
>>> When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
>>> RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
>>> realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
>>> a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP took offense.
>>
>> The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
>> money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in U.S. courts...
>> then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
>> holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places like, say,
>> Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political censorship,
>> although of a different kind.
>
>They would have to prove that a Hugo award
>or nomination comes with "a pile of money".
>
>It doesn't.
><https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/#Is%20there%20a%20monetary%20award?>
>"No."

But does it help them /sell more books/? Money from lost book sales
would surely count as "damages".
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:16:23 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:14:25?PM UTC-7, Moriarty wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:06:26?PM UTC+11, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> > https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
>> >
>> > I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
>> > intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
>> > content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
>> > is being reported correctly?
>
>> When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
>> RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
>> realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
>> a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP took offense.
>
>The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
>money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in U.S. courts...
>then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
>holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places like, say,
>Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political censorship,
>although of a different kind.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to this, but, IIRC, the convention
sites are chosen by convention members (present or not), so the actual
rules governing convention site selection would have to be changed.
Which, inevitably, will take time.

>Anything that involves handing out awards to books or movies or other things
>that may have political content... would strictly be confined to safe countries
>thoroughly aligned with the United States.

I suspect that trans athletes are in as much danger in Florida as
China or Iran. Perhaps more so.

>Next step is to figure out how to achieve the same result with respect to the
>Olympics, for the sake of the safety of all athletes.
>
>John Savard
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 2/11/2024 8:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 00:26:45 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:29:33 -0800, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> (Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
>>>> short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
>>>> acceptable even in 2023)
>>>
>>> Not in Canada, perhaps.
>>
>> What are you suggesting? That giving a friendly intro to a Waffen SS
>> veteran would be acceptable in 2024 by a Speaker of either the US
>> Senate or House of Representatives? That would certainly be a surprise
>> to me - I would expect a Speaker who actually did that would be
>> swiftly removed from office just as the Canadian speaker was.
>
> I'm suggesting that, in the present situation, /all bets are off/.
> Anything might happen.
>
> Exciting times indeed!
>
> And the last Speaker was removed for ... what, trying to do his job?
>
For consorting with the enemy in trying to prevent shutting the
government down.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <p50isi9erk1431gv8ljv434768e9e1gune@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:48:46 +0000, Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/02/2024 17:16, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 3:14:25?PM UTC-7, Moriarty wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 1:06:26?PM UTC+11, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>
>https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
>>>>> intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
>>>>> content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
>>>>> is being reported correctly?
>>>
>>>> When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
>>>> RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
>>>> realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
>>>> a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP
>took offense.
>>>
>>> The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
>>> money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in
>U.S. courts...
>>> then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
>>> holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places
>like, say,
>>> Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political
>censorship,
>>> although of a different kind.
>>
>>They would have to prove that a Hugo award
>>or nomination comes with "a pile of money".
>>
>>It doesn't.
>><https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/#Is%20there%20a%20monetary%20award?>
>>"No."
>
>But does it help them /sell more books/? Money from lost book sales
>would surely count as "damages".

Back in the Puppy days, Kameron Hurley mentioned that her advances
got higher after she won a Hugo. However, I have heard POC authors
complain their advances are consistently lower than white authors
get for comparable work, so it may be that Kuang's acolades do not
bring extra money with them.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 2/11/2024 6:41 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 03:41, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
>>> without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
>>> that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
>>> sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
>>> philosophical sense.
>>
>> Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
>> conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
>> then the same could be said of Stalin.
>>
>> Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
>> has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
>> were Comunist.
>>
>> By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism  should get another try
>> since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
>>
>> Yeah sure.....
>
> I do wonder whether Communism would have
> run better if all the other countries of
> the world hadn't been vigorously at war
> against it from day zero.  Huge effort
> and a vast amount of money was invested
> by us to nobble it.  And still is.

The problem I've seen with Socialist regimes is that
even if they start out with the purist of intentions,
they are inevitably taken over by people more interested
in the retention and expansion of their own power, and
enriching themselves.

pt

On 2/10/2024 3:15 PM, Kevrob wrote:
> On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 1:49:52 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.
>> Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
>> Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
>> Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
>> in that direction.
>>> Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
>>> allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.
>> This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
>> to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
>> country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
>> was for a while.
>>> Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
>>> not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.
>> Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
>> subject to that government.
>>
>
> Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
> Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
> replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
> The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
> history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
> The Mandate of Heaven?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
>
> Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

I think I could rewrite that paragraph with 'Confucianism' replacing
Maoism, and it would be a pretty close description of Ming or Qing
dynasty China.

Sometimes, the labels change, but the system remains the same.

pt

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 1:26:01 PM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 2/10/2024 3:15 PM, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 1:49:52 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>

[snip]

> > Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
> > Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
> > replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
> > The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
> > history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
> > The Mandate of Heaven?
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
> >
> > Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.
> I think I could rewrite that paragraph with 'Confucianism' replacing
> Maoism, and it would be a pretty close description of Ming or Qing
> dynasty China.
>
> Sometimes, the labels change, but the system remains the same.
>
>

I'd say that was probably fair. Any regime- by which I mean a
constitutional arrangement, in the Aristotelian sense - has underlying
premises, often based on a religious or philosophical system. If one
doesn't care for those premises, they get called an ideology. If one
likes them they get referred to by other labels. They can be just as
much an ideology, though.

--
Kevin R

On 2/12/24 1:19 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 2/11/2024 6:41 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On 10/02/2024 03:41, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
>>>> without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
>>>> that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
>>>> sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
>>>> philosophical sense.
>>>
>>> Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
>>> conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
>>> then the same could be said of Stalin.
>>>
>>> Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
>>> has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
>>> were Comunist.
>>>
>>> By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism  should get another try
>>> since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
>>>
>>> Yeah sure.....
>>
>> I do wonder whether Communism would have
>> run better if all the other countries of
>> the world hadn't been vigorously at war
>> against it from day zero.  Huge effort
>> and a vast amount of money was invested
>> by us to nobble it.  And still is.
>
> The problem I've seen with Socialist regimes is that
> even if they start out with the purist of intentions,
> they are inevitably taken over by people more interested
> in the retention and expansion of their own power, and
> enriching themselves.
>

Sadly, that's kinda what most (all?) human systems/regimes *do* in the
long run, right? The people with the power inevitably rig things so that
they stay in power, and they benefit more than the ones who aren't in power.

Tony

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/11/2024 6:41 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> I do wonder whether Communism would have
>> run better if all the other countries of
>> the world hadn't been vigorously at war
>> against it from day zero.  Huge effort
>> and a vast amount of money was invested
>> by us to nobble it.  And still is.

When this became obvious, some communists decided that internationalism
wasn't a good idea and shut down the Third International and Trotsky was
out on the street. This did not make people in other countries feel any
more secure about it, though.

However, the first communist revolution was in Russia which was a country
with a long history of paranoia and insularity and that kind of colored
the movement from the beginning unfortunately.

>The problem I've seen with Socialist regimes is that
>even if they start out with the purist of intentions,
>they are inevitably taken over by people more interested
>in the retention and expansion of their own power, and
>enriching themselves.

Yes, but this pretty much is the case for any organization, and eventually
it has to be cleaned out. Ever been on a con committee before? Or seen
an HOA from the inside? It's not just socialism, it is humanity.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."