Thread: Soviet Social-Imperialism: An Introduction

For the record, if you can't summarize your point clearly in succinct way, you don't know your material well enough to have a well-formed opinion on it anyways. The fact that you believe you can't break that down into something readable tells me one of two things; A) You don't know what you're talking about or admittedly more likely, B) You love to listen to yourself talk.

Originally Posted by Shinysides

For the record, if you can't summarize your point clearly in succinct way, you don't know your material well enough to have a well-formed opinion on it anyways. The fact that you believe you can't break that down into something readable tells me one of two things; A) You don't know what you're talking about or admittedly more likely, B) You love to listen to yourself talk.

I guess those that write 160-page books (compared to this, which if put into OpenOffice is less than 20 pages) love to listen to themselves talk too, dippy.

Originally Posted by Barack Dalai Lama

I guess those that write 160-page books (compared to this, which if put into OpenOffice is less than 20 pages) love to listen to themselves talk too, dippy.

No, they are published authors with great knowledge on a specific subject who are dispersing that greater knowledge to others in the form of written word. You are just trying to toot your own horn and show everyone on CD exactly how much you know about Soviet Social-Imerialism, which I actually don't doubt that you do. In fact I'm sure you have at least some grasp on the concept, undoubtedly more so than I. However, your essay is not written to educate, or spark discussion, it is to show exactly how much you know on the subject. And that is why you cant summarize it for anyone, you aren't willing to break it down into something simple. You want everyone to read the whole damn thing and then praise you for writing it.

Well, I can tell you now, no one on here cares enough to read it, and even if they did, no ones gonna be impressed. Congrats on reading one book on the subject as it's clear that's all you did.

No, they are published authors with great knowledge on a specific subject who are dispersing that greater knowledge to others in the form of written word.

Considering that this is titled "an introduction" and most introduction books (such as Mali: A Search for Direction that I've read recently via Questia) are over 100 pages (the Malian book is 170) yet my relatively simple work is less than 20 and could have been far bigger complete with graphs, timelines and citations, I'd say that my goal (to educate) was met.

You are just trying to toot your own horn and show everyone on CD exactly how much you know about Soviet Social-Imerialism, which I actually don't doubt that you do. In fact I'm sure you have at least some grasp on the concept, undoubtedly more so than I.

Actually the reason I made this thread was over a discussion with coqauvin in Flames over making an AI thread. I decided that one on Stalin would be a bit too obvious from me, so I made this one instead.

However, your essay is not written to educate, or spark discussion, it is to show exactly how much you know on the subject.

Which is bullshit considering I spread it around on AIM with likeminded individuals who found it useful in debates with others, etc.

And that is why you cant summarize it for anyone, you aren't willing to break it down into something simple. You want everyone to read the whole damn thing and then praise you for writing it.

Okay, please tell me how I could, say, simplify Part X (Cuba). This is honestly the best I could do:

The Soviets wanted sugar production to be the focus of Cuba (as per Khrushchev's specialization policy within the Warsaw Pact), and Castro agreed.

Throughout the 1970's and 80's the Cubans continued to move ever closer to the Soviets. They participated in pro-Soviet interventions abroad and iin 1976 "[a] new constitution largely modeled on that of the Soviet Union was approved in a referendum in 1976." Cuban dependence on the Soviet Union was so great that in a 1992 interview Castro stated that "Our basic problems are the economic blockade and the disappearance of the socialist camp. Some 85 percent of our trade was with those countries.. The value of our sugar in fact, balanced the cost of the petroleum we got from the USSR... That trade has almost disappeared with the disappearance of the socialist countries. We had to turn to new markets. We have lost imports, credit, and technology, and sought fuel, raw materials, and drugs elsewhere."

Is it shorter? Yes, but I omitted quite a bit.

AI is about debate, not educating the other posters.

I expected some reactions, specifically the part about Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Barack Dalai Lama

Considering that this is titled "an introduction" and most introduction books (such as Mali: A Search for Direction that I've read recently via Questia) are over 100 pages (the Malian book is 170) yet my relatively simple work is less than 20 and could have been far bigger complete with graphs, timelines and citations, I'd say that my goal (to educate) was met.

Actually the reason I made this thread was over a discussion with coqauvin in Flames over making an AI thread. I decided that one on Stalin would be a bit too obvious from me, so I made this one instead.

Which is bullshit considering I spread it around on AIM with likeminded individuals who found it useful in debates with others, etc.

Okay, please tell me how I could, say, simplify Part X (Cuba). This is honestly the best I could do:
Is it shorter? Yes, but I omitted quite a bit.

I expected some reactions, specifically the part about Afghanistan.

Okay, I understand a little bit more where you are coming from now, but I still disagree on some points.

As far as this being an introduction, in my mind that makes it worse. Not to be rude, but you sren't writing a book (unless you are), and even if you were, unless you've done far more study on the subject than it appears, you are in no way qualified to write a book on the subject.

Keep in mind that most of us reading your post do not have the same interest in this that you do, and we don't need all of this information. Better to give us too little information and leave us wanting more and discussing than give too much and discourage posters from even reading your article.

As far as reactions, I know that I for one have neither the time, nor the motivation to sit down and read this. I wouldn't have minded debating it had I been given a much smaller portion of text, but the amount posted put me off before I even knew what the subject was. If I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book. AI is about discussion, and your excessively long post discourages people from even reading, much less responding.