Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You didn't originally say that

The working-class population of Russia in 1917 was over 80% of the population!

On the contrary, you said

Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful.

Those are two entirely different claims.

I pointed out Russia at the time of WW1 was a monarchy & oligarchy with an aristocracy & mercantile class, and that the revolutionaries who overthrew the government in the early 20th century were literate & highly educated, middle class persons like Kerensky. Whereas you claimed that the whole country at the time were illiterate peasants.

You said earlier that

Mexicans & Russian are have only class in common, which is why their cultures are more similar to one another than they are to the US or Europe, respectively.

I asked what you meant by "have only class in common." I asked you to explain. Which you still haven't. And now you come back with this:

Mexico & Russia are on different continents, have different languages, different ethnicities etc. etc. they haven't got anything in common except the class of their populations, which explains the similarities in their cultures

To which I again say: huh and WTF?

And yes, peasant-class & working-class are synonymous in this case. There are only two classes, culturally: the working-classes & the middle/upper-classes. Russia didn't just assassinate the Tsar, it went out of its way to torture to death &/or work to death the bourgeoisie, further explaining why their culture is so working-class today.

No, in practical & theoretical terms, the peasant class is different to the working class. One was/is agrarian, the other industrial.

I don't understand the claims you are making about the "bourgeoisie" in the Soviet system.

Your bombastic writing style makes figuring out your points unduly difficult.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is no contradiction between:

The working-class population of Russia in 1917 was over 80% of the population

&

Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful

From a Marxist perspective there are only two classes: the proletariat & the bourgeoisie. They go by different names in different time periods. From the start of Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

I don't understand the claims you are making about the "bourgeoisie" in the Soviet system.

The intelligentsia of Russia were deported, forced to work in gulags & executed. In the Soviets' own words, they were "exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class". So their proletarian population only grew larger from the over 80% that it was before the revolution. This is Russia's class heritage & the effects can still be measured in modern Russian culture.

Mexico is a third world country (underdeveloped/developing country), so they too are largely working-class. That's why Mexico & Russia score similarly on the 6 dimensions scale of culture, but differently compared to the US & Western Europe, who occupy the opposite end of the spectrum in most cases.