19 ms·

Niemeyer is a national treasure, but I find his role in helping create a capital in the middle of nowhere in Brazil extremely reprehensible. Brasília was create

• mc32 4y ago
  My understanding is they wanted the interior to get developed and take power/influence away from the coast/near coast & kneecap RdJ/SP rivalry ). Also wanted to "cut from their colonial past". Protests (and protestors) are not a problem for dictators (North Korea, Russia, Iran). I don't understand the siren call of Communism on early XX - midcentury intellectuals. It's like they didn't go to personally understand the atrocities happening in these so-called worker and peasant paradises -what meatgrinders they were. How did ideology so overcome their ability to see what was happening in those places?
  • cuteboy19 4y ago
    • woodruffw 4y ago
      As a general rule, "the people I don't like are just sadists" is usually neither true nor a productive attitude.
      • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        As a general rule the people I don't like are highly specialized computer technology professionals who have the hubris to think their level of in-field expertise carries over into issues regarding how to architect society.
    • socialismisok 4y ago
      What are your thoughts on the commodity -> money -> commodity mode of exchange compared to the money -> commodity > money mode of exchange? Alternative question, when the English moved to a system of tenant farmers while the French did not, was it necessarily the case that capitalism would need to arise in England and spread across the world? There's plenty of very interesting economic and social topics that are covered by the likes of Marx, Gramsci, and Melksins Wood. I'd suggest not engaging with the discussion and calling it "perverse" is seeking a position of willful anti intellectualism. You might not agree with all the points, sure, but they are raised in good faith and backed by many many intellectual discussions over decades and decades.
    • VictorPath 4y ago
      > Chomsky passionately defending the Khmer Rouge The US began arming the Khmer Rouge in 1979 into the 1980s because the US wanted the Khmer Rouge to take over Cambodia again (well they didn't take over in 1975, the prince who the CIA ousted took over again technically).
      • cuteboy19 4y ago
        You realise that's even worse for Chomsky right? He is an apologist for a genocidal communist regime that also happens to be propped up by the imperialist pig dogs. That's so much worse
    • mc32 4y ago
      The Vietnamese, who were no angels, when it came to in-country human rights, were so appalled by what the Red Khmer were doing, they decided enough was enough and invaded their ideological kin-spirit to rid it of that vile and disgusting regime.
      • refurb 4y ago
        It's more complex. The Communist Vietnamese originally backed the Khmer Rouge. Then they had a split and the Khmer Rouge attacked Vietnam border towns and committed some pretty horribly atrocities. The Vietnam brought down the Khmer Rouge, but it all started as an attempt to protect their own population.
  • idiocratic 4y ago
    While in some places Communism has definitely been responsible for atrocities, in many countries (especially Western Europe, Asia and South America) Communist parties have been on the frontline of liberation movements, indigenous rights, human rights, workers’ conditions, etc. That’s why for many Communism != atrocities.
    • socialismisok 4y ago
      100% this. Socialist and communist critiques of our current and historical modes of production identify some systemic issues. It's worth engaging with those critiques more deeply than "communism bad!"
      • mc32 4y ago
        Oh, no doubt they had lots of bright "promise" exemplified by the fists of virile men and fecund women reaching the mountain top having vanquished capitalist evil, triumphantly raising the hammer and sickle and little Ivan joins in the parade... But it was all illusion and never delivered. They always ended in oppression, regression and failed experiments (social, economic, environmental, etc.)
        • socialismisok 4y ago
          I think there's a healthy discussion to be had about, for instance Cuba. Yes, poverty is still high but sanctions are still oppressive. They have higher literacy rates than Canada or the US, they have solid medical care, and they've started from a much, much worse position. Similar story with Vietnam. There's a discussion to be had about where they started, where they are now, and what happened in the interim. To be clear, I'm not saying these countries have done no wrong. They aren't shining beacons, but it is worth examining them in a thoughtful way. It's not like the US (where I live) is a shining beacon either. Also, I'd argue there are degrees and varieties of both socialism and communism. Is Mondragon socialist? Is Sweden? Is France? What about small council communism and Anarcho communism?
          • 4y ago
  • fallingfrog 4y ago
    Most of the members of the French Resistance during the Second World War were communists, so the communist party had a certain cache as being freedom fighters in postwar France. Not only that but communists were at the forefront of the early union movements in most countries, as well as the fights for racial justice, womens rights and so on. So communism had a very different reputation.
    • mc32 4y ago
      You make some valid observations about them using social wedges to drive participation. It was a means to an end --it happened in Africa, South America, Asia, etc. but yet, once communist those promises never came to fruition. In principle many of the constitutions of communist countries afford(ed) citizens more freedoms to the people than say the US constitution, but in practice that was blatantly not the case with a bit of happy time in some parts of eastern Europe for a few years before the Soviets went in to quash the threat and establish harder regimes.
      • fallingfrog 4y ago
        I would counter that by saying that despots have existed all through human history, and have always cloaked themselves in claims of their power coming from god, or them being actual gods, or something like that, so if the batch of despots that cropped up after ww2 used communism as their justification it’s hardly surprising- that was the set ideas floating around at the time that could be used to make them appear virtuous. And of course, by doing so they could get Soviet funding. Of course, in places like Cambodia, atrocities did take place that were really inspired by some demented but sincere interpretations of communism. I would say, 20th century communism’s great failure is that it attempts to abolish politics itself by trying to create a utopia where nobody ever disagrees with one another. This is impossible, and totalitarian by definition.
        • mc32 4y ago
          That explains the regimes coming to power via deceptive means and methods -all par for the course... but it doesn't explain the infatuation by intellectuals from the early to late mid XX century. It's like someone seeing Mussolini and being captivated by the act and not digging further.
  • rdtsc 4y ago
    > I don't understand the siren call of Communism on early XX - midcentury intellectuals I think it boils down to “enemy of my enemy”. Their main enemy was the establishment, which means capitalism, corporatism and so on. Communism was its declared enemy number one, so to be edgy and radical they picked that. If the West was trampling over some poor country, whatever that country’s political or cultural preferences, they automatically become appealing to anti-establishment intellectuals in the West as a way to show sympathy.
  • Gibbon1 4y ago
    I think to do that you have to actually look at how corrupt and awful eastern European and colonial powers were. Combine that with a belief that this time it's different Re the strong history of the new boss being far worse than the previous one. And human nature to believe that your tribe is beyond reproach or at least justified (rolls eyes).
  • kubb 4y ago
    I guess they engaged with a critique of capitalism that wasn't (and isn't) available to someone with a more basic education, and communism was seen as an alternative. A communist back then would point to the capitalist countries committing horrible atrocities of colonialism and slavery. Another factor would be a rhetoric of liberation. Either you fight against the bourgeoisie, or they will keep sucking your blood as long as you live. That's why conflicts were seen as inevitable. I doubt anyone condoned violent mass murder. Khmer Rouge and the Cultural Revolution happened in the second half of the XX century.
    • rbanffy 4y ago
      > A communist back then would point to the capitalist countries committing horrible atrocities Unlike now, where whenever we point to capitalism, we point to shining beacons of freedom and humanity. ;-) > I doubt anyone condoned violent mass murder The fact the Soviet Union and China didn't succeed at implementing an ideal utopian society doesn't prevent others from trying something slightly different (let's say, socdem) in hopes it'll suck less than unregulated capitalism
  • neel_k 4y ago
    This is really easy to explain: all of the colonial empires were horrifying engines of atrocity, oppression and death. Since imperial apologists hated socialism, that made it a very attractive ideology -- if the worst people alive hate something, it's got to have something to recommend it, right? The Madras famine of 1877 (in which over 8 million people died) is characteristic. The British Empire didn't just fail to help, it actually made it illegal to offer food relief, on the grounds that it would distort the labour market and violate free-market principles. If you witnessed that, wouldn't you think the market and Moloch were one and the same? It's worth noting that "concentration camp" is not the English translation of "Konzentrationslager": it's actually the other way around. The German word is the translation of an English phrase used to describe the British Empire's interment camps in the Boer War. IMO, it's impossible to look at, say, a picture of Lizzie van Zyl and not see a premonition of the Holocaust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_van_Zyl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_van_Zyl
    • wikfwikf 4y ago
      You are technically correct about the origin of 'concentration camp'. But this point in relation to the Holocaust is so pedantic as to border on denial. Most people who died in the Holocaust did not die in 'concentration camps'. About a quarter of them were killed in mass shootings and buried in mass graves. Another quarter were sent to something better described as 'extermination facilities'. There was no camp and no concentration - all victims were gassed to death on arrival. The most famous concentration camp - Auschwitz - also had a facility like this where around a million people died immediately on arrival. While Auschwitz did have the standard features of concentration camps - imprisonment, starvation, forced labor, and brutal punishment and torture, most people who died in Auschwitz never experienced any of this - they were simply executed on arrival. So, while the 'concentration camps' were of course unimaginably terrible - and not to excuse other crimes against humanity such as the Boer camps, the gulags, etc - to compare other atrocities to the Nazi Holocaust simply because of the presence of concentration camps erases and minimizes the true extent of Nazi crimes against Jews and Roma.
  • wikfwikf 4y ago
    Perhaps you are making the fallacy of comparing early 20th century communist regimes with today's capitalist society. If you compared them with early 20th century capitalism or colonialism they start to look much more benign.
    • int_19h 4y ago
      They really don't, though. You can even look at quality of life in Russia itself - conveniently one of the more oppressive capitalist societies at the time - before and after the Bolshevik revolution. (There's this myth that's popular with some lefties that Soviets weren't really that oppressive until Stalin. It's not true - mass executions were already in full swing in 1918.)
      • wikfwikf 4y ago
        This is simply untrue. Mass executions of (certain subsets of) the middle and upper classes, alongside electrification and land reform for the rural poor and trade unions and healthcare for the urban poor, meant an extremely significant improvement in the average quality of life for the Russian population.
        • int_19h 4y ago
          Have you ever heard the words "prodrazvyorstka" or "kombed"? Bolsheviks literally robbed the peasants - who, to remind, was the actual majority of the population by a factor of 4x of so - blind at gunpoint to feed their forced industrialization in the cities, triggering more than one famine in the process (Holodomor being the most famous). If you look at early Soviet history, it's littered with peasant uprisings for this exact reason. In my hometown in Russia, such an uprising was big enough that Soviets decided to use chemical weapons against the rebels; ironically, I used to live on a street that was named after the guy who signed that order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion
    • rob74 4y ago
      ...or comparing communist regimes with the (capitalist-supported) German Nazi regime.
• ajot 4y ago
  Hindsight is 20/20. Now we do have empirical knowledge (from Brazil, but also Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria and Myanmar) that moving the capital away doesn't solve any problem. Not protests, and definitely not a population concentration and disparity. We gotta find better solutions to those problems.
  • foobarbecue 4y ago
    Yep. Egypt is trying to do it now. Vox had a great video on that recently.
    • formerly_proven 4y ago
      MBS of KSA has a similar fever dream.
  • makeitdouble 4y ago
    The move from Paris to Versailles by Louis 14 was mostly that, so we’ve had that hindsight for a few centuries now.
  • DocTomoe 4y ago
    See also: Washington, DC
  • mejutoco 4y ago
    Other examples of capitals moving: Bonn to Berlin (Germany), Bursa to Ankara (Turkey)
    • buildsjets 4y ago
      Constantinople to Istanbul. Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turk's.
      • mejutoco 4y ago
        Sorry to nitpick, but that is the same city with a different name. Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam… ;)
• fallingfrog 4y ago
  Why do you think that not one of the capitals of any of the 50 states is in the largest city? And why the national capital city is Washington DC rather than New York City? Same reason.
  • woodruffw 4y ago
    > Why do you think that not one of the capitals of any of the 50 states is in the largest city? Phoenix, Arizona? That's the first one that came to mind, but I'm sure there's others. Besides, that's not why DC is where it is. Our early leaders, for better or worse, thought it was best for it to be an independent district. Making NYC (or any other predeveloped city) into an independent entity is much harder than just creating a new one.
    • Jtsummers 4y ago
      Utah, Georgia, Oklahoma, Colorado as well and then I got bored checking. NC has Charlotte as the biggest city, but Raleigh isn’t small.
    • fallingfrog 4y ago
      I remember learning in grade school that the founders were aware of the fact that in France, the politics of the Paris proletariat totally dominated french politics and the king was always afraid of uprisings, so they decided to put the capital in a backwater city to avoid unrest toppling the government. Now that I’m looking for it, though, I cannot easily find evidence that that is true- I wonder why I was taught that?
      • woodruffw 4y ago
        Sounds like you had a teacher with an overactive imagination. That, or mine was hiding The Truth :-) (I can think of a handful of other factors that contribute to the US's weird capital city distribution, like real estate cost and the fact that many capitals were established after the telegram, making colocation in the largest city of each state less necessary.)
  • 4y ago
• walrus01 4y ago
  For two cities that were established with a "master plan" new national capitol idea at roughly the same time and in the same era, it's interesting to see how Islamabad and Brazilia are now two radically different places. Islamabd has always been right next door to the very old city of Rawalpindi and now the two have essentially grown together into one urban conglomeration.