A Leftist View Of Mr. O's Nobel Peace Prize
*Anarcissie*
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
Where is the leftist view of the Arafat peace prize?
No enemies to the left, no friends to the right.
Joseph K.
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
The 'Nobel' Peace Prize is a prize for policitians. The peace part is
euphemism.
*Anarcissie*
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:18:00 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> >http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
>
> Where is the leftist view of the Arafat peace prize?
Yet another travesty, but not a very recent one.
Doesn't beat Kissinger, though. I think that was
their high-water mark so far.
> No enemies to the left, no friends to the right.
Arafat's a "leftist", is he? I thought he was dead,
which I would say puts him in the "moderate" or
"middle of the road" category.
Mack A. Damia
If he's dead, then he's in the "under the road" category.
HTH.
--
mad
James A. Donald
> > Where is the leftist view of the Arafat peace prize?
"*Anarcissie*"
> Yet another travesty, but not a very recent one.
At the time leftists were disinclined to complain, and
now they say it is too late to complain.
> Doesn't beat Kissinger,
Kissinger made peace and surrendered his allies to his
enemies. What has Obama done?
> > No enemies to the left, no friends to the right.
> Arafat's a "leftist", is he?
Back in the day, calling him a terrorist, etc, caused
one to be instantly identified as a racist, right
winger, etc.
The Nobel committee is notoriously apt to give peace
prizes to Jewish leaders whose peace offers are not all
that peaceable, but even though the final offer that
Peres and Rabin made really stank, it did not stink
anything like as badly as the final offer Arafat made,
so although the 1994 peace prize was bad all around, the
fact that Arafat was one of the beneficiaries was the
worst part of it. The Israelis were serious about
making peace, even though their offer was a bit tight
fisted. Arafat was not serious. Maybe if he had made
an offer that was a little bit reasonable, the Israelis
would have come up with a counter offer that was a bit
more generous.
Phlip
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:18:00 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> >http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
>
> The 'Nobel' Peace Prize is a prize for policitians. The peace part is
> euphemism.
Were you aware when you wrote that of the back-story behind Alfred
Nobel and his wonderous invention?
Michael Price
> On Oct 11, 12:39 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:18:00 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
>
> > Where is the leftist view of the Arafat peace prize?
>
> Yet another travesty, but not a very recent one.
> Doesn't beat Kissinger, though. I think that was
> their high-water mark so far.
>
Of course Kissinger deserves an honourable mention. Well a mention,
maybe "honourable" isn't the word I'm looking for.
5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09
> On Oct 12, 12:27 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 12:39 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:18:00 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>>
>> > <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/
item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
>>
>> > Where is the leftist view of the Arafat peace prize?
>>
>> Yet another travesty, but not a very recent one. Doesn't beat
>> Kissinger, though. I think that was their high-water mark so far.
>>
> Nope, that was Woodrow Wilson, got his country into a world war.
Not exactly. The war was over by 1919. He got the prize for his work in
establishing the League of Nations.
Michael Price
> http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
Even better http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20091010_jumping_the_gun/
Michael Price
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:28:58 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 12:27 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 11, 12:39 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:18:00 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> >> > <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/
>
> item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
>
>
>
> >> > Where is the leftist view of the Arafat peace prize?
>
> >> Yet another travesty, but not a very recent one. Doesn't beat
> >> Kissinger, though. I think that was their high-water mark so far.
>
> > Nope, that was Woodrow Wilson, got his country into a world war.
>
> Not exactly. The war was over by 1919. He got the prize for his work in
> establishing the League of Nations.
Yeah, he still got his country into a world war. You'd think that
might disqualify
him. And of course the League was for peace what Elvis Presley was to
quantum
physics.
5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09
> On Oct 12, 2:38 pm, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:28:58 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
>> > On Oct 12, 12:27 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 11, 12:39 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:18:00 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>>
>> >> > <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/
>>
>> item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Where is the leftist view of the Arafat peace prize?
>>
>> >> Yet another travesty, but not a very recent one. Doesn't beat
>> >> Kissinger, though. I think that was their high-water mark so far.
>>
>> > Nope, that was Woodrow Wilson, got his country into a world war.
>>
>> Not exactly. The war was over by 1919. He got the prize for his work
>> in establishing the League of Nations.
>
> Yeah, he still got his country into a world war. You'd think that
> might disqualify
> him. And of course the League was for peace what Elvis Presley was to
> quantum
> physics.
Well, Americans like to crow that they came in and ended the war. And it
is true that the American soldiers who survived the flu and made it onto
the battlefield did do a top-notch job of stopping German bullets meant
for Tommies or the French.
And in 1919, the League of Nations still looked like a good idea.
Joseph K.
wrote:
Of course. According to legend after reading an advanced obituary,
written too soon by mistake, he felt guilty about the thing that he
invented and made him rich so he created these prices for those whose
work benefited humanity significantly.
Btw, he created only four prizes, the real Nobel prizes, but statemen
felt that they too benefited humanity greatly so out of jealousy they
introduced two phony Nobel prizes especially designed for leaders of
the State ideology and praxis, the economy and peace prizes.
*Anarcissie*
> On Oct 12, 2:38 pm, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
>
>
>
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:28:58 -0700, Michael Price wrote:
> > > On Oct 12, 12:27 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 11, 12:39 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:18:00 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > >> > <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/
>
> > item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
>
> > >> > Where is the leftist view of the Arafat peace prize?
>
> > >> Yet another travesty, but not a very recent one. Doesn't beat
> > >> Kissinger, though. I think that was their high-water mark so far.
>
> > > Nope, that was Woodrow Wilson, got his country into a world war.
>
> > Not exactly. The war was over by 1919. He got the prize for his work in
> > establishing the League of Nations.
>
> Yeah, he still got his country into a world war. You'd think that
> might disqualify
> him. And of course the League was for peace what Elvis Presley was to
> quantum
> physics.
A general supranational body was a logic next step
for the development of capitalism, which had already
jumped national boundaries by the beginning of the
20th century. Capitalism needed a superstate.
Wilson wasn't the only person who saw this. In a
way, the League was a continuation of World War 1,
just as the United Nations was set up as a
continuation of World War 2, with the really powerful
allies running the show (permanent members of the
Security Council). What Wilson and company
didn't anticipate was the collapse of capitalism in
much of Europe, which Wilson, being a racist,
thought would be the guiding light of the world.
James A. Donald
> for the development of capitalism,
A supernational body is necessarily the enemy of capitalism, and the
people who advocated such a body were attempting to destroy capitalism
both at home and abroad.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
But Jimmy...aren't multinational corporations supernational bodies?
Constantinople
No, because "supra" means transcending. A supranational body is one
which engulfs multiple nations - the nations are in a sense its parts
or members. Examples are the UN and the EU. We commonly talk about the
"member states" of the UN or EU. Multinational corporations merely
straddle multiple nations. The US is not a "member state" of Coca
Cola. If you have multiple citizenship and own property in multiple
nations, that makes you international in an obvious sense, but it does
not make you supranational.
See Wikipedia:
"Supranationalism is a method of decision-making in multi-national
political communities, wherein power is transferred to an authority
broader than governments of member states. Because decisions in some
supranational structures are taken by majority votes, it is possible
for a member-state in those unions to be forced by the other member-
states to implement a decision. Unlike in a federal supra-state,
member states retain nominal sovereignty, although some sovereignty is
shared with, or ceded to, the supranational body. Full sovereignty can
be reclaimed by withdrawing from the supranational arrangements. A
supranational authority, by definition, can have some independence
from member state governments, although not as much independence as
with federal governments. Supranational institutions, like federal
governments, imply the possibility of pursuing agendas in ways that
the delegating states did not initially envision."
This obviously applies to the EU and the UN. It obviously does not
apply to Coca Cola.
*Anarcissie*
See the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
The United States assumed the role of regional cop.
This was good for business: the improved prospects
of being repaid greatly reduced the interest rates of
bonds issued by small Latin American states and
corporations. The last thing real capitalists want to
see is any sort of anarchy where their property
and production are threatened.
The next step was to organize the cop behavior into a
coherent institution. This need was widely recognized
by elites long before Wilson, but they weren't sure how
to go about doing it without threatening their own power.
Phlip
> > But Jimmy...aren't multinational corporations supernational bodies?
> This obviously applies to the EU and the UN. It obviously does not
> apply to Coca Cola.
After you twiddle the definitions. There's still no _operational_
difference. But there's that double standard again - one for civil
institutions, and another for corporations.
Now please explain Inka Cola, hmm?
James A. Donald
> On Oct 13, 7:05 pm,
>
> > > But Jimmy...aren't multinational corporations supernational bodies?
Constantinople <constantinop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This obviously applies to the EU and the UN. It obviously does not
> > apply to Coca Cola.
Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
> After you twiddle the definitions. There's still no _operational_
> difference.
No operational difference between businesses like Coca Cola and
political organizations like the UN and the EU.
You are a gibbering idiot
Coca Cola sells coke.
James A. Donald
> See the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary The
> United States assumed the role of regional cop. This
> was good for business: the improved prospects of being
> repaid greatly reduced the interest rates of bonds
> issued by small Latin American states and
> corporations.
If "the regional cop" was protecting the property rights
of US businesses, how come we did not see the marines go
in when one Latin American country after another
defaulted on its debts or confiscated the property of US
businesses, or both?
Rather, the business of the US government has been to
destroy the property rights of US businesses overseas,
that being easier than destroying them at home.
When we do see the marines go in, as they went in to
Haiti to forcibly impose the Marxist tyrant and mass
murderer, Aristide, in 1994, and may well go in to
Honduras, it has been to impose socialism at gunpoint on
foreigners that the US government is unable to impose at
home.
*Anarcissie*
> On Oct 13, 7:09 pm, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
>
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:40:05 +1000, James A. Donald
>
> > <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > >On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
> > >> A general supranational body was a logic next step
> > >> for the development of capitalism,
>
> > >A supernational body is necessarily the enemy of capitalism, and the
> > >people who advocated such a body were attempting to destroy capitalism
> > >both at home and abroad.
>
> > But Jimmy...aren't multinational corporations supernational bodies?
>
> No, because "supra" means transcending. A supranational body is one
> which engulfs multiple nations - the nations are in a sense its parts
> or members.
It doesn't have to engulf them, because its powers and purposes
can be quite limited.
Multi-national corporations don't have to engulf states, either. But
they do need, or at least desire, regulating and mediating bodies,
and individual states may not be up to the task. That was why
I adduced the example of the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe
doctrine. The aim of the League of Nations was to regularize
that principle, and also to head off destructive major wars
between the "civilized", i.e. White, states.
Ha-Emet
Hank Roth, on the InterNUT since 1982
Past (post) Commander Jewish War Veterans
* Cryptologist and Voice Security in the White House
and in the War Room for JCS at the Pentagon
BIO [with pics] http://inyourface.info/bio/
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
H O M E - C R Y P T - L I N K S - B I O
______________________________________________________________________________________
Atoms are Forever
We wake up each morning to a world of hurt. The pain is all around us. We take an
anthropomorphic view, but all life experiences birth, reproduction and dissipation. Life is
often referred to as a gift. A better description would be to refer to life as food. We are
being harvested. The specter of life is to be consumed as food.
Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution and DNA
are the self replicating molecules for the blueprints of life.
James Watson claimed that he and Francis Crick discovered the secret of life, the very
elegant double helix, DNA. Just four chemical bases stored in strands of double nucleotides
chains, each chain a replica of the other can spell the recipes for life. Their discovery
changed the world of science as it had been known up until that time.
These were the blueprints. The energy for life is ATP (adenosine triphosphate),
manufactured in photon pumps in the mitochondria of living cells. The analogy which is
sometimes used for ATP is a re-chargeable battery.
Over 30 years ago, Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene: "At some point a particularly
remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Re-plicator. It may not
have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary
property of being able to create copies of itself."
"As the battery's energy is used, its energy state is lowered until it reaches the point
where it cannot be used again until it's recharged. ATP is the charged battery. ADP is the
discharged version, while the input of additional energy `recharges' ADP into ATP once
again, in a process known as oxidative phosphorylation." (Ed Regis, What is Life, 2008)
ATP synthesis is life's motive force. ATP is recycled, converted to ADP and back again to
ATP; over and over again. This process occurs in the mitochondria organelles in a cells
cytoplasm. A million mitochondria packed together would be no larger than a grain of sand.
In most cells there are hundreds of them and we get them all from our mothers. When the
synthesis of ATP stops the cell dies. Without it, muscles would not have their flexibility.
Without it, the deficiency of new ATP in cells, rigor mortis sets in.
(It is the phosphate in fertilizers which provides for ATP synthesis in plant cells.)
What is similar to all life is a means of reproducing. A single stranded version of the
double helix is RNA (ribonucleic acid) which can replicate. Its version uses uracil in
place of DNA's thymine. RNA molecules are called ribozymes. The theory is RNA came along
first and synthesized proteins and DNA came along later.
It has been suggested that RNA preceded DNA reproduction and perhaps it did because RNA can
replicate without DNA but DNA cannot replicate without RNA. RNA contains ribozymes which
with enzymes produces proteins and ALL life as we know it shares the same chemistry.
Pollock (94) in Signs of Life wrote: "...we are related enough to a duck and an orange that
we can eat them both."
We are carbon based life. DNA is a helix of the building blocks of life: the code which is
a recipe for constructing and maintaining life. The three components necessary for life -as
we know it- is energy, water and carbon; all of which is found throughout the universe.
Most of our energy comes from the sun but now we know energy also comes from the core of
the planet as hydrogen sulfide which provides energy for life which survives without the
sun, i.e. thermophylic bacteria and other organisms which live in the depths of the oceans.
"...The current need for carbon from carbon dioxide by all photo-synthesizers totals one
hundred billion tons per year. Yet only a half billion tons per year is supplied as new
carbon into the biosphere from rocks and volcanos. Without recycling, global productivity
would only be a half billion tons per year, a mere two-hundredth of its current value.
Invert this number and we can say that our real world recycling the dead increases all life
two hundred times above what it would be without recycling. Death, thus two times more
life." (Tyler Volk, What is Death, a Scientist Looks at the Cycle of Life, 2002)
Life becomes food. Life feeds life and it changes, it is "chemically transformed", subsumed
by the planet "into a gigantic functioning system", says Tyler Volk.
"For example, a dead leaf fallen to the forest floor will be consumed by dozens of species
of soil detritus feeders, from worms to bacteria, who release some of the former carbon
into the leaf into carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus what happens to the dead
amplifies not just any one other organism but to some extent all of life..." (ibid)
There are some theories that life arrived on in meteorites or comets. 70 separate amino
acids have been discovered in meteorites and contain all the essential ingredients for
life. Meteorites and comets have impacted the earth throughout its history and the force of
these impacts transformed amino acids into the proteins necessary for life. And some
theories [see Harper, Nova TV series, WGBH 2005, Origins: How Life Began] suggest bacteria,
the precursor of eukaryotes arrived from outer space transported here by meteorites and
comets.
Life is both prey and predator. My best non-human friend(s), my dogs, have the predatory
behavior of their ancestral wolf. My predatory behavior is tied to survival. Hostility and
war is as natural as life is old (in our frame of reference). My dogs also have instinctual
behaviors; they have "fear and flight" behaviors; they have hierarchy and dominance
behavior which they display with each other when they are not playing or sleeping and when
cornered they will fight.
We in our species will just kill our enemies who are those who compete with us for
territory and resources - which has been the history of groups since time began.
Dogs stalk, chase, grab and bite each other. Predatory motor patterns are obvious behaviors
in animals and we are just animals with a larger brain and we assume an awareness of these
things, which evolved as our defense against predators and our offensive strategies and the
success of our species.
Of course different animals display different patterns and so do we because we are by the
way, just animals ourselves, in spite of some who think humans are a higher form of life -
which we are not.
We are human-centric organisms and are too often oblivious to the pain of other animals.
Some cultures eat animals we would never think about as food. And the females of several
species also eat their mates after they copulate with them. This happens with spiders and
some other animals. The males actually welcome being consumed by these female spiders
because it ensures that their sperm will have longer to fertilize her and eating the male
spider is a distraction so the female doesn't move on to another spider until she finishes
her meal. I wouldn't exactly call it love, but maybe to a spider it is. It most assuredly
is the ultimate in love making. I like sex but not that much. But you know humans have some
weird sexual perversions also and can be very self-destructive.
There are some things we may never know. We may become extinct as a species before we
discover the theoretical distinctions between what is known and what can only be imagined.
Humans however, have a heightened awareness of self which is why religion has played an
essential role in human life since the dawn of history. There has been fear responses which
rely on escapism and apologia for what appears inevitable, and the need to believe in
stories and myths was a way to stay sane - to find explanation is what would otherwise be
inexplicable, until we discovered science and tested the theories. In spite of how far we
have advanced intellectually there is still this fear response which makes it satisfying to
hold on to comfort myths. Those themes are balm for the pain which accompanies conscious
minds.
Life is a product of death. Life recycles. Atoms become the stuff of new organisms. Death
makes possible more life.
Not only spiders and mayflies and wasps and ants AND to humans too; the essentiality to all
life is life.
"Biological recycling is the worm that munches leaf litter into microscopic bits that are
then further degraded by bacteria into nutrients that later can become tree leaves again
Death makes life..." (Tyler Volk, What is Death? -a scientist looks at the cycle of life-)
Life reproduces itself; it dissipates heat into the external environment. The cell is the
smallest life and besides pico-eukaryotes, bacteria is life; it is the life that was here
for billions of years before our more complex, nucleated cells, when Eukaryotic cells
evolved.
Bacteria is also life but bacteria don't need to eat organic organisms to survive. They can
consume the garbage in land fills. They can consume carbon dioxide and they can clean up
after oil spills.
"Life is distinguished not by its chemical constituents but by the behavior of its
chemicals. The question `What is Life?' is thus a linguistic trap. To answer according to
the rules of grammar, we must supply a noun, a thing. But life on Earth is more like a
verb. It repairs, maintains, recreates and outdoes itself." (L. Margulis and D. Sagen -
What is Life? - 1995)
"The surge of activity which not only applies to cells and animals but to Earth's entire
atmosphere, is intimately connected to two of science's most famous laws--the laws of
thermodynamics. The first law says that throughout any transformation of the total energy
of any system and its environment is neither lost nor gained. Energy--whether as light,
movement, radiation, heat, radioactivity, chemical or other--is conserved." (ibid)
"But not all forms of energy are equal; not all have the same effect. HJeat is a kind of
energy to which other forms tend to convert, and heat tends to disorganize matter. The
second law of thermodynamics says that physical systems tend to lose heat to their
surroundings." (ibid)
"The second law was conceived during the Industrial Revolution, when the steam engine
represented the state--of-art in engineering. French physicist Nicolas Carnot (1796-1832),
aiming to improve the efficiency of the steam engine (whose governor mechanism was invented
by James Watt), came to realize that heat was associate with the movement of minute
particles. And from that, he envisioned the principle that is now known as the second law.
In any moving or energy using system entropy increases."
"....(the first law of thermodynamics of conservation of energy holds), the amount of
energy available to do work decreases. In computer science entropy is measured as the
uncertainty in the information content of a message. The second law unequivocally claims
that in changing systems entropy increases, implying that heat, noise, uncertainty, and
other forms of energy not useful for work, increase. As local systems lose heat, the
universe as a whole is gaining it. Although not so popular now, in the past physicists and
chemists have made the prediction that the universe will whimper out in a `heat death' as a
consequence of the tendency for entropy to increase. More recently, they have even invented
the word `negentropy' for life, which in its tendency to increase information and
certainty, seems to contradict the second law. It doesn't; the second law holds as long as
one regards the system (LIFE) in its environment." (ibid)
As stated previously in quoting Ilya Prigogine, the interpretation of the second law has
changed and Prigogine, a Belgian Nobel laureate pioneered the view or "the consideration of
a larger class of `dissipative structures,' which also includes decidedly nonliving centers
of activity," [Margulis & Segan], i.e. whirlpools, tornadoes, flames. - A dissipative
system may grow and maintain itself. It does this by importing useful energy and exporting
less useful energy and as Margulis further points out, this thermodynamic view even extends
back to Schrodinger, who "likened living beings to flames, `streams of order' that maintain
their forms." (Margulis and Sagan)
Important to life is the ability to be self-sustaining and increasing itself. This is the
basis of evolution. Natural selection is one aspect of evolution. And maintaining itself
[autopoiesis] is a fundamental aspect of life.
"Islands of order in an ocean of chaos, organisms are far superior to human-built machines.
Unlike James Watt's steam engine, for example, the body concentrates order. It continuously
SELF-REPAIRS (emphasis mine). Every five days you get a new stomach lining. You get a new
liver every two months. Your skin replaces itself every six weeks. Every year, ninety-eight
percent of the atoms in your body are replaced. This nonstop chemical replacement,
metabolism, is a sure sign of life. This `machine' demands continual input of chemical
energy and materials (food)." (Margulis and Sagan)
And the fundamental component of life must be `autopoiesis' The reference is to the
continuous producing of itself. The reference applies to all life. Life is purposeful. It
reproduces. The molecules at the end of eukaryote life dissipates back to the external
environment.
"Life is a bitch, and then you die" - as the saying goes; but, it is somewhat of a comfort
to know that your life doesn't end, that it is transformative and is part of a much bigger
system, that you are integral to the process which sustains all life.
But to think about death as essential to life is to put us on the same level with the most
profound minds of history who recognized the focus of real life is not about death at all.
The focus on death distracts us from living. Life is existential. Life is self-awareness.
So why would we go through life asking ourselves what is death? We should change the
question to: What is Life? - because if life is predicated on death it is the gift of death
which gives us what is special which is our very unique consciousness and our loves and it
is our own atomic immortality we should be contemplating not the dying of our body.
Hank Roth
|
All quoting per the Fair Use Doctrine
for educational and discussion purposes pursuant to^
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, Copyright Law.
Permalink: http://inyourface.info/ArT/Beta/MeD.shtml
Today is Friday October 09, 2009
G 0 l e m D e s i g n s
Hank Roth (on the Internet since 1982)
Worm Hole (Home) - The Crypt - Hank Roth (Bio)
While I don't use a standard blog (weblog software) mostly because I've been doing this too
long - having been there with Ike when the precursor to the Internet, Arpanet got started
and every step of the way since, I can't get into all the many fads over the years (now it
is social networking), but I have been an observer and participant in events which shape
the world since my time with NSA and with Army Security and as a voice security
cryptologist in the White House for the President, and the War Room at the Pentagon for the
Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff plus two wars. You could say this site is one of the better
kept secrets [grin] on the InterNUT. You are invited back as often as you would like to see
what I and others, I trust, may be saying.
-- Hank Roth
[viewed 1470 times]
===============================================
* To subscribe to wormhole, send mail to
eca...@inyourface.info and on the subject line
(without quotes) write: "subscribe wormhole" -
To unsubscribe, do the same in reverse; send
"unsubscribe wormhole" on the subject line
to eca...@inyourface.info -- Hank Roth
http://inyourface.info/ - http://pnews.org/
================================================
*Anarcissie*
> Hank Roth, on the InterNUT since 1982
> Past (post) Commander Jewish War Veterans
> * Cryptologist and Voice Security in the White House
> and in the War Room for JCS at the Pentagon
> BIO [with pics]http://inyourface.info/bio/
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> H O M E - C R Y P T - L I N K S - B I O
> ______________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Atoms are Forever
>
Wow, a total rant.
*Anarcissie*
Each move or failure to move has been a business
decision, but one taken individualistically. The point
of the League of Nations as well as its predecessors
and successors was to bring about a situation in which
moves to protect property and get profits out would be
less expensive and more effective. A serious world
capitalist government could do this very effectively,
but the leaders of the various states and major
corporations are afraid that the great powers of
such an institution could be turned against them.
They have the same predicament as the American
colonies in the 1770s and 1780s, finally (partially)
resolved by the Constitution. The same _kind_
of predicament, but rather deeper and broader
because at least the 13 colonies had the same
language and roughly the same culture.
During the Clinton years, there seemed to be a
development of a world empire of capital which
would have been fairly coherent and would thus
have made an effective capitalist superstate
possible, but that fell apart when Bush reverted
to national imperialism. This may have been a
seriously wrong move because it looks quite
possible that other powers may be able to
supersede the United States as biggest
dog on the block in the not too distant future.
Afghanistan stopped the British and helped
bring down the Russian Empire; and look who's
playing in Afghanistan now.
*Anarcissie*
> http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20091009_obamas_nobel_peace_prize/
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Multi-national corporations don't have to engulf states, either. But
> they do need, or at least desire, regulating and mediating bodies,
That is rather like claiming that deer desire wolves.
The height of international business is not today, but before world
War I, when there were zero regulating and mediating bodies.
I have been reading the internal correspondence of the East India
companey. Not only did nobody regulate the East India Company, at
least not successfully, not even the East India Company regulated the
east india company.
The directors would send out memos to people like Raffles forbidding
them to conquer stuff, Raffles would write back that there is no way
he is going to conquer stuff, yet somehow stuff would wind up being
conquered in the name of the East India company by no one that could
be clearly identified. What happened is that people like Raffles were
pirates and brigands as well as traders, accountants, and bureaucrats,
and whenever England caught them in some exceptionally outrageous act
of piracy and brigandage, they would run up the British flag, sing
"Hail Britannia", and announce the glorious British empire had
mysterious acquired some new lands.
I read a vignette where Raffles is plotting to dispossess the Dutch in
Java. A stream of Javanese princelings and suchlike visit Raffles,
and he flatters each one, then reaches into a large chest full of
gold, and gives each a substantial present. Raffles' official salary
is that of a clerk, and yet here he is buying princes by the dozen!
The operation was secret from the British government, and semi secret
from East India Company head quarters, which had been duped into
authorizing a much smaller operation, which small operation was merely
the cover story for the actual operation, of which the head quarters
in
England was entirely unaware.
The British empire was not a sinister plot by a bunch of people in
London, it was rather an accidental side effect of the ineffectual and
unsuccessful efforts of people in London to restrain British merchant
adventurers like Raffles.
James A. Donald
> > If "the regional cop" was protecting the property rights
> > of US businesses, how come we did not see the marines go
> > in when one Latin American country after another
> > defaulted on its debts or confiscated the property of US
> > businesses, or both?
"*Anarcissie*"
> Each move or failure to move has been a business
> decision, but one taken individualistically.
But in each and every single case there has been failure to move, in
that the property rights of US businessmen were not restored, not in
Chile and not in Guatemala, not anywhere - so these decisions were not
taken individually.
> The point
> of the League of Nations as well as its predecessors
> and successors was to bring about a situation in which
> moves to protect property and get profits out would be
> less expensive and more effective.
Yet before the League of Nations was formed, we had lots of
international trade, and lots of powerful people owning stuff in
multiple countries and trading stuff between countries, and after the
League of Nations was formed, this was radically diminished. The
League of nations was created to smash international capitalism, and
the proof that it was created to smash international capitalism is
that it DID smash international capitalism.
To argue that League of nations is supporting capitalism is like
arguing that Obama is supporting the Honduran government by his
failure to rain napalm on Honduras and failure to install Zelaya as
president for life with a bodyguard of US marines. The League of
Nations was a military attack upon businessmen by politicians. The
test of the pudding is in the eating. Before the League of Nations,
international businessmen were powerful and important, during the
League of Nations, nearly non existent.
> A serious world
> capitalist government could do this very effectively,
Government is always the enemy of business. The bigger the
government, the better it can subdue businessmen, and the League
of Nations was a demonstration of this. Businessmen want a world
government as much as deer want bigger wolves.
> During the Clinton years, there seemed to be a
> development of a world empire of capital which
> would have been fairly coherent
That would be the Clinton that installed the Marxist dictator
Aristide in Haiti at gunpoint.
Dan Clore
I don't really mind the rants, but the piggybacking bugs me. People who
aren't responding to a given post or thread should start their own threads.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Dan Clore
> On Oct 13, 7:09 pm, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:40:05 +1000, James A. Donald
>> <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>>>> A general supranational body was a logic next step for the
>>>> development of capitalism,
>>> A supernational body is necessarily the enemy of capitalism, and
>>> the people who advocated such a body were attempting to destroy
>>> capitalism both at home and abroad.
>> But Jimmy...aren't multinational corporations supernational bodies?
>>
> No, because "supra" means transcending. A supranational body is one
> which engulfs multiple nations - the nations are in a sense its parts
> or members. Examples are the UN and the EU. We commonly talk about
> the "member states" of the UN or EU. Multinational corporations
> merely straddle multiple nations. The US is not a "member state" of
> Coca Cola. If you have multiple citizenship and own property in
> multiple nations, that makes you international in an obvious sense,
> but it does not make you supranational.
However, supranational organizations include such outfits as the WTO
(World Trade Organization). The WTO is certainly not an enemy of
capitalism in the traditional sense (ownership of the means of
production by capitalists rather than workers and an economic and
political system that favors this). It works, rather, to "globalize"
state-corporate capitalism. On the other hand, if by "capitalism" one
means a free market, you might have a case. Though far too many
mistakenly (or dishonestly) portrary the WTO as promoting a free market
when in fact it does the opposite, and this generally includes those on
the Libertarian Right.
For info on the definitions involved see:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246.html
*Anarcissie*
Some capitalists want a free market, some don't. However, most
of them want the rule of law when it comes to property relations;
they'd rather not have to go to war, or get their governments to
go to war, to get what they think they own or are owed. That is
why the Roosevelt Corollary led directly to the League of Nations
and other similar bodies. I think the whining about these bodies
by capitalists and capitalism fans is very similar to the whining
about the government in regard to domestic issues -- it's some-
thing of a farce. The rich like to pretend that their corporations
and their government are in opposition, when in fact they are
different heads of the same beast, the state.
James A. Donald
> However, supranational organizations include such
> outfits as the WTO (World Trade Organization). The WTO
> is certainly not an enemy of capitalism in the
> traditional sense (ownership of the means of
> production by capitalists rather than workers and an
> economic and political system that favors this).
The WTO is in the business of producing uniform world
wide regulation of capitalists - cutting off capitalist
efforts to engage in regulatory arbitrage. It is a
cartel of governments coordinating their efforts to
control capitalists.
They are not socialist except in the sense that nazis
were socialist, but they regard capitalists and
capitalism as the enemy, though an enemy to be merely
conquered and subjugated, rather than utterly
annihilated.
*Anarcissie*
This is, then, yet another version of "We have met the
enemy, and he is us." In this case, world-economic
bondage and domination.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
So socialism is "world economic bondage and domination", eh?
Well, that should get it support from about a half-dozen Republican
Senators...
Tim Howard
a friend of the capitalists, not the enemy.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
What socialism? The WTO? I don't see any socialism.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
Guys like Jimmy D see socialism in anything that doesn't involve
unquestioning servility toward major corporations.
Dan Clore
More precisely, a friend of *some* capitalists (particularly those
making up the ruling elites of the countries that compose it), and an
enemy of others. But that's how capitalist governments and IFIs always
operate. When government grants privileges, not everyone gets them.
In any case, it does kind of make me happy to see that our friends on
Usenet have seen through the fog of "free trade" and "free market"
Newspeak emitted by IFIs like the WTO, however imperfectly.
James A. Donald
> > Your view of the the WTO is the opposite of what it really does. It
> > is a friend of the capitalists, not the enemy.
Dan Clore
> More precisely, a friend of *some* capitalists
Indeed so. A friend of the well connected capitalist.
Michael Price
wrote:
Socialism's been supported by much more than a half-dozen Republican
Senators for a while now. In fact massive payouts to the poor have
been
Republican policy for quite a while, although they prefer to do it
with a bit
more stealth than the Democrats.
*Anarcissie*
Payouts to the poor are not socialism.
Michael Price
Well what would you call socialism? Government running much of the
economy?
Republicans, check. Government owning lots of productive assets?
Again
Republicans, check. The Republicans are more socialist than
progressives of
early last century could have dreamed they'd get away with.
Fred Williams
> On Oct 21, 12:51 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 2:29 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> > Socialism's been supported by much more than a half-dozen Republican
>> > Senators for a while now. In fact massive payouts to the poor have
>> > been
>> > Republican policy for quite a while, although they prefer to do it
>> > with a bit
>> > more stealth than the Democrats.
>>
>> Payouts to the poor are not socialism.
>
> Well what would you call socialism? Government running much of the
> economy?
> Republicans, check. Government owning lots of productive assets?
> Again
> Republicans, check. The Republicans are more socialist than
> progressives of
> early last century could have dreamed they'd get away with.
Republicans are fascists which is extreme right wing. Socialism is on the
left. Right wingers are for the rich and the corporations they own. The
left is for the people and the working class.
--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)
*Anarcissie*
Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
production by the workers, or by the people generally.
Welfare is obviously not socialism. Neither is regulation
by the government. A socialist polity might have a
government, and it might give Welfare, and it might
regulate, but those attributes are not what would make
it socialist. In my opinion, anyway.
> Government running much of the
> economy?
> Republicans, check. Government owning lots of productive assets?
> Again
> Republicans, check. The Republicans are more socialist than
> progressives of
> early last century could have dreamed they'd get away with.
Maybe it's what Mussolini called "Everything in the state,
nothing outside of the state, nothing against the state." The
word he used for this is now naughty.
But socialism it isn't.
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
> production by the workers, or by the people generally.
But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
people generally"
Only particular people can control particular things.
Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the control
of everything by the government, a group of people small
enough to meet around a table, led by a single man,
which predictably leads to the all too well known
consequences.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 12:51 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 20, 2:29 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> > Socialism's been supported by much more than a half-dozen Republican
> >> > Senators for a while now. In fact massive payouts to the poor have
> >> > been
> >> > Republican policy for quite a while, although they prefer to do it
> >> > with a bit
> >> > more stealth than the Democrats.
>
> >> Payouts to the poor are not socialism.
>
> > Well what would you call socialism? Government running much of the
> > economy?
> > Republicans, check. Government owning lots of productive assets?
> > Again
> > Republicans, check. The Republicans are more socialist than
> > progressives of
> > early last century could have dreamed they'd get away with.
>
> Republicans are fascists which is extreme right wing. Socialism is on the
> left. Right wingers are for the rich and the corporations they own.
But fascists ruined and enslaved the rich and the corporations they
owed.
> The left is for the people and the working class.
>
Yet the left has ruined enslaved the people and the working class.
Your simplistic bullshit has been exposed before, the "left" and
the
"right" are the same.
Fred Williams
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:14:54 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
> <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
>> production by the workers, or by the people generally.
>
> But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
> people generally"
>
> Only particular people can control particular things.
>
This is totally unfounded. George Bush II was president and he was a
moron. So anybody can control just about anything.
They used to say we could not have democracy because people were too stupid
to govern themselves. They were proved wrong.
> Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the control
> of everything by the government, a group of people small
> enough to meet around a table, led by a single man,
> which predictably leads to the all too well known
> consequences.
Again totally inventing lies. People can run things themselves and govern
themselves. It takes a little education and freedom from economic
competitivism, but they can do it.
Fred Williams
> On Oct 24, 10:30 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>> > On Oct 21, 12:51 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 20, 2:29 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > Socialism's been supported by much more than a half-dozen Republican
>> >> > Senators for a while now. In fact massive payouts to the poor have
>> >> > been
>> >> > Republican policy for quite a while, although they prefer to do it
>> >> > with a bit
>> >> > more stealth than the Democrats.
>>
>> >> Payouts to the poor are not socialism.
>>
>> > Well what would you call socialism? Government running much of the
>> > economy?
>> > Republicans, check. Government owning lots of productive assets?
>> > Again
>> > Republicans, check. The Republicans are more socialist than
>> > progressives of
>> > early last century could have dreamed they'd get away with.
>>
>> Republicans are fascists which is extreme right wing. Socialism is on
>> the left. Right wingers are for the rich and the corporations they own.
>
> But fascists ruined and enslaved the rich and the corporations they
> owed.
>
Any scarce money economy will destroy itself even one with fairly well
intentioned politicians. So certainly fascist psychopaths will destroy it.
>> The left is for the people and the working class.
>>
> Yet the left has ruined enslaved the people and the working class.
Then they weren't very left.
> Your simplistic bullshit has been exposed before, the "left" and
> the
> "right" are the same.
The right wants to hide their intentions and they do so by trying o get
people to think they're left, or that there is no difference. But a lie is
a lie. If there were now a difference, the terms wouldn't have been used
for so many years,
Phlip
> On Oct 15, 9:26 am, Ha-Emet <e...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > Atoms are Forever
> Wow, a total rant.
And a physics-denier. Atoms are _not_ forever.
Michael Price
> James A. Donald wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:14:54 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
> > <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
> >> production by the workers, or by the people generally.
>
> > But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
> > people generally"
>
> > Only particular people can control particular things.
>
> This is totally unfounded. George Bush II was president and he was a
> moron. So anybody can control just about anything.
You miss the point, George W. Bush was a particular person who
controlled particular
things, not a group that controlled all things. Things can only be
controlled by particular
people, that is not "the people" but individuals.
> They used to say we could not have democracy because people were too stupid
> to govern themselves. They were proved wrong.
>
Really? When? Democracy doesn't work because it depends on
coercion to put power
in the hands of those who aren't responsible for the results of
power. This is true even,
hell especially, if the "will of the people" is actually carried
out.
Michael Price
The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
controlling
the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
think
of. If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding end
and the
actual doing what they want to do start?
> But a lie is a lie. If there were now a difference, the terms wouldn't have been used
> for so many years,
>
I assume you mean "If there were not a difference...". The terms
are used to hide
the fact that fundamentall premises are agreed upon by the
establishment and not
up for debate by them. If the people were to figure this out they'd
figure out how
little control they are allowed. If there is a difference, name it.
Fred Williams
> On Oct 25, 11:55 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:14:54 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>> > <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
>> >> production by the workers, or by the people generally.
>>
>> > But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
>> > people generally"
>>
>> > Only particular people can control particular things.
>>
>> This is totally unfounded. George Bush II was president and he was a
>> moron. So anybody can control just about anything.
>
> You miss the point, George W. Bush was a particular person who
> controlled particular
> things, not a group that controlled all things. Things can only be
> controlled by particular
> people, that is not "the people" but individuals.
>
That's crap, of course. The only way people wlll ever have freedom is if
they collectively control things.
>> They used to say we could not have democracy because people were too
>> stupid to govern themselves. They were proved wrong.
>>
> Really? When? Democracy doesn't work because it depends on
> coercion to put power
> in the hands of those who aren't responsible for the results of
> power. This is true even,
> hell especially, if the "will of the people" is actually carried
> out.
>
This doesn't even make sense enough to criticize. What are you trying to
say?
Fred Williams
>
> The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
> controlling
> the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
> think
> of. If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding end
> and the
> actual doing what they want to do start?
>
government and that's fascism. If the people control what's going on then
it's left wing.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
>
> > The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
> > controlling
> > the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
> > think
> > of. If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding end
> > and the
> > actual doing what they want to do start?
>
> The people do not control the government.
No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is a
meaningful
phrase but even so...
> The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.
No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
societal
whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically own, but do
not
control, productive assets.
> If the people control what's going on then it's left wing.
>
So then there hasn't been a left-wing government in history? How
convenient
for you that leftism hasn't been tried and therefore cannot have
failed.
Of course your definition is not true and has never been true.
Plenty of governments
you would consider "right wing" were doing what "the people" wanted.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 11:55 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> James A. Donald wrote:
>
> >> > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:14:54 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
> >> > <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
> >> >> production by the workers, or by the people generally.
>
> >> > But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
> >> > people generally"
>
> >> > Only particular people can control particular things.
>
> >> This is totally unfounded. George Bush II was president and he was a
> >> moron. So anybody can control just about anything.
>
> > You miss the point, George W. Bush was a particular person who
> > controlled particular things, not a group that controlled all things. Things
> > can only be controlled by particular people, that is not "the people" but individuals.
>
> That's crap, of course.
You haven't shown it. So tell me how do "the people" control
anything? Or any other
group? All decisions are made by individuals so only they can
control.
> The only way people wlll ever have freedom is if they collectively control things.
>
How is having everything controlled by someone else, which is what
"collectively control
things" means freedom? How is having the mob decide everything any
form of liberty?
> >> They used to say we could not have democracy because people were too
> >> stupid to govern themselves. They were proved wrong.
>
> > Really? When? Democracy doesn't work because it depends on
> > coercion to put power in the hands of those who aren't responsible for the results of
> > power. This is true even, hell especially, if the "will of the people" is actually carried
> > out.
>
> This doesn't even make sense enough to criticize. What are you trying to
> say?
>
I said that democracy is a form of coercion, i.e. force. To put it
bluntly enough for
even you to understand, being bossed around by an electorate is no
more efficient,
workable, practical, moral, just or free than being bossed around by
any other
arbitrarily defined group.
> >> > Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the control
> >> > of everything by the government, a group of people small
> >> > enough to meet around a table, led by a single man,
> >> > which predictably leads to the all too well known
> >> > consequences.
>
> >> Again totally inventing lies. People can run things themselves and
> >> govern themselves. It takes a little education and freedom from economic
> >> competitivism, but they can do it.
>
BTW how do you suppose "freedom from economic competitivism" can be
arranged without death camps?
James A. Donald
> they collectively control things.
Collective control does not work, has never worked, can never work.
The only way people can have freedom is as individuals, which means
individual rights, in particular the right to create wealth, own that
wealth, which each may use as he pleases..
*Anarcissie*
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:14:54 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
> > production by the workers, or by the people generally.
>
> But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
> people generally"
>
> Only particular people can control particular things.
>
> Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the control
> of everything by the government, a group of people small
> enough to meet around a table, led by a single man,
> which predictably leads to the all too well known
> consequences.
The corporation?
Fred Williams
> On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>>
>> > The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
>> > controlling
>> > the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
>> > think
>> > of. If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding end
>> > and the
>> > actual doing what they want to do start?
>>
>> The people do not control the government.
>
> No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is a
> meaningful
> phrase but even so...
>
>>The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.
>
> No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
> societal
> whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically own, but do
> not
> control, productive assets.
>
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
He should know. (Corporate power being the elite, wealthy upper classes
who own the corporations).
>> If the people control what's going on then it's left wing.
>>
> So then there hasn't been a left-wing government in history?
Well, there's Cuba, and now Venezuela, *possibly* Bolivia, and lets not
forget Nicaragua, although I wouldn't claim Nicaragua with certainty since I
haven't heard a lot about it recently.
> How
> convenient
> for you that leftism hasn't been tried and therefore cannot have
> failed.
Whenever people try to rule themselves there's always a panic in the right
wing power centres and they have the economic power to destroy the left.
Destroying is always easier than building, unfortunately.
> Of course your definition is not true and has never been true.
It's absolutely true, unless you insist that the right define straw men and
then proceed to criticize. Of course there's a lot of that going on.
> Plenty of governments
> you would consider "right wing" were doing what "the people" wanted.
>
Not if the people were educated and free. That is certainly not happening
in the U.S., nor in Canada today.
Fred Williams
There is no such right as the right to create wealth. Take a look at the
U.N Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms. It's not there, and
usually people who quote it are talking about the "right" to profit from the
work of others.
People coming together and deciding things collectively can work quite
well. I have seen it happen in Quaker meetings, and it was beautiful.
Getting away from competitivism and fear is the first step. Slave masters
always champion competitivism because they know that if the slaves are
competing against one another for scraps from the master's table, they are
not organizing themselves and working for their freedom. The only way we
can do that is collectively because as individuals we have no power.
"Individual freedom" leaves us alone, isolated, and helpless.
James A. Donald
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:26:20 -0300, Fred Williams
> >> The only way people wlll ever have freedom is if
> >> they collectively control things.
> > Collective control does not work, has never worked, can never work.
> > The only way people can have freedom is as individuals, which means
> > individual rights, in particular the right to create wealth, own that
> > wealth, which each may use as he pleases..
Fred Williams
> There is no such right as the right to create wealth.
pursuit of happiness.
James A. Donald
> > > Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
> > > production by the workers, or by the people generally.
James A. Donald:
> > But "the workers" cannot control anything, nor can "the
> > people generally"
> >
> > Only particular people can control particular things.
> >
> > Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the control
> > of everything by the government, a group of people small
> > enough to meet around a table, led by a single man,
> > which predictably leads to the all too well known
> > consequences.
*Anarcissie*"
> The corporation?
If one corporation owned everything, and had the power to shoot its
employees rather than fire them.
*Anarcissie*
There is no requirement for a monolithic state.
However, that was not what I was talking about. I wanted
to remind you of corporations, partnerships, cooperatives
and so forth -- examples of production under collective
rather than individual control. And don't give me any
hidden master stuff -- leave that for Comrade Žižek.
*Anarcissie*
If people had a right to create wealth, they'd have a right
to capital, real estate, and / or raw materials. It would be
similar to having a right to a job, only more general.
"Pursuit of happiness", as you probably know, was
substituted for "property" in going from Locke to the
Declaration of Independence. That was because the
people who wrote the Declaration were afraid that if
they specified a right to property, someone would be
sure to pop up and demand some from the government.
It is really a cipher.
James A. Donald
> If people had a right to create wealth, they'd have a
> right to capital, real estate, and / or raw materials.
Capital, real estate, and raw materials, is, as I am
sure you know, the product of labor, so people do have a
right to those things, since they have a right to own or
sell the products of their own labor. What they do not
have a right to is the product of someone else's labor.
James A. Donald
> > > > Thus in practice, socialism is necessarily the
> > > > control of everything by the government, a group
> > > > of people small enough to meet around a table,
> > > > led by a single man, which predictably leads to
> > > > the all too well known consequences.
*Anarcissie*
> > > The corporation?
James A. Donald:
> > If one corporation owned everything, and had the
> > power to shoot its employees rather than fire them.
*Anarcissie*
> There is no requirement for a monolithic state.
Without property rights to separate one man's plan from
another man's plan, only one plan can be permitted, and
any pursuit of alternate goals, or pursuit of the same
goals through alternate methods is "wrecking", and must
be crushed.
> However, that was not what I was talking about. I
> wanted to remind you of corporations, partnerships,
> cooperatives and so forth -- examples of production
> under collective rather than individual control.
It is not all that collective. The shareholders elect
the board, the board appoints the CEO, and the CEO, a
single man, decides, subject to the possibility that if
his decisions turn out bad the board may fire him.
If you had the same system with one CEO controlling the
entire economy, one big firm owning everything, instead
of many competing firms, then that would be tyrannical.
Fred Williams
If allowed to go to the final conclusion, it would come to that.
Fred Williams
As the rich get richer and more powerful it will come to that. It's the
same effect if a few get together and price fix or decide that one of them
will produce a garbage vaccine and they all convince everybody to take it
because they control the news agencies.
*Anarcissie*
So they don't have a right to create wealth.
That's what you appear to be saying.
James A. Donald
> > > partnerships, cooperatives and so forth --
> > > examples of production under collective rather
> > > than individual control.
James A. Donald wrote:
> > The shareholders elect the board, the board appoints
> > the CEO, and the CEO, a single man, decides, subject
> > to the possibility that if his decisions turn out
> > bad the board may fire him.
> >
> > If you had the same system with one CEO controlling
> > the entire economy, one big firm owning everything,
> > instead of many competing firms, then that would be
> > tyrannical.
Fred Williams
> As the rich get richer and more powerful it will come
> to that.
Ah, Marx's famous monopoly capitalism. Odd that all
observed monopolies either are not monopolies
(Microsoft, Standard Oil) or else are creations of the
state (Bell)
James A. Donald
> > Capital, real estate, and raw materials, is, as I am
> > sure you know, the product of labor, so people do have a
> > right to those things, since they have a right to own or
> > sell the products of their own labor. What they do not
> > have a right to is the product of someone else's labor.
"*Anarcissie*"
> So they don't have a right to create wealth.
> That's what you appear to be saying.
Things appear very strange to you.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
>
> >> > The "right" under GWB and Reagan did more for leftist goals of
> >> > controlling
> >> > the economy by government and expanding welfare than anyone I can
> >> > think
> >> > of. If they're hiding their intentions then when does the hiding end
> >> > and the
> >> > actual doing what they want to do start?
>
> >> The people do not control the government.
>
> > No argument there, of course I don't think that "the people" is a
> > meaningful phrase but even so...
>
> >>The wealthy elite control the government and that's fascism.
>
> > No fascism is the control by the government of the economy and
> > societal whilst maintaining a class of people who theoretically own, but do
> > not control, productive assets.
>
> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
controlled
the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State. The
former "wealthy
elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
everything
they had.
>
> He should know. (Corporate power being the elite, wealthy upper classes
> who own the corporations).
>
> >> If the people control what's going on then it's left wing.
>
> > So then there hasn't been a left-wing government in history?
>
> Well, there's Cuba,
Which has the "one man, one vote" system, there's one man and you
vote for him.
> and now Venezuela,
A country where the the government takes over TV stations at will.
Yeah, real "people
power" there.
> *possibly* Bolivia, and lets not
> forget Nicaragua, although I wouldn't claim Nicaragua with certainty since I
> haven't heard a lot about it recently.
>
Well it's a "representative democracy" with continuing threats of
violence from leftist thugs.
It's less "left wing" than it was when the Sandinista murderers ran
the economy into the ground
and so more genuinely controlled by "the people".
> > How convenient for you that leftism hasn't been tried and therefore cannot have
> > failed.
>
> Whenever people try to rule themselves there's always a panic in the right
> wing power centres and they have the economic power to destroy the left.
Wow, that's such a moronic answer. By definition under a State
whoever has
the political power controls those with the economic power so whether
the "right
wing power centres" wants to destroy "the left" is irrevelant.
> Destroying is always easier than building, unfortunately.
>
> > Of course your definition is not true and has never been true.
>
> It's absolutely true, unless you insist that the right define straw men and
> then proceed to criticize. Of course there's a lot of that going on.
>
You claimed that Cuba was left wing, which means that what the
people want
doesn't matter a damn when determing left vs. right.
> > Plenty of governments you would consider "right wing" were doing what "the people" wanted.
>
> Not if the people were educated and free.
And the goalpost moving begins. You did not claim that " If the
educated and free
people control what's going on then it's left wing.". You claimed
that " If the people control
what's going on then it's left wing.". Of course the concept of "the
people control" is incoherent
but even so it's clear left wing governments don't have the approval
of free people. Cubans aren't
free, nor increasingly are Venezulans. The restrictions on their
personal liberty are pretty damn
significant. As for "educated" why would an educated person sell
their control over their own
life for being part of "the people" who control everyone else's? Why
would they believe such
a trade is even possible?
> That is certainly not happening in the U.S., nor in Canada today.
>
But it's happening in Cuba?
Michael Price
5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09
Now, he meant government rule by corporations. That's how it was in all
fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic asylum than
a country. But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his early years
in power, were fervently supported by corporations, including American
corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.
But they underestimated his lust for power...
>
>
>> He should know. (Corporate power being the elite, wealthy
>> upper classes
>> who own the corporations).
>>
>> >> If the people control what's going on then it's left wing.
>>
>> > So then there hasn't been a left-wing government in history?
>>
>> Well, there's Cuba,
>
> Which has the "one man, one vote" system, there's one man and you
> vote for him.
>
>> and now Venezuela,
>
> A country where the the government takes over TV stations at will.
> Yeah, real "people
> power" there.
>
>> *possibly* Bolivia, and lets not
>> forget Nicaragua, although I wouldn't claim Nicaragua with certainty
>> since I haven't heard a lot about it recently.
>>
> Well it's a "representative democracy" with continuing threats of
> violence from leftist thugs.
> It's less "left wing" than it was when the Sandinista murderers ran the
> economy into the ground
> and so more genuinely controlled by "the people".
Actually, the thugs were the ones Reagan compared to the founding
fathers, and who were rightists. Daniel Ortega is back in power there,
and the country is at peace. No Republican administration to underwrite
the thugs any more.
>
>> > How convenient for you that leftism hasn't been tried and
>> > therefore cannot have
>> > failed.
>>
>> Whenever people try to rule themselves there's always a
>> panic in the right
>> wing power centres and they have the economic power to destroy the
>> left.
>
>
> Wow, that's such a moronic answer. By definition under a State
> whoever has
> the political power controls those with the economic power so whether
> the "right
> wing power centres" wants to destroy "the left" is irrevelant.
>
You're in AMERICA, and you think government controls the financial
centers?
Michael Price
wrote:
Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
instead of it
being very obviously the other way around?
> That's how it was in all
> fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic asylum than
> a country. But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his early years
> in power, were fervently supported by corporations, including American
> corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.
>
Actually the Nazis were mostly supported by the lower class. The
rich were
understandably nervous about them.
> But they underestimated his lust for power...
>
> >> He should know. (Corporate power being the elite, wealthy
> >> upper classes
> >> who own the corporations).
>
> >> >> If the people control what's going on then it's left wing.
>
> >> > So then there hasn't been a left-wing government in history?
>
> >> Well, there's Cuba,
>
> > Which has the "one man, one vote" system, there's one man and you
> > vote for him.
>
> >> and now Venezuela,
>
> > A country where the the government takes over TV stations at will.
> > Yeah, real "people
> > power" there.
>
> >> *possibly* Bolivia, and lets not
> >> forget Nicaragua, although I wouldn't claim Nicaragua with certainty
> >> since I haven't heard a lot about it recently.
>
> > Well it's a "representative democracy" with continuing threats of
> > violence from leftist thugs.
> > It's less "left wing" than it was when the Sandinista murderers ran the
> > economy into the ground
> > and so more genuinely controlled by "the people".
>
> Actually, the thugs were the ones Reagan compared to the founding
> fathers, and who were rightists.
Oh please. Like the Sandinistas were as vicious as the contras on
the contras
worst day. They were enslavers and killers and you know it.
> Daniel Ortega is back in power there, and the country is at peace.
By "peace" you mean that the Sandinistas are only threatening
violence if they
don't get to be president in spite of the wishs of the people, not
actually doing it.
> No Republican administration to underwrite
> the thugs any more.
>
> >> > How convenient for you that leftism hasn't been tried and
> >> > therefore cannot have
> >> > failed.
>
> >> Whenever people try to rule themselves there's always a
> >> panic in the right
> >> wing power centres and they have the economic power to destroy the
> >> left.
>
> > Wow, that's such a moronic answer. By definition under a State
> > whoever has the political power controls those with the economic power so whether
> > the "right wing power centres" wants to destroy "the left" is irrevelant.
>
> You're in AMERICA, and you think government controls the financial
> centers?
>
I'm not in America and yes I think that the institution that
controls what
a company can charge, what it's primary input costs, whether it sell
to
somebody, what it has to and can report to customers, investors and
everyone else, what standards it can apply when deciding to sell and
many other things is in charge of that company. Hard to see why
I won't really.
Fred Williams
> On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
>> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>
> By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
> controlled
> the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State. The
> former "wealthy
> elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
> everything
> they had.
>
You got it backwards. By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized
Biography of George Bush" to get a perspective. It's online somewhere.
Just google it.
>>
>> Well, there's Cuba,
>
> Which has the "one man, one vote" system, there's one man and you
> vote for him.
>
That's U.S. propaganda. They have a very good electoral system in fact.
where money can't influence the vote like in the U.S. Those in power in the
States are afraid that if word gets out they might have to do this also and
so we get lies about Cuba.
>> and now Venezuela,
>
> A country where the the government takes over TV stations at will.
> Yeah, real "people
> power" there.
>
There is. While Bush II, (and his handlers), were focussing on conquering
Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for heroin, Latin America continued the fight
for their own freedom and in a few places like Venezuela they got it.
Fred Williams
> On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
>> > On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> >> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
>> >> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>>
>> > By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
>> > controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.
>> > The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party, the
>> > fascist party controlled everything they had.
>>
>> Now, he meant government rule by corporations.
>
> Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
> instead of it
> being very obviously the other way around?
It very obviously was not the other way around. Decisions made were for
corporate interests and union busting and low wages were the order of the
day.
>
>> That's how it was in all
>> fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic asylum than
>> a country.
I wouldn't go along with that either. Germans are not different than
anybody else, and the fascism that took root there now has a place in the
ruling class of the U.S. as well. People can be co-opted wherever they are.
The defence is education and love.
>> But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his early years
>> in power, were fervently supported by corporations, including American
>> corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.
>>
> Actually the Nazis were mostly supported by the lower class. The
> rich were
> understandably nervous about them.
>
Simply a lie.
>> But they underestimated his lust for power...
>>
The same thing they depended on to control him. They knew of his lust for
power in the U.S. and actually supported him for a while by not joining the
war. It was only when Japan attacked the U.S. and was allied with Germany
that the U.S. joined in. Even in those days Nazism was attractive to the
rulers in the U.S.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
This is not in the history I have read. Mussolini may
have been supported by some rich people but there
were plenty of rich people who were against him or
didn't care. The same seems to have been true of
Horthy (Hungary). I have not studied this subject in
detail but a major driving force recruiting people to
fascism was the combination of the failures of
capitalism such as the Great Depression, and the
fear of Communist revolution, which often frightened
working-class as well as middle-class people. The
omelet-making in Russia impressed a lot of people
in an unfavorable way.
Overall it seems like a big mistake to rigidly
separate government and business (corporate)
interests, at least after the rise of capitalism at
the end of the Middle Ages. People who are
interested in power are attracted to power
structures and tend to rise to the top of them.
> ...
5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09
I was talking specifically of corporations, not "rich people" although
it's understandable that Americans would conflate the two. Mussolini
himself said "fascism is best described as corparatism".
The same seems to have been true of
> Horthy (Hungary). I have not studied this subject in detail but a major
> driving force recruiting people to fascism was the combination of the
> failures of capitalism such as the Great Depression, and the fear of
> Communist revolution, which often frightened working-class as well as
> middle-class people. The omelet-making in Russia impressed a lot of
> people in an unfavorable way.
>
The Russian Revolution set off sheer panic in corporate circles
throughout the west. What if communism WORKED? Would it SPREAD? They
needed a counter agent, and fascism was that counter agent.
> Overall it seems like a big mistake to rigidly separate government and
> business (corporate) interests, at least after the rise of capitalism at
> the end of the Middle Ages. People who are interested in power are
> attracted to power structures and tend to rise to the top of them.
They should be somewhat adversarial for the same reason that church and
state should be somewhat adversarial: to maintain a balance of power, and
not let one of the three subjugate the people.
>
>
>> ...
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
> >> > On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> >> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> >> >> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>
> >> > By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
> >> > controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State.
> >> > The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party, the
> >> > fascist party controlled everything they had.
>
> >> Now, he meant government rule by corporations.
>
> > Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
> > instead of it being very obviously the other way around?
>
> It very obviously was not the other way around.
Could the corporation heads have government ministers who they
disagreed
with shot, fined or imprisoned on a whim? No. Then it was obviously
not the
other way around.
> Decisions made were for corporate interests and union busting and low
> wages were the order of the day.
>
How is mandating what a firm does, what it can charge and how much
it has
to lend to the government for corporate interests? Learn something.
>
>
> >> That's how it was in all
> >> fascist countries except Germany, which was more of a lunatic asylum than
> >> a country.
>
> I wouldn't go along with that either. Germans are not different than
> anybody else, and the fascism that took root there now has a place in the
> ruling class of the U.S. as well. People can be co-opted wherever they are.
> The defence is education and love.
And yet you champion Cuba, which has neither.
>
> >> But even there, Hitler's rise to power, and his early years
> >> in power, were fervently supported by corporations, including American
> >> corporations, who saw them as a useful tool.
>
> > Actually the Nazis were mostly supported by the lower class. The
> > rich were understandably nervous about them.
>
> Simply a lie.
Read a book.
>
> >> But they underestimated his lust for power...
>
> The same thing they depended on to control him. They knew of his lust for
> power in the U.S. and actually supported him for a while by not joining the
> war.
Yeah, you don't know what "support" means do you?
Michael Price
Umm... what do you mean here? If you're saying
government and business interests should be one
then you're agreeing with the Fascists, which is a bad
idea morally and practically. If you're saying that
business and government interests are de facto allied
this is simply untrue. Government wants to control the
same resources that corporations want to control and
they can't both do it. Certain corporations of course
can benefit by cooperating with government power
expansions, but the same could be said of some
corporations and unions and they aren't fundamentally
the same interest.
Fred Williams
> On Nov 3, 12:08 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>> > On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "5265 Dead, 398 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:08:12 -0800, Michael Price wrote:
>> >> > On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> >> >> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is
>> >> >> the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>>
>> >> > By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
>> >> > controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the
>> >> > State. The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party,
>> >> > the fascist party controlled everything they had.
>>
>> >> Now, he meant government rule by corporations.
>>
>> > Then why didn't the corporations have power over the government,
>> > instead of it being very obviously the other way around?
>>
>> It very obviously was not the other way around.
>
> Could the corporation heads have government ministers who they
> disagreed
> with shot, fined or imprisoned on a whim? No. Then it was obviously
> not the
> other way around.
>
Read the history books, people. Go back to the original stuff and don't
let this propagandist rebuild history.
Michael Price
And what history books tells you that corporations got a good deal
from the
fascists? I ask again, Could the corporation heads have government
ministers
who they disagreed with shot, fined or imprisoned on a whim? If you
know the
answer you know who was in charge, if you don't you know nothing about
the subject.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> >> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>
> > By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
> > controlled
> > the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State. The
> > former "wealthy
> > elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
> > everything
> > they had.
>
> You got it backwards. By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized
> Biography of George Bush" to get a perspective.
Right, so none of the books on the actual period support your theory
do they?
And in fact of course anything about GWB wouldn't support your theory
of
corporations controlling government either. GWB has been a disaster
for almost
all corporations in America. Think Detroit wanted oil prices sky
high?
> It's online somewhere.
> Just google it.
>
Wow, doesn't even give a link to the book that doesn't address the
question.
You're pathetic.
>
> >> Well, there's Cuba,
>
> > Which has the "one man, one vote" system, there's one man and you
> > vote for him.
>
> That's U.S. propaganda.
No that's the truth, there is no actual democracy allowed and that's
official
Cuban policy, not made up.
> They have a very good electoral system in fact.
> where money can't influence the vote like in the U.S.
And nor can a free press, opposition parties, voters. Wow, you
think you
can fool people into thinking you're for democracy and you call a one-
party
state democratic?
> Those in power in the
> States are afraid that if word gets out they might have to do this also and
> so we get lies about Cuba.
>
So then name an opposition candidate in Cuba.
> >> and now Venezuela,
>
> > A country where the the government takes over TV stations at will.
> > Yeah, real "people power" there.
>
> There is. While Bush II, (and his handlers), were focussing on conquering
> Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for heroin, Latin America continued the fight
> for their own freedom and in a few places like Venezuela they got it.
>
Yeah your credibility went when you called Cuba democratic, but
anyway
how is the government taking over unfriendly TV stations freedom?
Fred Williams
I know the truth and I'm not trying to lie about it. Fascism is when the
corporations control the government. Socialism is when the government
serves the people. Communism is when the people *are* the communal
government.
If you don't believe me, (which you do, but you won't admit it), remember
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
If you want to argue, Argue with Benito.
Fred Williams
> On Nov 2, 11:59 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>> > On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> >> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
>> >> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>>
>> > By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
>> > controlled
>> > the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State. The
>> > former "wealthy
>> > elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
>> > everything
>> > they had.
>>
>> You got it backwards. By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized
>> Biography of George Bush" to get a perspective.
>
> Right, so none of the books on the actual period support your theory
> do they?
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich does.
> And in fact of course anything about GWB wouldn't support your theory
> of
> corporations controlling government either. GWB has been a disaster
> for almost
> all corporations in America. Think Detroit wanted oil prices sky
> high?
>
It was a small group of special interests that were pulling George's
strings. They were very corporate. If was very fascist.
*Anarcissie*
Business corporations are typically owned and controlled
by wealthy people who seem to be conscious of themselves
as a class with class interests. Most of them don't need
fascism; they can do perfectly well manipulating a liberal
polity.
> > The same seems to have been true of> Horthy (Hungary). I have not studied this subject in detail but a major
> > driving force recruiting people to fascism was the combination of the
> > failures of capitalism such as the Great Depression, and the fear of
> > Communist revolution, which often frightened working-class as well as
> > middle-class people. The omelet-making in Russia impressed a lot of
> > people in an unfavorable way.
>
> The Russian Revolution set off sheer panic in corporate circles
> throughout the west. What if communism WORKED? Would it SPREAD? They
> needed a counter agent, and fascism was that counter agent.
The Russian Revolution also resulted in civil war, innumerable
atrocities and rule by what we would now call a theocratic
elite, and many people, not necessarily rich, feared the same
sort of thing could happen in their countries. This helped make
fascism attractive to them.
The major capitalist powers, like the U.S., Great Britain, and
France, needed no counter-agent; again, the ruling class
found it more than possible to construct secret police and
other repressive institutions within liberal states.
> > Overall it seems like a big mistake to rigidly separate government and
> > business (corporate) interests, at least after the rise of capitalism at
> > the end of the Middle Ages. People who are interested in power are
> > attracted to power structures and tend to rise to the top of them.
>
> They should be somewhat adversarial for the same reason that church and
> state should be somewhat adversarial: to maintain a balance of power, and
> not let one of the three subjugate the people.
That is the theory of liberalism. The slide of major liberal
powers toward monarchy or dictatorship, imperialism,
institutionalized war, repression, and plutocracy, the U.S.
being a primary example, show that there is something
wrong with the theory.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 11:59 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >> > On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> >> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> >> >> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>
> >> > By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
> >> > controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the State. The
> >> > former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist party, the fascist party controlled
> >> > everything they had.
>
> >> You got it backwards. By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized
> >> Biography of George Bush" to get a perspective.
>
> > Right, so none of the books on the actual period support your theory
> > do they?
>
> Rise and Fall of the Third Reich does.
>
> > And in fact of course anything about GWB wouldn't support your theory
> > of corporations controlling government either. GWB has been a disaster
> > for almost all corporations in America. Think Detroit wanted oil prices sky
> > high?
>
> It was a small group of special interests that were pulling George's
> strings. They were very corporate. If was very fascist.
>
What, they were more corporate than Detroit? Do you think that
mortgage
companies wanted such an obvious drain on people's ability to pay
their
mortgages? Or sellers of consumer electronics? I don't disagree with
the
idea that GWB was towards the fascist end of the scale, but to claim
that
he's good for America's corporations in general is ludicrous.
Michael Price
Then why aren't you answering the questions I ask? Who had the
gun? Who
made the final decisions?
> Fascism is when the corporations control the government.
Then you should be able to show that the corporations held the gun,
not the
government. Good luck with that.
> Socialism is when the government serves the people.
"To serve the people, IT'S A COOKBOOK!"
> Communism is when the people *are* the communal government.
>
Yeah right, explain how that is even possible.
> If you don't believe me, (which you do, but you won't admit it),
Sorry liar, but throwing out accusations without proof is not
convincing.
>remember
> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
> If you want to argue, Argue with Benito.
>
I have told you what that quote actually means. The fact that
you're too
dishonest or stupid to recognize it is no longer my concern.
Fred Williams
> On Nov 4, 5:14 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>> > On Nov 2, 11:59 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> >> Michael Price wrote:
>> >> > On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> >> >> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is
>> >> >> the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>>
>> >> > By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
>> >> > controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the
>> >> > State. The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist
>> >> > party, the fascist party controlled everything they had.
>>
>> >> You got it backwards. By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized
>> >> Biography of George Bush" to get a perspective.
>>
>> > Right, so none of the books on the actual period support your theory
>> > do they?
>>
>> Rise and Fall of the Third Reich does.
>>
> I doubt that very much. If it does feel free to quote.
>
You haven't read it have you!?
>> > And in fact of course anything about GWB wouldn't support your theory
>> > of corporations controlling government either. GWB has been a disaster
>> > for almost all corporations in America. Think Detroit wanted oil
>> > prices sky high?
>>
>> It was a small group of special interests that were pulling George's
>> strings. They were very corporate. If was very fascist.
>>
> What, they were more corporate than Detroit? Do you think that
> mortgage
> companies wanted such an obvious drain on people's ability to pay
> their
> mortgages?
That was not planned by GWB or any of them. It was a natural consequence
of their actions because of the way the economy works and they didn't know
that the hammer was about to fall.
> Or sellers of consumer electronics? I don't disagree with
> the
> idea that GWB was towards the fascist end of the scale, but to claim
> that
> he's good for America's corporations in general is ludicrous.
>
GWB was an idiot, much the same as Hitler, perhaps more of an idiot than
Hitler, I don't know. But he was serving the oil interests of the Bush
family, the Saud family and the bin Laden family. He was serving the
corporate interests of the military suppliers and Obama continues the
tradition by throwing unprecedented dollars at the wealthy to keep the old
game alive.
Fred Williams
> On Nov 4, 5:12 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>> > And what history books tells you that corporations got a good deal
>> > from the fascists? I ask again, Could the corporation heads have
>> > government ministers who they disagreed with shot, fined or imprisoned
>> > on a whim? If you know the answer you know who was in charge, if you
>> > don't you know nothing about the subject.
>>
>> I know the truth and I'm not trying to lie about it.
>
> Then why aren't you answering the questions I ask? Who had the
> gun? Who
> made the final decisions?
>
Do you think guns are necessary for making decisions? How very American
of you. Money is also a weapon. Corporations have lots of money. Look at
the movie, "The Corporation."
>> Fascism is when the corporations control the government.
>
> Then you should be able to show that the corporations held the gun,
> not the
> government. Good luck with that.
>
Already done, (see above).
>> Communism is when the people *are* the communal government.
>>
> Yeah right, explain how that is even possible.
>
Through education and people witnessing the truth to one another. Through
the caring and love that we have for one another and the desire for peaceful
productivity; the desire to see our children grow up not as slaves to the
corporate powers, but as free people in a free community. This can only be
achieved when there is equality and shared responsibility.
>>remember
>> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
>> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>> If you want to argue, Argue with Benito.
>>
> I have told you what that quote actually means. The fact that
> you're too
> dishonest or stupid to recognize it is no longer my concern.
>
It means what it says and I don't need you to redefine it.
*Anarcissie*
> On Oct 25, 11:55 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
> > James A. Donald wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:14:54 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
> > > <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
> > >> production by the workers, or by the people generally.
>
> > > people generally"
>
> > > Only particular people can control particular things.
>
> > moron. So anybody can control just about anything.
>
> You miss the point, George W. Bush was a particular person who
> controlled particular
> things, not a group that controlled all things. Things can only be
> controlled by particular
> people, that is not "the people" but individuals.
I don't see why particular groups of particular people,
organizations, that is, can't control some things, like
say the businesses they work for, since one observes
so many examples of people doing exactly that. If
you think otherwise I'd like to see the proof, since
the proposition is both counterintuitive and counter-
evidential. I really can't buy this Uebermensch -
monarchist stuff.
James A. Donald
> I don't see why particular groups of particular
> people, organizations, that is, can't control some
> things, like say the businesses they work for, since
> one observes so many examples of people doing exactly
> that.
But how do they control it? They elect a board, the
board appoints a CEO, and the CEO, one man, decides.
But without private property rights in the means of
production, there are no boundaries between one man's
plan and another man's plan, which means that "the
people", as a whole, have to decide everything for
everyone - which means that one man decides everything
for everyone. If the entire economy is run the way
particular firms in the economy are run, the outcome is
necessarily slavery and terror.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:14 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >> > On Nov 2, 11:59 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >> >> > On Oct 29, 4:49 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> >> >> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is
> >> >> >> the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
>
> >> >> > By "merger of state and corporate power" he meant that the State
> >> >> > controlled the corporations, not the corporations controlled the
> >> >> > State. The former "wealthy elite" did not control the fascist
> >> >> > party, the fascist party controlled everything they had.
>
> >> >> You got it backwards. By the way, you can also read "The unauthorized
> >> >> Biography of George Bush" to get a perspective.
>
> >> > Right, so none of the books on the actual period support your theory
> >> > do they?
>
> >> Rise and Fall of the Third Reich does.
>
> > I doubt that very much. If it does feel free to quote.
>
> You haven't read it have you!?
>
give the outline
of the argument and facts it presents that supports your theory.
Saying that
a book supports your theory is just bald assertion.
> >> > And in fact of course anything about GWB wouldn't support your theory
> >> > of corporations controlling government either. GWB has been a disaster
> >> > for almost all corporations in America. Think Detroit wanted oil
> >> > prices sky high?
>
> >> It was a small group of special interests that were pulling George's
> >> strings. They were very corporate. If was very fascist.
>
> > What, they were more corporate than Detroit? Do you think that
> > mortgage companies wanted such an obvious drain on people's ability to pay
> > their mortgages?
>
> That was not planned by GWB or any of them.
The war in Iraq had the entirely predictable effect of raising oil
prices, just like
every other US intervention in the middle after the Barbary Wars.
Clearly this
was bad for Detroit and bad for the ability of US residents to repay
their mortgages.
The claim that it "wasn't planned" is irrelevant to the point that it
was both predictable
and bad for corporations.
> It was a natural consequence of their actions
My point exactly, they did something that had "a natural
consequence" bad
for the majority of US corporations.
> because of the way the economy works and they didn't know
> that the hammer was about to fall.
>
> > Or sellers of consumer electronics? I don't disagree with
> > the idea that GWB was towards the fascist end of the scale, but to claim
> > that he's good for America's corporations in general is ludicrous.
>
> GWB was an idiot, much the same as Hitler, perhaps more of an idiot than
> Hitler, I don't know. But he was serving the oil interests of the Bush
> family, the Saud family and the bin Laden family.
No argument, but you're claiming that he's serving the interests of
corporations in
general. That's clearly not true.
> He was serving the corporate interests of the military suppliers and Obama
> continues the tradition by throwing unprecedented dollars at the wealthy to keep the old
> game alive.
>
Again, the fact that he serves the interest of a section of
corporations doesn't prove
he serves all corporations or corporations in general. He was a
disaster to most big
businesses in America, and indeed worldwide.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:12 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >> > And what history books tells you that corporations got a good deal
> >> > from the fascists? I ask again, Could the corporation heads have
> >> > government ministers who they disagreed with shot, fined or imprisoned
> >> > on a whim? If you know the answer you know who was in charge, if you
> >> > don't you know nothing about the subject.
>
> >> I know the truth and I'm not trying to lie about it.
>
> > Then why aren't you answering the questions I ask? Who had the
> > gun? Who made the final decisions?
>
> Do you think guns are necessary for making decisions?
No, and I said nothing to imply that. The guy with the gun gets to
say what
decisions can be made however, if he wants to and Mussolini wanted to
very much.
> How very American of you. Money is also a weapon. Corporations have lots of money. Look at
> the movie, "The Corporation."
Hey moron, answer the fucking question. Who made the final
decisions?
>
> >> Fascism is when the corporations control the government.
>
> > Then you should be able to show that the corporations held the gun,
> > not the government. Good luck with that.
>
> Already done, (see above).
>
No liar you did not. You simply claimed that "money is a weapon".
You did not explain
how money can overrule the decision of sociopaths with guns.
> >> Communism is when the people *are* the communal government.
>
> > Yeah right, explain how that is even possible.
>
> Through education and people witnessing the truth to one another. Through
> the caring and love that we have for one another and the desire for peaceful
> productivity; the desire to see our children grow up not as slaves to the
> corporate powers, but as free people in a free community. This can only be
> achieved when there is equality and shared responsibility.
So you don't know or won't tell me. No matter how much "education"
and
"witnessing the truth" (which you haven't done so far esp. w.r.t.
Cuba) people are
not the government. The government is the institution that provides,
people are
those that the decisions is made about. Even if you have democracy
(real democracy
not the kind you like) the people are still not the government, they
are those who
periodically influence what the government does. That's a big
difference especially
when the individual's influence is trivial for any group large enough
to sustain itself.
>
> >>remember
> >> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> >> merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini ...
> >> If you want to argue, Argue with Benito.
>
> > I have told you what that quote actually means. The fact that
> > you're too
> > dishonest or stupid to recognize it is no longer my concern.
>
> It means what it says and I don't need you to redefine it.
>
Then support your claim that corporations controlled the government
under fascism.
Hint: assertions are not claims.
*Anarcissie*
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:33:32 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > I don't see why particular groups of particular
> > people, organizations, that is, can't control some
> > things, like say the businesses they work for, since
> > one observes so many examples of people doing exactly
> > that.
>
> But how do they control it? They elect a board, the
> board appoints a CEO, and the CEO, one man, decides.
There are actually a great many varieties of collective
control, practical as well as theoretical. Of course it
depends on what you're trying to control -- if decisions
have to be made quickly and authoritatively, one might
favor the imperial executive, as in the present militarized
U.S. Federal government. But that isn't always necessary.
> But without private property rights in the means of
> production, there are no boundaries between one man's
> plan and another man's plan, which means that "the
> people", as a whole, have to decide everything for
> everyone - which means that one man decides everything
> for everyone. If the entire economy is run the way
> particular firms in the economy are run, the outcome is
> necessarily slavery and terror.
There is no necessary contradiction whatever between
private property rights and most concepts of socialism,
so I don't know why you're bringing one up. The issue
was (I thought) whether or not organizations can be
collectively controlled or not. I have yet to see a proof
that they can't.
James A. Donald
> > But how do they control it? They elect a board, the
> > board appoints a CEO, and the CEO, one man, decides.
"*Anarcissie*"
> There are actually a great many varieties of
> collective control, practical as well as theoretical.
We explored this in the sixties and seventies. Board
and CEO, and systems closely resembling it, are the only
ones that work.
Other systems at best fail miserably, like New Harmony,
at worst are complete frauds, like "all power to the
Soviets".
Fred Williams
> On Nov 9, 11:11 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>>How very American of you. Money is also a weapon. Corporations have lots
>>of money. Look at
>> the movie, "The Corporation."
>
> Hey moron, answer the fucking question. Who made the final
> decisions?
What "final decisions?" Between government and corporations, it starts out
with government making decisions, and than as the rich upper class grow
richer, the power of money overcomes the power of politics and the rich
start telling the government what to do. At some point they install
presidents and prime ministers and start making the laws that they want.
That is the end of democracy and the start of fascism.
>>
>> >> Fascism is when the corporations control the government.
>>
>> > Then you should be able to show that the corporations held the gun,
>> > not the government. Good luck with that.
>>
>> Already done, (see above).
>>
> No liar you did not. You simply claimed that "money is a weapon".
> You did not explain
> how money can overrule the decision of sociopaths with guns.
A sociopath, (or psychopath), with a gun can't influence much. he is soon
arrested and taken away. When the psychopath has money and the backing of
huge corporate powers, then she/he can do a lot of damage. Like Bush did or
Harper is doing now here in Canada.
Fred Williams
I'm sorry but there is no evidence that any of this is so. Many group
control efforts that no longer exist didn't fail on their own. They were
destroyed by those who want to control things themselves. If people are
destined to live as slaves, then we might as well blow up the world and end
this now. I cannot accept anything but equality and freedom as an ideal and
that must mean collective control. If it weren't possible, then there'd be
nothing but horror and terror left in the world.