Question for Israel's supporters
david_michael
are explained by 'Israeli' and US officials in terms of 'Israel's right
to defend herself when attacked'.
Do the Palestinians and Lebanese have a similar 'right'? If not, what
makes Israel so special? If so, how can 'Israel' legitimately criticize
attacks by Palestinians on its territory?
Just wondered . . .
David
Kurt Knoll
Kurt Knoll.
"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:1153666367.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
in message
<1153666367.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Well, let's see: who started the shooting?
Kurt Knoll
"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
news:lsg7c2lu8h6sqjlak...@4ax.com...
Palestinians land away.
Kurt Knoll.
sm...@nizkor.org
Roger makes a good point.
My answer, Dr. Michael, is that yes, indeed, Palestinians and Lebanese
do indeed have a similar right to defend themselves when attacked. The
question simply is whether the methods used by them at one time or
another legitimately qualify as "defence" (rather than as aggression or
escalation).
Which is not at all to suggest that none of the methods they employ do,
nor that none of the methods Israel is currently employing in Lebanon
fail to meet this test. But in the specific instance of the initial
Hezbollah attacks on Israeli territory, these were clear acts of
aggression against which Israel was morally compelled to respond if the
Lebanese government was unwilling or unable to prevent them.
Steven Mock
Waldo
david_michael wrote:
> The current activities of the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon and Gaza
> are explained by 'Israeli' and US officials in terms of 'Israel's right
> to defend herself when attacked'.
This is the refrain that the Judaeophilia Symphony's Hallelujah
Chorus always sings - on cue - every time the Jewish State commits an
act of wanton aggression to further the Zionist agenda. Petty
"excuses" (like the kidnapings) for their marauds may be
convenient, but are really not necessary, as the Chorus *will* sing
nonetheless.
> Do the Palestinians and Lebanese have a similar 'right'?
In the eyes of the Chorus, absolutely not.
> If not, what
> makes Israel so special?
First and most importantly, the "Holocaust". True or false, right
or wrong, much of the Western world has *accepted* that "the Jews"
suffered incomparable evils at the hands of Nazi Germany, and there is
an overriding implication that the Gentile world should share a
collective and eternal "guilt" for these atrocities, and that
"the Jews" should be absolved - in advance - for any "wrong"
that they might perpetrate against their "enemies", past, present
or future. This is why the "Holocaust" myths are propagandized so
heavily, guarded so jealously, and defended so viciously.
Second, the Judaeophilia Symphony's Hallelujah Chorus is made up
largely of "Christians" whose religious dogma insists that the Jews
truly are "G_d's Chosen People", but have simply "lost their
way", and will one day "wake up" to the truth of Christ. These
believe that Israel really *is* the Jews' Promised Land, and that it
is "G_d's will" that the Jews be able to occupy it, whether by
force or by divine intervention. So in their eyes, the Jews can do no
wrong.
I find it quite ironic that the Jews' principal outside cheerleaders
are Christians, the very group that Jews have traditionally despised
above all others, and whose culture, influence and institutions Jews
work tirelessly to slander, dismantle and destroy.
They say that "love is blind", but hey, love has 20/20 vision when
compared to religion.
**
Waldo
Observer at Large
sm...@nizkor.org
That is a group I would count myself among, albeit with some
qualifications. However, I think its a pretty safe bet to say that you
do not consider yourself one of "Israel's supporters".
In which case, just what do you think your jaundiced speculations as to
how other people would answer a question that wasn't even addressed to
you are worth?
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
>
> > Roger wrote:
> >> In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> >> (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> >> someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
> >> in message
> >> <1153666367.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> >>
> >> >The current activities of the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon and Gaza
> >> >are explained by 'Israeli' and US officials in terms of 'Israel's right
> >> >to defend herself when attacked'.
> >> >
> >> >Do the Palestinians and Lebanese have a similar 'right'? If not, what
> >> >makes Israel so special? If so, how can 'Israel' legitimately criticize
> >> >attacks by Palestinians on its territory?
> >> >
> >> >Just wondered . . .
> >>
> >> Well, let's see: who started the shooting?
> >
> > Roger makes a good point.
> >
> > My answer, Dr. Michael, is that yes, indeed, Palestinians and Lebanese
> > do indeed have a similar right to defend themselves when attacked.
>
> of their countries?
That's a pretty dogmatic statement to make, one that contains all kinds
of hidden assumptions, such as, for example, that the terms "people"
and "occupation" are entirely unambigious, as is the right of
possession of a given country, and, for that matter, that one believes
in a God on whose authority such rights and categories are determined.
So keeping to the matter at hand, I do think that the Palestinians have
a right to resist Israeli occupation. But that does not mean that any
and all acts of violence against Israelis by anyone automatically
qualify under the category of legitimate resistence, as opposed to,
say, aggression or retaliation.
> > The
> > question simply is whether the methods used by them at one time or
> > another legitimately qualify as "defence" (rather than as aggression or
> > escalation).
>
> Surely you don't consider what Israel is doing to be a legitimate response
> for two kidnapped soldiers?
No, though at least *some* response, up to and including the use of
force for the explicit purpose of recovering them, would be justified.
I do, on the other hand, think that Israel is morally compelled to
respond in a more general way to rocket attacks on its territory and
citizens.
I do not necessarily think that the manner of response they have have
employed is entirely legitimate.
> If the answer is 'yes' than you wouldn't have a problem with the
> Palestinians going in and murdering Israel children, and destroying the
> infrastructure of Israel for the Palies that have been kidnapped by Israel,
> right? We can't have one standard for Jews and one standard for everyone
> else, now can we?
Are you actually curious about what I think, or are you just going to
make up my position for me?
Steven Mock
Kenneth McVay OBC
Waldo <wald...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[claptrap flushed down the michael]
>I find it quite ironic that the Jews' principal outside cheerleaders
>are Christians, the very group that Jews have traditionally despised
>above all others, and whose culture, influence and institutions Jews
>work tirelessly to slander, dismantle and destroy.
And you know this how, exactly? I've met a lot of Jews, and never heard a disparaging
word about Christians or Christianity.
Methinks you projecteth too much.
--
"this mite hold with the uneducated fools but any man
with brains will see it full of holes" ("Irving Supporter,"
a Leading Revisionist Scholar)
http://www.nizkor.org
Waldo
> Waldo, Dr. Michael's question was addressed to "Israel's supporters".
> That is a group I would count myself among, albeit with some
> qualifications. However, I think its a pretty safe bet to say that you
> do not consider yourself one of "Israel's supporters".
On the contrary, Mr. Mock, I have gone on record here as supporting
Israel as a "homeland for Jews". Of course, like you, I would
attach "some qualifications" which, naturally, would likely be
somewhat different than yours.
Jason James
"david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:1153666367.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
My gut reaction is that Israel has overstepped the mark by a long way with
the current hostilities.
Sharon, as vehemently pro-security as he was in the past, was moving to a
more stately position (excuses the pun) with respect to Israel's problems
with some Arab countries around her AND the powerful terrorist groups
within.
I just wish, Israel could keep leaders such as Rabin, and recently,
Sharon,..or Peres (sp) in office long enough for them to have a decent go at
trying to assuage Israel and her antagonists problems.
Jason
Dr. Gassen Burnham
Hmmmmmm, the skunk is attempting to scrub off it's odious stench, good
luck, Dopey.
david_michael
Well, I think Israel is completely doomed whatever it does. It's just
not a viable proposition in the long term. Look at it -- you have a
thin wedge of land of some 8000 square miles (about the size of Wales)
completely surrounded by enemies who are held off either by
American-subsidized military might or by American-subsidized (and
rather rickety-looking) local despots. It's completely reliant on
America. Take away American support and -- splat! It can't exist
independently.
Now American support is certainly secure for the time being. But what
happens when the American economy gets into serious trouble -- for
example, when oil supplies start running low, or when new diseases such
as bird flu start flourishing, or when global warming starts causing
serious havoc, or when the political climate in the US changes
drastically (as seems to happen in most places once or twice every
century) . . .? Take away those subsidies and Israel's stuffed. Where
will it get the oil to power the tanks and the jet fighters? In fact
where will it get the resources to keep its economy going?
I'm actually all for a Jewish homeland -- 'give each people its own
land' has always been my philosophy. But Israel is seriously in the
wrong place. Maybe they'd have been better off down in Madagascar after
all . . .
DEM
Ben Cramer
"Kenneth McVay OBC" <kmc...@shell.vex.net> wrote in message
news:12c7nb0...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <1153682615.3...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Waldo <wald...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> [claptrap flushed down the michael]
>
>>I find it quite ironic that the Jews' principal outside cheerleaders
>>are Christians, the very group that Jews have traditionally despised
>>above all others, and whose culture, influence and institutions Jews
>>work tirelessly to slander, dismantle and destroy.
>
> And you know this how, exactly? I've met a lot of Jews, and never heard a
> disparaging
> word about Christians or Christianity.
You aren't paid to hear such, McFey. You're a paid whore for their milch
cow, the shoah industry.
Ben Cramer
"Dr. Gassen Burnham" <gasenb...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1153697389....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wonder how JJ would have felt, had WWII gone on for another two or three
years, and ALL the stinky yids had been offed (if you believe their silly
little shoah fairytale).
>
sm...@nizkor.org
>
> Either people have a right to resist occupation or they don't?
>
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
No it won't, because I think the extent of a people's "right to resist
occupation" depends entirely on the specific circumstances.
You people have a hard time dealing with complexity, don't you?
> > But that does not mean that any
> > and all acts of violence against Israelis by anyone automatically
> > qualify under the category of legitimate resistence, as opposed to,
> > say, aggression or retaliation.
>
> Oh, I see, resistance is how you define it. If Americans had let the Brits
> define resistance, we would still be under British rule.
No, I think there are some pretty clear definitions out there, the
first test being whether the act of violence is really targeted at the
occupation.
So by contrast, then, you DO believe that any and all acts of violence
against Israelis by anyone automatically qualifies as legitimate
resistence?
> >> > The
> >> > question simply is whether the methods used by them at one time or
> >> > another legitimately qualify as "defence" (rather than as aggression or
> >> > escalation).
>
> And you/Israel will define AGGRESSION, eh Smock? You must be a real
> humanitarian - I assume you're on record condemning the 'aggression' that
> America and the Brits perpetrated against Austria, yes?
> Or, could it be that 'aggression' is justified when if fits your agenda?
What are you babbling about?
> >> Surely you don't consider what Israel is doing to be a legitimate
> >> response for two kidnapped soldiers?
> >
> > No, though at least *some* response, up to and including the use of
> > force for the explicit purpose of recovering them, would be justified.
>
> Yeah, murdering children, destroying hospitals and schools is a justified
> response?
Um... did I say that?
> > I do, on the other hand, think that Israel is morally compelled to
> > respond in a more general way to rocket attacks on its territory and
> > citizens.
>
> No, that is a response to Israeli destruction.
Ah, I see. So now YOU'RE the one with the "God given" right to
determine what is aggression and what is defense.
So what do YOU think Israel should have done in response to rocket
attacks on its territory and citizens (whatever you personally judge
the motivations of those attacks to be)?
Steven Mock
aame...@gmail.com
Yes
If so, how can 'Israel' legitimately criticize attacks by Palestinians
on its territory?
Easy, Israel is not attacking Palestinians. Palestinians are attacking
Israel and they have to defend themselves.
david_michael schreef:
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
in message <1471112.4QT6zNtCbC@OICU812>:
>sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
>>> >> >The current activities of the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon and
>>> >> >Gaza are explained by 'Israeli' and US officials in terms of
>>> >> >'Israel's right to defend herself when attacked'.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Do the Palestinians and Lebanese have a similar 'right'? If not, what
>>> >> >makes Israel so special? If so, how can 'Israel' legitimately
>>> >> >criticize attacks by Palestinians on its territory?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Just wondered . . .
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, let's see: who started the shooting?
>>> > Roger makes a good point.
>>> >
>>> > My answer, Dr. Michael, is that yes, indeed, Palestinians and Lebanese
>>> > do indeed have a similar right to defend themselves when attacked.
>>> Do you believe that ALL PEOPLE have a God given right to resist
>>> occupation of their countries?
>> That's a pretty dogmatic statement to make, one that contains all kinds
>> of hidden assumptions, such as, for example, that the terms "people"
>> and "occupation" are entirely unambigious, as is the right of
>> possession of a given country, and, for that matter, that one believes
>> in a God on whose authority such rights and categories are determined.
>Nice spin.
>
>Either people have a right to resist occupation or they don't?
>
>A simple yes or no will suffice.
No, as has been explained to you, it won't.
>> So keeping to the matter at hand, I do think that the Palestinians have
>> a right to resist Israeli occupation.
>Just how would you suggest they accomplish this? They don't have tanks,
>Apache gun-ships, F-16's, laser guided missiles etc, etc. Diplomacy hasn't
>worked, what would you suggest they use against the illegal occupation of
>their country?
Of course, the idiot child cannot document this "diplomacy"
>> But that does not mean that any
>> and all acts of violence against Israelis by anyone automatically
>> qualify under the category of legitimate resistence, as opposed to,
>> say, aggression or retaliation.
>Oh, I see, resistance is how you define it. If Americans had let the Brits
>define resistance, we would still be under British rule.
Nup.
>>> > The
>>> > question simply is whether the methods used by them at one time or
>>> > another legitimately qualify as "defence" (rather than as aggression or
>>> > escalation).
>And you/Israel will define AGGRESSION, eh Smock? You must be a real
>humanitarian - I assume you're on record condemning the 'aggression' that
>America and the Brits perpetrated against Austria, yes?
>Or, could it be that 'aggression' is justified when if fits your agenda?
What aggression against Austria are you referring to, idiot child?
>>> Surely you don't consider what Israel is doing to be a legitimate
>>> response for two kidnapped soldiers?
>> No, though at least *some* response, up to and including the use of
>> force for the explicit purpose of recovering them, would be justified.
>Yeah, murdering children, destroying hospitals and schools is a justified
>response?
You seem to think that it's okay for Hezbollah...
>Has not occurred to you that if Israel thought the soldiers were
>being held in hospitals they wouldn't have bombed it?
Has it not occurred to you that Israel has not specifically targeted
hospitals?
>> I do, on the other hand, think that Israel is morally compelled to
>> respond in a more general way to rocket attacks on its territory and
>> citizens.
>No, that is a response to Israeli destruction.
How can that be, when the rockets came *first*.
Time is more than just a device to keep everything from happening at
once, idiot child.
>> I do not necessarily think that the manner of response they have have
>> employed is entirely legitimate.
>>> If the answer is 'yes' than you wouldn't have a problem with the
>>> Palestinians going in and murdering Israel children, and destroying the
>>> infrastructure of Israel for the Palies that have been kidnapped by
>>> Israel, right? We can't have one standard for Jews and one standard for
>>> everyone else, now can we?
>> Are you actually curious about what I think, or are you just going to
>> make up my position for me?
>Tell us your postion.
He has.
You seem incapable of understanding.
Jason James
I think in the case of the US and her allies, running out of oil, which wont
happen for some time to come, if the middle-east keeps supplying oil in the
present manner, she would consider that problem as politically construed,
and act accordingly. In a survive or die fight over remaining oil-reserves,
provided those reserves are still adequate, her hand would be forced to act
to procure such reserves for her needs.
Bird flu is a ring-in which the west already has some partly effective
anti-viral agent ie Tammyflu. But that one is still an unknown.
Global warming, is a slow process, with many predictions. It is still
largely an unknown.
If nothing else, the one thing the US and virtually every other country on
earth now knows, is that world trade and the interchange of intelligence
(however obtained) translates to a safer more convivial place.
Subsidies to Israel are borne out of two things IMHO,.first the large Jewish
community in the US, due in part to immigration after WWII, and the
subsequent sense of duty to those who chose to go to Israel, and secondly,
the valuable part Israel plays as an agent of western interests in the area.
This last one does not mean Israel has "carte blanche" in the area, as
previous admonishments issued to Israel by the US attests.
> I'm actually all for a Jewish homeland -- 'give each people its own
> land' has always been my philosophy. But Israel is seriously in the
> wrong place. Maybe they'd have been better off down in Madagascar after
> all . . .
Yes but what was Judea, is THE homeland as far as most Jews are concerned, I
suspect.
Jason
david_michael
But the point is that the cost goes up once demand starts to outstrip
supply. You don't need to wait for the stuff to run out altogether for
the economic fallout to appear. In fact arguably its appearing already
-- I have to use one of the most expensive petrol pumps in the UK and
the price per litre has been relentlessly climbing for as long as I can
recall.
Now look at the position of the US. Assuming that it manages to keep a
compliant regime in Saudi Arabia it has a secure supply. So there's no
problem getting the stuff -- it's just that it becomes expensive. Of
course if Saudi Arabia were to fall into Islamist hands then the sparks
would really start to fly.
> Bird flu is a ring-in which the west already has some partly effective
> anti-viral agent ie Tammyflu. But that one is still an unknown.
Yes, these things mutate. And bird flu isn't the only one -- new things
are popping up all the time. Whoever heard of MRSI until a few years
ago? AIDS was unknown before the 1980s, I believe.
> Global warming, is a slow process, with many predictions. It is still
> largely an unknown.
I think we're talking decades rather than centuries before big effects
start to occur -- some would argue that events such as the hurricanes
in New Orleans could be linked to these processes.
> If nothing else, the one thing the US and virtually every other country on
> earth now knows, is that world trade and the interchange of intelligence
> (however obtained) translates to a safer more convivial place.
Tell that to the Lebanese and Iraqis or to the 3 billion people in the
world trying to survive on less than 60 cents per day. Tell that to the
parents of the children who die of starvation at the rate of one every
5 seconds. More people die of starvation related causes every 3 years
than died in the entire Second World War, even according to mainstream
historians' estimates of that latter figure (about 50 million). I am
sure they feel very 'safe'.
World trade and the American intelligence system result in a world with
immense maldistribution of resources, with enormous power concentrated
in very few hands, and with a corresponding lack of power for people to
control their own communities.
That in turn reduces the security of the US itself. You can't maintain
a global empire once the economy starts to turn sour or if major
competing regimes emerge (e.g. China, which is starting to make some
interesting noises). Read Spengler. There are fundamental structural
weaknesses with empires that trip them up again and again.
> Subsidies to Israel are borne out of two things IMHO,.first the large Jewish
> community in the US, due in part to immigration after WWII,
Now in Britain we see a marked decline in the Jewish community, largely
due to outmarriage. If a similar phenomenon is occurring in the US then
I wonder if they will continue to have the same clout there.
>and the
> subsequent sense of duty to those who chose to go to Israel, and secondly,
> the valuable part Israel plays as an agent of western interests in the area.
> This last one does not mean Israel has "carte blanche" in the area, as
> previous admonishments issued to Israel by the US attests.
Well the US is playing two cards in the Middle East. Card 1 is Israel.
Card 2 is attempting to create friendly Arab regimes (Egypt, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia and now Libya). The irony is that if they eventually
succeed with Card 2, as they well might, then Israel becomes less
strategically important to them.
> > I'm actually all for a Jewish homeland -- 'give each people its
own
> > land' has always been my philosophy. But Israel is seriously in the
> > wrong place. Maybe they'd have been better off down in Madagascar after
> > all . . .
>
> Yes but what was Judea, is THE homeland as far as most Jews are concerned, I
> suspect.
Fair point. However, as I think I myself illustrate, there comes a time
when even the most hard-nosed nationalist has to accept that sometimes
the realities of life dictate that 'the survival of my people' comes
before 'the survival of my people's traditional homeland'. Some will
never accept this. They're the ones who get pushed into the sea.
> Jason
David
sm...@nizkor.org
> Jason James wrote:
>
> > If nothing else, the one thing the US and virtually every other country on
> > earth now knows, is that world trade and the interchange of intelligence
> > (however obtained) translates to a safer more convivial place.
>
> Tell that to the Lebanese and Iraqis or to the 3 billion people in the
> world trying to survive on less than 60 cents per day. Tell that to the
> parents of the children who die of starvation at the rate of one every
> 5 seconds.
Gladly, Dr. Michael, given that the places where this occurs are places
that are *not* incorporated into the global trading system, which is
precisely why it occurs.
And I'm all for seeing these places properly incorporated so as to
reduce the level of poverty and conflict, as seems to occur every time
a previously marginal territory is so incorporated.
And by the way, Dr. Michael, no one survives solely on 60 cents a day.
That "60 cents a day" simply measures the documented extent of their
incorporation into the global economy. The remainder of the economic
intercourse that enables their survival is local and off the radar -
the product of their "isolated community" as it were.
Hence it stands to reason that they must, for the most part, be living
in a "paradise on earth", under the very sort of system you would wish
on them if you had the power.
Steven Mock
david_michael
> david_michael wrote:
> > Jason James wrote:
> >
> > > If nothing else, the one thing the US and virtually every other country on
> > > earth now knows, is that world trade and the interchange of intelligence
> > > (however obtained) translates to a safer more convivial place.
> >
> > Tell that to the Lebanese and Iraqis or to the 3 billion people in the
> > world trying to survive on less than 60 cents per day. Tell that to the
> > parents of the children who die of starvation at the rate of one every
> > 5 seconds.
>
> Gladly, Dr. Michael, given that the places where this occurs are places
> that are *not* incorporated into the global trading system, which is
> precisely why it occurs.
Lebanon not incorporated into the global trading system? Tell me more .
. .
> And I'm all for seeing these places properly incorporated so as to
> reduce the level of poverty and conflict, as seems to occur every time
> a previously marginal territory is so incorporated.
One of your weaker arguments. Let me proceed to crush it. Let's take a
list of the poorest countries in the world together with their per
capita GDP:
http://www.aneki.com/poorest.html
1 East Timor $500
2 Somalia $500
3 Sierra Leone $500
4 Malawi $600
5 Tanzania $600
6 Burundi $600
7 Congo, Republic of the $700
8 Congo, Democratic Republic of the $700
9 Comoros $700
10 Eritrea $700
11 Ethiopia $700
12 Afghanistan $700
13 Niger $800
14 Yemen $800
15 Madagascar $800
16 Guinea-Bissau $800
17 Zambia $800
18 Kiribati $800
19 Nigeria $900
20 Mali $900
Now are these countries poor because they are excluded from the
international trading system, or are they poor AND excluded from the
international trading system because they have features that make them
'uncompetitive'? These countries are characterized by war, massive
corruption, poor infrastructure, nothing much to sell, no money to
invest, debt, rampant crime, instability of all kinds -- in short they
are places where nobody wants to 'do business'. Would you invest your
(presumably vast) pension fund in East Timor? With the exception of
Somalia, every one of these countries is firmly in the Western camp.
Look at the names on the list again -- places like Zambia, Nigeria,
Malawi, Tanzania. These are not communist states or Islamic republics
-- they're capitalist to the core. Sure, they're 'excluded' -- but this
is precisely my point. Capital accumulates in the places most
favourable for its accumulation, 'excluding' vast tracts of territory
that are 'uncompetitive'.
By contrast, China, which has a highly authoritarian government and is
very schizo about the West, is starting to do rather well on the
economic front. Singapore, a very authoritarian place with limited
democracy, is doing well too. Saudi Arabia is doing extremely well --
hardly a beacon of liberal democracy! How strange that just as Mr Putin
is being accused (rightly) of being authoritarian the Russian economy
is no longer a basket case and is showing signs of considerable health.
Why are these places doing well? Because they are attracting and
deploying capital effectively. They're selling what they've got and
they're investing effectively.
Bottom line: if you're sitting on oil you will generally, on the whole,
be wealthy irrespective of your political system (unless, of course,
someone with superior military technology bombs your infrastructure to
pieces to try to get your oil). If you are in the middle of a war zone,
in the middle of a desert, with nothing to sell, you're stuffed even if
your commitment to free market economics rivals that of Milton
Friedman.
> And by the way, Dr. Michael, no one survives solely on 60 cents a day.
> That "60 cents a day" simply measures the documented extent of their
> incorporation into the global economy. The remainder of the economic
> intercourse that enables their survival is local and off the radar -
> the product of their "isolated community" as it were.
Yes, I saw this in Africa. You're talking subsistance agriculture,
scrabbling in bins, crime and prostitution.
> Hence it stands to reason that they must, for the most part, be living
> in a "paradise on earth", under the very sort of system you would wish
> on them if you had the power.
On the contrary, I would say that an end to the existing global
economic system is a prerequisite to removing the sorts of
maldistribution of resources we see in the world. The mere spread of
neoliberal globalism over all the world will not do the trick because
capital will still tend to gravitate to the places most appealing for
it, 'excluding' vast areas that display characteristics (which could
even be natural characteristics quite unrelated to politics) with no
way to compete.
The removal of the global neoliberal system will not, in itself, solve
the problem but it will at least give the peoples of these territories
the opportunity to organize themselves more effectively if they so
wish. And, as Albania under Hoxha showed, it IS possible to get a
situation where nobody starves in a tiny and traditionally backward
part of the world, by firmly turning your back on the outside world and
relying on your own resources, distributing the resources that you do
have equitably among your people, clamping down ruthlessly on
corruption, and deploying your common resources to enhance national
viability. In that case, it was AFTER they joined the New World Order
that a third of the population was forced overseas, the entire economy
became reliant on money from the outside world -- mostly from crime --
corruption and lawlessness became rampant and the whole thing
degenerated into an economic basket case.
That's what integration into the global trading system did for THEM!
> Steven Mock
DEM
Chris C. Larson
Kurt:
You are a terrorist. An intellectual terrorist. Your low intelligence
level terrorizes those of us that have average or above, intelligence.
Anyone who has read your posts, are dumber for having done so.
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > david_michael wrote:
> > > Jason James wrote:
> > >
> > > > If nothing else, the one thing the US and virtually every other country on
> > > > earth now knows, is that world trade and the interchange of intelligence
> > > > (however obtained) translates to a safer more convivial place.
> > >
> > > Tell that to the Lebanese and Iraqis or to the 3 billion people in the
> > > world trying to survive on less than 60 cents per day. Tell that to the
> > > parents of the children who die of starvation at the rate of one every
> > > 5 seconds.
> >
> > Gladly, Dr. Michael, given that the places where this occurs are places
> > that are *not* incorporated into the global trading system, which is
> > precisely why it occurs.
>
> Lebanon not incorporated into the global trading system? Tell me more .
Lebanon was more incorporated than most states in the region, and as a
result was a highly successful and prosperous place. Indeed, in many
respects, it still is, despite past and current troubles which are as
much the fault of your heroes as they are the of the nebulous and
ill-defined "system" (and are we talking about the global trading
system, liberal/capitalist ideologies and states, American hegemony...
this term seem to change in meaning every time it is invoked, Dr.
Michael).
"The Western camp"? What the hell does that mean? That they are not
(currently) being run by anarchist revolutionaries.? Okay, I'll give
you that. Beyond that, what exactly makes them a part of the "system"?
Nothing.
Indeed, Dr. Michael, you have hit the nail on the head. The problem is
exactly as you describe it: "war, massive corruption, poor
infrastructure". So, quit agitating for further conflict, develop a
properly liberal-capitalist system based not on local patronnage but on
national growth, and build up a bloody infrastructre. These are the
solutions, staring you right in the face, yet you still call for
violence and isolation.
Every one of these countries would have a great deal to sell, and would
be extremely attractive places for investment, so long as they engaged
in reform that ensured that said investment would be channelled into a
functioning and integrated economy.
So that's my solution, Dr. Michael. Development aid that would enable
these countries to build up their infrastructures and establish more
stable political systems. This is a programme that has proven wildly
successful in the past - say, throughout a Europe ruined in the
aftermath of World War II, and that is currently showing unimaginable
results in the Balkan region only recently wrecked by communist
mismanagement and ethnic war.
So what's your solution, then?
> Look at the names on the list again -- places like Zambia, Nigeria,
> Malawi, Tanzania. These are not communist states or Islamic republics
> -- they're capitalist to the core. Sure, they're 'excluded' -- but this
> is precisely my point. Capital accumulates in the places most
> favourable for its accumulation, 'excluding' vast tracts of territory
> that are 'uncompetitive'.
>
> By contrast, China, which has a highly authoritarian government and is
> very schizo about the West, is starting to do rather well on the
> economic front. Singapore, a very authoritarian place with limited
> democracy, is doing well too.
It has little to do with whether the state is "capitalist" in name.
Capitalism and integration into the global economy are two different
things. I can personally dislike the "authoritarian" tendencies of a
state's domestic management, and still recognise its economic policies
as geared toward integration with global markets. Singapore always has
been. China - well, it had a vast and diverse enough territory that it
didn't have quite as urgent a need to be. Nonetheless, the speed with
which it is developing and becoming more prosperous in direct
proportion to its increased integration with the global economy only
serves to further illustrate my point.
> Saudi Arabia is doing extremely well --
> hardly a beacon of liberal democracy! How strange that just as Mr Putin
> is being accused (rightly) of being authoritarian the Russian economy
> is no longer a basket case and is showing signs of considerable health.
> Why are these places doing well? Because they are attracting and
> deploying capital effectively. They're selling what they've got and
> they're investing effectively.
Again - liberal or authoritarian (or a mixture of the two) their
success is directly keyed into their incorporation into the global
trading system (however that incorporation came about).
> Bottom line: if you're sitting on oil you will generally, on the whole,
> be wealthy irrespective of your political system (unless, of course,
> someone with superior military technology bombs your infrastructure to
> pieces to try to get your oil). If you are in the middle of a war zone,
> in the middle of a desert, with nothing to sell, you're stuffed even if
> your commitment to free market economics rivals that of Milton
> Friedman.
I dunno. If you're smart, maybe you can develop an advanced IT
industry. That's what Israel's been working on these past decades
(interrupted every now and then by political events).
> > And by the way, Dr. Michael, no one survives solely on 60 cents a day.
> > That "60 cents a day" simply measures the documented extent of their
> > incorporation into the global economy. The remainder of the economic
> > intercourse that enables their survival is local and off the radar -
> > the product of their "isolated community" as it were.
>
> Yes, I saw this in Africa. You're talking subsistance agriculture,
> scrabbling in bins, crime and prostitution.
Not necessarily. I'm also talking about networks and communities whose
labour and barter systems are by and large isolated from the global
economy.
I will grant that even there it is a very far cry from "paradise on
earth". But, hey, aren't YOU the one who thinks that remaining in such
a state of isolation is the programme that will generate this result?
> The removal of the global neoliberal system will not, in itself, solve
> the problem but it will at least give the peoples of these territories
> the opportunity to organize themselves more effectively if they so
> wish. And, as Albania under Hoxha showed, it IS possible to get a
> situation where nobody starves in a tiny and traditionally backward
> part of the world, by firmly turning your back on the outside world and
> relying on your own resources, distributing the resources that you do
> have equitably among your people, clamping down ruthlessly on
> corruption, and deploying your common resources to enhance national
> viability.
This is kind of funny, Dr. Michael. You see, Albania is one of the
places I visited on my recent "vacation". I actually saw first-hand
the sheer level of destitution and ruin to which Hoxha's bloodyminded
policies drove the place - far worse even than neighbouring communist
countries that were at least integrated into *some* trading bloc.
But I also saw how much optimism and energy there is now that people
are actually free to develop their own entrepreneurial spirit
independently without the intervention of state coersion. And I saw
how quickly the infrastructure is improving with the help of
significant EU reconstruction projects.
However, I will admit that Albania is an exceptional case in that
respect, in that it lucky to be a part of Europe. If only similar
investment and attention could be directed to developing Africa... why
soon we'd have "paradise on earth".
> In that case, it was AFTER they joined the New World Order
> that a third of the population was forced overseas, the entire economy
> became reliant on money from the outside world -- mostly from crime --
> corruption and lawlessness became rampant and the whole thing
> degenerated into an economic basket case.
>
> That's what integration into the global trading system did for THEM!
Except that this is a completely false and fanciful interpretation of
what happened. After all, you cannot expect the sheer level of
destruction and mismanagement that Hoxha visited on the country to be
fixed instantaneously; for them to suddenly develop an industry and
infrastructure even close to competitive on a global scale the very
moment the system collapses. So, naturally, as soon as the coercive
system that kept people from fleeing or complaining too much about the
starvation and backwardness in which they were being held did collapse,
those people fled en masse to *anywhere else* which was 100 times
better than the ruin Hoxha's policies had created. And naturally, in
lieu of a system that had been kept in place for decades by brutal
violence, there was little left in its place in the immediate aftermath
but chaos.
But I can tell you first-hand that with the help of EU infrastructure
projects, investment from Albanians overseas, and, most importantly,
the indominable spirit of the amazing Albanian people themselves, they
are already well on the way to turning it around. They are far further
ahead at this moment than I would have expected them to be before I saw
it for myself. My estimation is EU membership by 2012. 2015 at the
latest.
And when that does happen - and it will - just how many Albanians do
you think will look back on Hoxha's dictatorship as "the good old
days", Dr. Michael? About as many as there are Greeks who pine for the
junta, I would guess.
Steven Mock
Kurt Knoll
propaganda by the Jews.
Kurt Knoll.
"Chris C. Larson" <larsonc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153948729.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
david_michael
sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> david_michael wrote:
> > sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > > david_michael wrote:
> > > > Jason James wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If nothing else, the one thing the US and virtually every other country on
> > > > > earth now knows, is that world trade and the interchange of intelligence
> > > > > (however obtained) translates to a safer more convivial place.
> > > >
> > > > Tell that to the Lebanese and Iraqis or to the 3 billion people in the
> > > > world trying to survive on less than 60 cents per day. Tell that to the
> > > > parents of the children who die of starvation at the rate of one every
> > > > 5 seconds.
> > >
> > > Gladly, Dr. Michael, given that the places where this occurs are places
> > > that are *not* incorporated into the global trading system, which is
> > > precisely why it occurs.
> >
> > Lebanon not incorporated into the global trading system? Tell me more .
>
> Lebanon was more incorporated than most states in the region, and as a
> result was a highly successful and prosperous place.
And now whole swathes of it are smouldering heaps of rubble. How does
that support your argument that incorporation into the 'global trading
system' (whatever that is) leads to prosperity? On the contrary, local
factors trump 'integration into the global trading system' every time
when it comes to determining prosperity.
> Indeed, in many
> respects, it still is,
The pictures that I saw on British TV suggested otherwise.
And let's be honest -- who will invest in Lebanon now? What
international trade will want to go to a place that erupts in flames
every few years? The cash to rebuild will come from the US and the EU
-- both of whom want to further their imperial interests vis a vis
Syria, Iran and the Moslem world.
No changing the subject, Mr M! You said that poverty arose from lack of
integration into the 'global trading system' (your phrase). I said that
poverty AND lack of integration arise from local factors which drove
out (or failed to attract) capital. My list of the poorest places, with
one exception, was a list of countries that all make pro-American
noises (which is what I meant by being part of the Western camp), so
WHAT is stopping them from integrating more into the 'global trading
system' if not local factors?
And that's my whole point. Under neoliberal global capitalism, cash
flows from the unattractive places where it's needed most to the
attractive places where it's needed least.
> Indeed, Dr. Michael, you have hit the nail on the head. The problem is
> exactly as you describe it: "war, massive corruption, poor
> infrastructure". So, quit agitating for further conflict, develop a
> properly liberal-capitalist system based not on local patronnage but on
> national growth, and build up a bloody infrastructre. These are the
> solutions, staring you right in the face, yet you still call for
> violence and isolation.
>
> Every one of these countries would have a great deal to sell, and would
> be extremely attractive places for investment, so long as they engaged
> in reform that ensured that said investment would be channelled into a
> functioning and integrated economy.
>
> So that's my solution, Dr. Michael. Development aid that would enable
> these countries to build up their infrastructures and establish more
> stable political systems. This is a programme that has proven wildly
> successful in the past - say, throughout a Europe ruined in the
> aftermath of World War II, and that is currently showing unimaginable
> results in the Balkan region only recently wrecked by communist
> mismanagement and ethnic war.
>
> So what's your solution, then?
First, your solution is incomplete. Providing infrastructure is not
enough. Look at Zimbabwe. It HAD infrastructure. It HAD railways. It
HAD a network of food supplies that made it the breadbasket of Africa.
What happened? Local factors -- the fruitcake of a leader forced on the
place by the 'international community' -- created local conditions that
destroyed the infrastructure and now the people are starving.
And to a greater or lesser extent this story has been repeated
throughout most of Africa. The old empires DID create infrastructure.
But it wasn't enough. When local conditions became unfavourable,
capital fled. The infrastructure collapsed. Often literally.
So MY solution, in the long term, is to move away from the
international system that makes so much of the world rely on
international capital -- something that is actually very unreliable.
Certainly, I'll go along with you in the short term -- divert the cash
from wasteful projects to provide much-needed infrastructure by all
means! But it's not enough. It won't solve the problem long term. You
need to change the global system.
> > Look at the names on the list again -- places like Zambia, Nigeria,
> > Malawi, Tanzania. These are not communist states or Islamic republics
> > -- they're capitalist to the core. Sure, they're 'excluded' -- but this
> > is precisely my point. Capital accumulates in the places most
> > favourable for its accumulation, 'excluding' vast tracts of territory
> > that are 'uncompetitive'.
> >
> > By contrast, China, which has a highly authoritarian government and is
> > very schizo about the West, is starting to do rather well on the
> > economic front. Singapore, a very authoritarian place with limited
> > democracy, is doing well too.
>
> It has little to do with whether the state is "capitalist" in name.
> Capitalism and integration into the global economy are two different
> things. I can personally dislike the "authoritarian" tendencies of a
> state's domestic management, and still recognise its economic policies
> as geared toward integration with global markets. Singapore always has
> been. China - well, it had a vast and diverse enough territory that it
> didn't have quite as urgent a need to be. Nonetheless, the speed with
> which it is developing and becoming more prosperous in direct
> proportion to its increased integration with the global economy only
> serves to further illustrate my point.
No -- it is not integration or lack of integration into the global
trading system that determines the wealth but local conditions. Look --
here's the list of the ten richest countries in Africa:
http://www.aneki.com/africa_richest.html
1 Mauritius $ 11,400
2 South Africa $ 10,700
3 Botswana $ 9,000
4 Seychelles $ 7,800
5 Namibia $ 7,200
6 Tunisia $ 6,900
7 Libya $6,400
8 Algeria $ 6,000
9 Gabon $5,500
10 Swaziland $ 4,900
Now note the presence on that list of South Africa, which has long been
by far the wealthiest country on mainland Africa, and stood apart from
the global trading system for much of that time as a result of
sanctions. Note too Libya, which has only recently come in from the
cold (i.e. prostituted itself to America).
Here's the ten wealthiest in Asia (China weighs in at number 11):
1 Japan $ 28,200
2 Singapore $ 23,700
3 Brunei $ 18,600
4 Korea, South $ 17,800
5 Palau $ 9,000
6 Malaysia $ 9,000
7 Thailand $ 7,400
8 Turkey $ 6,700
9 Kazakhstan $ 6,300
10 Turkmenistan $ 5,800
Note how isolated, authoritarian Turkmenistan comes in at number 10.
Sure South Africa traded and Turkmenistan trades internationally -- but
if THEY aren't examples of failure to integrate into the global trading
system then I'd like you to name a single country that is, other than
North Korea. Hell, even Venezuela sells its oil and Cuba sells
holidays. Even Prachanda says that Nepal should develop its tourism
industry! So where are all these isolated countries?
Which leads neatly to much more serious objection to your argument.
With the exception of North Korea and Cuba, pretty much everywhere IS
integrated into the 'global trading system'. Many places don't compete
well in it but they ARE in the system in that they can trade if they
wish, they are not communist or isolationist in principle. And that's
why your argument fails. As I indicated, a child dies every 5 seconds
of starvation. Most of those children are dying in places that ARE in
the global system to some extent. So how can you invoke lack of
integration into the global trading system as a cause for this
starvation? What's holding them back is that local factors are
unattractive for capital.
> > Saudi Arabia is doing extremely well --
> > hardly a beacon of liberal democracy! How strange that just as Mr Putin
> > is being accused (rightly) of being authoritarian the Russian economy
> > is no longer a basket case and is showing signs of considerable health.
> > Why are these places doing well? Because they are attracting and
> > deploying capital effectively. They're selling what they've got and
> > they're investing effectively.
>
> Again - liberal or authoritarian (or a mixture of the two) their
> success is directly keyed into their incorporation into the global
> trading system (however that incorporation came about).
Pure dogma on your part. Iraq is now integrated into the global trading
system, right? No sanctions. Pro-American government. What's holding it
back? Those pesky local conditions!
Iran -- anti-American, anti-capitalist, politically isolationist.
Sitting on vast quantities of oil. Doing very nicely.
> > Bottom line: if you're sitting on oil you will generally, on the whole,
> > be wealthy irrespective of your political system (unless, of course,
> > someone with superior military technology bombs your infrastructure to
> > pieces to try to get your oil). If you are in the middle of a war zone,
> > in the middle of a desert, with nothing to sell, you're stuffed even if
> > your commitment to free market economics rivals that of Milton
> > Friedman.
>
> I dunno. If you're smart, maybe you can develop an advanced IT
> industry. That's what Israel's been working on these past decades
> (interrupted every now and then by political events).
Yes, I can just see the world's top computer experts all flooding into
Lesotho to work for $0.10 per hour to develop the country's IT
industry.
> > > And by the way, Dr. Michael, no one survives solely on 60 cents a day.
> > > That "60 cents a day" simply measures the documented extent of their
> > > incorporation into the global economy. The remainder of the economic
> > > intercourse that enables their survival is local and off the radar -
> > > the product of their "isolated community" as it were.
> >
> > Yes, I saw this in Africa. You're talking subsistance agriculture,
> > scrabbling in bins, crime and prostitution.
>
> Not necessarily. I'm also talking about networks and communities whose
> labour and barter systems are by and large isolated from the global
> economy.
No, *I'M* talking about that -- you're proposing integration, remember?
> I will grant that even there it is a very far cry from "paradise on
> earth". But, hey, aren't YOU the one who thinks that remaining in such
> a state of isolation is the programme that will generate this result?
Absolutely not.
National-anarchism, as I envisaged it, was ONLY a strategy for opposing
the New World Order. It was never intended -- and I did say this very
clearly -- as a political recipe to cure all ills, like Islam or
Marxism-Leninism. As I said elsewhere (Stormfront), if anyone can
produce better ideas then I'm happy to listen.
> > The removal of the global neoliberal system will not, in itself, solve
> > the problem but it will at least give the peoples of these territories
> > the opportunity to organize themselves more effectively if they so
> > wish. And, as Albania under Hoxha showed, it IS possible to get a
> > situation where nobody starves in a tiny and traditionally backward
> > part of the world, by firmly turning your back on the outside world and
> > relying on your own resources, distributing the resources that you do
> > have equitably among your people, clamping down ruthlessly on
> > corruption, and deploying your common resources to enhance national
> > viability.
>
> This is kind of funny, Dr. Michael. You see, Albania is one of the
> places I visited on my recent "vacation". I actually saw first-hand
> the sheer level of destitution and ruin to which Hoxha's bloodyminded
> policies drove the place - far worse even than neighbouring communist
> countries that were at least integrated into *some* trading bloc.
With respect, you did NOT. If you read Nexhmije Hoxha's despairing
account of the demise of socialist Albania you'll see how during the
intervening years between Hoxha's death in 1985 and your arrival in
2006, the country was systematically plundered of its wealth. The
people were driven overseas. The industries were smashed. The workers
were made unemployed. The terrible collapse of the pyramid schemes in
1997 forced many into poverty and destitution and brought the country
to the brink of a revolution. What you saw was the result of 20 years
of integration -- that's TWENTY YEARS -- into your 'global trading
system'.
> But I also saw how much optimism and energy there is now that people
> are actually free to develop their own entrepreneurial spirit
> independently without the intervention of state coersion. And I saw
> how quickly the infrastructure is improving with the help of
> significant EU reconstruction projects.
This is absolutely hilarious. I think I know exactly the projects
you're talking about. And I know all about the money for them. Building
projects, right? Big ones. Just outside Tirana. You obviously didn't
ask too many questions about where the money came from!
But seriously, Mr M -- can you tell me where Albania's new found wealth
comes from? Eh? Can you tell me where the money came from for those
construction projects? Go on . . .
> However, I will admit that Albania is an exceptional case in that
> respect, in that it lucky to be a part of Europe. If only similar
> investment and attention could be directed to developing Africa... why
> soon we'd have "paradise on earth".
>
> > In that case, it was AFTER they joined the New World Order
> > that a third of the population was forced overseas, the entire economy
> > became reliant on money from the outside world -- mostly from crime --
> > corruption and lawlessness became rampant and the whole thing
> > degenerated into an economic basket case.
> >
> > That's what integration into the global trading system did for THEM!
>
> Except that this is a completely false and fanciful interpretation of
> what happened. After all, you cannot expect the sheer level of
> destruction and mismanagement that Hoxha visited on the country to be
> fixed instantaneously;
Er . . . you've had 20 years . . .
> for them to suddenly develop an industry and
> infrastructure even close to competitive on a global scale the very
> moment the system collapses.
No, but maybe after 20 years . . .
>So, naturally, as soon as the coercive
> system that kept people from fleeing or complaining too much about the
> starvation and backwardness in which they were being held did collapse,
> those people fled en masse to *anywhere else* which was 100 times
> better than the ruin Hoxha's policies had created.
So why are they still fleeing, in ever greater numbers, 20 years later?
> And naturally, in
> lieu of a system that had been kept in place for decades by brutal
> violence, there was little left in its place in the immediate aftermath
> but chaos.
>
> But I can tell you first-hand that with the help of EU infrastructure
> projects, investment from Albanians overseas, and, most importantly,
> the indominable spirit of the amazing Albanian people themselves, they
> are already well on the way to turning it around.
After 20 years.
And where does this money come from? Have you studied that? Let's see
how much you know about modern Albania -- where does its source of
wealth come from? Tell us about those construction projects outside
Tirana. Where does the wealth come from for those?
> They are far further
> ahead at this moment than I would have expected them to be before I saw
> it for myself. My estimation is EU membership by 2012. 2015 at the
> latest.
Oh, so 30 years after Hoxha's death!
> And when that does happen - and it will - just how many Albanians do
> you think will look back on Hoxha's dictatorship as "the good old
> days", Dr. Michael? About as many as there are Greeks who pine for the
> junta, I would guess.
Let me tell you something. Many Albanians -- maybe not the ones who
would talk to your type or proclaim their views in public -- still love
Hoxha. Right here next to me I've got a CD -- 'Kenge per Enver Hoxhen'
-- songs for Enver Hoxha. I didn't buy that 30 years ago (when they
didn't have CDs). I got it directly from a supplier in Tirana last
month together with some beautiful songs by Pagarusha, which I'd
recommend if you're interested in things Albanian (or Kosovan), and one
or two other oddities. If there's still a demand for (very, very bad)
songs about the man then that hardly suggests that things were as bleak
under his rule as you'd have us believe. Go get yourself a copy of
James O'Donnell's *A Coming of Age* -- it shows how you need to see
where Albania started from to appreciate how far it travelled under
very difficult circumstances.
And WITHOUT any help from your 'global trading system'.
> Steven Mock
DEM
Chris C. Larson
Kurt Knoll wrote:
> You grew up on a comic book I did experience the real war and 60 years of
> propaganda by the Jews.
Too bad the Germans didn't get you. But, you did get deported in the
1950s.
Kurt Knoll
kk
"Chris C. Larson" <larsonc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153968284.1...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > david_michael wrote:
> > > sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > > > david_michael wrote:
> > > > > Jason James wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If nothing else, the one thing the US and virtually every other country on
> > > > > > earth now knows, is that world trade and the interchange of intelligence
> > > > > > (however obtained) translates to a safer more convivial place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell that to the Lebanese and Iraqis or to the 3 billion people in the
> > > > > world trying to survive on less than 60 cents per day. Tell that to the
> > > > > parents of the children who die of starvation at the rate of one every
> > > > > 5 seconds.
> > > >
> > > > Gladly, Dr. Michael, given that the places where this occurs are places
> > > > that are *not* incorporated into the global trading system, which is
> > > > precisely why it occurs.
> > >
> > > Lebanon not incorporated into the global trading system? Tell me more .
> >
> > Lebanon was more incorporated than most states in the region, and as a
> > result was a highly successful and prosperous place.
>
> And now whole swathes of it are smouldering heaps of rubble. How does
> that support your argument that incorporation into the 'global trading
> system' (whatever that is) leads to prosperity? On the contrary, local
> factors trump 'integration into the global trading system' every time
> when it comes to determining prosperity.
Actually, it supports my argument very well. You see, contrary to your
straw-man, I am not arguing that incorporation into the global trading
system makes an state invincible to all ills. It is still entirely
possible for dictatorial mismanagement or internal conflict between
groups over control of the state to tear it apart. I am saying that it
increases the opportunities for prosperity and reduces the chances of
international conflict.
The country currently bombing Lebanon is one that is prevented from
having any diplomatic or economic ties with it. Imagine if that were
not the case. Imagine if the Israeli government had money in Lebanon's
banks, relied on Lebanon's markets for their exports? Would the
situation have degenerated as quickly as it did? Would Israel have
attacked so quickly? Would the Lebanese government - or whatever
forces are in charge over there - not have had every incentive to
prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel and thereby damaging its
interests? Instead, as it stands now, the only way Israel can have ANY
influence whatsoever on what happens from Lebanese territory is through
the violation of its sovereignty and the application of force, with all
of the suffering that accompanies such conflict. Were there free trade
and open diplomatic relations between the two countries, this would not
be the case.
> And let's be honest -- who will invest in Lebanon now?
The same people who invested in it after 15 years of brutal civil war
turned downtown Beirut into a crater. The internal financial
infrastructure will prove just as resilient as it did before, and there
remains plenty of external interest in seeing the country stabilised.
I was there in 1998, and the reconstruction I saw was fanatastic - as
opulant as anything you would see in the Gulf States, and as thorough
as one was witnessing in Berlin at the time. And Lebanon does not have
oil. It does not (did not) have gold and diamonds like South Africa.
What it has is people. And it will still have people when the current
conflict - which is a pillow fight compared to what the country went
through and recovered from before - is over.
> > > Now are these countries poor because they are excluded from the
> > > international trading system, or are they poor AND excluded from the
> > > international trading system because they have features that make them
> > > 'uncompetitive'? These countries are characterized by war, massive
> > > corruption, poor infrastructure, nothing much to sell, no money to
> > > invest, debt, rampant crime, instability of all kinds -- in short they
> > > are places where nobody wants to 'do business'. Would you invest your
> > > (presumably vast) pension fund in East Timor? With the exception of
> > > Somalia, every one of these countries is firmly in the Western camp.
> >
> > "The Western camp"? What the hell does that mean? That they are not
> > (currently) being run by anarchist revolutionaries.? Okay, I'll give
> > you that. Beyond that, what exactly makes them a part of the "system"?
> > Nothing.
>
> No changing the subject, Mr M! You said that poverty arose from lack of
> integration into the 'global trading system' (your phrase). I said that
> poverty AND lack of integration arise from local factors which drove
> out (or failed to attract) capital. My list of the poorest places, with
> one exception, was a list of countries that all make pro-American
> noises (which is what I meant by being part of the Western camp), so
> WHAT is stopping them from integrating more into the 'global trading
> system' if not local factors?
But that's the point, Dr. Michael. You're the one who changes the
subject. First we're talking about incorporation into the global
trading system, and then suddenly you switch to this weird notion of
the "Western camp", as though any state that makes "pro-American
noises" (whatever that means to you) must automatically be considered
integrated into the global trading system.
I'm not saying that all states are starting from the same level. Some
were so ruined by local mismanagement - like, for example, Albania
under Hoxha or Germany after World War II - that it takes a great deal
of time and sometimes external aid before they can be anywhere close to
competitive in any respect on a global scale. I'm just saying that the
implimentation of policies that genuinely further that end - whatever
those policies might be for a given circumstance - increase the
prospects for internal prosperity and international peace. Such
policies simply have not been implimented - internally or externally -
in the countries you listed, whatever "pro-American" noises they might
make on a diplomatic level.
South Africa is always has been deeply embedded in the global trading
system, ever since the end of the 19th century when it was the source
of about 1/3rd of the world's gold. Indeed, its resulting location at
the centre of the global trading system - as integrated as any European
country - is the very reason it remained prosperous while other African
nations declined when the economic connections that came with empire
were lost. That's the only reason why sanctions (which were ultimately
ineffectual economically, though significant on a symbolic level) could
have been expected to make any difference to begin with - you can't
lose what you ain't never had.
> Here's the ten wealthiest in Asia (China weighs in at number 11):
>
> 1 Japan $ 28,200
> 2 Singapore $ 23,700
> 3 Brunei $ 18,600
> 4 Korea, South $ 17,800
> 5 Palau $ 9,000
> 6 Malaysia $ 9,000
> 7 Thailand $ 7,400
> 8 Turkey $ 6,700
> 9 Kazakhstan $ 6,300
> 10 Turkmenistan $ 5,800
>
> Note how isolated, authoritarian Turkmenistan comes in at number 10.
Amazing, Dr. Michael. I have 1-9, and you crow victory for being able
to (tendentiously)claim a distant #10? I think my point is made.
Anyway, the rest of your stuff is pretty vacuous and repetitive. I'll
decide later whether or not to bother with your rehashing of Albanian
communist propaganda over their recent economic history.
Steven Mock
Ben Cramer
Et tu.
>
david_michael
You were arguing that the places where people were starving were not
integrated into the 'global trading system'. I was pointing out that
their poverty and their inability to participate in the global trading
system could be seen as being due to local factors that made the areas
in question unattractive to capital.
> It is still entirely
> possible for dictatorial mismanagement or internal conflict between
> groups over control of the state to tear it apart.
Yes, and there are a zillion other local factors that can make a place
unattractive to capital.
> I am saying that it
> increases the opportunities for prosperity and reduces the chances of
> international conflict.
OK, so you've read David Ricardo's stuff on international trade theory.
Good. We've had international trade in the world for several centuries
now. We still have a situation where a tiny proportion of the world's
population is prosperous and the vast majority lives in poverty --
often dire poverty (I've given figures below). International trade
enriches the few but it certainly hasn't worked for most people.
Moreover, even within the most 'prosperous' countries, often only a
minority are prosperous. There are parts of Glasgow, for example, where
conditions are so bad that male babies have a life expectancy of only
69 years. Is Glasgow isolated from the rest of Britain or the rest of
the world? Nope. So what's the problem? Local factors. Shipbuilding was
no longer needed. Nothing to replace it except crime.
The violent movements of capital, its tendency to accumulate in places
where it is not really needed while avoiding the places where it is
needed, and the political and social effects of free movement of
capital all tend to distort the pure world of Ricardo's analysis.
> The country currently bombing Lebanon is one that is prevented from
> having any diplomatic or economic ties with it. Imagine if that were
> not the case. Imagine if the Israeli government had money in Lebanon's
> banks, relied on Lebanon's markets for their exports?
Oh silly me -- I thought that the Arab-Israeli conflict predated
economic sanctions.
I wasn't aware that there was no trade between Britain and Germany
prior to World Wars One and Two either for that matter.
Hey, and all those Palestinians who are just itching to attack Israel
-- so they are not reliant in any way on Israel for their commercial
existence?
> Would the
> situation have degenerated as quickly as it did? Would Israel have
> attacked so quickly?
Of course not because trade would not occur when war is imminent!
(Duh!)
> Would the Lebanese government - or whatever
> forces are in charge over there - not have had every incentive to
> prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel and thereby damaging its
> interests? Instead, as it stands now, the only way Israel can have ANY
> influence whatsoever on what happens from Lebanese territory is through
> the violation of its sovereignty and the application of force, with all
> of the suffering that accompanies such conflict.
But that is incorrect. There are far better options for Israel, in
fact. The current bout of hostility arises from the attack on Israeli
soldiers resulting in the deaths of several and the kidnapping of two.
Why did the attack occur? Because Israel has kidnapped Palestinians --
the 'Palestinian prisoners' . If the leaders of Israel were to behave
less like something out of a Julius Streicher children's book and more
like civilized human beings THEN you would not have had the attack on
the soldiers in the first place. At that point you could have had
negotiations on a solution to the regional conflict and trade would
have followed. And I could have lived with that solution -- as I said
before, I'm not against a homeland for any people including the Jews.
Israel can influence the situation by going in precisely the opposite
direction. By ending its 'terrorism'. By negotiating. By acting with
dignity and humility rather than acting out the old Nazi stereotype of
the murderous, vengeful Jew. This would, in fact, have made it a far
more viable nation-state. As I indicated in my very first post in this
thread, Israel's current course makes it vulnerable. It is completely
dependent on American goodwill. If that ever dries up -- SPLAT.
> Were there free trade
> and open diplomatic relations between the two countries, this would not
> be the case.
If there were no conflict between the parties then there WOULD be free
trade and diplomatic relations. You can't steal someone's land, butcher
their children, and then expect them to trade happily with you.
> > And let's be honest -- who will invest in Lebanon now?
>
> The same people who invested in it after 15 years of brutal civil war
> turned downtown Beirut into a crater. The internal financial
> infrastructure will prove just as resilient as it did before, and there
> remains plenty of external interest in seeing the country stabilised.
> I was there in 1998, and the reconstruction I saw was fanatastic - as
> opulant as anything you would see in the Gulf States, and as thorough
> as one was witnessing in Berlin at the time. And Lebanon does not have
> oil. It does not (did not) have gold and diamonds like South Africa.
> What it has is people. And it will still have people when the current
> conflict - which is a pillow fight compared to what the country went
> through and recovered from before - is over.
Answered before -- it is not international traders who will rebuild it
but the US and the EU attempting to push their regional interests vis a
vis Syria and Iran.
I used the phrase incidentally. You decided to talk about my use of
that phrase rather than addressing the point.
> I'm not saying that all states are starting from the same level. Some
> were so ruined by local mismanagement - like, for example, Albania
> under Hoxha or Germany after World War II - that it takes a great deal
> of time and sometimes external aid before they can be anywhere close to
> competitive in any respect on a global scale.
Hoxha died in 1985. You say that Albania will be ready to join the EU
in 2015. That's 30 years. How long did it take to reconstruct Germany
or Japan after World War II?
I don't accept that you can blame it on Hoxha. Hoxha created
infrastructure, industry, employment for everyone. There was no
unemployment. There was enough food for all. There was order and
stability. The chaos came after he died and the country joined the
'international trading system' (where it couldn't compete).
> I'm just saying that the
> implimentation of policies that genuinely further that end - whatever
> those policies might be for a given circumstance - increase the
> prospects for internal prosperity and international peace. Such
> policies simply have not been implimented - internally or externally -
> in the countries you listed, whatever "pro-American" noises they might
> make on a diplomatic level.
Of course they haven't been implemented -- because it is far more
profitable to set up industries in Western Europe and the US than in
East Timor or Malawi! There is no reason IN PRINCIPLE why you can't go
invest in Malawi. Go talk to their diplomatic people. Offer to invest a
few million. They's fall over themselves to do business with you. And
that's the last you'll see of your money!
Then let me again put to you the point that you snipped -- presumably
because you now see that it's the fatal flaw in your argument. I
pointed out that a child dies somewhere in the world of starvation
every 5 seconds. I pointed out that more people die of
starvation-related causes every 3 years than died in the entire Second
World War. Half the world's population lives on less than $2 per day.
Around a billion of the world's population (the world's population
being 6.5 billion) lives on less than a dollar a day. Twenty per cent
of the world's population does not have access to clean drinking water
-- according to UN projections by the year 2025 this will increase to
two-thirds of the world's population. Life expectancy is plummeting in
much of the Third World -- in Bangladesh 62.46 years, in Nepal 60.18
years, in Namibia it's 43.39 years; in Zimbabwe 39.29 years; in
Botswana 33.74 years; Swaziland 32.62 years. (But in isolated North
Korea where we are told that the people are all starving to death, it
is mysteriously 71.65 years. The isolated Cubans do even better at
77.41 years!)
You tell me that this poverty is happening in places that are not
integrated into the 'global trading system'.
Fine. My question to you, which you snipped, was 'where are these
places?'
You tell me that South Africa and China are not isolated. Fine. So
apart from North Korea (which it appears is hardly a hotbed of death
and destruction) -- can you name me these countries that are isolated
from the 'global trading system'? Where are all these little isolated
Albanias and national-anarchist communities in which so much of the
world's population is suffering and dying so needlessly?
I don't see them.
What I do see is vast tracts of land from which capital has withdrawn
or has never ventured, to be invested instead in the pet projects of
the wealthy -- long vacations, wars, beautiful works of art to decorate
their walls.
That's where centuries of free trade has got us!
<snip>
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
<snip: old stuff>
> > > And now whole swathes of it are smouldering heaps of rubble. How does
> > > that support your argument that incorporation into the 'global trading
> > > system' (whatever that is) leads to prosperity? On the contrary, local
> > > factors trump 'integration into the global trading system' every time
> > > when it comes to determining prosperity.
> >
> > Actually, it supports my argument very well. You see, contrary to your
> > straw-man, I am not arguing that incorporation into the global trading
> > system makes an state invincible to all ills.
>
> You were arguing that the places where people were starving were not
> integrated into the 'global trading system'. I was pointing out that
> their poverty and their inability to participate in the global trading
> system could be seen as being due to local factors that made the areas
> in question unattractive to capital.
Alright then, what's your point? Whatever the cause of the problem, it
is still a problem, and one that should be solved rather than
exacerbated.
> > It is still entirely
> > possible for dictatorial mismanagement or internal conflict between
> > groups over control of the state to tear it apart.
>
> Yes, and there are a zillion other local factors that can make a place
> unattractive to capital.
Right. So lets set about to fixing it, then.
> > I am saying that it
> > increases the opportunities for prosperity and reduces the chances of
> > international conflict.
>
> OK, so you've read David Ricardo's stuff on international trade theory.
> Good. We've had international trade in the world for several centuries
> now. We still have a situation where a tiny proportion of the world's
> population is prosperous and the vast majority lives in poverty --
> often dire poverty (I've given figures below). International trade
> enriches the few but it certainly hasn't worked for most people.
Dr. Michael, this is the problem I always have when trying to argue
with you. You switch madly between ideal and reality so quickly that I
can't keep up.
Have I ever tried to argue that the current state of affairs in the
world is idyllic? No. I agree with you wholeheatedly that the
situation of a small number of rich countries dominating a larger
number of poorer ones is the reality of the present day. Pointing this
out does nothing to challenge my proposal as to how this problem is to
be solved, namely by incorporating the poorer countries more completely
into the international trading system, as opposed to what they are now
which is marginal regions exploited by the larger states for their
resources - a state of affairs that works for corporations based in
those larger states, but that is less than optimal not only for the
citizens of the exploited countries but also for consumers in wealthy
states, not to mention long-term economic growth world-wide.
Fortunately, I see at least a few hopeful signs that this might be
changing.
I have offered an explanation as to how my proposal will serve to
improve the prospects for peace and prosperity. We're waiting for you
to substantiate your counter-claim that greater economic and political
isolation is preferable.
> > The country currently bombing Lebanon is one that is prevented from
> > having any diplomatic or economic ties with it. Imagine if that were
> > not the case. Imagine if the Israeli government had money in Lebanon's
> > banks, relied on Lebanon's markets for their exports?
>
> Oh silly me -- I thought that the Arab-Israeli conflict predated
> economic sanctions.
Well you were wrong. When has there ever been diplomatic and economic
intercourse between Israel and Lebanon?
> Hey, and all those Palestinians who are just itching to attack Israel
> -- so they are not reliant in any way on Israel for their commercial
> existence?
Not really, no. Quite the contrary, they rely on local networks that
send them to attack far more. In any case, relations between
individuals and the state and relations between states are two
different things.
Whatever.
> > > And let's be honest -- who will invest in Lebanon now?
> >
> > The same people who invested in it after 15 years of brutal civil war
> > turned downtown Beirut into a crater. The internal financial
> > infrastructure will prove just as resilient as it did before, and there
> > remains plenty of external interest in seeing the country stabilised.
> > I was there in 1998, and the reconstruction I saw was fanatastic - as
> > opulant as anything you would see in the Gulf States, and as thorough
> > as one was witnessing in Berlin at the time. And Lebanon does not have
> > oil. It does not (did not) have gold and diamonds like South Africa.
> > What it has is people. And it will still have people when the current
> > conflict - which is a pillow fight compared to what the country went
> > through and recovered from before - is over.
>
> Answered before -- it is not international traders who will rebuild it
> but the US and the EU attempting to push their regional interests vis a
> vis Syria and Iran.
Well, good, then. As long as it is rebuilt.
I have no idea that EU money going into improving the infrastructure of
Albania also has an ulterior motive - namely, stemming the tide of
economic refugees. Who cares? It still works. Now if only someone
could find an ulterior motive to build a network of highways in West
Africa.
You have no point. You are simply altering the meaning of my point by
attempting to impose your own definitions on the terms that I use.
> > I'm not saying that all states are starting from the same level. Some
> > were so ruined by local mismanagement - like, for example, Albania
> > under Hoxha or Germany after World War II - that it takes a great deal
> > of time and sometimes external aid before they can be anywhere close to
> > competitive in any respect on a global scale.
>
> Hoxha died in 1985. You say that Albania will be ready to join the EU
> in 2015. That's 30 years.
Not really. The first democratic government wasn't elected until 1992,
and reform really didn't begin in earnest until then. That being said,
they're really not doing that badly at all considering the level of
poverty and the antiquated industrial base that Hoxha left them with.
The crises of '96 and '99 may have caused short-term strain, but in
fact growth has proceeded at an amazingly consistent rate since '92.
> I don't accept that you can blame it on Hoxha. Hoxha created
> infrastructure, industry, employment for everyone. There was no
> unemployment. There was enough food for all. There was order and
> stability.
You know, Dr. Michael, I pretty much anticipated that you would have to
rely on Albanian communist party propaganda and apologetics to make
your case that the ruin Hoxha left the country in was not his fault but
that of his successors. But I would have thought you would at least
have gone a little bit further afield for your sources than *the
dictator's wife*, for crying out loud. I mean, what do you take us
for?
> The chaos came after he died and the country joined the
> 'international trading system' (where it couldn't compete).
Um... Dr. Michael, if, once the regime fell, the country found that it
couldn't compete in terms of production capacity and standard of living
with the rest of the world from which it had been isolated... whose
fault is that?
A straight-up appeal to pity with no logical connection drawn to your
argument.
I propose solutions to these problems. What are yours?
> You tell me that this poverty is happening in places that are not
> integrated into the 'global trading system'.
>
> Fine. My question to you, which you snipped, was 'where are these
> places?'
All of the places you just named. Western and Central Africa - almost
entirely isolated economically. Southeast and central Asia too. The
fact that you can't get around is that prosperity is directly
proportionate to the extent to which a state is incorporated into the
global trading system. So, I argue, bring these isolated countries,
rife with poverty and warfare, closer to the centre, by whatever means
are effective. Sure, capital is not attracted to them at the moment.
That's the problem, stupid. So make them more attractive to capital,
via aid projects and the development of more stable political systems.
This is to the benefit of everyone - the populations of the countries
themselves, consumers in the West, and world peace and stability.
Your solution is to isolate them more. I am trying to figure out the
logic according to which you think this could possibly improve the
situation, yet all you seem to be able to give us is abstractions. The
System is about free trade and global integration (never mind whether
this ideal has genuinely been implimented), poverty and suffering
exists under The System, therefore do the opposite of what The System
wants and poverty and suffering will vanish.
That's pretty much your hand, no?
Steven Mock
david_michael
> david_michael wrote:
> > sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > > david_michael wrote:
>
> <snip: old stuff>
>
> > > > And now whole swathes of it are smouldering heaps of rubble. How does
> > > > that support your argument that incorporation into the 'global trading
> > > > system' (whatever that is) leads to prosperity? On the contrary, local
> > > > factors trump 'integration into the global trading system' every time
> > > > when it comes to determining prosperity.
> > >
> > > Actually, it supports my argument very well. You see, contrary to your
> > > straw-man, I am not arguing that incorporation into the global trading
> > > system makes an state invincible to all ills.
> >
> > You were arguing that the places where people were starving were not
> > integrated into the 'global trading system'. I was pointing out that
> > their poverty and their inability to participate in the global trading
> > system could be seen as being due to local factors that made the areas
> > in question unattractive to capital.
>
> Alright then, what's your point?
That one can be isolated and relatively OK financially. That one can be
integrated into the international trading system and poor. That
international trade has been going on for many centuries and we still
have massive global poverty. That the poverty can be directly related
to a global system that causes a maldistribution of resources, with
capital accumulating where it is needed least and shunning the areas
where it is needed most.
Therefore, that a long-term solution requires an end to the global free
trade system.
> Whatever the cause of the problem, it
> is still a problem, and one that should be solved rather than
> exacerbated.
Agreed.
> > > It is still entirely
> > > possible for dictatorial mismanagement or internal conflict between
> > > groups over control of the state to tear it apart.
> >
> > Yes, and there are a zillion other local factors that can make a place
> > unattractive to capital.
>
> Right. So lets set about to fixing it, then.
Certainly.
> > > I am saying that it
> > > increases the opportunities for prosperity and reduces the chances of
> > > international conflict.
> >
> > OK, so you've read David Ricardo's stuff on international trade theory.
> > Good. We've had international trade in the world for several centuries
> > now. We still have a situation where a tiny proportion of the world's
> > population is prosperous and the vast majority lives in poverty --
> > often dire poverty (I've given figures below). International trade
> > enriches the few but it certainly hasn't worked for most people.
>
> Dr. Michael, this is the problem I always have when trying to argue
> with you. You switch madly between ideal and reality so quickly that I
> can't keep up.
>
> Have I ever tried to argue that the current state of affairs in the
> world is idyllic? No.
Have I ever said that you did? No.
The problem is that your solutions amount to short-term sticky plaster
stuff. You leave the underlying cause of the problem unaddressed.
> I agree with you wholeheatedly that the
> situation of a small number of rich countries dominating a larger
> number of poorer ones is the reality of the present day.
And has been for centuries. Read Spengler.
> Pointing this
> out does nothing to challenge my proposal as to how this problem is to
> be solved, namely by incorporating the poorer countries more completely
> into the international trading system,
Most poor countries are integrated into the international trading
system in that they trade freely with the outside world. Your call is
therefore meaningless. Where they appear to be isolated it is because
local factors make them unattractive to capital, which thus shuns them.
Instead they should be isolating themselves from the international
trading system and working for self-sufficiency so that they do not
have to rely upon foreign capital which (a) is unreliable and (b) comes
with strings attached.
> as opposed to what they are now
> which is marginal regions exploited by the larger states for their
> resources - a state of affairs that works for corporations based in
> those larger states, but that is less than optimal not only for the
> citizens of the exploited countries but also for consumers in wealthy
> states, not to mention long-term economic growth world-wide.
> Fortunately, I see at least a few hopeful signs that this might be
> changing.
>
> I have offered an explanation as to how my proposal will serve to
> improve the prospects for peace and prosperity. We're waiting for you
> to substantiate your counter-claim that greater economic and political
> isolation is preferable.
It's the old principle that if you give a man a fish then he eats for a
day. If you teach him how to fish he eats for ever.
If we are to help these countries, our efforts should be aimed at
making them self-sufficient so that they can produce what they need
locally. In this way, when global capital decides to flee elsewhere,
they still eat. They do not have to 'compete' in a global market place,
which is often heavily weighted against them. They can moreover adopt
POLITICAL policies that suit their own people rather than the United
States of America, because they will not have to worry about IMF loans
being withdrawn, etc. etc.
Your approach is the advocacy of global slavery. So long as the poor
countries do their American masters' bidding then they are permitted to
eat. If the offend the masters of the world, however, or make
conditions that are not appealing to them, then the masters withdraw
their cash and the people starve.
> > > The country currently bombing Lebanon is one that is prevented from
> > > having any diplomatic or economic ties with it. Imagine if that were
> > > not the case. Imagine if the Israeli government had money in Lebanon's
> > > banks, relied on Lebanon's markets for their exports?
> >
> > Oh silly me -- I thought that the Arab-Israeli conflict predated
> > economic sanctions.
>
> Well you were wrong. When has there ever been diplomatic and economic
> intercourse between Israel and Lebanon?
A state of affairs that arose from a conflict that predated the
creation of Israel (or, indeed, Lebanon). The point is that the
conflict between the peoples was there before the sanctions. It wasn't
the sanctions that caused the conflict.
> > Hey, and all those Palestinians who are just itching to attack Israel
> > -- so they are not reliant in any way on Israel for their commercial
> > existence?
>
> Not really, no. Quite the contrary, they rely on local networks that
> send them to attack far more. In any case, relations between
> individuals and the state and relations between states are two
> different things.
Mr Mock, trade between Israel and Palestine amounts to about 83% of
Palestinian GDP.
And you say that trade prevents conflict?
I see you've snipped my other example -- that trade between Germany and
the Britain did not prevent World War II (or I).
I trust you take my point that trade does not prevent conflict. Where
there is conflict, trade dries up.
That isn't the ulterior motive. You really don't know where that money
comes from?
I really don't understand that paragraph.
> > > I'm not saying that all states are starting from the same level. Some
> > > were so ruined by local mismanagement - like, for example, Albania
> > > under Hoxha or Germany after World War II - that it takes a great deal
> > > of time and sometimes external aid before they can be anywhere close to
> > > competitive in any respect on a global scale.
> >
> > Hoxha died in 1985. You say that Albania will be ready to join the EU
> > in 2015. That's 30 years.
>
> Not really. The first democratic government wasn't elected until 1992,
> and reform really didn't begin in earnest until then. That being said,
> they're really not doing that badly at all considering the level of
> poverty and the antiquated industrial base that Hoxha left them with.
Again, read O'Donnell. The economic situation of the Albanians improved
steadily under Hoxha.
> The crises of '96 and '99 may have caused short-term strain, but in
> fact growth has proceeded at an amazingly consistent rate since '92.
For the wealthy and the Mafias, certainly, but not for the ordinary
people who have to rely on around $700 million of remittances from
overseas relatives each year to survive.
To be sure there is wealth. There are BMWs driving around, but they
have been stolen from Germany and other countries -- the local people
could never afford them otherwise. There are indeed great construction
projects -- international crime syndicates discovered that these
projects are perfect ways to launder the result of their crimes, which
include trafficking drugs and women. But for the ordinary Albanians,
25% of whom are below the poverty line? No.
> > I don't accept that you can blame it on Hoxha. Hoxha created
> > infrastructure, industry, employment for everyone. There was no
> > unemployment. There was enough food for all. There was order and
> > stability.
>
> You know, Dr. Michael, I pretty much anticipated that you would have to
> rely on Albanian communist party propaganda and apologetics to make
> your case that the ruin Hoxha left the country in was not his fault but
> that of his successors. But I would have thought you would at least
> have gone a little bit further afield for your sources than *the
> dictator's wife*, for crying out loud. I mean, what do you take us
> for?
I referred you to O'Donnell's book *A Coming of Age*, which is hardly
Albanian communist propaganda and is in fact critical of Hoxha for what
the author considers his 'tyranny'. Moreover, I don't think that what I
am saying is particularly controversial. Do you seriously dispute that
Albanian industry was completely devastated in the years AFTER Hoxha?
> > The chaos came after he died and the country joined the
> > 'international trading system' (where it couldn't compete).
>
> Um... Dr. Michael, if, once the regime fell, the country found that it
> couldn't compete in terms of production capacity and standard of living
> with the rest of the world from which it had been isolated... whose
> fault is that?
The economy wasn't designed to 'compete'. It was designed to feed its
own people, which it did. It was a highly centralized economy. Take
away the centre and the whole thing collapses -- which it did.
As detailed above, encouraging self-sufficiency.
> > You tell me that this poverty is happening in places that are not
> > integrated into the 'global trading system'.
> >
> > Fine. My question to you, which you snipped, was 'where are these
> > places?'
>
> All of the places you just named. Western and Central Africa - almost
> entirely isolated economically.
Eh? Western Africa? You're joking! Nigeria isolated economically? It
just won relief on $37 billion of foreign debt! Its exports total $52
billion (mostly petrol). Imports $26 billion. Niger is sitting on $2.1
billion of foreign debt and does a hefty trade with France and the US.
Cameroon: exports $3.2 billion, imports $2.5 billion. Even the bleedin'
Democratic Republic of the Congo -- one of the most godforsaken spots
on the planet -- exports $1.1 billion (mostly diamonds, copper,
petrol), imports $1.3 billion.
Funny you should mention central Africa. They actually DID have an
infrastructure -- and a damn good one -- in the imperial days. They
were highly integrated into the old imperial system. This didn't
prevent a massive flight of capital and the infrastructure collapsed.
> Southeast and central Asia too.
That's funny because they're actually doing well economically (at least
the COUNTRIES are -- the ordinary people are another matter). India is
supposed to be an emerging world power, remember?
> The
> fact that you can't get around is that prosperity is directly
> proportionate to the extent to which a state is incorporated into the
> global trading system.
The fact that you can't get around is that there is no evidence for any
necessary relationship between the two. Insofar as a relationship might
exist it is because the wealthiest countries -- which are VERY wealthy
-- are well integrated whereas the poorest countries have nothing to
sell and nothing to buy anything with and hence cannot participate!
> So, I argue, bring these isolated countries,
> rife with poverty and warfare, closer to the centre, by whatever means
> are effective. Sure, capital is not attracted to them at the moment.
> That's the problem, stupid. So make them more attractive to capital,
> via aid projects and the development of more stable political systems.
Haven't they been trying that since the old empires collapsed? I again
ask you -- would YOU invest in businesses in Malawi? The Democratic
Republic of the Congo? If so -- please let me know as I can let you
have Buckingham Palace for a mere £200.
YES -- aid them. But aid them to be self-sufficient, not to be slaves
to America.
> This is to the benefit of everyone - the populations of the countries
> themselves, consumers in the West, and world peace and stability.
>
> Your solution is to isolate them more. I am trying to figure out the
> logic according to which you think this could possibly improve the
> situation, yet all you seem to be able to give us is abstractions. The
> System is about free trade and global integration (never mind whether
> this ideal has genuinely been implimented), poverty and suffering
> exists under The System, therefore do the opposite of what The System
> wants and poverty and suffering will vanish.
>
> That's pretty much your hand, no?
No, we have two different approaches.
It is difficult to summarize yours because I know you'll just keep
saying that what I'm opposing isn't what you advocate until we reach
the point where what you advocate and what I advocate are
indistinguishable. However, you say very clearly that you want to
integrate the poorest parts of the world into the global system so that
they are attractive for capital. In short, you make the survival of the
poor people contingent upon their attractiveness for capital. They have
to conduct their politics and economics in such a way that they remain
competitive and 'in favour' otherwise the people starve.
I envisage a system where the various peoples of the world are
encouraged to take a path of self-sufficiency. Like you, I agree that
aid may be a factor in setting this up. But unlike you, I don't
advocate making the survival of children contingent on the ability of
the communities to be attractive for foreign capital. Why not? Because
foreign capital is fickle. It shifts. And every time it decides that
its money would be better invested somewhere else, it causes immense
suffering. Try trading forex and you'll see what I mean -- it's a
bugger: within seconds billions of dollars can flood out of one
currency and into another. You cannot make people's lives contingent on
that chaos.
Your solution is a world of slaves -- everyone desperate to try to
please the global masters. Those who displease the masters starve.
Their children starve. Even if their sin is simply lack of
competitiveness -- maybe due to natural conditions, or disease, or
factors over which they have no control -- if the global financiers
decide to put their money somewhere else then they are stuffed.
We've HAD your solution. We've had it for century after century. Read
Spengler -- the history of the world is one of trade, empires,
international finance. And where has it led -- mass starvation,
exploitation, poverty, misery, decadence, sickness and death.
I say let's build a better world than the miserable slave-world you
propose. Yes, let's help the poorest countries get off their knees. But
then let's help them STAY off their knees so that they don't collapse
again. Instead of teaching them to be good slaves, teach them to be
self-sufficient. Let each people produce the basics for its own
survival, trading on a limited scale to secure what it cannot produce
itself. Yes, it will mean that the luxuries will go from the shelves.
Yes, it will mean that people will lead more austere lives. Yes, the
vast accumulations of wealth that grace the walls of the rich will be a
thing of the past. But once the oil starts to run out and once global
warming and the new diseases start to bite the people will have to live
more austere lives anyway. Maybe the world needs to go back to a
simpler, more humble lifestyle. I am not much into the ethic of wealth
maximization -- which means wealth maximization for a few. I am more in
favour of feeding all the people of the world and letting the rich take
a fall.
> Steven Mock
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
I favour "slavery" aside - you want to turn the clock back some 600
years to a time when the planet was able to sustain about one twentieth
of the current population on the basis of local subsistence economies
rigidly organised around the principle of hierarchical distribution
rather than growth.
And how many people are you willing to starve or blow up in order to
tear down the existing society further to that vision again...?
Steven Mock
david_michael
Well it's a loaded question because it assumes that self-sufficient
economies must resemble something that you think existed 600 years ago.
Why should that be the case? It can all be quite modern. There can be
electricity in every home, perhaps from solar panels. The Mennonites of
Paraguay and the denizens of Orania have shown how successful farming
enterprises can be created even in some extremely inhospitable corners
of the globe. Their bellies are full and they are at peace with their
neighbours and the world, so what's wrong with that?
As for starving and blowing up -- in fact I see the drivers behind the
process as being natural, demographic and sociological. The Islam v.
The West thing is a bit of a sideshow. With regard to natural factors,
I think that global warming, shortages of key resources such as oil and
water, new diseases (AIDS, bird flu, SARS, MRSA and suchlike) will
pressurize the existing political order, which has shown itself very
poor at reacting to such things. Spengler is a good source for the
sorts of sociological and demographic factors that tend to derail
empires. We're looking at increasing cost of empire, reduced
willingness to defend the outer regions and then the inner regions,
waning enthusiasm in the empire's ideals and myths, reduction in
policing of dissent, dissent becoming fashionable, alternative power
centres arising (e.g. China, Russia, the Third World, the Islamic
World, the resurgent Maoist movement). And in the modern world there is
also crime, which can be very sophisticated and powerful now -- it is,
for instance, a major factor in the instability in Iraq. Once the
American empire starts to weaken it creates (a) competition for power
and (b) power vacuums. New players can then move in, and these may well
occur at both supranational and subnational levels. In particular, I
see the cities becoming particularly dangerous and unpleasant places,
prompting flight to the more rural regions, which could lead to the
establishment of the sorts of communities that I'd envisage.
There is nothing inevitable about any of this and, of course, other
scenarios could emerge. For example, Nepal could go Maoist and take the
path of self-determination, strengthening similar movements in India
and the Philippines. China could revert to a more clearly Maoist
position. I understand from one who lives there that in Peru, should
the plight of the poor not improve, there could be a resurgence of the
admirable PCP 'Shining Path' movement. These could all result in
regimes that function along the lines that I have outlined.
Goodness knows how the Islam v. The West thing will unravel. The West
is pushing for cooptation of Islam but it is not having success. With
cooler heads in the White House we might see a de-emphasis on
confrontation and on the 'war on terror' (i.e. the military expansion
of the American empire) and the cooptation of Islam might then be on
the cards.
I *do* think that the medium-term future is utterly bleak for the poor
and destitute of the world. The sticky plaster policies you advocate
have not tended to work and there seems to be little interest in them
any more among the major players. The poor are the ones who will bear
the brunt of all the natural and sociological factors that I have
mentioned. I suspect that they will die horribly and in their billions.
But there is a chance that out of the horror that lies ahead we will be
able to create something new and wonderful for those who survive.
So, Mr Mock -- let the world burn; we'll build it again!
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > So, if I understand you correctly, then - your silly rhetoric about how
> > I favour "slavery" aside - you want to turn the clock back some 600
> > years to a time when the planet was able to sustain about one twentieth
> > of the current population on the basis of local subsistence economies
> > rigidly organised around the principle of hierarchical distribution
> > rather than growth.
> >
> > And how many people are you willing to starve or blow up in order to
> > tear down the existing society further to that vision again...?
> >
> > Steven Mock
>
> Well it's a loaded question because it assumes that self-sufficient
> economies must resemble something that you think existed 600 years ago.
> Why should that be the case? It can all be quite modern. There can be
> electricity in every home, perhaps from solar panels. The Mennonites of
> Paraguay and the denizens of Orania have shown how successful farming
> enterprises can be created even in some extremely inhospitable corners
> of the globe. Their bellies are full and they are at peace with their
> neighbours and the world, so what's wrong with that?
Nothing at all, Dr. Michael. But for all of your recriminations about
my supposed "sticky tape" solutions (a strange term for proposals far
more concrete than any of your pie-in-the-sky rhetoric), all you really
have to offer are pipe dreams. You say that we should assist
communities to be "self-sufficient". That sounds nice, doesn't it.
Would it be nice if we were all "self-sufficient". Who could possibly
oppose such a noble goal? There's just one problem with it. Its
impossible.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it might be all well and good for small
communities populated exclusively with people content to live under
medieval material and social conditions, but on a modern, national
scale, it simply can't be done. Everyone who has tried to enact this
fantasy has ended up starving and murdering far more people than they
have ended up feeding, and has had to resort to increasingly violent,
coercive, and, yes, ultimately corrupt means just to keep their
populations in line and working toward the goal.
"Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime". You say that this means
that countries should be taught to produce what they need locally. But
here's the problem that you and every dictator who's ever adopted this
simplistic line inevitably runs into: what if they can get most of
"what they need" at a considerably lower cost by importing it from
another country that is able to mass produce it more cheaply?
Shouldn't they be focusing their own efforts on something they do a
little better? Are you going to tell a starving family to get back on
to the collective farm in the name of "self-sufficiency" rather than
acquire this cheaper sustenance for their children? Why that would
make you quite the Enver Hoxha, I would say.
You want to know what the benefits of free trade are, Dr. Michael?
Okay, I'll tell you. Food is cheaper. Its cheaper for the rich, its
cheaper for the poor. Its cheaper for me, and its cheaper for you.
Its cheaper for the Mennonites of Paraguay and the denizens of Orania
(should they choose to partake of it). Its cheaper for starving
Africans.
Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are
cheaper, phone service is cheaper. (You feel me building a rhythm
here? That's 'cause I'm a speechwriter and I know how to make a
point.) It lowers prices, it raises income. (You see what I did with
'lowers' and 'raises' there? It's called the science of listener
attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites and now you
end with the one that's not like the others. Ready?) Free trade stops
wars. And that's it. Free trade stops wars! And we figure out a way
to fix the rest. One world, one peace. I'm sure I've seen that on a
sign somewhere.(*)
Now, you can be a wise guy if you want to, point to a war, and go "HEY
free trade didn't stop that one, did it?" Cute, but try and see the
forest for the trees, Dr. Michael. 60 years after the end of World War
II, what are the chances of our seeing another general conflagration in
Europe, a continent that has barely seen a decade of peace since
Charlemagne? Why do you think that is? Less than 15 years ago the
Balkan countries were tearing each other to shreds. What are the
chances of that happening again today? Montenegro just split off from
Serbia without a shot being fired, and why? Because nobody cares.
They're too busy falling over each other in their rush to reap the
benefits of EU membership.
> I *do* think that the medium-term future is utterly bleak for the poor
> and destitute of the world. The sticky plaster policies you advocate
> have not tended to work and there seems to be little interest in them
> any more among the major players. The poor are the ones who will bear
> the brunt of all the natural and sociological factors that I have
> mentioned. I suspect that they will die horribly and in their billions.
> But there is a chance that out of the horror that lies ahead we will be
> able to create something new and wonderful for those who survive.
>
> So, Mr Mock -- let the world burn; we'll build it again!
So that's your solution then? Let it all go to hell and God (or
whatever you believe in) will sort it out.
I'll take my sticky tape over that any day of the week and twice on
Sundays.
Steven Mock
(*) Okay, so I stole that bit from a West Wing script. Hey, if you get
Nexhmije Hoxha, I can have Toby Zeigler.
Joe Bruno
Waldo wrote:
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
>
> > Waldo, Dr. Michael's question was addressed to "Israel's supporters".
> > That is a group I would count myself among, albeit with some
> > qualifications. However, I think its a pretty safe bet to say that you
> > do not consider yourself one of "Israel's supporters".
>
>
> On the contrary, Mr. Mock, I have gone on record here as supporting
> Israel as a "homeland for Jews". Of course, like you, I would
> attach "some qualifications" which, naturally, would likely be
> somewhat different than yours.
>
>
> **
>
> Waldo
>
> Observer at Large
>
>
>
> > Waldo wrote:
> > > david_michael wrote:
> > > > The current activities of the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon and Gaza
> > > > are explained by 'Israeli' and US officials in terms of 'Israel's right
> > > > to defend herself when attacked'.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the refrain that the Judaeophilia Symphony's Hallelujah
> > > Chorus always sings - on cue - every time the Jewish State commits an
> > > act of wanton aggression to further the Zionist agenda. Petty
> > > "excuses" (like the kidnapings) for their marauds may be
> > > convenient, but are really not necessary, as the Chorus *will* sing
> > > nonetheless.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Do the Palestinians and Lebanese have a similar 'right'?
> > >
> > >
> > > In the eyes of the Chorus, absolutely not.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If not, what
> > > > makes Israel so special?
> > >
> > >
> > > First and most importantly, the "Holocaust". True or false, right
> > > or wrong, much of the Western world has *accepted* that "the Jews"
> > > suffered incomparable evils at the hands of Nazi Germany, and there is
> > > an overriding implication that the Gentile world should share a
> > > collective and eternal "guilt" for these atrocities, and that
> > > "the Jews" should be absolved - in advance - for any "wrong"
> > > that they might perpetrate against their "enemies", past, present
> > > or future. This is why the "Holocaust" myths are propagandized so
> > > heavily, guarded so jealously, and defended so viciously.
> > >
> > > Second, the Judaeophilia Symphony's Hallelujah Chorus is made up
> > > largely of "Christians" whose religious dogma insists that the Jews
> > > truly are "G_d's Chosen People", but have simply "lost their
> > > way", and will one day "wake up" to the truth of Christ. These
> > > believe that Israel really *is* the Jews' Promised Land, and that it
> > > is "G_d's will" that the Jews be able to occupy it, whether by
> > > force or by divine intervention. So in their eyes, the Jews can do no
> > > wrong.
Evidence???????
> > >
> > > I find it quite ironic that the Jews' principal outside cheerleaders
> > > are Christians, the very group that
Jews have traditionally despised
> > > above all others, and whose culture, influence and institutions Jews
> > > work tirelessly to slander, dismantle and destroy.
Evidence??????????????
> > >
Joe Bruno
david_michael wrote:
> The current activities of the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon and Gaza
> are explained by 'Israeli' and US officials in terms of 'Israel's right
> to defend herself when attacked'.
>
> makes Israel so special? If so, how can 'Israel' legitimately criticize
> attacks by Palestinians on its territory?
"Criticize"???? They are doing what they can to prevent such attacks.
Kurt Knoll
kk
"Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1154048971....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ben Cramer
"Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1154048971....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
If the cunts were fair dinkum about preventing such attacks, they'd fuck off
out of the ME, you fucking nong.
>
david_michael
> david_michael wrote:
> > sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > > So, if I understand you correctly, then - your silly rhetoric about how
> > > I favour "slavery" aside - you want to turn the clock back some 600
> > > years to a time when the planet was able to sustain about one twentieth
> > > of the current population on the basis of local subsistence economies
> > > rigidly organised around the principle of hierarchical distribution
> > > rather than growth.
> > >
> > > And how many people are you willing to starve or blow up in order to
> > > tear down the existing society further to that vision again...?
> > >
> > > Steven Mock
> >
> > Well it's a loaded question because it assumes that self-sufficient
> > economies must resemble something that you think existed 600 years ago.
> > Why should that be the case? It can all be quite modern. There can be
> > electricity in every home, perhaps from solar panels. The Mennonites of
> > Paraguay and the denizens of Orania have shown how successful farming
> > enterprises can be created even in some extremely inhospitable corners
> > of the globe. Their bellies are full and they are at peace with their
> > neighbours and the world, so what's wrong with that?
>
> Nothing at all, Dr. Michael. But for all of your recriminations about
> my supposed "sticky tape" solutions (a strange term for proposals far
> more concrete than any of your pie-in-the-sky rhetoric), all you really
> have to offer are pipe dreams.
Strange thing for you to write given that I thought we'd almost agreed
on the short-term measures.
> You say that we should assist
> communities to be "self-sufficient".
You see -- I did come up with something concrete for the long term too!
> That sounds nice, doesn't it.
> Would it be nice if we were all "self-sufficient". Who could possibly
> oppose such a noble goal? There's just one problem with it. Its
> impossible.
Translation: it doesn't fit in with Mr Mock's personal idea of how the
world should be therefore he would like it to be impossible.
You have no way of knowing whether it would be impossible, so why do
you write that it is?
> I mean, don't get me wrong, it might be all well and good for small
> communities populated exclusively with people content to live under
> medieval material and social conditions,
(a) There are examples of such communities living very happily in
rather good conditions. On the other hand, as I have shown, much of
today's globalized, free-trading world lives in conditions that are
substantially worse than those existing in medieval times in Europe at
least. (You've even got the modern equivalent of the Black Death!)
(b) There is no reason why such communities should be particularly
small. Indeed, if they are too small then all sorts of problems arise.
You need a few thousand to make it work properly. You have not produced
any argument to suggest that increasing the size makes it 'impossible'.
> but on a modern, national
> scale, it simply can't be done.
(a) Why do you produce assertions that you have no idea how to back up?
It doesn't fit your ideal therefore 'it can't be done'.
(b) Who says it needs to be done on a 'national' scale? Nations are now
just administrative zones of the New World Order. With a few
exceptions. They are history. The action is taking place at the
supranational and subnational level. Haven't you noticed?
(c) Given the problems posed by the natural and sociodemographic
factors mentioned earlier, I think that attempts to do it on a
'national' level will be plain silly.
(d) Actually, if you look at Tibet prior to the Chinese takeover you'll
find a nation where a very hefty percentage of people DID live in such
communities -- the Buddhist 'monasteries'. I merely raise this as an
historical aside.
> Everyone who has tried to enact this
> fantasy has ended up starving and murdering far more people than they
> have ended up feeding, and has had to resort to increasingly violent,
> coercive, and, yes, ultimately corrupt means just to keep their
> populations in line and working toward the goal.
(a) Demostrably false. Read my 'Pie in the Sky' article if you can find
it in the Web archives for many examples that did not go that way.
(b) In fact, it could be argued that everyone who tried YOUR
alternative of enmeshing everyone into a single world order ended up
starving and murdering far more people than they have ended up feeding.
> "Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime". You say that this means
> that countries should be taught to produce what they need locally.
I did not. I certainly did not use the word 'countries'. Hell, you're
more of a nationalist than me these days!
> But
> here's the problem that you and every dictator who's ever adopted this
> simplistic line inevitably runs into: what if they can get most of
> "what they need" at a considerably lower cost by importing it from
> another country that is able to mass produce it more cheaply?
It depends on your values. I could get a better house cheaper than the
one I've got at the moment if I moved to Paraguay or even Spain. So?
The point is that it is not YOUR decision. It is for the people
affected to decide.
If the Lebanese do not wish to trade with the Israeli mass-murderers
and war criminals, why should they be forced to do so?
> Shouldn't they be focusing their own efforts on something they do a
> little better?
Not if they do not wish to become dependent on exterior forces that
could cut off their supplies at any moment.
>Are you going to tell a starving family to get back on
> to the collective farm in the name of "self-sufficiency" rather than
> acquire this cheaper sustenance for their children?
I don't say you can move to self-sufficiency overnight. It is something
you work towards.
> Why that would
> make you quite the Enver Hoxha, I would say.
Well, judging from Lee Barnes' latest drivel on the BNP Web site I
think I probably have far more in common with the Hoxhaites than
Griffin et al. these days. However, because of my political history
that's a relationship that's unlikely to be consummated.
> You want to know what the benefits of free trade are, Dr. Michael?
I know. We did it in first year economics at St Andrews, if I remember
rightly.
> Okay, I'll tell you. Food is cheaper. Its cheaper for the rich, its
> cheaper for the poor. Its cheaper for me, and its cheaper for you.
No it isn't. It costs me a few pence for a packet of potato seeds. It
would cost a helluva lot more to buy the potatoes. So you've got that
argument wrong for a start.
It is cheaper UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
> Its cheaper for the Mennonites of Paraguay and the denizens of Orania
> (should they choose to partake of it). Its cheaper for starving
> Africans.
Actually it isn't. They've been participating in the global trade
system for centuries -- indeed, many of them were enmeshed in imperial
economies until fairly recently -- and it hasn't got them very far. If
people had taught them to produce their own food reliably and had
assisted them with the infrastructure to do so then they would have
been in a far better position.
> Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are
> cheaper, phone service is cheaper. (You feel me building a rhythm
> here? That's 'cause I'm a speechwriter and I know how to make a
> point.) It lowers prices, it raises income. (You see what I did with
> 'lowers' and 'raises' there? It's called the science of listener
> attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites and now you
> end with the one that's not like the others. Ready?)
Yes but your understanding of free trade is simplistic. Ricardo is fine
in a static context but real life is dynamic. Let me illustrate by
injecting a dynamic component into it.
DAY 1. It costs me £1 a ton to produce my own widgets. It costs me 80p
to import them for Mockistan. Free trade theory says it makes sense to
buy widgets from Mockistan rather than make my own.
DAY 2. The Great Mock of Mockistan decides to increase the price of
widgets to £80 per ton. I've spent my development money on something
else so can no longer afford to buy my own widget-making factory. Ergo,
I'm stuffed.
Now free-trade theory says that someone else will see that I'm in the
market for widgets and will undercut Mockistan. Fine. (At least fine in
an efficient market with no collusion, etc.) But, hang on. He's not
going to charge 80p if Mockistan is charging £80. He's going to try to
get £79.99. How it ends up depends on several factors but the bottom
line is that I'd have been far better off if I'd have set up my own
widget factory on Day 1 rather than relying on unreliable suppliers,
free-trade theory notwithstanding.
In an international context political factors make it PARTICULARLY
risky to rely on others for your resources because of the possibility
of sanctions if you upset the international community. You end up
losing your independent foreign policy. And the more leverage they get
over you the less incentive they have to give you a good deal.
Just imagine if the people of Hong Kong wanted to stop their 'free
trade' with China tomorrow!
What you can't seem to get your head around -- and what free trade
theorists can't get THEIR heads around -- is that capital is
unreliable. It often tends to seek the best deal, which makes it very
volatile. You depend on it at your peril. And the more vulnerable you
are, the greater is the peril (and the greater the temptation to rip
you off).
>Free trade stops
> wars.
Answered already. It stopped neither the First World War nor the Second
nor any other.
> And that's it. Free trade stops wars!
No it doesn't. What ACTUALLY happens is the other way around -- wars
and conflict stop free trade, which creates the correlation that you
interpret incorrectly. Capital abhors unmanageable risk, and such risk
is abundant where there is the prospect of war.
>And we figure out a way
> to fix the rest. One world, one peace. I'm sure I've seen that on a
> sign somewhere.(*)
You mean as in Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer?
> Now, you can be a wise guy if you want to, point to a war, and go "HEY
> free trade didn't stop that one, did it?"
I can go one better than that. Every war that has ever taken place has
not been prevented by free trade! :-)
> Cute, but try and see the
> forest for the trees, Dr. Michael. 60 years after the end of World War
> II, what are the chances of our seeing another general conflagration in
> Europe, a continent that has barely seen a decade of peace since
> Charlemagne?
First, it is not obviously the case that Europe doesn't have conflict
brewing further down the line. Go back to the early 1970s. Who would
have thought of civil war in Yugoslavia? Here we had all of these
previously conflicting peoples all bundled neatly together by Tito.
They were trading together, voting together, common loyalty to a common
country, etc. etc. Problem -- the empire collapsed. And what happens
when empires collapse? Go read Spengler. Now, as it happens I do not
think that you're going to see France bombing Spain (although you might
just aboutl get Greece and Turkey at loggerheads). On the whole, by and
large, the era of nation-states is over. What you may well see is an
increasingly repressive European central government getting bogged down
in asymmetrical conflicts with violent groups.
Second, after the Second World War and the collapse of communism the
victory of the neoliberal globalists was so complete that they had a
monopoly over political discourse and were able to marginalize all
dissent. This enabled them to marginalize dissenting voices using the
media and the security services (or more widely, the ideological and
repressive state apparatuses to use Althusser's language). Thus nobody
has ever really been able to take on the rulers of the new order in
Europe.
> Why do you think that is?
(a) Hegemony of political discourse.
(b) The collapse of opposition.
(c) The use of the media and security services to marginalize dissent
rather than guns.
(d) The fact that countries are no longer players in world politics and
hence have little cause for conflict -- the real players are
subnational and supranational forces, which DO conflict, although the
latter have the upper hand over the former at the moment.
> Less than 15 years ago the
> Balkan countries were tearing each other to shreds. What are the
> chances of that happening again today?
Countries are a thing of the past. What you're going to get in future
is the entity that has eaten up the countries in the region -- which I
call the New World Order -- conflicting with those who oppose it in
asymmetrical conflicts.
> Montenegro just split off from
> Serbia without a shot being fired, and why? Because nobody cares.
> They're too busy falling over each other in their rush to reap the
> benefits of EU membership.
So free trade did not exist in the region prior to, say, 1914?
> > I *do* think that the medium-term future is utterly bleak for the poor
> > and destitute of the world. The sticky plaster policies you advocate
> > have not tended to work and there seems to be little interest in them
> > any more among the major players. The poor are the ones who will bear
> > the brunt of all the natural and sociological factors that I have
> > mentioned. I suspect that they will die horribly and in their billions.
> > But there is a chance that out of the horror that lies ahead we will be
> > able to create something new and wonderful for those who survive.
> >
> > So, Mr Mock -- let the world burn; we'll build it again!
>
> So that's your solution then? Let it all go to hell and God (or
> whatever you believe in) will sort it out.
Again, a very strange thing to write. So how precisely do you propose
to stop the world from burning? How will you stop global warming, the
oil supplies running out, the spread of hideous new diseases, all the
things that I outlined?
While you seem to ignore these things and simply throw your hands up in
horror that I should even mention them, I say that they could well be
the driving force that could ultimately lead to a better world for
everyone.
> I'll take my sticky tape over that any day of the week and twice on
> Sundays.
It's been tried. It didn't work.
> Steven Mock
>
> (*) Okay, so I stole that bit from a West Wing script. Hey, if you get
> Nexhmije Hoxha, I can have Toby Zeigler.
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
>
> > That sounds nice, doesn't it.
> > Would it be nice if we were all "self-sufficient". Who could possibly
> > oppose such a noble goal? There's just one problem with it. Its
> > impossible.
>
> Translation: it doesn't fit in with Mr Mock's personal idea of how the
> world should be therefore he would like it to be impossible.
What makes you think it doesn't fit with my "personal idea of how the
world should be"? What could I possibly have against the notion of
self-sufficiency in principle? You seem to have this strange notion
that I am ideologically committed to American hegemony as a value.
Sorry, sport. Even if this were the logical outcome of the notions I
am proposing (and its not - indeed, an authentic regime of free trade ,
implemented evenly across the globe, would be a serious *threat* to
American hegemony, which is precisely why, rhetoric aside, the current
"System" stands in many ways as an obstacle to such development), the
only "personal idea" I am advocating is that people should be free to
feed themselves and their families according to the most effective
means currently at their disposal, rather than according to the most
effective means further to building David E. Michael's idea of
"paradise on earth".
> You have no way of knowing whether it would be impossible, so why do
> you write that it is?
I thought we were having a discussion here, so can the hissy fits and
don't tell me what I can and can't argue.
I have a pretty damn good idea that it is impossible based on:
1) the prima facie evidence of the fact that the few leaders in modern
history stupid enough to adopt this pipe dream as a programme and still
manage to get into the centre of power have all - to a man - succeeded
only in starving and repressing their populations and others through
policy actions directly related to achieving this goal, subsequently
being remembered as among the worst monsters in history (I know you
will write this off to history being written by the victors, but since
the victors, in this case, are those that were better able to mobilise
the human and material resources of their countries, I can live with
that);
2) the fact that you evidently have no idea how many factors go into
sustaining a complex economy and a population large enough to maintain
one; everyone who has pondered the notion of self-sufficiency has
quickly realised that there was at least *something*, and usually many
things, that they simply could not produce locally at any even remotely
reasonable cost, and other things that they could produce a hell of a
lot cheaper if it were done on a scale that required access to foreign
markets; and
3) the argument I presented earlier as to exactly how and why such a
programme will collapse the minute it is transposed from a small set of
ideologically committed volunteers to the sort of diverse population
that characterises a modern, complex economy - because *most* people
looking for ways to feed themselves and their families will naturally
take the path of least resistance, and making "self-sufficiency" the
path of least resistance at any given moment frankly takes a lot of men
with guns.
<snip: stuff answered above>
> (b) Who says it needs to be done on a 'national' scale? Nations are now
> just administrative zones of the New World Order. With a few
> exceptions. They are history. The action is taking place at the
> supranational and subnational level. Haven't you noticed?
Not really, no. Their role may be changing in a globalising world, but
I wouldn't count nation-states out just yet.
> (d) Actually, if you look at Tibet prior to the Chinese takeover you'll
> find a nation where a very hefty percentage of people DID live in such
> communities -- the Buddhist 'monasteries'. I merely raise this as an
> historical aside.
Um... do you really think the Buddhist monasteries were self-contained
systems that did not rely on extracting labour and resources from
external sources? And, in any case, this is another classic example of
a case where such a system was workable in the context of a pre-modern,
religiously (ideologically) grounded feudal-type society based on a
rigid hierarchy of resource distribution - which indeed can function
within its own context, but couldn't even begin to compete from the
standpoint of resource mobilisation with modern, integrated economies
based on the principle of growth.
> > "Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime". You say that this means
> > that countries should be taught to produce what they need locally.
>
> I did not. I certainly did not use the word 'countries'. Hell, you're
> more of a nationalist than me these days!
Wouldn't surprise me. But aside from the world "countries", those
were your exact words. Pardon the misunderstanding.
> > But
> > here's the problem that you and every dictator who's ever adopted this
> > simplistic line inevitably runs into: what if they can get most of
> > "what they need" at a considerably lower cost by importing it from
> > another country that is able to mass produce it more cheaply?
>
> It depends on your values. I could get a better house cheaper than the
> one I've got at the moment if I moved to Paraguay or even Spain. So?
>
> The point is that it is not YOUR decision. It is for the people
> affected to decide.
But that's my point exactly, Dr. Michael. It is for the people
affected to decide. My approach leaves it for them to decide. Yours
takes that decision away from them.
> If the Lebanese do not wish to trade with the Israeli mass-murderers
> and war criminals, why should they be forced to do so?
Your overheated rhetoric aside, my question is just the opposite: if
the Lebanese *do* wish to trade with Israelis, why should they be
forced not to? A great deal of money could be made by both Lebanese
and Israeli entrepreneurs trading across the border, and the result
would be that the goods affected would be cheaper for consumers on both
sides of the line. What is preventing this from occurring, Dr.
Michael? The collective revulsion of every single Lebanese
entrepreneur? I highly doubt that. No, it is a decision enforced from
on-high by the coercive mechanism of a state enforcing its values. The
result: Israelis lose, Lebanese lose, the prospects for peaceful
interactions between them lose. Everyone loses.
> > You want to know what the benefits of free trade are, Dr. Michael?
>
> I know. We did it in first year economics at St Andrews, if I remember
> rightly.
>
> > Okay, I'll tell you. Food is cheaper. Its cheaper for the rich, its
> > cheaper for the poor. Its cheaper for me, and its cheaper for you.
>
> No it isn't. It costs me a few pence for a packet of potato seeds. It
> would cost a helluva lot more to buy the potatoes. So you've got that
> argument wrong for a start.
Heh. If only the cost of the seeds were the only expense involved in
growing potatoes. There are several others expenses, key among which
is the labour involved in growing and harvesting the potatoes - labour
that could potentially be spent on other things.
Evidently they neglected to explain the concept of "opportunity cost"
to you during your first-year economics course at St. Andrews.
> It is cheaper UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fine, I'll give you that. But given the number of goods that a person
relies on, it stands to reason then that at any given moment in any
given place there are *some* that are cheaper to import and some that
are cheaper to produce locally. So, overall then, food is cheaper.
I think your problem here is that real life is even more dynamic than
you think it is, at which point free trade theory bounces back again
from these artificial pressures you impose on it.
First of all, quit dropping names. I have made my own logical
argument. If you want to debate David Ricardo, dig him up.
Two: your hypothetical case is based on several assumptions, and
neglects several factors. First of all, you are assuming that the
Great Mock is a complete idiot who wants to drive Mockistan to
starvation *and* get himself thrown out of the WTO. Okay, not
impossible, but more important is the reason why this would happen to
him. Namely, if there is a second entrepreneur undercutting
Mockistan's £80 by 1p, there's no reason why there can't be a third
undercutting the second by 2p, and so on until you start once again to
settle for market equilibrium. Failing that, if Mockistan indeed has
as much of a dictatorial a command economy as you make it seem, then
surely it also has a thriving black market that will be more than
willing to pass you widgets at far closer to their market value.
Failing that, you can always develop your own makeshift widget industry
if doing so remains the cheapest possible option. None of these
options are as *optimal* as free trade at market value between yourself
and Mockistan - for either yourself or for Mockistan, as any
intelligent leader would realise - but you are far from "stuffed". All
options are preferable to a bloody-minded quest for widget
self-sufficiency from the get go. And finally, it must be noted that
this one-way flow of widgets is not the only trading relationship you
have with Mockistan, or with the rest of the trading system for that
matter. Mockistan might be just as dependant on you for, say, jelly
beans, the price of which you can raise to a comparable extent.
> What you can't seem to get your head around -- and what free trade
> theorists can't get THEIR heads around -- is that capital is
> unreliable. It often tends to seek the best deal, which makes it very
> volatile. You depend on it at your peril. And the more vulnerable you
> are, the greater is the peril (and the greater the temptation to rip
> you off).
But the point which I think I have just illustrated above is that
trading systems, in practice, are quite complex, and as a result tend
to come with a great deal of redundancy and resilience mechanisms
built-in - if, for no other reason, then that resilience is good for
business. Except in a few very select instances of certain scarce
resources (which cannot be helped, even by your alternative model)
there plenty of alternatives to deal with contingencies, all of which
are preferable economically to "self-sufficiency".
> > Free trade stops wars.
>
> Answered already. It stopped neither the First World War nor the Second
> nor any other.
Was it given a chance to? I snipped this comment earlier for space,
but this is yet another example of your blindingly simplistic take on
history. Relatively open trade managed to contain general conflict for
much of the 19th century, but the system broke down toward the end of
that century into open trade war between clearly defined blocs, the
British Empire being a roughly self-contained system in itself. As for
the Second World War, it was preceded by one of your bloody-minded
dictators taking his country out of the system almost completely in the
interests of a programme of "self-sufficiency". And if you plan go
off on a bender on what a "paradise on earth" of full employment
and prosperity Nazi Germany was in its early days, allow me to warn you
that I am willing to pull out the figures on real economic growth,
along with the steady and exorbitant increase in the national debt that
Germany actually enjoyed during this period. They borrowed money
during the good years to fulfil their "self-sufficiency" dream, and
were left heading into a recession with a massive debt, no credit, and
an uncompetitive industrial base. You have previously claimed that you
criticise the Nazis for being "imperialists". But, in fact, they
started out as thoroughgoing "national anarchists" (for lack of a
better term), until they realised that war mobilisation and the plunder
of conquered territories was the only conceivable way to stave off the
state's impending financial collapse.
Free trade stops wars.
> > Now, you can be a wise guy if you want to, point to a war, and go "HEY
> > free trade didn't stop that one, did it?"
>
> I can go one better than that. Every war that has ever taken place has
> not been prevented by free trade! :-)
You see? Now you're being a wise guy. I never said that free trade
stops *all* wars. Simply that it stops wars. Granted, it is a
difficult claim for me to prove empirically to the standard you seem to
want - I can't be expected to provide a list of wars that didn't
happen because of free trade. After all, they didn't happen. But if
I can make a logical argument as to how economic interconnectedness
serves to inhibit armed conflict, surely it is an argument you need to
deal with if you are going to dispute my claim that the world you
envision would be more conflict ridden than the one I propose.
> > Cute, but try and see the
> > forest for the trees, Dr. Michael. 60 years after the end of World War
> > II, what are the chances of our seeing another general conflagration in
> > Europe, a continent that has barely seen a decade of peace since
> > Charlemagne?
>
> First, it is not obviously the case that Europe doesn't have conflict
> brewing further down the line. Go back to the early 1970s. Who would
> have thought of civil war in Yugoslavia? Here we had all of these
> previously conflicting peoples all bundled neatly together by Tito.
> They were trading together, voting together, common loyalty to a common
> country, etc. etc. Problem -- the empire collapsed.
Right, Dr. Michael. Like I said, it is not my argument that free trade
stops *all* wars. No matter how interconnected a region might be, it
is still entirely possible for some bloody-minded asshole like yourself
- who puts his own power and/or vision of
ideological/cultural/ethnic/racial purity above the welfare of the
people - to apply enough pressure to collapse the system. My point is
that inevitably, when this happens, people suffer - as much
economically as from the violence of the conflict itself. But it is
for that very reason that the system tends to re-establish itself
almost as soon as that bloody-minded asshole and the effects of his
policies and propaganda are removed. And people start interacting
again, and co-operating, and working more toward feeding themselves and
their families than toward any ideal of racial purity. And prosperity
(and investment) returns, and quite rapidly too.
> > > I *do* think that the medium-term future is utterly bleak for the poor
> > > and destitute of the world. The sticky plaster policies you advocate
> > > have not tended to work and there seems to be little interest in them
> > > any more among the major players. The poor are the ones who will bear
> > > the brunt of all the natural and sociological factors that I have
> > > mentioned. I suspect that they will die horribly and in their billions.
> > > But there is a chance that out of the horror that lies ahead we will be
> > > able to create something new and wonderful for those who survive.
> > >
> > > So, Mr Mock -- let the world burn; we'll build it again!
> >
> > So that's your solution then? Let it all go to hell and God (or
> > whatever you believe in) will sort it out.
>
> Again, a very strange thing to write. So how precisely do you propose
> to stop the world from burning? How will you stop global warming,
Greater economic and political interconnectedness on a global scale
that will enable long-term co-operation over common problems rather
than competition in the interests of short-term gains.
> the oil supplies running out,
Greater co-operation in the research and development of alternative
energy sources.
> the spread of hideous new diseases,
Greater co-operation in medical research, as well as further
integration of poorer countries into the global economy so that they
and their populations are able to pay for medicines developed elsewhere
in the world.
Or we can just let the world burn, in the faith that death and
suffering brings ultimate purification...
> While you seem to ignore these things and simply throw your hands up in
> horror that I should even mention them, I say that they could well be
> the driving force that could ultimately lead to a better world for
> everyone.
I like my way better.
Steven Mock
Kurt Knoll
lying for profit.
Kurt Knoll.
<sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
news:1154172375.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
david_michael
> david_michael wrote:
> > sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> >
> > > That sounds nice, doesn't it.
> > > Would it be nice if we were all "self-sufficient". Who could possibly
> > > oppose such a noble goal? There's just one problem with it. Its
> > > impossible.
> >
> > Translation: it doesn't fit in with Mr Mock's personal idea of how the
> > world should be therefore he would like it to be impossible.
>
> What makes you think it doesn't fit with my "personal idea of how the
> world should be"?
Because you pronounce that self-sufficiency is 'impossible' --
something that it is not logically possible for you to know. You would
need to know all possible strategies leading to self-sufficiency and
that there is no possible way to make any work.
> What could I possibly have against the notion of
> self-sufficiency in principle?
You've tied your flag to the mast of 'integration into the global
trading system'.
>You seem to have this strange notion
> that I am ideologically committed to American hegemony as a value.
You've said that you want integration into the global trading system.
Now that doesn't *necessarily* mean a unipolar world dominated by
America but it certainly seems to assist that cause under the present
global state of things.
> Sorry, sport. Even if this were the logical outcome of the notions I
> am proposing (and its not - indeed, an authentic regime of free trade ,
> implemented evenly across the globe, would be a serious *threat* to
> American hegemony, which is precisely why, rhetoric aside, the current
> "System" stands in many ways as an obstacle to such development), the
> only "personal idea" I am advocating is that people should be free to
> feed themselves and their families according to the most effective
> means currently at their disposal, rather than according to the most
> effective means further to building David E. Michael's idea of
> "paradise on earth".
Fine! Go tell that to the starving billions in Africa and Asia
currently living under free-trade systems. They're theoretically free
to buy luxury television sets from almost anywhere in the world.
Problem -- if you're starving to death and can't even afford a daily
meal, this 'freedom' is fairly academic. They'd be far better off under
a regime that takes away this entirely illusory freedom to trade and
instead gives them at least one decent home-grown meal in their
stomachs every day.
> > You have no way of knowing whether it would be impossible, so why do
> > you write that it is?
>
> I thought we were having a discussion here, so can the hissy fits and
> don't tell me what I can and can't argue.
Your comment that self-sufficiency is impossible is an excellent
example of starting out with a conclusion the truth of which you cannot
possibly know and then thrashing around for arguments to try to justify
it. I'm just drawing attention to that.
> I have a pretty damn good idea that it is impossible
Aha. So you're not CERTAIN. You're just guessing.
> based on:
>
> 1) the prima facie evidence of the fact that the few leaders in modern
> history stupid enough to adopt this pipe dream as a programme and still
> manage to get into the centre of power have all - to a man - succeeded
> only in starving and repressing their populations and others through
> policy actions directly related to achieving this goal, subsequently
> being remembered as among the worst monsters in history (I know you
> will write this off to history being written by the victors, but since
> the victors, in this case, are those that were better able to mobilise
> the human and material resources of their countries, I can live with
> that);
If we look at the people remembered as the worst monsters in Hitler I
suppose you're probably talking Hitler, Stalin and maybe Mao. All of
these were people firmly committed to integration into a global system
of one sort or another. Not one wanted a world based on small
self-sufficient communities.
Again, if you go find my article 'Pie in the Sky' I give numerous
examples of small intentional communities working very successfully.
There are hundreds operating successfully throughout the world today.
Now if we add the concept of people doing this scientifically -- of
actually learning from the mistakes of the past and basing their
efforts on success stories of the past -- then there's no reason to
suppose that it cannot be done very successfully elsewhere.
> 2) the fact that you evidently have no idea how many factors go into
> sustaining a complex economy and a population large enough to maintain
> one; everyone who has pondered the notion of self-sufficiency has
> quickly realised that there was at least *something*, and usually many
> things, that they simply could not produce locally at any even remotely
> reasonable cost, and other things that they could produce a hell of a
> lot cheaper if it were done on a scale that required access to foreign
> markets; and
Look, let's accept that to run a COMPLEX economy where everyone is free
to buy exotic fruits and clothes from the furthest corners of the world
you'll need global integration.
Can I suggest that in a world facing mass poverty and starvation we
should perhaps aim not for allowing a tiny proportion of the world's
population to enjoy these luxuries at the expense of everyone else but
rather for allowing everyone to have the basics -- food to fill their
bellies, clean drinking water, clothes, medical help.
Under the current set up, you and I have remarkable choice and you do
indeed need complexity to sustain that level of choice. But actually
very few people get that choice under the existing system. Even in the
wealthy countries.
Most people in the world would not suffer greatly from a reduction in
this economic complexity. In fact, I put it to you that most would
benefit from it.
> 3) the argument I presented earlier as to exactly how and why such a
> programme will collapse the minute it is transposed from a small set of
> ideologically committed volunteers to the sort of diverse population
> that characterises a modern, complex economy - because *most* people
> looking for ways to feed themselves and their families will naturally
> take the path of least resistance, and making "self-sufficiency" the
> path of least resistance at any given moment frankly takes a lot of men
> with guns.
I have never argued that it should be imposed by men with guns. I've
told you earlier when you made exactly the same point that I think the
driving forces will be natural disasters and sociodemographic factors.
> <snip: stuff answered above>
>
> > (b) Who says it needs to be done on a 'national' scale? Nations are now
> > just administrative zones of the New World Order. With a few
> > exceptions. They are history. The action is taking place at the
> > supranational and subnational level. Haven't you noticed?
>
> Not really, no. Their role may be changing in a globalising world, but
> I wouldn't count nation-states out just yet.
I didn't say they were 'out' -- however, I did say that the action was
taking place at supranational and subnational level. Which I think is
accurate.
> > (d) Actually, if you look at Tibet prior to the Chinese takeover you'll
> > find a nation where a very hefty percentage of people DID live in such
> > communities -- the Buddhist 'monasteries'. I merely raise this as an
> > historical aside.
>
> Um... do you really think the Buddhist monasteries were self-contained
> systems that did not rely on extracting labour and resources from
> external sources?
Well if you want to argue that they were 'integrated into the global
trading system' I think you're going to have your work cut out. And if
pre-invasion Tibet is NOT an example of one of these self-sufficient
communities then where is? YOU are the one who attributed the starving
and poverty of the world to lack of integration. Are you seriously
arguing that the places where all this starvation and poverty are
taking place are even less integrated than pre-invasion Tibet?
>And, in any case, this is another classic example of
> a case where such a system was workable in the context of a pre-modern,
> religiously (ideologically) grounded feudal-type society based on a
> rigid hierarchy of resource distribution - which indeed can function
> within its own context, but couldn't even begin to compete from the
> standpoint of resource mobilisation with modern, integrated economies
> based on the principle of growth.
Most people in the world do not benefit from modern, integrated
economies. It might be difficult for you to believe but MOST people in
the world cannot afford to take month-long vacations in distant corners
of the planet -- MOST are struggling just to feed their kids. I think
they would willingly lose some of the purely illusory 'freedom' and
'choice' to purchase goods that they cannot possibly afford in order to
have the basics.
> > > "Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime". You say that this means
> > > that countries should be taught to produce what they need locally.
> >
> > I did not. I certainly did not use the word 'countries'. Hell, you're
> > more of a nationalist than me these days!
>
> Wouldn't surprise me. But aside from the world "countries", those
> were your exact words. Pardon the misunderstanding.
It's an important misunderstanding. You do not HAVE to do this at the
national level. Indeed, I have argued that it would be VERY DIFFICULT
to do it at the national level. At least at the moment.
> > > But
> > > here's the problem that you and every dictator who's ever adopted this
> > > simplistic line inevitably runs into: what if they can get most of
> > > "what they need" at a considerably lower cost by importing it from
> > > another country that is able to mass produce it more cheaply?
> >
> > It depends on your values. I could get a better house cheaper than the
> > one I've got at the moment if I moved to Paraguay or even Spain. So?
> >
> > The point is that it is not YOUR decision. It is for the people
> > affected to decide.
>
> But that's my point exactly, Dr. Michael. It is for the people
> affected to decide. My approach leaves it for them to decide. Yours
> takes that decision away from them.
Your approach does NOT leave it for them to decide. You cannot 'decide'
on $2 per day. You take what you can to survive. Your system, in
empoverishing such a huge proportion of the world's population and
making them highly dependent on those who monopolize the resources,
takes away the ability to decide. Your 'freedom' is purely illusory.
> > If the Lebanese do not wish to trade with the Israeli mass-murderers
> > and war criminals, why should they be forced to do so?
>
> Your overheated rhetoric aside, my question is just the opposite: if
> the Lebanese *do* wish to trade with Israelis, why should they be
> forced not to?
Who's forcing them not to? Even under YOUR system, if a Lebanese wants
to trade with Israel can go live in a community somewhere else in the
world that trades with Israel.
The elected government of Lebanon chooses not to trade with Israel. If
it wishes to trade with Israel, who is stopping it?
> A great deal of money could be made by both Lebanese
> and Israeli entrepreneurs trading across the border, and the result
> would be that the goods affected would be cheaper for consumers on both
> sides of the line. What is preventing this from occurring, Dr.
> Michael? The collective revulsion of every single Lebanese
> entrepreneur? I highly doubt that. No, it is a decision enforced from
> on-high by the coercive mechanism of a state enforcing its values. The
> result: Israelis lose, Lebanese lose, the prospects for peaceful
> interactions between them lose. Everyone loses.
It's their choice. If the people of Lebanon wanted to trade with Israel
then they'd go get themselves a government that would push for this.
> > > You want to know what the benefits of free trade are, Dr. Michael?
> >
> > I know. We did it in first year economics at St Andrews, if I remember
> > rightly.
> >
> > > Okay, I'll tell you. Food is cheaper. Its cheaper for the rich, its
> > > cheaper for the poor. Its cheaper for me, and its cheaper for you.
> >
> > No it isn't. It costs me a few pence for a packet of potato seeds. It
> > would cost a helluva lot more to buy the potatoes. So you've got that
> > argument wrong for a start.
>
> Heh. If only the cost of the seeds were the only expense involved in
> growing potatoes. There are several others expenses, key among which
> is the labour involved in growing and harvesting the potatoes - labour
> that could potentially be spent on other things.
It takes one hour for my missus to plant our potatoes. It takes me an
hour to drive the 25 miles to the nearest town where they sell potatoes
(our local shop no longer does) and another hour to drive back. Given
that my missus would probably spent her hour fiddling with flowers in
the absence of potatoes, I'd say that it's a very efficient deployment
of resources.
Now let's transpose this to starving people in Africa . . .
> Evidently they neglected to explain the concept of "opportunity cost"
> to you during your first-year economics course at St. Andrews.
Right. Now what opportunities are the starving of Africa sacrificing by
growing their own food rather than buying it from external sources?
Should they perhaps be investing their precious minutes analysing the
stock market?
Point: long-term self-sufficiency will be an optimal strategy when the
long-term costs of alternative strategies are higher. However, we live
in a dynamic world. The costs of alternative strategies are constantly
fluctuating. What is cheaper at one moment can be more expensive the
next, so reliance on such trade is inherently risky. There are also
hidden political costs (which translate into long-term economic costs)
resulting from dependence on unreliable capital.
> > It is cheaper UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
>
> Fine, I'll give you that. But given the number of goods that a person
> relies on, it stands to reason then that at any given moment in any
> given place there are *some* that are cheaper to import and some that
> are cheaper to produce locally. So, overall then, food is cheaper.
I do not accept that most people 'rely on' complexity. Most people
cannot afford complexity.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. At the personal level in a
Western society it frequently is. Elsewhere in the world it frequently
isn't because the number of suppliers are limited. At the national
level it frequently isn't.
A recent example was the decision of Russia to hike the price of
Ukraine's gas supplies. There was bugger all the Ukrainians could do
about it except squeal.
Let's go back to Albania and Hoxha. I assume you still haven't read
O'Donnell so I'll tell you how Hoxha got to be so in favour of
self-sufficiency. First he had very close economic relations with
Yugoslavia. Then it became plain that Tito wanted to overthrow him and
so such reliance suddenly became very scary. Fortunately, Stalin fell
out with Tito at just the right moment and the Soviet Union replaced
Yugoslavia as the preferred trading partner. Phew. Then Stalin died and
Khrushchev took over. Khrushchev wanted Hoxha out and immediately
started applying the economic squeeze. Albania started suffering real
damage and poverty as a result. Fortunately, the Chinese took over.
This was a far less advantageous relationship, not least for obvious
geographical reasons and it did much to hold Albania back. However,
when Mao decided to start selling out to the West it became evident
that this wasn't a viable option. At that point it became clear that
the 'alternative' suppliers all had their own agendas and that
self-sufficiency, although difficult for such a tiny country, was the
only option.
To which the answer is that given the asymmetrical power relations that
exist in international trade, perfect markets usually do not exist.
There isn't an alternative gas supplier just waiting in the wings to
supply the kitchens of the Ukraine if the Russians decide to hike the
price of fuel. And as Hoxha discovered, the alternative suppliers for
Albania all had their own agendas and were ultimately unreliable.
> > What you can't seem to get your head around -- and what free trade
> > theorists can't get THEIR heads around -- is that capital is
> > unreliable. It often tends to seek the best deal, which makes it very
> > volatile. You depend on it at your peril. And the more vulnerable you
> > are, the greater is the peril (and the greater the temptation to rip
> > you off).
>
> But the point which I think I have just illustrated above is that
> trading systems, in practice, are quite complex, and as a result tend
> to come with a great deal of redundancy and resilience mechanisms
> built-in - if, for no other reason, then that resilience is good for
> business. Except in a few very select instances of certain scarce
> resources (which cannot be helped, even by your alternative model)
> there plenty of alternatives to deal with contingencies, all of which
> are preferable economically to "self-sufficiency".
No, because in practice markets are far from 'perfect'. You get
collusion. People make trade contingent on 'conditions'.
Why do you think a child dies every 5 seconds in a world dominated now
by free-trade philosophy?
I'll tell you. Because it's very difficult to make any money from
feeding them. Trading with them just isn't a profitable proposition, on
the whole.
> > > Free trade stops wars.
> >
> > Answered already. It stopped neither the First World War nor the Second
> > nor any other.
>
> Was it given a chance to?
Yes. The peoples of these places had been trading for centuries.
Literally.
> I snipped this comment earlier for space,
> but this is yet another example of your blindingly simplistic take on
> history. Relatively open trade managed to contain general conflict for
> much of the 19th century, but the system broke down toward the end of
> that century into open trade war between clearly defined blocs, the
> British Empire being a roughly self-contained system in itself.
Ergo free trade does not prevent war between blocs.
Not all wars have been between blocs.
Ergo, free trade doesn't prevent war between nations.
Not all wars have been between nations either.
Ergo, free trade doesn't prevent civil and asymmetric war.
Conclusion: it doesn't prevent any sort of war.
It may be ONE FACTOR to be taken into account when deciding to go to
war. However, a rational actor would presumably look at the total
cost-benefit equation of the conflict. If the benefit of crushing your
opponent outweighs the cost of lost trade then war is a rational
option, right?
>As for
> the Second World War, it was preceded by one of your bloody-minded
> dictators taking his country out of the system almost completely in the
> interests of a programme of "self-sufficiency".
Well I know this is alt.revisionism but that's a view of WW II history
that I haven't heard before!
In fact the links between Hitler, Mussolini and Franco and
international finance have been well established. I give sources in my
essay 'On a Decisive Break with Far-right Ideology', which you'll find
archived on the Web somewhere.
>And if you plan go
> off on a bender on what a "paradise on earth" of full employment
> and prosperity Nazi Germany was in its early days, allow me to warn you
> that I am willing to pull out the figures on real economic growth,
> along with the steady and exorbitant increase in the national debt that
> Germany actually enjoyed during this period. They borrowed money
> during the good years to fulfil their "self-sufficiency" dream, and
> were left heading into a recession with a massive debt, no credit, and
> an uncompetitive industrial base. You have previously claimed that you
> criticise the Nazis for being "imperialists". But, in fact, they
> started out as thoroughgoing "national anarchists" (for lack of a
> better term), until they realised that war mobilisation and the plunder
> of conquered territories was the only conceivable way to stave off the
> state's impending financial collapse.
I dispute that but I don't have time to go into the history in this
post.
> Free trade stops wars.
So why do wars occur in places where free trade exists?
> > > Now, you can be a wise guy if you want to, point to a war, and go "HEY
> > > free trade didn't stop that one, did it?"
> >
> > I can go one better than that. Every war that has ever taken place has
> > not been prevented by free trade! :-)
>
> You see? Now you're being a wise guy.
No, I'm just playing with the illogicality of the argument that you
presented.
> I never said that free trade
> stops *all* wars. Simply that it stops wars. Granted, it is a
> difficult claim for me to prove empirically to the standard you seem to
> want - I can't be expected to provide a list of wars that didn't
> happen because of free trade. After all, they didn't happen.
Aha. The penny has dropped.
If they didn't happen, how do you know that it was the one factor 'FREE
TRADE' that stopped them rather than an overall assessment of costs and
benefits of which the loss of trade for the period of the conflict was
only one factor?
>But if
> I can make a logical argument as to how economic interconnectedness
> serves to inhibit armed conflict, surely it is an argument you need to
> deal with if you are going to dispute my claim that the world you
> envision would be more conflict ridden than the one I propose.
Look, conflicts are either engaged in rationally or they are not.
Frequently, they are not (for example religious wars).
If they are not engaged in rationally, considerations of the loss of
free trade will not be the determining factor in the decision to go to
war.
If they ARE engaged in rationally, then the rational calculation should
involve ALL factors on the cost and benefit side, not merely the one
factor of the presence of free trade between the parties. After all,
the suspension of free trade for a limited period of time might be an
acceptable price to pay if some greater economic benefit is envisaged
at the end of the conflict (as presumably was the intention with the
West v. Saddam Hussein's Iraq).
Which is probably why free trade does NOT stop wars. People look beyond
the conflict, think 'oh it's worth it because it'll be even more
profitable once the war's ended' and they attack anyway, right? Again,
a rational party would look at the FULL cost-benefit scenario.
> > > > I *do* think that the medium-term future is utterly bleak for the poor
> > > > and destitute of the world. The sticky plaster policies you advocate
> > > > have not tended to work and there seems to be little interest in them
> > > > any more among the major players. The poor are the ones who will bear
> > > > the brunt of all the natural and sociological factors that I have
> > > > mentioned. I suspect that they will die horribly and in their billions.
> > > > But there is a chance that out of the horror that lies ahead we will be
> > > > able to create something new and wonderful for those who survive.
> > > >
> > > > So, Mr Mock -- let the world burn; we'll build it again!
> > >
> > > So that's your solution then? Let it all go to hell and God (or
> > > whatever you believe in) will sort it out.
> >
> > Again, a very strange thing to write. So how precisely do you propose
> > to stop the world from burning? How will you stop global warming,
>
> Greater economic and political interconnectedness on a global scale
> that will enable long-term co-operation over common problems rather
> than competition in the interests of short-term gains.
One might expect global warming to cause serious instabilities in
financial systems throughout the world. Who will invest in the Maldives
if it's going to be under water in a few decades? Would YOU buy real
estate in New Orleans? Hey, how about investing in redeveloping those
parts of Indonesia devastated by the tsunami?
Where instability exists, capital flees. You don't put your money in
places where you might not get it back.
> > the oil supplies running out,
>
> Greater co-operation in the research and development of alternative
> energy sources.
Such as? Wind farms in Somalia? Solar powered camels in Sudan?
> > the spread of hideous new diseases,
>
> Greater co-operation in medical research, as well as further
> integration of poorer countries into the global economy so that they
> and their populations are able to pay for medicines developed elsewhere
> in the world.
Bzzt. I gave you life expectancy figures for southern Africa -- down to
the 30s in some places where AIDS is ravaging. That's DESPITE medical
research. It takes ages to develop drugs. And who will pay for them in
regions where most people survive on less than $2 per day? And if you
think AIDS is bad, just watch what happens if bird flu mutates!
These things WILL in all probability come to pass. Maybe not for a few
decades but eventually. When this happens, I'd much rather be able to
provide my own food than have to rely on the uncertain whims of global
capital.
> Or we can just let the world burn, in the faith that death and
> suffering brings ultimate purification...
>
> > While you seem to ignore these things and simply throw your hands up in
> > horror that I should even mention them, I say that they could well be
> > the driving force that could ultimately lead to a better world for
> > everyone.
>
> I like my way better.
We've had your way. We've had it for centuries. It hasn't worked. We've
got it now. Free traders own most of the planet. It isn't working.
Those children are STILL dying at the rate of one every 5 seconds
DESPITE the triumph of global free-trade philosophy.
Or, more accurately, BECAUSE of it.
> Steven Mock
DEM
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
in message
<1154182909.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>Fine! Go tell that to the starving billions in Africa and Asia
>currently living under free-trade systems. They're theoretically free
>to buy luxury television sets from almost anywhere in the world.
>Problem -- if you're starving to death and can't even afford a daily
>meal, this 'freedom' is fairly academic. They'd be far better off under
>a regime that takes away this entirely illusory freedom to trade and
>instead gives them at least one decent home-grown meal in their
>stomachs every day.
Except that we've nothing but your bald assertion that removal of that
freedom will offer such a guarantee.
In fact, when braced to elucidate how your deludo-anarchy would be
able to guarantee this, you run.
Every time.
sm...@nizkor.org
Precisely, Roger. Indeed, one could even turn it around and point out
that Dr. Michael has yet to explain how the current system *denies*
anyone the freedom to grow and produce whatever they need to subsist.
It does not, and many people in the world still live in precisely that
way.
All that he is proposing is that the option of doing otherwise be taken
away from those that have it available to them (and never extended to
those that don't) and with it any safety-net that might exist should
external shocks effect the ability of communities to subsist on their
own. Most of the starvation that he cites as an indictment of the
international system occurs as a result of such shocks, in places where
people live according to *precisely* the way Dr. Michael claims
everyone should live.
I'll elaborate more when I have the time to answer his last response
more thoroughly.
Steven Mock
david_michael
sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> Roger wrote:
> > In one age, called the Second Age by some,
> > (an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
> > someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
> > in message
> > <1154182909.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > >Fine! Go tell that to the starving billions in Africa and Asia
> > >currently living under free-trade systems. They're theoretically free
> > >to buy luxury television sets from almost anywhere in the world.
> > >Problem -- if you're starving to death and can't even afford a daily
> > >meal, this 'freedom' is fairly academic. They'd be far better off under
> > >a regime that takes away this entirely illusory freedom to trade and
> > >instead gives them at least one decent home-grown meal in their
> > >stomachs every day.
> >
> > Except that we've nothing but your bald assertion that removal of that
> > freedom will offer such a guarantee.
> >
> > In fact, when braced to elucidate how your deludo-anarchy would be
> > able to guarantee this, you run.
> >
> > Every time.
>
> Precisely, Roger.
Not 'precisely' at all because
(a) My assertion was not that the poor of the world have a 'freedom'
that should be removed but that they have no freedom to trade -- it is
a sham, a trick. You cannot trade without money. Look, my freedom to
buy a Porsche is entirely illusory because I can't afford one. That
sort of thing. Take this 'freedom' away and I won't be weeping.
(b) I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees' anything. I have
pointed out that the wonderful New World Order that you people have
created after the Second World War is actually a hell hole. I have
suggested strategies that MIGHT, if applied consciensciously and if
adequately resourced, get the world OUT of this mess and give something
of a future to the generations to come.
> Indeed, one could even turn it around and point out
> that Dr. Michael has yet to explain how the current system *denies*
> anyone the freedom to grow and produce whatever they need to subsist.
> It does not, and many people in the world still live in precisely that
> way.
Hang on -- wasn't it me who was arguing that there ARE hundreds of
communities living along those lines and you who was arguing that they
are impossible?
And no, the present system doesn't prevent everyone from living in that
way but the 'international community' is firmly pushing for global
integration rather than self-sufficiency.
I think that is a wrong-headed approach.
> All that he is proposing is that the option of doing otherwise be taken
> away from those that have it available to them (and never extended to
> those that don't) and with it any safety-net that might exist should
> external shocks effect the ability of communities to subsist on their
> own. Most of the starvation that he cites as an indictment of the
> international system occurs as a result of such shocks, in places where
> people live according to *precisely* the way Dr. Michael claims
> everyone should live.
OK, now we're just going around in circles. Answered somewhere further
up the thread. You can't name any such places. I gave you the trade
stats for some of the places you named -- they are well integrated into
the global trading system.
Moreover, countries that have rejected global capitalism -- North Korea
and Cuba -- were actually doing a helluva lot better than some well
integrated countries.
> I'll elaborate more when I have the time to answer his last response
> more thoroughly.
Well if you're just going to repeat points that I've already answered
and ignore the responses then don't bother because I do have better
things to do with my time than go around in circles. Don't you?
> Steven Mock
DEM
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
in message
>sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
>> > >Fine! Go tell that to the starving billions in Africa and Asia
>> > >currently living under free-trade systems. They're theoretically free
>> > >to buy luxury television sets from almost anywhere in the world.
>> > >Problem -- if you're starving to death and can't even afford a daily
>> > >meal, this 'freedom' is fairly academic. They'd be far better off under
>> > >a regime that takes away this entirely illusory freedom to trade and
>> > >instead gives them at least one decent home-grown meal in their
>> > >stomachs every day.
>> > Except that we've nothing but your bald assertion that removal of that
>> > freedom will offer such a guarantee.
>> >
>> > In fact, when braced to elucidate how your deludo-anarchy would be
>> > able to guarantee this, you run.
>> >
>> > Every time.
>> Precisely, Roger.
>Not 'precisely' at all because
>
>(a) My assertion was not that the poor of the world have a 'freedom'
>that should be removed but that they have no freedom to trade -- it is
>a sham, a trick.
Of course, you cannot show that this is a "sham."
>You cannot trade without money.
Sure you can -- it's called barter.
>Look, my freedom to
>buy a Porsche is entirely illusory because I can't afford one. That
>sort of thing. Take this 'freedom' away and I won't be weeping.
Demonstrably wrong, since the same argument can be applied to your
"freedom" to run the government, and you have whined ad nauseam that
"the system" prevents you from doing so.
>(b) I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees' anything.
You said that:
<quote>
They'd be far better off under a regime that takes away this entirely
illusory freedom to trade and instead gives them at least one decent
home-grown meal in their stomachs every day.
</quote>
If this is not a guarantee, then you comment is even more nonsensical,
because then you're claiming that a regime which removes freedoms and
doesn't even make sure they eat is preferable to one which does not
remove freedoms.
>I have
>pointed out that the wonderful New World Order that you people have
>created after the Second World War is actually a hell hole.
No, you have asserted it,without even the attempt to demonstrate that
your way would be better.
You keep running from that proof -- do you really believe it hasn't
been noticed?
>I have
>suggested strategies that MIGHT, if applied consciensciously and if
>adequately resourced, get the world OUT of this mess and give something
>of a future to the generations to come.
... but probably not, since your strategy is strangely silent on what
you would actually *do*, as opposed to what would be forbidden.
> > Indeed, one could even turn it around and point out
>> that Dr. Michael has yet to explain how the current system *denies*
>> anyone the freedom to grow and produce whatever they need to subsist.
>> It does not, and many people in the world still live in precisely that
>> way.
>Hang on -- wasn't it me who was arguing that there ARE hundreds of
>communities living along those lines and you who was arguing that they
>are impossible?
No, try again.
>And no, the present system doesn't prevent everyone from living in that
>way
But you have claimed that it did.
In message
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/2b2dacb8058116b4?dmode=source&hl=en
<quote>
From: "david_michael" <david_mich...@onetel.net.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Death of a hero
Date: 20 Jun 2006 10:06:15 -0700
I have steadfastly worked all my life to end the neoliberal globalist
regime, which is what prevents them from taking their destiny into
their own hands in their own countries.
</quote>
Do you now admit that this was a load of codswallop and retract it?
>but the 'international community' is firmly pushing for global
>integration rather than self-sufficiency.
>
>I think that is a wrong-headed approach.
>> All that he is proposing is that the option of doing otherwise be taken
>> away from those that have it available to them (and never extended to
>> those that don't) and with it any safety-net that might exist should
>> external shocks effect the ability of communities to subsist on their
>> own. Most of the starvation that he cites as an indictment of the
>> international system occurs as a result of such shocks, in places where
>> people live according to *precisely* the way Dr. Michael claims
>> everyone should live.
>OK, now we're just going around in circles. Answered somewhere further
>up the thread. You can't name any such places. I gave you the trade
>stats for some of the places you named -- they are well integrated into
>the global trading system.
>
>Moreover, countries that have rejected global capitalism -- North Korea
>and Cuba -- were actually doing a helluva lot better than some well
>integrated countries.
>> I'll elaborate more when I have the time to answer his last response
>> more thoroughly.
>Well if you're just going to repeat points that I've already answered
>and ignore the responses then don't bother because I do have better
>things to do with my time than go around in circles. Don't you?
.. all evidence to the contrary, such as you continued running from my
comments, notwithstanding?
david_michael
How would you know?
> >You cannot trade without money.
>
> Sure you can -- it's called barter.
Fair enough. But then you have to have something to barter. (Duh!)
Now if all the starving people of the world could just barter
themselves out of their predicament, why are they still starving, eh?
> >Look, my freedom to
> >buy a Porsche is entirely illusory because I can't afford one. That
> >sort of thing. Take this 'freedom' away and I won't be weeping.
>
> Demonstrably wrong, since the same argument can be applied to your
> "freedom" to run the government, and you have whined ad nauseam that
> "the system" prevents you from doing so.
No, even if I had vast amounts of capital I would not be permitted to
run the government. I might be offered a seat in the House of Lords,
but I would not be permitted to run the government. Maybe things are
different in your country.
> >(b) I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees' anything.
>
> You said that:
>
> <quote>
>
> They'd be far better off under a regime that takes away this entirely
> illusory freedom to trade and instead gives them at least one decent
> home-grown meal in their stomachs every day.
>
> </quote>
But, as I said, I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees'
anything.
> If this is not a guarantee,
It is not.
> then you comment is even more nonsensical,
> because then you're claiming that a regime which removes freedoms
I thought I was arguing that the freedom for poor people to purchase
things they can't afford isn't a particularly useful freedom.
>and
> doesn't even make sure they eat is preferable to one which does not
> remove freedoms.
Well if I was starving in Africa and I had a choice between the
'freedom' to buy a Porsche (which I can't afford) and the opportunity
to produce my own food, which at least gives me the chance of feeding
myself even if it doesn't guarantee success, I think I'd personally go
for the latter.
> >I have
> >pointed out that the wonderful New World Order that you people have
> >created after the Second World War is actually a hell hole.
>
> No, you have asserted it,without even the attempt to demonstrate that
> your way would be better.
No, I gave a whole string of figures re. life expectancies, rates of
starvation, access to fresh water, proportions living on under $1 or $2
per day, etc. etc.
> You keep running from that proof -- do you really believe it hasn't
> been noticed?
Maybe YOU haven't noticed that I did post the stats. Would you like me
to do it again for you?
> >I have
> >suggested strategies that MIGHT, if applied consciensciously and if
> >adequately resourced, get the world OUT of this mess and give something
> >of a future to the generations to come.
>
> ... but probably not, since your strategy is strangely silent on what
> you would actually *do*, as opposed to what would be forbidden.
Just because you didn't bother reading the relevant posts it doesn't
mean that I didn't post them. Go read back through the thread.
> > > Indeed, one could even turn it around and point out
> >> that Dr. Michael has yet to explain how the current system *denies*
> >> anyone the freedom to grow and produce whatever they need to subsist.
> >> It does not, and many people in the world still live in precisely that
> >> way.
>
> >Hang on -- wasn't it me who was arguing that there ARE hundreds of
> >communities living along those lines and you who was arguing that they
> >are impossible?
>
> No, try again.
As I said, go back through the thread.
> >And no, the present system doesn't prevent everyone from living in that
> >way
>
> But you have claimed that it did.
>
> In message
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/2b2dacb8058116b4?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> http://tinyurl.com/s8ymz
>
> <quote>
>
> From: "david_michael" <david_mich...@onetel.net.uk>
> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
> Subject: Re: Death of a hero
> Date: 20 Jun 2006 10:06:15 -0700
>
> I have steadfastly worked all my life to end the neoliberal globalist
> regime, which is what prevents them from taking their destiny into
> their own hands in their own countries.
>
>
> </quote>
>
> Do you now admit that this was a load of codswallop and retract it?
In this world we have
1. Intentional communities where people are doing their own thing more
or less successfully. Self-sufficient communities like Orania,
religious projects like those in Filadelfia in Paraguay, monasteries,
eco-communities, etc. etc. etc.
2. People who are prevented from taking their destinies into their own
hands because, for example, they don't have the resources to go set up
or a community.
Ergo, the two assertions were not contradictory.
> >but the 'international community' is firmly pushing for global
> >integration rather than self-sufficiency.
> >
> >I think that is a wrong-headed approach.
So you aren't going to tell me that I haven't proven it?
> >> All that he is proposing is that the option of doing otherwise be taken
> >> away from those that have it available to them (and never extended to
> >> those that don't) and with it any safety-net that might exist should
> >> external shocks effect the ability of communities to subsist on their
> >> own. Most of the starvation that he cites as an indictment of the
> >> international system occurs as a result of such shocks, in places where
> >> people live according to *precisely* the way Dr. Michael claims
> >> everyone should live.
>
> >OK, now we're just going around in circles. Answered somewhere further
> >up the thread. You can't name any such places. I gave you the trade
> >stats for some of the places you named -- they are well integrated into
> >the global trading system.
> >
> >Moreover, countries that have rejected global capitalism -- North Korea
> >and Cuba -- were actually doing a helluva lot better than some well
> >integrated countries.
>
> >> I'll elaborate more when I have the time to answer his last response
> >> more thoroughly.
>
> >Well if you're just going to repeat points that I've already answered
> >and ignore the responses then don't bother because I do have better
> >things to do with my time than go around in circles. Don't you?
>
> .. all evidence to the contrary, such as you continued running from my
> comments, notwithstanding?
Wodger, your posts are utterly boring. I usually avoid them simply
because of their pure tedium. The exchanges above will illustrate that
there are often replies to be typed to your trolls but the process of
actually sitting down and typing what is blindingly obvious to queries
advanced by someone with no apparent interest in serious discussion is
generally usually not worth the effort. On the other hand if I just
leave you to do your thing, there's a fair chance that the intelligent
reader will observe your contributions and conclude that you must be
some sort of nut. If you can't distinguish between someone running from
a serious point that they can't answer and someone failing to answer
someone who posts utter drivel most of the time then I really can't
help you. I am slightly curious as to why you feel motivated to waste
so much of your time on it, but how you use your computer is entirely
up to you.
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
> (a) My assertion was not that the poor of the world have a 'freedom'
> that should be removed but that they have no freedom to trade -- it is
> a sham, a trick. You cannot trade without money. Look, my freedom to
> buy a Porsche is entirely illusory because I can't afford one. That
> sort of thing. Take this 'freedom' away and I won't be weeping.
<sigh> Dr. Michael, you are evidently just too simpleminded to grasp
what I am really advocating here.
I am not advocating the "freedom to trade" as an abstract principle. I
am advocating measures that actually enable starving people to partake
of that freedom. To incorporate them into the benefits of the global
economy *for the first time*.
You are absolutely right. If people don't have money, they can't
trade. So incorporate them - if they so chose - such that their labour
in which they are already toiling can be converted into currency that
they can therefore use - if they so choose - to purchase *more* of what
they need to ensure their survival at a lower cost than what is
possible at present.
Now do you really have a problem with that?
> (b) I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees' anything. I have
> pointed out that the wonderful New World Order that you people have
> created after the Second World War is actually a hell hole.
Right, but its just these sorts of vacuous slogans and straw-men that
make me suspect that serious discussion with you is impossible. What
is the "New World Order" and how exactly did I become personally
responsible for it? If you were actually listening to what I was
saying, you would see that I am in fact very critical of the world as
it is run now and proposing serious solutions to problems that you are
content to simply see exacerbate.
You have drawn no connection whatsoever to the argument I have made and
the problems of the world, save for this lame attempt at juxtaposition.
> > Indeed, one could even turn it around and point out
> > that Dr. Michael has yet to explain how the current system *denies*
> > anyone the freedom to grow and produce whatever they need to subsist.
> > It does not, and many people in the world still live in precisely that
> > way.
>
> Hang on -- wasn't it me who was arguing that there ARE hundreds of
> communities living along those lines and you who was arguing that they
> are impossible?
I was talking about the communities of "starving Africans" living on
"$2 a day", etc. that you're always on about. Hey, if that's the way
you want to live, all the best. Just don't impose it on me or on
anyone else.
> And no, the present system doesn't prevent everyone from living in that
> way but the 'international community' is firmly pushing for global
> integration rather than self-sufficiency.
>
> I think that is a wrong-headed approach.
Then go build a self-sufficient community. Enjoy your starvation.
I'll try very hard to care.
> > All that he is proposing is that the option of doing otherwise be taken
> > away from those that have it available to them (and never extended to
> > those that don't) and with it any safety-net that might exist should
> > external shocks effect the ability of communities to subsist on their
> > own. Most of the starvation that he cites as an indictment of the
> > international system occurs as a result of such shocks, in places where
> > people live according to *precisely* the way Dr. Michael claims
> > everyone should live.
>
> OK, now we're just going around in circles. Answered somewhere further
> up the thread. You can't name any such places. I gave you the trade
> stats for some of the places you named -- they are well integrated into
> the global trading system.
No, the places you named are NOT integrated into the global trading
system. Just because the elites who run the states in question (and I
thought you said states didn't matter anymore, Dr. Michael) are
pro-American and trade openly with the international community DOES NOT
mean that huge swaths of their territory are so incorporated in any
meaningful way.
The places where the starvation you indict the system for occur - the
very places you name - are places were people have NOTHING to rely on
for their survival save for the self sufficiency of their immediate
village or local network. Which works well enough until the first war,
the first epidemic, the first crop failure occurs. Then they die.
I'd like to fix that. You'd like to see them all burn so that we can
build a "better world" on their ashes.
My way's better.
Steven Mock
david_michael
sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > (a) My assertion was not that the poor of the world have a 'freedom'
> > that should be removed but that they have no freedom to trade -- it is
> > a sham, a trick. You cannot trade without money. Look, my freedom to
> > buy a Porsche is entirely illusory because I can't afford one. That
> > sort of thing. Take this 'freedom' away and I won't be weeping.
>
> <sigh> Dr. Michael, you are evidently just too simpleminded to grasp
> what I am really advocating here.
Right, you seem to have been reduced to snipping points you can't
answer and going around in circles so I'll be brief as I don't have
much time for this.
> I am not advocating the "freedom to trade" as an abstract principle. I
> am advocating measures that actually enable starving people to partake
> of that freedom. To incorporate them into the benefits of the global
> economy *for the first time*.
OK, reference my arguments about the superiority of self-sufficiency
over free trade because of the unreliability of global trading partners
and the tendency of capital to accumulate in places where it is most
needed while avoiding the places where it is needed most..
> You are absolutely right. If people don't have money, they can't
> trade. So incorporate them - if they so chose - such that their labour
> in which they are already toiling can be converted into currency that
> they can therefore use - if they so choose - to purchase *more* of what
> they need to ensure their survival at a lower cost than what is
> possible at present.
>
> Now do you really have a problem with that?
Yes. If they don't have any money -- or anything to barter -- they
can't trade. If they can't trade they can't be incorporated. (Duh.)
Let's suppose we give them a free gift of money. How do they use it?
OPTION 1. THE MOCK APPROACH. They use it to buy food from America?
Fine. That feeds them for a year. After that where does the food come
from? Well, we give them another free gift of money (IF they agree not
to prosecute Americans for war crimes, or IF they agree to support
America in the UN) and they buy more food. And so on until we decide
that we don't want to give them any more money and they all starve to
death.
OPTION 2. THE MICHAEL APPROACH. They use it to create infrastructure to
enable them to produce their own food on an ongoing basis. Soon they
become independent and don't need any more gifts of money. Not only
that but they are also free to run their own foreign policy independent
of the US's wishes.
> > (b) I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees' anything. I have
> > pointed out that the wonderful New World Order that you people have
> > created after the Second World War is actually a hell hole.
>
> Right, but its just these sorts of vacuous slogans and straw-men that
> make me suspect that serious discussion with you is impossible. What
> is the "New World Order" and how exactly did I become personally
> responsible for it?
No idea what that's all about.
> If you were actually listening to what I was
> saying, you would see that I am in fact very critical of the world as
> it is run now and proposing serious solutions to problems that you are
> content to simply see exacerbate.
OK, and I have now put forward my objections to your solutions and have
suggested alternatives.
> You have drawn no connection whatsoever to the argument I have made and
> the problems of the world, save for this lame attempt at juxtaposition.
No idea what that's all about.
> > > Indeed, one could even turn it around and point out
> > > that Dr. Michael has yet to explain how the current system *denies*
> > > anyone the freedom to grow and produce whatever they need to subsist.
> > > It does not, and many people in the world still live in precisely that
> > > way.
> >
> > Hang on -- wasn't it me who was arguing that there ARE hundreds of
> > communities living along those lines and you who was arguing that they
> > are impossible?
>
> I was talking about the communities of "starving Africans" living on
> "$2 a day", etc. that you're always on about. Hey, if that's the way
> you want to live, all the best. Just don't impose it on me or on
> anyone else.
I thought we were discussing two alternative ways to move away from
that scenario.
> > And no, the present system doesn't prevent everyone from living in that
> > way but the 'international community' is firmly pushing for global
> > integration rather than self-sufficiency.
> >
> > I think that is a wrong-headed approach.
>
> Then go build a self-sufficient community. Enjoy your starvation.
> I'll try very hard to care.
In fact there are many self-sufficient communities that are doing
rather well. But you know that already because I've told you already.
You may even have read my article in which I gave examples. So it's the
old game of withdrawing from the discussion by making points that I've
answered already.
> > > All that he is proposing is that the option of doing otherwise be taken
> > > away from those that have it available to them (and never extended to
> > > those that don't) and with it any safety-net that might exist should
> > > external shocks effect the ability of communities to subsist on their
> > > own. Most of the starvation that he cites as an indictment of the
> > > international system occurs as a result of such shocks, in places where
> > > people live according to *precisely* the way Dr. Michael claims
> > > everyone should live.
> >
> > OK, now we're just going around in circles. Answered somewhere further
> > up the thread. You can't name any such places. I gave you the trade
> > stats for some of the places you named -- they are well integrated into
> > the global trading system.
>
> No, the places you named are NOT integrated into the global trading
> system.
Answered already.
(a) I provided statistics to show that countries in the places that you
thought were not integrated were actually doing business happily,
mostly with the US and the EU as it happens.
(b) I made the point that a correlation between poverty and lack of
integration into the global trading system, even if it existed, does
not indicate that the latter causes the former. Both may be caused by
local factors, such as wars or a lack of saleable resources, which BOTH
cause poverty and scare capital away so that there is no prospect of
trade.
(c) Whenever I gave examples of places that I thought were not
integrated but were doing rather well you seemed to want to argue that
they were integrated so there's a basic problem in how you measure lack
of integration.
(d) Increasing integration can create dangerous dependency, which can
end up causing more trouble than encouraging self-sufficiency.
> Just because the elites who run the states in question (and I
> thought you said states didn't matter anymore, Dr. Michael)
Actually I said that the action was taking place at the subnational and
supranational level, which is not what you're claiming I said, but
we'll let that one go.
> are
> pro-American and trade openly with the international community DOES NOT
> mean that huge swaths of their territory are so incorporated in any
> meaningful way. The places where the starvation you indict the system for occur - the
> very places you name - are places were people have NOTHING to rely on
> for their survival save for the self sufficiency of their immediate
> village or local network. Which works well enough until the first war,
> the first epidemic, the first crop failure occurs. Then they die.
EXACTLY. So how do we help them?
OPTION 1. THE MOCK APPROACH. We give them money and they use it to buy
food from America? Fine. That feeds them for a year. After that where
does the food come from? Well, we give them another free gift of money
(IF they agree not to prosecute Americans for war crimes, or IF they
agree to support America in the UN) and they buy more food. And so on
until we decide that we don't want to give them any more money and they
all starve to death.
OPTION 2. THE MICHAEL APPROACH. We give them money and they use it to
create infrastructure to enable them to produce their own food on an
ongoing basis. Soon they become independent and don't need any more
gifts of money. Not only that but they are also free to run their own
foreign policy independent of the US's wishes.
> I'd like to fix that. You'd like to see them all burn so that we can
> build a "better world" on their ashes.
>
> My way's better.
They've been trying your way for centuries. We've had free trade for
centuries. And the children are still starving. One every five seconds.
Look . . . tick, tick, tick, tick, tick -- in the time it took you to
read that another one's dead.
That's where your 'free trade' has taken the world!
> Steven Mock
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > david_michael wrote:
> >
> > > (a) My assertion was not that the poor of the world have a 'freedom'
> > > that should be removed but that they have no freedom to trade -- it is
> > > a sham, a trick. You cannot trade without money. Look, my freedom to
> > > buy a Porsche is entirely illusory because I can't afford one. That
> > > sort of thing. Take this 'freedom' away and I won't be weeping.
> >
> > <sigh> Dr. Michael, you are evidently just too simpleminded to grasp
> > what I am really advocating here.
>
> Right, you seem to have been reduced to snipping points you can't
> answer and going around in circles so I'll be brief as I don't have
> much time for this.
Ah yes. I see Dr. Michael is *already* looking for his pre-emptive
excuse for abandoning a discussion that has gone over his head.
> > I am not advocating the "freedom to trade" as an abstract principle. I
> > am advocating measures that actually enable starving people to partake
> > of that freedom. To incorporate them into the benefits of the global
> > economy *for the first time*.
>
> OK, reference my arguments about the superiority of self-sufficiency
> over free trade because of the unreliability of global trading partners
> and the tendency of capital to accumulate in places where it is most
> needed while avoiding the places where it is needed most..
Reference my already having dealt with that argument with regards to
the resilency of complex systems.
As for the rest of your previous droning post, I said I'd get to it
when I can be assed. Can you ask for anything more?
> > You are absolutely right. If people don't have money, they can't
> > trade. So incorporate them - if they so chose - such that their labour
> > in which they are already toiling can be converted into currency that
> > they can therefore use - if they so choose - to purchase *more* of what
> > they need to ensure their survival at a lower cost than what is
> > possible at present.
> >
> > Now do you really have a problem with that?
>
> Yes. If they don't have any money -- or anything to barter -- they
> can't trade. If they can't trade they can't be incorporated. (Duh.)
Alright, I'm just going to snip the subsequent "gift of free money"
straw man, because the premise here is already flawed.
Assuming nothing else (and everyone has something), they do have
something to barter.
Their labour.
Just like the rest of us.
The problem is building an infrastracture that enables them to get the
fruits of their labour beyond the immediate confines of their local
community, and that can get cheaper necessities to that community that
they can purchase with the proceeds.
Now do you really have a problem with that?
> > > (b) I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees' anything. I have
> > > pointed out that the wonderful New World Order that you people have
> > > created after the Second World War is actually a hell hole.
> >
> > Right, but its just these sorts of vacuous slogans and straw-men that
> > make me suspect that serious discussion with you is impossible. What
> > is the "New World Order" and how exactly did I become personally
> > responsible for it?
>
> No idea what that's all about.
>
> > If you were actually listening to what I was
> > saying, you would see that I am in fact very critical of the world as
> > it is run now and proposing serious solutions to problems that you are
> > content to simply see exacerbate.
>
> OK, and I have now put forward my objections to your solutions and have
> suggested alternatives.
>
> > You have drawn no connection whatsoever to the argument I have made and
> > the problems of the world, save for this lame attempt at juxtaposition.
>
> No idea what that's all about.
<sigh> I'll elaborate in my next post.
Not that you'll show any further signs of comprehension. You feign
ignorance every time someone illustrates the dynamics of your
misleading rhetoric to you in plain English.
> > > > Indeed, one could even turn it around and point out
> > > > that Dr. Michael has yet to explain how the current system *denies*
> > > > anyone the freedom to grow and produce whatever they need to subsist.
> > > > It does not, and many people in the world still live in precisely that
> > > > way.
> > >
> > > Hang on -- wasn't it me who was arguing that there ARE hundreds of
> > > communities living along those lines and you who was arguing that they
> > > are impossible?
> >
> > I was talking about the communities of "starving Africans" living on
> > "$2 a day", etc. that you're always on about. Hey, if that's the way
> > you want to live, all the best. Just don't impose it on me or on
> > anyone else.
>
> I thought we were discussing two alternative ways to move away from
> that scenario.
Seems to me that your method isn't designed to move us away from that
scenario at all. Its designed to move the rest of the world *to* it.
> > > > All that he is proposing is that the option of doing otherwise be taken
> > > > away from those that have it available to them (and never extended to
> > > > those that don't) and with it any safety-net that might exist should
> > > > external shocks effect the ability of communities to subsist on their
> > > > own. Most of the starvation that he cites as an indictment of the
> > > > international system occurs as a result of such shocks, in places where
> > > > people live according to *precisely* the way Dr. Michael claims
> > > > everyone should live.
> > >
> > > OK, now we're just going around in circles. Answered somewhere further
> > > up the thread. You can't name any such places. I gave you the trade
> > > stats for some of the places you named -- they are well integrated into
> > > the global trading system.
> >
> > No, the places you named are NOT integrated into the global trading
> > system.
>
> Answered already.
>
> (a) I provided statistics to show that countries in the places that you
> thought were not integrated were actually doing business happily,
> mostly with the US and the EU as it happens.
<sigh> Answered already. Just because a small number of corrupt elites
do so, does not mean that huge swaths of their countries are genuinely
incorporated in any meaningful way.
Indeed, the very statistics you provide prove otherwise.
> (b) I made the point that a correlation between poverty and lack of
> integration into the global trading system, even if it existed, does
> not indicate that the latter causes the former. Both may be caused by
> local factors, such as wars or a lack of saleable resources, which BOTH
> cause poverty and scare capital away so that there is no prospect of
> trade.
<sigh> Answered already. I do not discount the importance of local
factors. I have, however, made an argument as to exactly why such
local factors such as wars, famines and diseases will prove far more
threatening to an isolated community on the periphery of the global
economy than one incorporated into it. One that I frankly don't feel
like repeating right now, and will reiterate when I answer you more
thoroughly tomorrow.
> They've been trying your way for centuries. We've had free trade for
> centuries. And the children are still starving.
So people have had digital watches for 30 years, yet somehow they still
manage to keep missing appointments. Can you explain that one to me?
Need any further explanation as to the fallacious nature of your
argument? Wait 'till tomorrow.
> One every five seconds.
> Look . . . tick, tick, tick, tick, tick -- in the time it took you to
> read that another one's dead.
>
> That's where your 'free trade' has taken the world!
You have made no argument connecting "my" free trade with this tragedy.
You offered no evidence, no explanation to counter my argument that
the problem causing this suffering is not too much free trade but too
little. You have offered no evidence, no explanation to counter my
argument that your approach - if implimented - would only serve to
*exacerbate* this suffering to even more unheard of degrees. All you
have, it seems, when confronted with these arguments is this same
vacuous *argumentum ad misericordiam* combined with a *post hoc ergo
propter hoc* fallacy, devoid of any substance whatsoever.
And, as I know you're going to pretend not to know what that just
meant... well, I'll elaborate in full tomorrow.
Steven Mock
david_michael
sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> david_michael wrote:
> > sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > > david_michael wrote:
> > >
> > > > (a) My assertion was not that the poor of the world have a 'freedom'
> > > > that should be removed but that they have no freedom to trade -- it is
> > > > a sham, a trick. You cannot trade without money. Look, my freedom to
> > > > buy a Porsche is entirely illusory because I can't afford one. That
> > > > sort of thing. Take this 'freedom' away and I won't be weeping.
> > >
> > > <sigh> Dr. Michael, you are evidently just too simpleminded to grasp
> > > what I am really advocating here.
> >
> > Right, you seem to have been reduced to snipping points you can't
> > answer and going around in circles so I'll be brief as I don't have
> > much time for this.
>
> Ah yes. I see Dr. Michael is *already* looking for his pre-emptive
> excuse for abandoning a discussion that has gone over his head.
You're the one who's going around in circles and producing lots of
personal comments -- stuff that suggests to me that you've had enough.
> > > I am not advocating the "freedom to trade" as an abstract principle. I
> > > am advocating measures that actually enable starving people to partake
> > > of that freedom. To incorporate them into the benefits of the global
> > > economy *for the first time*.
> >
> > OK, reference my arguments about the superiority of self-sufficiency
> > over free trade because of the unreliability of global trading partners
> > and the tendency of capital to accumulate in places where it is most
> > needed while avoiding the places where it is needed most..
>
> Reference my already having dealt with that argument with regards to
> the resilency of complex systems.
I don't remember that bit.
> As for the rest of your previous droning post, I said I'd get to it
> when I can be assed. Can you ask for anything more?
>
> > > You are absolutely right. If people don't have money, they can't
> > > trade. So incorporate them - if they so chose - such that their labour
> > > in which they are already toiling can be converted into currency that
> > > they can therefore use - if they so choose - to purchase *more* of what
> > > they need to ensure their survival at a lower cost than what is
> > > possible at present.
> > >
> > > Now do you really have a problem with that?
> >
> > Yes. If they don't have any money -- or anything to barter -- they
> > can't trade. If they can't trade they can't be incorporated. (Duh.)
>
> Alright, I'm just going to snip the subsequent "gift of free money"
> straw man, because the premise here is already flawed.
Fine. I produce the arguments, you snip 'em.
> Assuming nothing else (and everyone has something), they do have
> something to barter.
>
> Their labour.
>
> Just like the rest of us.
>
> The problem is building an infrastracture that enables them to get the
> fruits of their labour beyond the immediate confines of their local
> community, and that can get cheaper necessities to that community that
> they can purchase with the proceeds.
>
> Now do you really have a problem with that?
Right -- hold it there. They can contribute their labour.
Now they can do this is one of two ways.
YOUR way is that they market their labour. Now assuming that they can
find a market for their labour (and I can't see any great demand for
unskilled African labour here in Britain) what happens when the market
dries up? When their produce is no longer in fashion? When it can be
produced more cheaply elsewhere or by using different technology?
Splat.
MY way is that they do indeed market their labour but they market it
locally to develop the infrastructure to provide the needs of their own
communities. In this way they are less vulnerable to the vagaries of
capital.
> > > > (b) I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees' anything. I have
> > > > pointed out that the wonderful New World Order that you people have
> > > > created after the Second World War is actually a hell hole.
> > >
> > > Right, but its just these sorts of vacuous slogans and straw-men that
> > > make me suspect that serious discussion with you is impossible. What
> > > is the "New World Order" and how exactly did I become personally
> > > responsible for it?
> >
> > No idea what that's all about.
> >
> > > If you were actually listening to what I was
> > > saying, you would see that I am in fact very critical of the world as
> > > it is run now and proposing serious solutions to problems that you are
> > > content to simply see exacerbate.
> >
> > OK, and I have now put forward my objections to your solutions and have
> > suggested alternatives.
> >
> > > You have drawn no connection whatsoever to the argument I have made and
> > > the problems of the world, save for this lame attempt at juxtaposition.
> >
> > No idea what that's all about.
>
> <sigh> I'll elaborate in my next post.
>
> Not that you'll show any further signs of comprehension. You feign
> ignorance every time someone illustrates the dynamics of your
> misleading rhetoric to you in plain English.
I put it to you that your assertion that I 'have drawn no connection
whatsoever to the argument I have made and the problems of the world,
save for this lame attempt at juxtaposition' is not 'plain' English.
What the hell is 'drawing a connection to an argument'? Juxtaposition
of what on what?
> > > > > Indeed, one could even turn it around and point out
> > > > > that Dr. Michael has yet to explain how the current system *denies*
> > > > > anyone the freedom to grow and produce whatever they need to subsist.
> > > > > It does not, and many people in the world still live in precisely that
> > > > > way.
> > > >
> > > > Hang on -- wasn't it me who was arguing that there ARE hundreds of
> > > > communities living along those lines and you who was arguing that they
> > > > are impossible?
> > >
> > > I was talking about the communities of "starving Africans" living on
> > > "$2 a day", etc. that you're always on about. Hey, if that's the way
> > > you want to live, all the best. Just don't impose it on me or on
> > > anyone else.
> >
> > I thought we were discussing two alternative ways to move away from
> > that scenario.
>
> Seems to me that your method isn't designed to move us away from that
> scenario at all. Its designed to move the rest of the world *to* it.
Look, I've answered it already. I can't be assed to keep repeating.
OK, I'll deal with it when I see it.
> > They've been trying your way for centuries. We've had free trade for
> > centuries. And the children are still starving.
>
> So people have had digital watches for 30 years, yet somehow they still
> manage to keep missing appointments. Can you explain that one to me?
> Need any further explanation as to the fallacious nature of your
> argument? Wait 'till tomorrow.
If a strategy is failing you can do one of two things. You can try to
fiddle with the strategy to make it work or you can abandon it and try
something new. Which path does one take? Well, I suggest that if you've
been fiddling with a strategy for centuries and STILL haven't got it to
work, and if there's an element of urgency, with people dying in vast
numbers, then perhaps there's a case for abandoning it and trying
something new.
> > One every five seconds.
> > Look . . . tick, tick, tick, tick, tick -- in the time it took you to
> > read that another one's dead.
> >
> > That's where your 'free trade' has taken the world!
>
> You have made no argument connecting "my" free trade with this tragedy.
Yes I did. Capital tends to accum . . . oh what the hell -- you've read
it, you remember it, you're just playing silly watsits now.
> You offered no evidence, no explanation to counter my argument that
> the problem causing this suffering is not too much free trade but too
> little. You have offered no evidence, no explanation to counter my
> argument that your approach - if implimented - would only serve to
> *exacerbate* this suffering to even more unheard of degrees. All you
> have, it seems, when confronted with these arguments is this same
> vacuous *argumentum ad misericordiam* combined with a *post hoc ergo
> propter hoc* fallacy, devoid of any substance whatsoever.
Do you put sentences like that in the speeches you write?
> And, as I know you're going to pretend not to know what that just
> meant... well, I'll elaborate in full tomorrow.
Thank gawd for that.
> Steven Mock
DEM
Kenneth McVay OBC
<sm...@nizkor.org> wrote:
[claptrap flushed straight down the michael]
>Right, but its just these sorts of vacuous slogans and straw-men that
>make me suspect that serious discussion with you is impossible.
It has taken you this long to figure that out, old son? Trying to engage Mr. Michael in a
logical conversation is like trying to make mercury go where you want it to by pushing it
around a table with your finger.
He is a troll, pure and simple. Anyone who isn't instantly intimidated by his
pseudo-intellectual babble soon discovers that he's all wind without a shred of
substance.
He's a failure and windbag, nothing more.
--
"All shit like you have is lies and smears. Shit like you
can't refute what I post so shit like you resort to cheap
personal attacks and you wonder why kike filth is hated so much!
(Scott Bradbury, Bellville's leading revisionist scholar)
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be david_michael wrote
in message
>Roger wrote:
>> >> > >Fine! Go tell that to the starving billions in Africa and Asia
>> >> > >currently living under free-trade systems. They're theoretically free
>> >> > >to buy luxury television sets from almost anywhere in the world.
>> >> > >Problem -- if you're starving to death and can't even afford a daily
>> >> > >meal, this 'freedom' is fairly academic. They'd be far better off under
>> >> > >a regime that takes away this entirely illusory freedom to trade and
>> >> > >instead gives them at least one decent home-grown meal in their
>> >> > >stomachs every day.
>> >> > Except that we've nothing but your bald assertion that removal of that
>> >> > freedom will offer such a guarantee.
>> >> >
>> >> > In fact, when braced to elucidate how your deludo-anarchy would be
>> >> > able to guarantee this, you run.
>> >> >
>> >> > Every time.
>> >> Precisely, Roger.
>> >Not 'precisely' at all because
>> >
>> >(a) My assertion was not that the poor of the world have a 'freedom'
>> >that should be removed but that they have no freedom to trade -- it is
>> >a sham, a trick.
>> Of course, you cannot show that this is a "sham."
>How would you know?
I offer as support for this assertion the fact that you have not been
able to do so far.
>> >You cannot trade without money.
>> Sure you can -- it's called barter.
>Fair enough. But then you have to have something to barter. (Duh!)
And one can always barter one's own labour. Duh.
>Now if all the starving people of the world could just barter
>themselves out of their predicament, why are they still starving, eh?
A number of factors, of which the "NWO" is *way* down on the list.
>> >Look, my freedom to
>> >buy a Porsche is entirely illusory because I can't afford one. That
>> >sort of thing. Take this 'freedom' away and I won't be weeping.
>> Demonstrably wrong, since the same argument can be applied to your
>> "freedom" to run the government, and you have whined ad nauseam that
>> "the system" prevents you from doing so.
>No, even if I had vast amounts of capital I would not be permitted to
>run the government.
... mostly because the government must win elections, and even with
vast amounts of capital you could not convince a plurality to vote for
you.
Now have you the balls to mount an armed overthrow, that being the
only other options available to you.
>I might be offered a seat in the House of Lords,
... in your dreams...
>but I would not be permitted to run the government. Maybe things are
>different in your country.
>> >(b) I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees' anything.
>> You said that:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> They'd be far better off under a regime that takes away this entirely
>> illusory freedom to trade and instead gives them at least one decent
>> home-grown meal in their stomachs every day.
>>
>> </quote>
>But, as I said, I have never claimed that anything 'guarantees'
>anything.
>> If this is not a guarantee,
>It is not.
>> then you comment is even more nonsensical,
>> because then you're claiming that a regime which removes freedoms
>I thought I was arguing that the freedom for poor people to purchase
>things they can't afford isn't a particularly useful freedom.
Your delusions are irrelevant.
We are discussing what you actually *wrote*.
>> and
>> doesn't even make sure they eat is preferable to one which does not
>> remove freedoms.
>Well if I was starving in Africa and I had a choice between the
>'freedom' to buy a Porsche (which I can't afford) and the opportunity
>to produce my own food, which at least gives me the chance of feeding
>myself even if it doesn't guarantee success, I think I'd personally go
>for the latter.
Of course, this is *not* the choice you're offering,
But then, honesty about what you *are* saying has never been a strong
suit for you.
>> >I have
>> >pointed out that the wonderful New World Order that you people have
>> >created after the Second World War is actually a hell hole.
>> No, you have asserted it,without even the attempt to demonstrate that
>> your way would be better.
>No, I gave a whole string of figures re. life expectancies, rates of
>starvation, access to fresh water, proportions living on under $1 or $2
>per day, etc. etc.
None of which you have shown to be a function of the "New World
Order."
>> You keep running from that proof -- do you really believe it hasn't
>> been noticed?
>Maybe YOU haven't noticed that I did post the stats. Would you like me
>to do it again for you?
No, I'd like yo0u to demonstrate that these stats are an unavoidable
function of your delusional "New World Order."
>> >I have
>> >suggested strategies that MIGHT, if applied consciensciously and if
>> >adequately resourced, get the world OUT of this mess and give something
>> >of a future to the generations to come.
>> ... but probably not, since your strategy is strangely silent on what
>> you would actually *do*, as opposed to what would be forbidden.
>Just because you didn't bother reading the relevant posts it doesn't
>mean that I didn't post them. Go read back through the thread.
I have -- that's why I know you have not offered any thing concrete
that your deludo-anarchy would actively do to alleviate these
problems, and I am supported in this by the fact that, being
challenged to do so, you again cannot specify what your deludo-anarchy
would actively do to alleviate these problems.
>> > > Indeed, one could even turn it around and point out
>> >> that Dr. Michael has yet to explain how the current system *denies*
>> >> anyone the freedom to grow and produce whatever they need to subsist.
>> >> It does not, and many people in the world still live in precisely that
>> >> way.
>> >Hang on -- wasn't it me who was arguing that there ARE hundreds of
>> >communities living along those lines and you who was arguing that they
>> >are impossible?
>> No, try again.
>As I said, go back through the thread.
As I said, I have been.
Yes, they are, since the lack of resources is not "the neoliberal
globalist regime," unless your are attempting to completely redefine
what you mean by that.
Of course, you have *yet* to offer a clear definition of that term, so
your readjustment of what it means cannot be specifically pointed to
as a lie.
So I challenge you now: define "neoliberal globalist regime" in such
a way as to *not* contradict your other uses of that term.
>> >but the 'international community' is firmly pushing for global
>> >integration rather than self-sufficiency.
>> >
>> >I think that is a wrong-headed approach.
>So you aren't going to tell me that I haven't proven it?
Proven that you believe so?
How would I go about doing that?
>> >> All that he is proposing is that the option of doing otherwise be taken
>> >> away from those that have it available to them (and never extended to
>> >> those that don't) and with it any safety-net that might exist should
>> >> external shocks effect the ability of communities to subsist on their
>> >> own. Most of the starvation that he cites as an indictment of the
>> >> international system occurs as a result of such shocks, in places where
>> >> people live according to *precisely* the way Dr. Michael claims
>> >> everyone should live.
>> >OK, now we're just going around in circles. Answered somewhere further
>> >up the thread. You can't name any such places. I gave you the trade
>> >stats for some of the places you named -- they are well integrated into
>> >the global trading system.
>> >
>> >Moreover, countries that have rejected global capitalism -- North Korea
>> >and Cuba -- were actually doing a helluva lot better than some well
>> >integrated countries.
>> >> I'll elaborate more when I have the time to answer his last response
>> >> more thoroughly.
>> >Well if you're just going to repeat points that I've already answered
>> >and ignore the responses then don't bother because I do have better
>> >things to do with my time than go around in circles. Don't you?
>> .. all evidence to the contrary, such as you continued running from my
>> comments, notwithstanding?
>Wodger, your posts are utterly boring. I usually avoid them simply
>because of their pure tedium.
Yes, I suppose it can be tedious being challenged to support your crap
with actual *facts*....
>The exchanges above will illustrate that
>there are often replies to be typed to your trolls but the process of
>actually sitting down and typing what is blindingly obvious to queries
>advanced by someone with no apparent interest in serious discussion is
>generally usually not worth the effort.
If you don't want to discuss your lies, stop posting them.
>On the other hand if I just
>leave you to do your thing, there's a fair chance that the intelligent
>reader will observe your contributions and conclude that you must be
>some sort of nut.
If by "nut" you mean "someone whose rebuttal of your crap you cannot
address substantively," I suppose.
>If you can't distinguish between someone running from
>a serious point that they can't answer and someone failing to answer
>someone who posts utter drivel most of the time then I really can't
>help you.
Your ability to characterize my posts as "utter drivel" does not make
them such, as I am confident the readers at home will note.
>I am slightly curious as to why you feel motivated to waste
>so much of your time on it, but how you use your computer is entirely
>up to you.
I find poking haters such as yourself amusing.
Joe Bruno
WOW! That was really articulate and persuasive.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
Ben Cramer
Fucking oath it was, you fucking nong.
Joe Bruno
Ben Cramer wrote:
> "Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
> news:1154238926....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Ben Cramer wrote:
> >> "Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1154048971....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > david_michael wrote:
> >> >> The current activities of the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon and
> >> >> Gaza
> >> >> are explained by 'Israeli' and US officials in terms of 'Israel's
> >> >> right
> >> >> to defend herself when attacked'.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do the Palestinians and Lebanese have a similar 'right'? If not, what
> >> >> makes Israel so special? If so, how can 'Israel' legitimately
> >> >> criticize
> >> >> attacks by Palestinians on its territory?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Criticize"???? They are doing what they can to prevent such attacks.
> >>
> >> If the cunts were fair dinkum about preventing such attacks, they'd fuck
> >> off
> >> out of the ME, you fucking nong.
> >
> >
> > WOW! That was really articulate and persuasive.
>
> Fucking oath it was, you fucking nong.
ASk around and see who was persuaded.
sm...@nizkor.org
> > Ah yes. I see Dr. Michael is *already* looking for his pre-emptive
> > excuse for abandoning a discussion that has gone over his head.
>
> You're the one who's going around in circles and producing lots of
> personal comments -- stuff that suggests to me that you've had enough.
I have done neither. You, on the other hand, are starting to resort to
your usual tactic of cut 'n paste repetition of points already dealt
with and attacking form rather than content. Also, that troll you keep
repeating about how I'm personally responsible for strarvation is an
amusing sign of desperation.
> > > > You are absolutely right. If people don't have money, they can't
> > > > trade. So incorporate them - if they so chose - such that their labour
> > > > in which they are already toiling can be converted into currency that
> > > > they can therefore use - if they so choose - to purchase *more* of what
> > > > they need to ensure their survival at a lower cost than what is
> > > > possible at present.
> > > >
> > > > Now do you really have a problem with that?
> > >
> > > Yes. If they don't have any money -- or anything to barter -- they
> > > can't trade. If they can't trade they can't be incorporated. (Duh.)
> >
> > Alright, I'm just going to snip the subsequent "gift of free money"
> > straw man, because the premise here is already flawed.
>
> Fine. I produce the arguments, you snip 'em.
Dr. Michael, your MOCK APPROACH / MICHAEL APPROACH schtick was a straw
man from start to finish - another tactic you engage in with relish
when you have apparently had enough. It bore no resemblance to
anything I have proposed anywhere in this discussion. There is no
reason why I should be expected to cater to these diversions.
> > Assuming nothing else (and everyone has something), they do have
> > something to barter.
> >
> > Their labour.
> >
> > Just like the rest of us.
> >
> > The problem is building an infrastracture that enables them to get the
> > fruits of their labour beyond the immediate confines of their local
> > community, and that can get cheaper necessities to that community that
> > they can purchase with the proceeds.
> >
> > Now do you really have a problem with that?
>
> Right -- hold it there. They can contribute their labour.
Right. So they do have something to barter.
> Now they can do this is one of two ways.
>
> YOUR way is that they market their labour. Now assuming that they can
> find a market for their labour (and I can't see any great demand for
> unskilled African labour here in Britain) what happens when the market
> dries up? When their produce is no longer in fashion? When it can be
> produced more cheaply elsewhere or by using different technology?
> Splat.
A highly simplistic take on the market. Are you sure you were awake
during the first-year economics course you claim to have taken?
The market for labour does not dry up. And I am not suggesting that
the entire economy produce only one product. There is a flexibility to
these sorts of economies that there is not to a substistance-based
economy that must, of necessity, be ridgidly heirarchical and focused
on strict rules of distribution rather than economic growth. MY way
is, in fact, much more resilient to these sorts of minor shocks than
yours.
Don't believe me? The entire state of North Korea could collapse
tomorrow should the Japanese suddenly lose their taste for snow crabs.
> MY way is that they do indeed market their labour but they market it
> locally to develop the infrastructure to provide the needs of their own
> communities. In this way they are less vulnerable to the vagaries of
> capital.
Right. And what happens to them after the first crop failure?
You REALLY think your way is less vulnerable to the winds of fortune,
Dr. Michael? Wake up.
You are merely using rhetoric to juxtapose me and my argument, the New
World Order (which seems to refer to every locus of political power in
the world since my side beat your side in World War II), and all of the
suffering that exists in the world, in the hopes that in doing so you
will avoid having to address my specific argument simply by: 1)
labelling me as a supporter of the status quo (I am not) and; 2)
therefore indicting my model as responsible for the current state of
suffering in the world, without actually having to demonstrate that you
have any understanding as to how my model - or for that matter the New
World Order, whatever that means - actually serves to cause said
suffering.
But more later...
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
> >sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > david_michael wrote:
> > > sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > That sounds nice, doesn't it.
> > > > Would it be nice if we were all "self-sufficient". Who could possibly
> > > > oppose such a noble goal? There's just one problem with it. Its
> > > > impossible.
> > >
> > > Translation: it doesn't fit in with Mr Mock's personal idea of how the
> > > world should be therefore he would like it to be impossible.
> >
> > What makes you think it doesn't fit with my "personal idea of how the
> > world should be"?
>
> Because you pronounce that self-sufficiency is 'impossible' --
> something that it is not logically possible for you to know. You would
> need to know all possible strategies leading to self-sufficiency and
> that there is no possible way to make any work.
Dr. Michael, when engaging in an argument with someone, you generally
start with the assumption that the person you are addressing has a
basic capacity for abstract thought.
Is self-sufficiency impossible? I have already stipulated that small
local communities of volunteers suffficiently committed to some
ideological purpose that they are willing and content to live a
subsistence existence can make it work for as long as these conditions
hold and no serious setbacks are faced. Beyond that, on anything
resembling a modern scale, yes I think history and common sense shows
this goal to be impossible, notwithstanding the further stipulation
that there are people in the world who believe in miracles and I do not
feel justified in questioning their faith.
> >You seem to have this strange notion
> > that I am ideologically committed to American hegemony as a value.
>
> You've said that you want integration into the global trading system.
> Now that doesn't *necessarily* mean a unipolar world dominated by
> America but it certainly seems to assist that cause under the present
> global state of things.
Not really. If the United States and Europe were willing to put
rhetoric into practice and engage in a genuine free trade relationship
with China, whose power do you think would wax and whose would wane?
<snip: stuff dealt with in the other thread>
> > 1) the prima facie evidence of the fact that the few leaders in modern
> > history stupid enough to adopt this pipe dream as a programme and still
> > manage to get into the centre of power have all - to a man - succeeded
> > only in starving and repressing their populations and others through
> > policy actions directly related to achieving this goal, subsequently
> > being remembered as among the worst monsters in history (I know you
> > will write this off to history being written by the victors, but since
> > the victors, in this case, are those that were better able to mobilise
> > the human and material resources of their countries, I can live with
> > that);
>
> If we look at the people remembered as the worst monsters in Hitler I
> suppose you're probably talking Hitler, Stalin and maybe Mao. All of
> these were people firmly committed to integration into a global system
> of one sort or another.
Ah, right. So this is where we come face to face with just how fuzzy
and nebulous David E. Michael's definition of "free trade" and "the
global system" really is.
> > 2) the fact that you evidently have no idea how many factors go into
> > sustaining a complex economy and a population large enough to maintain
> > one; everyone who has pondered the notion of self-sufficiency has
> > quickly realised that there was at least *something*, and usually many
> > things, that they simply could not produce locally at any even remotely
> > reasonable cost, and other things that they could produce a hell of a
> > lot cheaper if it were done on a scale that required access to foreign
> > markets; and
>
> Look, let's accept that to run a COMPLEX economy where everyone is free
> to buy exotic fruits and clothes from the furthest corners of the world
> you'll need global integration.
>
> Can I suggest that in a world facing mass poverty and starvation we
> should perhaps aim not for allowing a tiny proportion of the world's
> population to enjoy these luxuries at the expense of everyone else but
> rather for allowing everyone to have the basics -- food to fill their
> bellies, clean drinking water, clothes, medical help.
But I am not talking about luxuries, Dr. Michael. When have I ever
talked about luxuries? I am talking about the basics, and I have been
from the start: food, clean water, clothes, and *especially* medical
help; and then beyond that electricity, transport, communications, and
so on. There is no reason why these things cannot be enjoyed by
everyone. But admit that you have no idea how many complex factors are
involved in producing these things, or the extent to which a larger
number of people working to do so co-operatively can produce them
faster, cheaper, better for those who need them the most - if only the
fruits of these labours could reach them.
> > 3) the argument I presented earlier as to exactly how and why such a
> > programme will collapse the minute it is transposed from a small set of
> > ideologically committed volunteers to the sort of diverse population
> > that characterises a modern, complex economy - because *most* people
> > looking for ways to feed themselves and their families will naturally
> > take the path of least resistance, and making "self-sufficiency" the
> > path of least resistance at any given moment frankly takes a lot of men
> > with guns.
>
> I have never argued that it should be imposed by men with guns.
Then explain to me how you expect to prevent the poor people you care
so much about from defecting from your "self-sufficiency" project when
they realise that the people engaged in open trade across the border
are able to offer food, clothing and shelter for them and their
families at a considerably lower cost?
That was Hoxha's problem too. And its Kim Jong Il's today. What was
their solution?
> I've
> told you earlier when you made exactly the same point that I think the
> driving forces will be natural disasters and sociodemographic factors.
Which I guess is why you get so excited when you see suffering and
chaos - all the better toward building the world to which you are
ideologically committed.
> > > (d) Actually, if you look at Tibet prior to the Chinese takeover you'll
> > > find a nation where a very hefty percentage of people DID live in such
> > > communities -- the Buddhist 'monasteries'. I merely raise this as an
> > > historical aside.
> >
> > Um... do you really think the Buddhist monasteries were self-contained
> > systems that did not rely on extracting labour and resources from
> > external sources?
>
> Well if you want to argue that they were 'integrated into the global
> trading system' I think you're going to have your work cut out.
Again, you're shifting frames of reference so quickly I can't follow.
Are you suggesting that the individual monestaries themselves were
examples of entirely self-contained "intentional communities" or that
Tibet as a state didn't rely on any integrated global trading system
prior to the Chinese invasion? If the former, you're wrong. If the
latter, you're only partially wrong, and in any case so what? Are the
prospects of life for your average Tibetan peasant at the turn of the
previous century your ideal of "paradise on earth" for the rest of the
world?
> And if
> pre-invasion Tibet is NOT an example of one of these self-sufficient
> communities then where is?
Hey, like I already said, it worked perfectly well in medieval feudal
times as well. But if that's your idea of the golden age to which you
would like us all to return, I think I would be quite justified in
labelling you an ideological reactionary. Hell, even the Tibetan
independance movement knows better than to try and sell the
pre-invasion status-quo to their followers as a viable political
programme.
> > And, in any case, this is another classic example of
> > a case where such a system was workable in the context of a pre-modern,
> > religiously (ideologically) grounded feudal-type society based on a
> > rigid hierarchy of resource distribution - which indeed can function
> > within its own context, but couldn't even begin to compete from the
> > standpoint of resource mobilisation with modern, integrated economies
> > based on the principle of growth.
>
> Most people in the world do not benefit from modern, integrated
> economies. It might be difficult for you to believe but MOST people in
> the world cannot afford to take month-long vacations in distant corners
> of the planet --
Right, there is no good reason why MOST people in the world shouldn't
be able to. The resources of the world, properly organised, could
provide food, shelter, clothing, electricity and transport to more than
twice the population the planet already sustains, and still give them
six weeks off per year to explore cultures different from their own.
> MOST are struggling just to feed their kids. I think
> they would willingly lose some of the purely illusory 'freedom' and
> 'choice' to purchase goods that they cannot possibly afford in order to
> have the basics.
Sure. But, given the choice, wouldn't they prefer even MORE to have
that freedom made less illusory, by having access to goods that enable
them to feed their kids at a much lower cost. All I say is that we
should be working towards a world that better extends to them that
option, rather than one that takes it away.
<snip: a few empty rants that reiterate the assertion I deal with
above>
> > > If the Lebanese do not wish to trade with the Israeli mass-murderers
> > > and war criminals, why should they be forced to do so?
> >
> > Your overheated rhetoric aside, my question is just the opposite: if
> > the Lebanese *do* wish to trade with Israelis, why should they be
> > forced not to?
>
> Who's forcing them not to? Even under YOUR system, if a Lebanese wants
> to trade with Israel can go live in a community somewhere else in the
> world that trades with Israel.
Sure, but we were talking about the economic policy of the state and
the relationship of that policy to the prospects for regional peace,
remember?
> The elected government of Lebanon chooses not to trade with Israel. If
> it wishes to trade with Israel, who is stopping it?
>
> > A great deal of money could be made by both Lebanese
> > and Israeli entrepreneurs trading across the border, and the result
> > would be that the goods affected would be cheaper for consumers on both
> > sides of the line. What is preventing this from occurring, Dr.
> > Michael? The collective revulsion of every single Lebanese
> > entrepreneur? I highly doubt that. No, it is a decision enforced from
> > on-high by the coercive mechanism of a state enforcing its values. The
> > result: Israelis lose, Lebanese lose, the prospects for peaceful
> > interactions between them lose. Everyone loses.
>
> It's their choice. If the people of Lebanon wanted to trade with Israel
> then they'd go get themselves a government that would push for this.
Amazing that you choose now to declare that the decisions of an elected
government are worthy of ultimate respect. And, when you get down to
it, I have to agree. The people elect their government, and must live
with the consequences of their choices. But I can still argue that the
decision these representatives of the people have made is detrimental
to their own material well-being and to the prospects of regional
peace. That is, after all, what we were discussing, remember? Your
claim that the integration of Lebanon into the international trading
system proves that free trade doesn't stop wars; my counter claim that
if one actually looks at the specifics of the case, the problem is more
likely too *little* such integration rather than too much.
> > > > Okay, I'll tell you. Food is cheaper. Its cheaper for the rich, its
> > > > cheaper for the poor. Its cheaper for me, and its cheaper for you.
> > >
> > > No it isn't. It costs me a few pence for a packet of potato seeds. It
> > > would cost a helluva lot more to buy the potatoes. So you've got that
> > > argument wrong for a start.
> >
> > Heh. If only the cost of the seeds were the only expense involved in
> > growing potatoes. There are several others expenses, key among which
> > is the labour involved in growing and harvesting the potatoes - labour
> > that could potentially be spent on other things.
>
> It takes one hour for my missus to plant our potatoes. It takes me an
> hour to drive the 25 miles to the nearest town where they sell potatoes
> (our local shop no longer does) and another hour to drive back. Given
> that my missus would probably spent her hour fiddling with flowers in
> the absence of potatoes, I'd say that it's a very efficient deployment
> of resources.
>
> Now let's transpose this to starving people in Africa . . .
Right. I take it this is not a vast operation capable of sustaining
even a family, let alone a community. But whatever. Contrary to your
characterisation, free trade is not about sticking a gun to someone's
head and saying you *have to* buy your potatoes as Tesco at a higher
price than what it would cost you to grow them yourselves. If, after
all of the figures are in, it is still cheaper and more efficient for
you to plant your own potatoes, then fine. Plant your own stinking
potatoes. That's what I want you to do. That's what the market wants
you to do. That's what starving people in Africa should do.
But IF, in fact, you can ship potatoes into their community for cheaper
than what it costs them to produce them themselves, while at the same
time their labour is being channelled in more effective ways and
translated into currency with which they can buy twice as many... well,
who are you to take away that option?
> > Evidently they neglected to explain the concept of "opportunity cost"
> > to you during your first-year economics course at St. Andrews.
>
> Right. Now what opportunities are the starving of Africa sacrificing by
> growing their own food rather than buying it from external sources?
Right now, nothing. Which is why that is precisely what they are doing
at the moment: growing their own food, and starving when their crops,
for whatever reason, fail.
Integrate them into the global economy and you *give* them such
opportunities.
> Point: long-term self-sufficiency will be an optimal strategy when the
> long-term costs of alternative strategies are higher. However, we live
> in a dynamic world. The costs of alternative strategies are constantly
> fluctuating. What is cheaper at one moment can be more expensive the
> next, so reliance on such trade is inherently risky. There are also
> hidden political costs (which translate into long-term economic costs)
> resulting from dependence on unreliable capital.
<yawn> dealt with already.
> > > It is cheaper UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
> >
> > Fine, I'll give you that. But given the number of goods that a person
> > relies on, it stands to reason then that at any given moment in any
> > given place there are *some* that are cheaper to import and some that
> > are cheaper to produce locally. So, overall then, food is cheaper.
>
> I do not accept that most people 'rely on' complexity. Most people
> cannot afford complexity.
Then they should be able to. Man cannot live on potatoes alone.
Perhaps proper nutrition is one of the reasons why people in wealthly
countries today live longer than our ancestors hundreds of years ago
who lived in small and mostly self-contained communities.
Anyway, I gotta motor again. If there's anything in the rest of your
post that I haven't already addressed about a dozen times, I'll get to
later.
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
> > > What you can't seem to get your head around -- and what free trade
> > > theorists can't get THEIR heads around -- is that capital is
> > > unreliable. It often tends to seek the best deal, which makes it very
> > > volatile. You depend on it at your peril. And the more vulnerable you
> > > are, the greater is the peril (and the greater the temptation to rip
> > > you off).
> >
> > But the point which I think I have just illustrated above is that
> > trading systems, in practice, are quite complex, and as a result tend
> > to come with a great deal of redundancy and resilience mechanisms
> > built-in - if, for no other reason, then that resilience is good for
> > business. Except in a few very select instances of certain scarce
> > resources (which cannot be helped, even by your alternative model)
> > there plenty of alternatives to deal with contingencies, all of which
> > are preferable economically to "self-sufficiency".
>
> No, because in practice markets are far from 'perfect'. You get
> collusion. People make trade contingent on 'conditions'.
>
> Why do you think a child dies every 5 seconds in a world dominated now
> by free-trade philosophy?
But I don't care if (according to you) the world is dominated by a
so-called "free-trade philosophy". I am not discussing philosophy. I
am discussing cold, hard facts.
> I'll tell you. Because it's very difficult to make any money from
> feeding them. Trading with them just isn't a profitable proposition, on
> the whole.
Sure it is, if you have a system that prioritises long-term growth and
the welfare of its constituents rather than the short term gains of a
handful of corporate entities. There is lots of money to be made from
tapping into a cheap and hitherto untapped pool of labour, and people
need to be well fed in order to work. Never mind the particular
resources available in currently marginal regions. And this would
benefit consumers world-wide as well, as certain products that are
currently considered luxuries would go down in price by an order of
magnitude.
By contrast, your system could cause certain products now considered to
be daily staples to go up in price by an order of magnitude.
> > > > Free trade stops wars.
> > >
> > > Answered already. It stopped neither the First World War nor the Second
> > > nor any other.
> >
> > Was it given a chance to?
>
> Yes. The peoples of these places had been trading for centuries.
> Literally.
Right. Just paint over the specifics with a broad brush and hope no
one will notice, right Dr. Michael?
> > I snipped this comment earlier for space,
> > but this is yet another example of your blindingly simplistic take on
> > history. Relatively open trade managed to contain general conflict for
> > much of the 19th century, but the system broke down toward the end of
> > that century into open trade war between clearly defined blocs, the
> > British Empire being a roughly self-contained system in itself.
>
> Ergo free trade does not prevent war between blocs.
>
> Not all wars have been between blocs.
>
> Ergo, free trade doesn't prevent war between nations.
>
> Not all wars have been between nations either.
>
> Ergo, free trade doesn't prevent civil and asymmetric war.
>
> Conclusion: it doesn't prevent any sort of war.
Notice, dear reader, how he doesn't even try to address my argument.
I never claimed that free trade stops any particular category of war
between any particular sort of actor. David Michael is trying to feed
you a healthy slice of red herring here.
What I said was that it stops wars in general. Not all wars - but
that open economic discourse and mutual dependence between two parties
is a factor that will inhibit any decision between those two parties to
engage in open conflict, and that increase interaction introducing
greater avenues for the peaceful, diplomatic settlement of disputes.
Hence we have no idea just how many armed conflicts in history might
have if not for economic integration, but the logic of the argument
nonetheless remains sound. Indeed, Dr. Michael even *admits it* in the
very next paragraph:
> It may be ONE FACTOR to be taken into account when deciding to go to
> war. However, a rational actor would presumably look at the total
> cost-benefit equation of the conflict. If the benefit of crushing your
> opponent outweighs the cost of lost trade then war is a rational
> option, right?
Fine. But as a factor, it is a factor against. I will accept, and
have already accepted, that there might be other factors that could
lead to war. But on the whole, lost trade, the consequent harm to the
interests of your population and to your own global economic standing
are strong factors against descent into open violence.
So back to World War I. Had there been an open trading relationship
between Britain and Germany rather than an open trade *war* between
them in the lead-up to World War I, would the level of tension have
been different such that the system would have been able to handle
greater strain?
We don't know.
So quit being a wise-guy. Your counter examples do not address my
point.
> > I never said that free trade
> > stops *all* wars. Simply that it stops wars. Granted, it is a
> > difficult claim for me to prove empirically to the standard you seem to
> > want - I can't be expected to provide a list of wars that didn't
> > happen because of free trade. After all, they didn't happen.
>
> Aha. The penny has dropped.
No, I already knew that interpreting an opponents' statement in an
absurdly dogmatic manner and refusing to acknowledge it until he meets
an irrational burden of proof is a tactic you frequently engage in when
you cannot address the arguments he has made in favour of the
proposition.
> If they didn't happen, how do you know that it was the one factor 'FREE
> TRADE' that stopped them rather than an overall assessment of costs and
> benefits of which the loss of trade for the period of the conflict was
> only one factor?
Answered already above. Try and keep up.
<snip: a bit more sniping on the same topic, already answered above>
> > > > > I *do* think that the medium-term future is utterly bleak for the poor
> > > > > and destitute of the world. The sticky plaster policies you advocate
> > > > > have not tended to work and there seems to be little interest in them
> > > > > any more among the major players. The poor are the ones who will bear
> > > > > the brunt of all the natural and sociological factors that I have
> > > > > mentioned. I suspect that they will die horribly and in their billions.
> > > > > But there is a chance that out of the horror that lies ahead we will be
> > > > > able to create something new and wonderful for those who survive.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, Mr Mock -- let the world burn; we'll build it again!
> > > >
> > > > So that's your solution then? Let it all go to hell and God (or
> > > > whatever you believe in) will sort it out.
> > >
> > > Again, a very strange thing to write. So how precisely do you propose
> > > to stop the world from burning? How will you stop global warming,
> >
> > Greater economic and political interconnectedness on a global scale
> > that will enable long-term co-operation over common problems rather
> > than competition in the interests of short-term gains.
>
> One might expect global warming to cause serious instabilities in
> financial systems throughout the world. Who will invest in the Maldives
> if it's going to be under water in a few decades? Would YOU buy real
> estate in New Orleans? Hey, how about investing in redeveloping those
> parts of Indonesia devastated by the tsunami?
>
> Where instability exists, capital flees. You don't put your money in
> places where you might not get it back.
You asked me how I would stop global warming. I fail to see what this
strange rant of yours here has to do with my answer.
Not being a geologist, I naturally can't give you a specific answer
as to exactly how I personally would stop global warming. I can,
however, illustrate how the sort of economic model I propose would be
infinitely more effective at solving problems that confront the whole
globe than the model that you propose.
"Isolated communities", with nothing more than the power to feed
themselves at a subsistence level by whatever means available to them
will never prevent global warming. Only an interconnected world can.
But since you've already said that you're looking forward to the
time when we all burn so that you can build a "paradise on earth"
on our ashes, I imagine you don't care.
> > > the oil supplies running out,
> >
> > Greater co-operation in the research and development of alternative
> > energy sources.
>
> Such as? Wind farms in Somalia? Solar powered camels in Sudan?
Again, not being an expert in the field I am reluctant to go into
specifics. But I do understand that there are some promising
prospects. A world working together to solve a common problem will be
much more successful at realising them than will isolated communities
or countries burning off existing resources to satisfy their immediate
needs.
> > > the spread of hideous new diseases,
> >
> > Greater co-operation in medical research, as well as further
> > integration of poorer countries into the global economy so that they
> > and their populations are able to pay for medicines developed elsewhere
> > in the world.
>
> Bzzt. I gave you life expectancy figures for southern Africa -- down to
> the 30s in some places where AIDS is ravaging. That's DESPITE medical
> research. It takes ages to develop drugs. And who will pay for them in
> regions where most people survive on less than $2 per day?
Why Dr. Michael, there you have it. You have just delivered me, on a
silver plate, the best argument ever for the integration of southern
Africa into the global economy.
Despite medical research, you say? Medical research is not the
problem. 15 years ago, AIDS was a death sentence. Now there are drugs
that enable people to live with the disease for a very long time.
Sure, there is still a lot of work to be done, but medical research has
done and is doing wonders.
But then comes the problem - how do you get these drugs to places,
such as Africa, where the disease is raging? My solution - integrate
these regions into the global economy.
Allow me to explain...
You claim that these regions are already integrated into the global
economy on the grounds that "we've had free trade for centuries"
(whatever that's supposed to mean) and that the leadership (elite) of
these countries engage in free trade and believe in the "free trade
philosophy". I say, bollocks. As I said before, I don't care
about philosophy; I care about cold hard facts. And you cannot, out of
one side of your mouth, claim that these people are integrated into the
global economy while out of the other side of your mouth observe that
they make "less than $2 per day".
As I *already* explained to you before (and I grow tired of repeating
myself) nobody, in fact, "survive(s) on less than $2 a day", in the
sense that you seem to be implying - ie. they work all day, get their
$2, and then have to try and make it stretch at the local
Sainsbury's. Bzzzt. Wrong. $2 a day merely measures the extent of
their involvement in the global economy. It means that only $2 worth
of their labour enters into the system and is converted into currency.
The rest of their labour and the return they get for it is all off the
radar, bound up in their village or local network for which they work
and which provides them with shelter, a measure of food and clothing,
and a degree of protection. In short they are, for the most part,
living precisely according to the system you take as your ideal. Less
those $2, they are living in a largely self-sufficient community,
isolated from the global market.
And this can, indeed, work for them very well. I mean, don't get me
wrong, it will look like extreme poverty to our comfortable Western
eyes, and its not a life I would wish on anyone. But as you observe,
people in these circumstances can acquire sufficient food, clothe and
shelter themselves, and in fact live for quite a long time.
Unless something happens...
Like a war. Like a hurricane. Like a crop failure. Or, like a
DISEASE.
And here's the onion. Let me give it to you in caps: LOCAL, ISOLATED
COMMUNITIES CANNOT PRODUCE AIDS MEDICATION. The medication has to be
discovered, developed and mass produced by large corporations. And
THIS is when that $2 a day becomes a problem. People who only have $2
a day worth of access to global markets cannot afford AIDS medication.
As a result, for them, AIDS is still a death sentence, which is a big
reason why so few people in that part of the world get tested (who
wants a death sentence if there's nothing you can do about it
anyway?), which, in turn, is a big part of the reason why it continues
to spread so rapidly.
Further separating these people from the global economy will not solve
the problem. Converting more of their labour into currency, fixing the
infrastructure so that this is feasible and the medication can get to
them more easily, and, yes, a few humanitarian concessions further to
decentralising production and getting the medicine to them at cost,
can.
There are problems in the world right now that are bigger than your
local, isolated community, Dr. Michael. Solving them involves larger
sums and more co-operation than any functioning, self-contained unit
could possibly have at its disposal. That is our lesson for the day.
I have one more point to make regarding your last post, but I've been
distracted from my work long enough. Anyway, its more about your use
of misleading rhetoric to smear rather than debate my position than it
is about the substance of our dispute, so I think I'll save it for
next time.
Steven Mock
david_michael
I have addressed this very question in my long essay *Pie in the Sky*,
which gives a history of community formation. You will find it in the
Web archives at
http://web.archive.org/web/20050213021223/http://www.nationalanarchist.com/pie.html.
There have been both failures and successes. Today, there are many
hundreds of more-or-less self-sufficient communities thriving happily.
Maybe not on what you call a 'modern scale' but I suggest that maybe a
'modern scale' is neither necessary nor appropriate for the challenges
of future generations.
You are quite entitled to dismiss something that IS happening and HAS
happened as 'impossible' if you so wish. There was a time when people
thought that it was 'impossible' for humans to fly or even exceed
speeds of 100 miles per hour.
> > >You seem to have this strange notion
> > > that I am ideologically committed to American hegemony as a value.
> >
> > You've said that you want integration into the global trading system.
> > Now that doesn't *necessarily* mean a unipolar world dominated by
> > America but it certainly seems to assist that cause under the present
> > global state of things.
>
> Not really. If the United States and Europe were willing to put
> rhetoric into practice and engage in a genuine free trade relationship
> with China, whose power do you think would wax and whose would wane?
I really don't know. It is difficult to judge China's game. They seem
to be on the slippery slope to incorporation into the global US empire.
> <snip: stuff dealt with in the other thread>
>
> > > 1) the prima facie evidence of the fact that the few leaders in modern
> > > history stupid enough to adopt this pipe dream as a programme and still
> > > manage to get into the centre of power have all - to a man - succeeded
> > > only in starving and repressing their populations and others through
> > > policy actions directly related to achieving this goal, subsequently
> > > being remembered as among the worst monsters in history (I know you
> > > will write this off to history being written by the victors, but since
> > > the victors, in this case, are those that were better able to mobilise
> > > the human and material resources of their countries, I can live with
> > > that);
> >
> > If we look at the people remembered as the worst monsters in Hitler I
> > suppose you're probably talking Hitler, Stalin and maybe Mao. All of
> > these were people firmly committed to integration into a global system
> > of one sort or another.
>
> Ah, right. So this is where we come face to face with just how fuzzy
> and nebulous David E. Michael's definition of "free trade" and "the
> global system" really is.
More personal stuff.
> > > 2) the fact that you evidently have no idea how many factors go into
> > > sustaining a complex economy and a population large enough to maintain
> > > one; everyone who has pondered the notion of self-sufficiency has
> > > quickly realised that there was at least *something*, and usually many
> > > things, that they simply could not produce locally at any even remotely
> > > reasonable cost, and other things that they could produce a hell of a
> > > lot cheaper if it were done on a scale that required access to foreign
> > > markets; and
> >
> > Look, let's accept that to run a COMPLEX economy where everyone is free
> > to buy exotic fruits and clothes from the furthest corners of the world
> > you'll need global integration.
> >
> > Can I suggest that in a world facing mass poverty and starvation we
> > should perhaps aim not for allowing a tiny proportion of the world's
> > population to enjoy these luxuries at the expense of everyone else but
> > rather for allowing everyone to have the basics -- food to fill their
> > bellies, clean drinking water, clothes, medical help.
>
> But I am not talking about luxuries, Dr. Michael. When have I ever
> talked about luxuries? I am talking about the basics, and I have been
> from the start: food, clean water, clothes,
Food and clothes can be produced locally. Water is a problem but you'll
note that the two instances of existing self-sufficient communities
that I have cited as approximating the sort of thing I have in mind --
Orania and the Mennonite communities of Filadelfia --exist in extremely
arid areas. Assistance may be needed to finance irrigation
infrastructures but given the speed with which the world seems to be
running out of water supplies I think that you're going to need some
degree of migration away from water-scarce areas IRRESPECTIVE of the
social system you have in force.
>and *especially* medical
> help;
Which is VERY scarce under the existing global system. Try getting
sophisticated medical help if you're poor in many parts of Africa and
Asia (and Britain, even if you're not poor) and you're stuffed.
Look, sophisticated treatments for the very wealthy are going to have
to become a thing of the past. The aim should be to provide BASIC
health care for MORE people. Why SHOULD some people get
gender-reallignment surgery and facelifts when others are dying of
malnutrition? Train local people in the basics, using simple natural
medicines that they can get or produce locally.
>and then beyond that electricity,
Solar is the way to go. And a return to more primitive fuels. The oil
isn't going to be around for ever.
> transport,
Cars are going to have to disappear. Look at Albania under Hoxha or
North Korea now. They are absolutely unnecessary. Look at the level of
sophistication economies attained in the 19th century before the car
was even invented. Back to a simpler, purer world.
>communications,
Have existed in the most primive communities.
If you want to see how much can be accomplished by a largely
self-sufficient community with a tiny amount of land and little
technology right in the middle of nowhere, go read the early history of
St Kilda. Ironically, it was contact with the outside world that
finished that little project.
> and
> so on. There is no reason why these things cannot be enjoyed by
> everyone. But admit that you have no idea how many complex factors are
> involved in producing these things, or the extent to which a larger
> number of people working to do so co-operatively can produce them
> faster, cheaper, better for those who need them the most - if only the
> fruits of these labours could reach them.
But it doesn't work. It never has and never will. Why? Because nobody
is going to become a cosmetic surgeon and work for nothing. They will
want vast salaries. So they will work only where there are funds to pay
them -- i.e. in the countries where capital has accumulated. Not in
Upper Volta.
YOUR system presupposes that capital can be spread evenly throughout
the world AND that it won't flow back to accumulate in a few places
again after such 'spreading'. This is to fundamentally misunderstand
economics. Under a free capitalist economy capital will tend to
accumulate in some areas and shun others. Tell me how to prevent this
and your solution might start looking more feasible.
> > > 3) the argument I presented earlier as to exactly how and why such a
> > > programme will collapse the minute it is transposed from a small set of
> > > ideologically committed volunteers to the sort of diverse population
> > > that characterises a modern, complex economy - because *most* people
> > > looking for ways to feed themselves and their families will naturally
> > > take the path of least resistance, and making "self-sufficiency" the
> > > path of least resistance at any given moment frankly takes a lot of men
> > > with guns.
> >
> > I have never argued that it should be imposed by men with guns.
>
> Then explain to me how you expect to prevent the poor people you care
> so much about from defecting from your "self-sufficiency" project when
> they realise that the people engaged in open trade across the border
> are able to offer food, clothing and shelter for them and their
> families at a considerably lower cost?
Why should I wish to prevent them? As I said, I see the forces leading
to this sort of outcome being natural and demographic.
> That was Hoxha's problem too. And its Kim Jong Il's today. What was
> their solution?
Their societies came into being at a particular time in history. I'm
suggesting that different forces could rise to different ways of
establishing such societies.
> > I've
> > told you earlier when you made exactly the same point that I think the
> > driving forces will be natural disasters and sociodemographic factors.
>
> Which I guess is why you get so excited when you see suffering and
> chaos - all the better toward building the world to which you are
> ideologically committed.
Means?
> > > > (d) Actually, if you look at Tibet prior to the Chinese takeover you'll
> > > > find a nation where a very hefty percentage of people DID live in such
> > > > communities -- the Buddhist 'monasteries'. I merely raise this as an
> > > > historical aside.
> > >
> > > Um... do you really think the Buddhist monasteries were self-contained
> > > systems that did not rely on extracting labour and resources from
> > > external sources?
> >
> > Well if you want to argue that they were 'integrated into the global
> > trading system' I think you're going to have your work cut out.
>
> Again, you're shifting frames of reference so quickly I can't follow.
> Are you suggesting that the individual monestaries themselves were
> examples of entirely self-contained "intentional communities" or that
> Tibet as a state didn't rely on any integrated global trading system
> prior to the Chinese invasion? If the former, you're wrong. If the
> latter, you're only partially wrong, and in any case so what? Are the
> prospects of life for your average Tibetan peasant at the turn of the
> previous century your ideal of "paradise on earth" for the rest of the
> world?
At state level there was trade, but we have an example here of a state
in which a large number of people (not a majority) lived in intentional
communities -- it is possible to organize large numbers of people along
those lines.
> > And if
> > pre-invasion Tibet is NOT an example of one of these self-sufficient
> > communities then where is?
>
> Hey, like I already said, it worked perfectly well in medieval feudal
> times as well.
PRECISELY.
> But if that's your idea of the golden age to which you
> would like us all to return, I think I would be quite justified in
> labelling you an ideological reactionary. Hell, even the Tibetan
> independance movement knows better than to try and sell the
> pre-invasion status-quo to their followers as a viable political
> programme.
For you sitting there in your luxurious surroundings with a computer
and month-long holidays to distant parts of the world, a simpler, purer
life would indeed be a step backwards. You would indeed wind up with
less choice. Your medical attention would be worse. You would probably
not live so long.
For the starving billions of the world, I put it to you that a movement
even towards medieval levels would be progress if it were sustainable
and secure.
But why this fixation with medieval levels? We have technologies that
they didn't have in those days. And knowledge.
> > > And, in any case, this is another classic example of
> > > a case where such a system was workable in the context of a pre-modern,
> > > religiously (ideologically) grounded feudal-type society based on a
> > > rigid hierarchy of resource distribution - which indeed can function
> > > within its own context, but couldn't even begin to compete from the
> > > standpoint of resource mobilisation with modern, integrated economies
> > > based on the principle of growth.
> >
> > Most people in the world do not benefit from modern, integrated
> > economies. It might be difficult for you to believe but MOST people in
> > the world cannot afford to take month-long vacations in distant corners
> > of the planet --
>
> Right, there is no good reason why MOST people in the world shouldn't
> be able to. The resources of the world, properly organised,
PROPERLY ORGANISED. That's the key phrase.
But under global capitalism, the 'organisation' is very limited. The
market organises itself.
>could
> provide food, shelter, clothing, electricity and transport to more than
> twice the population the planet already sustains, and still give them
> six weeks off per year to explore cultures different from their own.
So why doesn't it happen?
Because under free-market capitalism the resources are not 'properly
organised'.
Now if you're arguing for a fundamental rejigging of world politics in
favour of a world order that 'properly organises' the resources then
you won't find me opposing you. But it won't be a free-market global
capitalist economy. Nor will it be a single world dictatorship with all
the power centralized in the hands of a very few men (who will proceed
to organize the resources not 'properly' but for their own benefit). It
will probably look like a world of very large, self-sufficient
communities.
> > MOST are struggling just to feed their kids. I think
> > they would willingly lose some of the purely illusory 'freedom' and
> > 'choice' to purchase goods that they cannot possibly afford in order to
> > have the basics.
>
> Sure. But, given the choice, wouldn't they prefer even MORE to have
> that freedom made less illusory, by having access to goods that enable
> them to feed their kids at a much lower cost. All I say is that we
> should be working towards a world that better extends to them that
> option, rather than one that takes it away.
Agreed. But free-trade will not create such a world for most people.
What will eventually get there is increasing levels of prosperity and
sophistication in the self-sufficient societies.
No I didn't. You just asked why the people of Lebanon should be forced
not to trade with Israel. I pointed out that they weren't being forced.
They elected a government that doesn't want to trade with Israel. Some
may indeed wish they had a different policy. Frankly, I wish I had a
government that didn't trade with Israel -- particularly weapons -- but
under YOUR global capitalist setup I don't get my way either. You get a
degree of forcing in any community.
> And, when you get down to
> it, I have to agree. The people elect their government, and must live
> with the consequences of their choices.
That's a different argument that I won't get into. The old one about
'election' being fairly meaningless if the people can only choose
between people offering different nuances of the same programme.
> But I can still argue that the
> decision these representatives of the people have made is detrimental
> to their own material well-being and to the prospects of regional
> peace. That is, after all, what we were discussing, remember?
No, you were saying that people shouldn't be FORCED not to trade with
Israel. I think in any setup people will disagree with some policies --
i.e. they'll have to be forced. If it is really uncceptable to you you
either campaign against it or leave the community/nation.
> Your
> claim that the integration of Lebanon into the international trading
> system proves that free trade doesn't stop wars; my counter claim that
> if one actually looks at the specifics of the case, the problem is more
> likely too *little* such integration rather than too much.
Because conflict scares off capital/trade. Had the foundation of the
state of Israel been done through negotiation then there would have
been no conflict and you'd have got trade.
Ah, but you see -- I'm not forcing anyone to produce their own spuds;
I'm just saying it's a safer option. Let me illustrate.
I'm on a big island (well, a tiny one attached to a big one). Most of
the veggies for the shops in the one town of any size come in on the
ferries (apart from those produced locally, and we don't get the
climate for much exotic stuff). Occasionally, the weather is bad and
the ferries don't come. The shops run low in supplies. Now suppose some
factor like bird flu were to stop the ferries from coming altogether.
Panic buying would ensue and quickly the shops would be out of grub.
Doubtless supplies would come by some other means eventually -- but
self-sufficiency in basic survival food would surely be a major benefit
under these circumstances. My little potato patch would be VERY useful
then. We are uniquely vulnerable to any factor disrupting the ferry
links. And throughout the world, fragile societies are vulnerable to
any factor disrupting trade links -- including political and economic
factors.
Now my point is that given the sheer unreliability of 'trade' in much
of the world, you need to avoid dependence. Granted, even
self-sufficiency becomes vulnerable if you don't diversify enough --
vide the Irish potato famine -- but if a community cannot feed its own
people then when the going gets tough things get very, very difficult.
If you are dependent on trade, that dependency in itself creates a
constant demand that cannot easily respond to 'bad service' or 'price
increases' from the trader. The relationship easily becomes
exploitative. It is perhaps easier to understand that on an island or
in a Third World country than in situations where you have a choice of
suppliers and the whip is in the buyer's hand.
> > > Evidently they neglected to explain the concept of "opportunity cost"
> > > to you during your first-year economics course at St. Andrews.
> >
> > Right. Now what opportunities are the starving of Africa sacrificing by
> > growing their own food rather than buying it from external sources?
>
> Right now, nothing. Which is why that is precisely what they are doing
> at the moment: growing their own food, and starving when their crops,
> for whatever reason, fail.
So you diversify.That's basic community building for beginners lesson
1.
And if you get some freak disaster like a plague of locusts or a
tsunami that destroys ALL local resources, then that's going to knock
you out whether you trade or nor.
> Integrate them into the global economy and you *give* them such
> opportunities.
No you don't because in a free-market setup capital accumulates in the
places where it gets the best return while shunning the places where
it's most needed. I know it's a difficult concept for you to grasp, but
just think about your own investment strategy. Are you going to put
your life savings in the Bank of East Timor? No? So what makes you
think anyone else will?
> > Point: long-term self-sufficiency will be an optimal strategy when the
> > long-term costs of alternative strategies are higher. However, we live
> > in a dynamic world. The costs of alternative strategies are constantly
> > fluctuating. What is cheaper at one moment can be more expensive the
> > next, so reliance on such trade is inherently risky. There are also
> > hidden political costs (which translate into long-term economic costs)
> > resulting from dependence on unreliable capital.
>
> <yawn> dealt with already.
>
> > > > It is cheaper UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
> > >
> > > Fine, I'll give you that. But given the number of goods that a person
> > > relies on, it stands to reason then that at any given moment in any
> > > given place there are *some* that are cheaper to import and some that
> > > are cheaper to produce locally. So, overall then, food is cheaper.
> >
> > I do not accept that most people 'rely on' complexity. Most people
> > cannot afford complexity.
>
> Then they should be able to. Man cannot live on potatoes alone.
> Perhaps proper nutrition is one of the reasons why people in wealthly
> countries today live longer than our ancestors hundreds of years ago
> who lived in small and mostly self-contained communities.
In wealthy countries. And you're talking about the reasonably wealthy
people in the wealthy countries. About 6% of the world's population,
maybe. The rest starve. At a rate of one kid every 5 seconds.
The idea that free trade will suddenly catapult the entire population
of the Third World to standards of living rivalling those of America is
quite hilarous. What generally tends to happen is that the wealthiest
people spend as little as possible to get the resources they need from
the rest of the world, often under exploitative and imperialistic
conditions. It is a relationship of dependency. And an unreliable one
at best.
> Anyway, I gotta motor again. If there's anything in the rest of your
> post that I haven't already addressed about a dozen times, I'll get to
> later.
>
> Steven Mock
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
> We've had your way. We've had it for centuries. It hasn't worked. We've
> got it now. Free traders own most of the planet. It isn't working.
> Those children are STILL dying at the rate of one every 5 seconds
> DESPITE the triumph of global free-trade philosophy.
>
> Or, more accurately, BECAUSE of it.
Right. Final point on this previous post and then I'll leave it. It
is not a new point - indeed it's a point I have been making and
reiterating from the start of this discussion. But as you nonetheless
keep repeatedly churning out the sort of vacuous drivel quoted above, I
might as well take this opportunity to elaborate a little further.
I will do so via an explanation of two key concepts:
1) *argumentum ad misericordiam* or "Appeal to Pity"
Otherwise known as "waving the bloody shirt".
Whenever you're backed into a corner, you invoke the children dying
of starvation every 5 seconds. The problem with this as an argument is
that if I were just as dishonest as you, I could employ the very same
appeal against you and your "isolated communities" programme no less
effectively, and indeed more so. Your intent with this sort of line is
for the emotional content of your rhetoric to push enough buttons to
distract from the fact that you haven't supported any of the claims
on which this appeal rests. As Roger and I have both noted previously,
you have yet to make any argument whatsoever supporting your claim
either that a) "my way", or anything like it, really has been
implemented for "centuries"; or, b) that anything even remotely
related to what I propose has indeed been responsible, directly or
indirectly, for the starvation of children. Unable to support any such
argument, you hope that by repetitively juxtaposing "my way"
against the starvation of children you will convince stupid people that
if they care about starving children they have to accept your
conclusion and disagree with mine.
2) *post hoc ergo propter hoc* - "after it, therefore because of
it"
Examples:
a) "before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons".
b) "people have been engaging in trade for centuries, and yet
children are still dying of starvation"
I have noticed that this form of misleading rhetoric is actually very
prevalent in your discourse. Regardless of what subject you are
debating, it is a tactic you almost invariably resort to sooner or
later. In a nutshell, you invent some broad abstraction - the
System, the New World Order, Neoliberal Globalism, etc. - which is
treated as a unitary entity encompassing nearly all functioning
political systems and loci of power in the world today. As such, it is
taken as a given that this entity has been ruling the world for however
long it has been in existence, and therefore it further goes without
saying that any problems currently faced in the world are its fault and
its responsibility. This nebulous entity then takes on the
characteristics of whomever you happen to be arguing with. If you are
arguing with someone about democracy, then the System is all about
democracy and yet we still have wars and war crimes, hence we must
discard democracy. If you are arguing with someone about liberalism,
well Neoliberal Globalism has ruled the world since "your side" won
World War II, and it hasn't solved the problem of AIDS, therefore we
must abandon liberalism. And if you're arguing with someone about
free trade? Well, the New World Order has pushed free trade for
centuries, and yet we still have starvation, so free trade must be
rejected in favour of isolated communities.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Via this construct, any problem that exists
in the world today can - in David E. Michael's logic - be
attributed to any event, philosophy or political programme that
preceded it that he doesn't happen to like. No further explanation
required.
To say that "we've had free trade for centuries" is, in itself, a
meaningless statement. Have we? Where? And to what extent? Sure, it
has existed as a philosophy and has even taken place to varying degrees
over the past few centuries. But we've had lots of things for
centuries, and not all of them have contributed to starvation. Some
have even ameliorated it, even if not solving the problem once and for
all. Therefore your claim that free trade has caused or even failed to
prevent starvation is empty in absence of an explicitly illustrated
causal connection. You have not even tried to dispute or offer an
alternative to my explanation as to how the problem of starvation has
been caused by a system that in practice allows for too *little* free
trade, rather than too much. Indeed, contrary to your repeated claims
that the world is run by people who have adopted my programme, I have
shown that the children who are dying at the rate of one every 5
seconds (and I'll take this statistic as a given, as I have no reason
to dispute it) are mostly doing so in parts of the world where nothing
even remotely resembling this model is in place. Indeed, they are
dying precisely because they live under conditions that far better
resemble the economic model you would assert as the ideal. This being
the case, the policy suggestions you would implement could well serve
to exacerbate the very problem that you wave as a bloody shirt against
your opponents (a conclusion further supported by the empirical
evidence of every previous historical attempt to implement such
policies).
Steven Mock
david_michael
sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > We've had your way. We've had it for centuries. It hasn't worked. We've
> > got it now. Free traders own most of the planet. It isn't working.
> > Those children are STILL dying at the rate of one every 5 seconds
> > DESPITE the triumph of global free-trade philosophy.
> >
> > Or, more accurately, BECAUSE of it.
>
> Right. Final point on this previous post and then I'll leave it. It
> is not a new point - indeed it's a point I have been making and
> reiterating from the start of this discussion. But as you nonetheless
> keep repeatedly churning out the sort of vacuous drivel quoted above, I
> might as well take this opportunity to elaborate a little further.
>
> I will do so via an explanation of two key concepts:
>
> 1) *argumentum ad misericordiam* or "Appeal to Pity"
>
> Otherwise known as "waving the bloody shirt".
If we're going to put an end to the misery in the world, Mr M, we have
to draw attention to it. For example, if everyone just ignored what
Israel is doing in Lebanon then it would be a good deal easier for them
to get away with it. By screaming blue murder about it we just MIGHT
increase the costs to them of their behaviour and thus save lives. Are
you seriously suggesting that we should shut up about the fact that a
child dies of starvation every 5 seconds? That we should just pretend
that all is perfect in this wonderful world of free trade?
Weak, Mock. Very, very weak.
<big snip of elaboration of same point>
> 2) *post hoc ergo propter hoc* - "after it, therefore because of
> it"
>
> Examples:
> a) "before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons".
> b) "people have been engaging in trade for centuries, and yet
> children are still dying of starvation"
Or 'before the war there was no free trade', eh?
> I have noticed that this form of misleading rhetoric is actually very
> prevalent in your discourse. Regardless of what subject you are
> debating, it is a tactic you almost invariably resort to sooner or
> later. In a nutshell, you invent some broad abstraction - the
> System, the New World Order, Neoliberal Globalism, etc. - which is
> treated as a unitary entity encompassing nearly all functioning
> political systems and loci of power in the world today. As such, it is
> taken as a given that this entity has been ruling the world for however
> long it has been in existence, and therefore it further goes without
> saying that any problems currently faced in the world are its fault and
> its responsibility.
OK, so it is permissible to use terms such as Nazism, communism,
fascism, extremism, racism, denier, hate speech, and attribute all
sorts of evils to them, and it is permissible to use terms such as
democracy, freedom, equality, free-trade, and multiculturalism and
attribute all sorts of goods to them, and yet it is not permissible to
use terms critical of the current global power elite such as 'the
System', the New World Order, neoliberal globalism.
Your double standards never cease to amaze me.
I think it is quite permissible to use such terms as a sort of
shorthand. For example, if every time I wished to refer to 'the System'
I had to list hundreds of organizations and individuals (and the list
would keep changing and all sorts of issues could arise about who or
what to include), discussion would be impossible.
Discussing politics is not like discussing law where everything must be
defined precisely in advance and decisions are reached in an
algorithmic way. Often vague trends, vague behaviour patterns, vague
regularities, vague processes are discernible in the social world --
they are clear enough to be identified but are not clear enough to be
readily pinned down exactly, and decisions are more heuristic in
nature. Thus we have 'anti-fascists' who come here to oppose 'fascism'
but are actually very vague about what they're opposing. Should they
just shut up until they have a precise algorithm to follow about what
is or is not a 'fascist'?
It is actually very difficult to discuss political theory at all
without invoking abstractions to some degree.
Look at the language used by sociologists and social anthropologists!
That's even worse in this regard. I've just pulled a monograph down
from the shelves more-or-less randomly and here's some abstractions
from page 1:
ahistorical
symbolic structuring
representation
world-historical schemes
social practice
repertoires
gendered
ritual
embedded ideas
collective events
contextualize
All vague stuff because it refers to vague processes and entities. So
should the sociologists and anthropologists shut up too?
> This nebulous entity then takes on the
> characteristics of whomever you happen to be arguing with.
Absolutely wrong. Rather, an abstraction such as 'the System' serves to
break down the commonly held left/right dualism (left and right -- now
THERE's another pair of vague terms!) and to suggest another
alternative, namely that forces traditionally (and VERY vaguely) termed
'left' and 'right' are NOT necessarily antagonistic but might actually
collude, and that an alternative way of conceiving politics is between
the colluding left-right forces with executive political power and
those forces that challenge the colluding forces with power. Now
BECAUSE the colluding forces are vague and the forces challenging them
are vague, it is not going to be easy to define 'the System' precisely.
But the term, although vague, is, I maintain, functional and
intelligible.
> If you are
> arguing with someone about democracy, then the System is all about
> democracy and yet we still have wars and war crimes, hence we must
> discard democracy.
Interesting because I have never advanced such an argument. I have
argued that Western 'democratic' systems are largely illusory because
they do not permit anyone who does not espouse pro-American,
pro-free-market, authoritarian multicultural, pro-globalization,
anti-nationalization (which is very roughly what I mean by neoliberal
globalist) politics to put their case to the people. They give a
limited amount of freedom of speech but no freedom to be heard and
limit freedom of choice.
> If you are arguing with someone about liberalism,
> well Neoliberal Globalism has ruled the world since "your side" won
> World War II, and it hasn't solved the problem of AIDS, therefore we
> must abandon liberalism.
I have *never* argued that.
> And if you're arguing with someone about
> free trade? Well, the New World Order has pushed free trade for
> centuries, and yet we still have starvation, so free trade must be
> rejected in favour of isolated communities.
No, that's not what I argued. Forget the New World Order -- that
concept isn't needed for this argument.
Free trade has existed in the world for centuries. In pretty much every
country for pretty much all of the time, people have been trading both
locally and internationally. The exceptions are few and far between.
Yet we still have starvation. How do we fix the starvation?
You say more incorporation into the global free-trade system. I say
that there are reasons to believe that there are structural features of
global free trade that tend to cause a wide maldistribution of
resources and for this reason we can expect global free trade to
continue to generate mass poverty.
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Via this construct, any problem that exists
> in the world today can - in David E. Michael's logic - be
> attributed to any event, philosophy or political programme that
> preceded it that he doesn't happen to like. No further explanation
> required.
>
> To say that "we've had free trade for centuries" is, in itself, a
> meaningless statement.
It is a vague statement, I grant, but not meaningless. Vague can be
informative. E.g. 'nazism is evil'.
> Have we? Where? And to what extent?
Which is rather like responding to 'nazism is evil' by asking 'all
nazism? everywhere? to what extent?' The fact that you can ask for more
information does not render the original statement uninformative.
> Sure, it
> has existed as a philosophy and has even taken place to varying degrees
> over the past few centuries. But we've had lots of things for
> centuries, and not all of them have contributed to starvation. Some
> have even ameliorated it, even if not solving the problem once and for
> all. Therefore your claim that free trade has caused or even failed to
> prevent starvation is empty in absence of an explicitly illustrated
> causal connection.
No, I did give you a causal connection, which you avoided like the
plague. Here it is for the zillionth time.
Under free trade, capital tends to accumulate in certain places and
shun others. It tends to accumulate where it is safe and can grow. It
tends to shun areas where there is risk. We can go into the reasons for
this at great length. This phenomenon leads to massive accumulation of
capital in places where it is not really needed (e.g. artworks on the
walls of very rich people) and lack of capital in places where it IS
needed. In short it leads to a maldistribution of resources.
Note that I am postulating a very precise CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP between
FREE TRADE and POVERTY.
> You have not even tried to dispute or offer an
> alternative to my explanation as to how the problem of starvation has
> been caused by a system that in practice allows for too *little* free
> trade, rather than too much.
Yes I did. I keep repeating the argument in my previous two paragraphs
and you just keep ignoring it. The fact that you don't read my
arguments doesn't mean that I don't actually advance them.
> Indeed, contrary to your repeated claims
> that the world is run by people who have adopted my programme, I have
> shown that the children who are dying at the rate of one every 5
> seconds (and I'll take this statistic as a given, as I have no reason
> to dispute it)
I now see that some claim it to be 3.5 seconds.
> are mostly doing so in parts of the world where nothing
> even remotely resembling this model is in place.
A point that I have already answered.
Take a hypothetical country, say Mockgolia. You have (a) POVERTY and
(b) ABSENCE OF INTEGRATION INTO THE FREE-TRADE SYSTEM.
Is it the case that (b) causes (a)? Or is it the case that a third
factor, which we might call LOCAL PECULIARITIES causes both? The local
peculiarities are all those things in Mockgolia that make it
unattractive for capital -- political instability, threat of war,
crime, corruption, hurricanes, vicious biting insects, rampant disease.
> Indeed, they are
> dying precisely because they live under conditions that far better
> resemble the economic model you would assert as the ideal.
This is false. There is nowhere on Earth that resembles the economic
model I would assert as the ideal. The closest are North Korea and
Cuba, which, as I have shown, are actually doing better than a lot of
places more favourable to international free trade.
> This being
> the case, the policy suggestions you would implement could well serve
> to exacerbate the very problem that you wave as a bloody shirt against
> your opponents (a conclusion further supported by the empirical
> evidence of every previous historical attempt to implement such
> policies).
Again I've answered this very point. Communities aspiring to a high
degree of self-sufficiency exist today very happily and have done for a
long time. I've listed them in the article to which I referred you (and
which you evidently haven't bothered to read).
> Steven Mock
An appeal from the heart. Please can we move away from the scenario
where I spend ages advancing arguments only for you to ignore them and
then claim that they were not advanced? It really does waste my time.
DEM
david_michael
OK, so you don't want to engage with the point.
> > I'll tell you. Because it's very difficult to make any money from
> > feeding them. Trading with them just isn't a profitable proposition, on
> > the whole.
>
> Sure it is, if you have a system that prioritises long-term growth and
> the welfare of its constituents rather than the short term gains of a
> handful of corporate entities.
Agreed absolutely.
Which rules out free trade.
<snip lots of really indigestible stuff, most of which I think I've
already addressed more or less, to get to the interesting bit . . .>
> And here's the onion. Let me give it to you in caps: LOCAL, ISOLATED
> COMMUNITIES CANNOT PRODUCE AIDS MEDICATION. The medication has to be
> discovered, developed and mass produced by large corporations. And
> THIS is when that $2 a day becomes a problem. People who only have $2
> a day worth of access to global markets cannot afford AIDS medication.
> As a result, for them, AIDS is still a death sentence, which is a big
> reason why so few people in that part of the world get tested (who
> wants a death sentence if there's nothing you can do about it
> anyway?), which, in turn, is a big part of the reason why it continues
> to spread so rapidly.
> Further separating these people from the global economy will not solve
> the problem. Converting more of their labour into currency, fixing the
> infrastructure so that this is feasible and the medication can get to
> them more easily, and, yes, a few humanitarian concessions further to
> decentralising production and getting the medicine to them at cost,
> can.
Right. I can do nothing for the people currently with AIDS. They're
going to die. End of story. Your AIDS drugs might prolong their
miserable lives (and perhaps permit them to spread the virus a bit) but
there is no cure and if a cure appears the chances are that it is not
going to reach the people who need it in time -- at least not in
significant numbers.
My concern is the ones who don't have it, both those alive today and
those in future generations.
YOUR solution involves global trade and global movements of people,
which spreads the virus. MY solution involves self-sufficient
communities that can, if they so wish, close their borders and prevent
anyone with the virus from entering. Moreover, they can isolate or
expel or execute anyone within the community who acquires the virus.
YOUR solution involves developing expensive drugs to cure AIDS, only
for a new disease, maybe bird flu, or a variant of MRSA, or ebola to
take its place. So you develop another expensive drug to fix that, and
another disease comes along and kills a few more tens of millions. MY
solution involves stopping the global flows of people that lead to
these diseases spreading.
YOU fondly believe that integration into the global trading system
(whatever that means) will provide doctors and pills for all. In fact
there are shortages of medicines and doctors even in well integrated
places -- try getting dental treatment up here and you'll see exactly
what I mean. I do not believe that this is likely to occur.
> There are problems in the world right now that are bigger than your
> local, isolated community, Dr. Michael. Solving them involves larger
> sums and more co-operation than any functioning, self-contained unit
> could possibly have at its disposal. That is our lesson for the day.
And my lesson for you is that your modern industrialized society with
its global flows of people, its pollution, its stressful lifestyles,
its decadent ways, creates many of these problems itself in the first
place. You want a healthy world? Then forget the pills. Get your people
to take regular exercise. Get rid of the fatty foods, the alcohol, the
cigarettes, the drugs, the casual sexual encounters! Get rid of the
ugly cities with their factories belching pollution into the
atmosphere! Above all -- get rid of the motor car -- how many hundreds
of thousands does that kill and maim every year? Stop the massive flows
of people around the world. Get the people to exercise daily, so that
they don't turn into fatties. Teach them meditation and relaxation so
that they can be at peace with themselves and with the world. We don't
need MORE technology -- we need LESS. We need to go back to a simpler,
purer world.
Your solution is CURE. Mine is PREVENTION. You want to spend millions
of dollars on developing pills to stop the diseases after they've
spread and killed millions. I want to stop them spreading in the first
place.
And no, my way would not deprive people of all medical care. It would
deprive the very rich of the most expensive medical care while
providing BASIC treatment for everyone. No, you wouldn't get your
gender realignment surgery. But the millions who under the existing
free-trade system don't get ANY treatment would at least get the
basics.
Now let me tell you something. I think that the advent of these new and
terrible diseases will actually SPREAD my sort of solution. Why?
Because people will want to isolate themselves away from these
diseases. They won't want to live in the big cities where killer
diseases are spreading. They'll want to get as far away as possible and
slam the gates behind them on your filthy and disease-ridden world. In
short, they will want to SURVIVE IT. Have you read Steven King's novel
The Stand? Remember the disease in that one? Well if something like
that gets loose in a free-market Popperian-style 'open society', anyone
who survives it is going to want to put as much distance between
themselves and anything resembling an 'open society' as humanly
possible.
> I have one more point to make regarding your last post, but I've been
> distracted from my work long enough. Anyway, its more about your use
> of misleading rhetoric to smear rather than debate my position than it
> is about the substance of our dispute, so I think I'll save it for
> next time.
Seen it and dealt with it earlier.
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > david_michael wrote:
> >
> > > We've had your way. We've had it for centuries. It hasn't worked. We've
> > > got it now. Free traders own most of the planet. It isn't working.
> > > Those children are STILL dying at the rate of one every 5 seconds
> > > DESPITE the triumph of global free-trade philosophy.
> > >
> > > Or, more accurately, BECAUSE of it.
> >
> > Right. Final point on this previous post and then I'll leave it. It
> > is not a new point - indeed it's a point I have been making and
> > reiterating from the start of this discussion. But as you nonetheless
> > keep repeatedly churning out the sort of vacuous drivel quoted above, I
> > might as well take this opportunity to elaborate a little further.
> >
> > I will do so via an explanation of two key concepts:
> >
> > 1) *argumentum ad misericordiam* or "Appeal to Pity"
> >
> > Otherwise known as "waving the bloody shirt".
>
> If we're going to put an end to the misery in the world, Mr M, we have
> to draw attention to it. For example, if everyone just ignored what
> Israel is doing in Lebanon then it would be a good deal easier for them
> to get away with it. By screaming blue murder about it we just MIGHT
> increase the costs to them of their behaviour and thus save lives. Are
> you seriously suggesting that we should shut up about the fact that a
> child dies of starvation every 5 seconds? That we should just pretend
> that all is perfect in this wonderful world of free trade?
No, Dr. Michael not at all. My point is that your characterisation of
my argument as such is a shameless straw-man, your resort to which
demonstrates at least an implicit awareness on your part that your own
argument cannot hold up to honest scrutiny.
I do not propose that we shut up and ignore these problems. That is an
outright lie. On the contrary, we have both agreed that problems like
starvation are quite serious in the world today. I have proposed, in
practical terms, just what sort of measures could ameliorate these
problems. You haven't, preferring instead to see the problems worsen
so that when the world collapses you can build an alternative that
better suits your ideological tastes.
Which is precisely why your attempt to associate these problems with my
position - not by means of a logical argument but by means of
misleading rhetoric that links both the problems and my position to
some nebulous third term (the "New World Order" or "this wonderful
world of free trade") - is weak and dishonest. It is indictative of
your failure to address my argument as to how your policies would in
fact worsen the problem of starvation and maldistribution.
> <big snip of elaboration of same point>
Actually, you snipped the whole of the argument itself. Quite
indictitve of your penchant for straw-man building that you would do so
and then try to characterise my explanation of your "appeal to pity"
rhetoric as a claim that we *shouldn't draw attention to the world's
problems*.
<restored>
Whenever you're backed into a corner, you invoke the children dying of
starvation every 5 seconds. The problem with this as an argument is
that if I were just as dishonest as you, I could employ the very same
appeal against you and your "isolated communities" programme no less
effectively, and indeed more so. Your intent with this sort of line is
for the emotional content of your rhetoric to push enough buttons to
distract from the fact that you haven't supported any of the claims on
which this appeal rests. As Roger and I have both noted previously,
you have yet to make any argument whatsoever supporting your claim
either that a) "my way", or anything like it, really has been
implemented for "centuries"; or, b) that anything even remotely related
to what I propose has indeed been responsible, directly or indirectly,
for the starvation of children. Unable to support any such argument,
you hope that by repetitively juxtaposing "my way" against the
starvation of children you will convince stupid people that if they
care about starving children they have to accept your conclusion and
disagree with mine.
</restore>
... and the amazing this is that after snipping this, you proceeded to
*do the very same thing again* in your response. It is truly
fascinating just how stupid you think everybody reading this exchange
must be.
> > 2) *post hoc ergo propter hoc* - "after it, therefore because of
> > it"
> >
> > Examples:
> > a) "before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons".
> > b) "people have been engaging in trade for centuries, and yet
> > children are still dying of starvation"
>
> Or 'before the war there was no free trade', eh?
Which I never said. Shall we continue?
> > I have noticed that this form of misleading rhetoric is actually very
> > prevalent in your discourse. Regardless of what subject you are
> > debating, it is a tactic you almost invariably resort to sooner or
> > later. In a nutshell, you invent some broad abstraction - the
> > System, the New World Order, Neoliberal Globalism, etc. - which is
> > treated as a unitary entity encompassing nearly all functioning
> > political systems and loci of power in the world today. As such, it is
> > taken as a given that this entity has been ruling the world for however
> > long it has been in existence, and therefore it further goes without
> > saying that any problems currently faced in the world are its fault and
> > its responsibility.
>
> OK, so it is permissible to use terms such as Nazism, communism,
> fascism, extremism, racism, denier, hate speech, and attribute all
> sorts of evils to them, and it is permissible to use terms such as
> democracy, freedom, equality, free-trade, and multiculturalism and
> attribute all sorts of goods to them, and yet it is not permissible to
> use terms critical of the current global power elite such as 'the
> System', the New World Order, neoliberal globalism.
>
> Your double standards never cease to amaze me.
Its hardly a double standard. The terms I use have clear definitions,
and I will provide them if asked. It is not the terms themselves I
criticise but the way that you use them - merely as foils for your own
perspective. These terms, in the way that you use them, in fact have
no meaning. The statement "we've had free trade for centuries" is
meaningless. The "New World Order" a catch all for any ideology you
happen to be opposing at a given moment, "the System" as every locus of
political power in the world since World War II. You claim the right
to blame these abstractions - and any characteristic you attribute to
them - for the world's ills, thus absolving yourself of any
responsibility for really examining the causes of the problems you cite
as justification for your politics.
> I think it is quite permissible to use such terms as a sort of
> shorthand. For example, if every time I wished to refer to 'the System'
> I had to list hundreds of organizations and individuals (and the list
> would keep changing and all sorts of issues could arise about who or
> what to include), discussion would be impossible.
But what if only a select number of organisations or individuals, or
instrumentalities, or ideologies is responsible for the problem that
you are, by means of this vague rhetoric, blaming on the entire
practice of politics in the world today? The manner in which you use
this language renders it a substitute for real critical thought.
> > If you are
> > arguing with someone about democracy, then the System is all about
> > democracy and yet we still have wars and war crimes, hence we must
> > discard democracy.
>
> Interesting because I have never advanced such an argument.
I was, for the most part, offering hypothetical examples of the sort of
false logic you employ. It may be an oversimplification of your
argument, but it captures the structure nicely. In a nutshell: X is
wrong with the world. The System is therefore responsible for X. The
System is characterised by Y. Therefore Y has caused (or failed to
prevent) X.
If you still don't understand the weakness of this line of logic, I'm
afraid I can't help you.
> > And if you're arguing with someone about
> > free trade? Well, the New World Order has pushed free trade for
> > centuries, and yet we still have starvation, so free trade must be
> > rejected in favour of isolated communities.
>
> No, that's not what I argued. Forget the New World Order -- that
> concept isn't needed for this argument.
>
> Free trade has existed in the world for centuries. In pretty much every
> country for pretty much all of the time, people have been trading both
> locally and internationally. The exceptions are few and far between.
> Yet we still have starvation.
Yes, thank you for a perfect demonstration of this false logic. It is
always better to get it from the horse's mouth.
There is a massive middle step that you are lacking in this
construction, and it is in that step that all of the real critical
thought occurs.
Trade - as a concept and in practice - has been around for centuries.
But you have no idea, and don't want to bother examining what that
actually means - where, when, and to what extent it has been
implimented at any given time or another - or to actually dissect the
dynamics of its relationship with the problem of starvation either
logically or historically. Such nuances have the potential to hurt the
elegance of your argument. All you need for your propaganda purposes
is the broadest possible strokes:
We've had free trade.
We still have starvation.
Therefore we must get rid of free trade to solve starvation.
In any case, I will leave this post here and ignore your plaintive
whine that I am ignoring your reposted points the flaws of which I have
already pointed out repeatedly in my previous posts. This post is
about rhetoric - I will save the substance for my other responses.
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
I don't see that there is a point to engage. This is a classic example
of the misleading rhetoric I alluded to earlier, where you omit the
actual argument leaving only premise juxtaposed against conclusion.
Your first observation - that trade can often be contingent on
"conditions", does not explain why a child dies every 5 seconds in what
you arbitrarily choose to refer to as "a world dominated now by
free-trade philosophy" (whatever that means).
There's nothing to engage in a loaded question.
> > > I'll tell you. Because it's very difficult to make any money from
> > > feeding them. Trading with them just isn't a profitable proposition, on
> > > the whole.
> >
> > Sure it is, if you have a system that prioritises long-term growth and
> > the welfare of its constituents rather than the short term gains of a
> > handful of corporate entities.
>
> Agreed absolutely.
>
> Which rules out free trade.
Which rules out certain aspects of the current configuration of power,
which you choose to label "free trade" (since so labelling it is an
excellent substitute for actually having to argue your point).
You see, Dr. Michael, the minute I start supporting a philosophy that
*you* happen to think characterises the current "World Order" or
whatever, this does not mean that you can attribute to me and expect me
to defend every element of the status quo. My point all along is that,
"philosophy" aside, most of the world today is excluded from an
economic system that could easily provide them with all of their basic
necessities and then some, given a measure of intervention further to
incorporating them. This requires greater co-operation between states
further to long term goals for the system as a whole, rather than
competition further to short term gains on the part of individual units
within the system. Which would seem to be the very opposite of the
direction in which you would like to see the world taken.
> > And here's the onion. Let me give it to you in caps: LOCAL, ISOLATED
> > COMMUNITIES CANNOT PRODUCE AIDS MEDICATION. The medication has to be
> > discovered, developed and mass produced by large corporations. And
> > THIS is when that $2 a day becomes a problem. People who only have $2
> > a day worth of access to global markets cannot afford AIDS medication.
> > As a result, for them, AIDS is still a death sentence, which is a big
> > reason why so few people in that part of the world get tested (who
> > wants a death sentence if there's nothing you can do about it
> > anyway?), which, in turn, is a big part of the reason why it continues
> > to spread so rapidly.
>
> > Further separating these people from the global economy will not solve
> > the problem. Converting more of their labour into currency, fixing the
> > infrastructure so that this is feasible and the medication can get to
> > them more easily, and, yes, a few humanitarian concessions further to
> > decentralising production and getting the medicine to them at cost,
> > can.
>
> Right. I can do nothing for the people currently with AIDS. They're
> going to die. End of story. Your AIDS drugs might prolong their
> miserable lives
I've met a lot of people with HIV and AIDS who are, in fact, quite
pleased at the prospect of "prolong(ing) their miserable lives", thank
you very much.
> (and perhaps permit them to spread the virus a bit) but
> there is no cure and if a cure appears the chances are that it is not
> going to reach the people who need it in time -- at least not in
> significant numbers.
>
> My concern is the ones who don't have it, both those alive today and
> those in future generations.
>
> YOUR solution involves global trade and global movements of people,
> which spreads the virus. MY solution involves self-sufficient
> communities that can, if they so wish, close their borders and prevent
> anyone with the virus from entering. Moreover, they can isolate or
> expel or execute anyone within the community who acquires the virus.
Right, then.
> YOUR solution involves developing expensive drugs to cure AIDS, only
> for a new disease, maybe bird flu, or a variant of MRSA, or ebola to
> take its place. So you develop another expensive drug to fix that, and
> another disease comes along and kills a few more tens of millions. MY
> solution involves stopping the global flows of people that lead to
> these diseases spreading.
Does it, now? There wasn't a whole lot in the way of "global flows of
people" in the Middle Ages, and that did wonders when it came to
stopping the spread of the Black Death, didn't it? They didn't have
expensive drugs back then either - they just burned a few witches and
Jews until the disease stopped on its own. And hey, that only wiped
out - what was it? - 1/3 to 1/2 of Europe's population. Yeah, paradise
on earth.
> YOU fondly believe that integration into the global trading system
> (whatever that means) will provide doctors and pills for all. In fact
> there are shortages of medicines and doctors even in well integrated
> places -- try getting dental treatment up here and you'll see exactly
> what I mean. I do not believe that this is likely to occur.
There is better organisation in some places than in others, but the
means to provide for everyone is there. To me, then, it seems obvious
that the solution is to fix the organisation.
Very well. I am content to all people to judge and compare the ethics
and practicality of our respective alternatives for themselves.
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
answer. For the most part, it is just repeated points that I have
dealt with already. Beyond that, you spend a great deal of time
outlining in some detail your ideal vision for the world - very
uncharacteristic of you - and, as I said in my earlier post, I am
perfectly content to let my vision stand against yours and let people
judge the ethics and practicability of both for themselves. Suffice to
say, for now, that I find your rose-coloured impressions of the
"simpler, purer world" of the undefined past to wish you believe we
should revert quite amusing, particularly given how typical it is of
ideologues of your, er, persuasion.
Anyway, I zero in on just a few points that I think need clarification.
david_michael wrote:
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > david_michael wrote:
>
> > > You've said that you want integration into the global trading system.
> > > Now that doesn't *necessarily* mean a unipolar world dominated by
> > > America but it certainly seems to assist that cause under the present
> > > global state of things.
> >
> > Not really. If the United States and Europe were willing to put
> > rhetoric into practice and engage in a genuine free trade relationship
> > with China, whose power do you think would wax and whose would wane?
>
> I really don't know. It is difficult to judge China's game. They seem
> to be on the slippery slope to incorporation into the global US empire.
But that's the thing - you really can't handle complexity. You invent
these abstractions like "the New World Order" or the "US global empire"
and view the world in a dichotomy - you're either with us or you're
against us.
It seems to me that China is engaged in a process towards full, or at
least further integration into the global economy. But they are doing
it at their own pace and on their own terms. Hence it is an example
that serves to explode your simplistic constructs, which is precisely
why you can't get your head around it.
> YOUR system presupposes that capital can be spread evenly throughout
> the world AND that it won't flow back to accumulate in a few places
> again after such 'spreading'. This is to fundamentally misunderstand
> economics.
And it is to fundamentally misunderstand my position. I do not think
that capital will ever be spread evenly around the world. I am not
suggesting that free trade will carry the world to a place of perfect
equality, a perfect "paradise on earth". It would be nice, but that is
what I am arguing is impossible - everyone who has attempted to
implement a strategy further to any such utopian goal has quickly
discovered that utopia has a few bumps along the way ultimately ended
up pushing his strategies with the point of a gun.
But I digress...
There will always be rich and poor, there were always be centre and
periphery, and there will always be external circumstances that cause
shifts in these fortunes. My point, quite simply, is that the worst
day in a place that has genuine (that is effective, and not just
theoretical) access to global markets - ie. can sell its goods and
skills to the whole of that market, and buy goods back at market value
- will be better than the best day in a community that is wholly
isolated and therefore must rely solely on what it can scrounge and
distribute amongst itself.
> > > > 3) the argument I presented earlier as to exactly how and why such a
> > > > programme will collapse the minute it is transposed from a small set of
> > > > ideologically committed volunteers to the sort of diverse population
> > > > that characterises a modern, complex economy - because *most* people
> > > > looking for ways to feed themselves and their families will naturally
> > > > take the path of least resistance, and making "self-sufficiency" the
> > > > path of least resistance at any given moment frankly takes a lot of men
> > > > with guns.
> > >
> > > I have never argued that it should be imposed by men with guns.
> >
> > Then explain to me how you expect to prevent the poor people you care
> > so much about from defecting from your "self-sufficiency" project when
> > they realise that the people engaged in open trade across the border
> > are able to offer food, clothing and shelter for them and their
> > families at a considerably lower cost?
>
> Why should I wish to prevent them?
Because if you don't, you will quickly find that your
"self-sufficiency" project consists of you and your hamster (assuming
you haven't eaten him by then). Most people "naturally and
demographically" tend to where the food is cheaper.
> As I said, I see the forces leading
> to this sort of outcome being natural and demographic.
>
> > That was Hoxha's problem too. And its Kim Jong Il's today. What was
> > their solution?
>
> Their societies came into being at a particular time in history. I'm
> suggesting that different forces could rise to different ways of
> establishing such societies.
Sure, I'm perfectly willing to accept that if indeed you're right and
the combined forces of pestilence, war, famine and death do indeed end
up burning civilisation to the ground, the survivors might well end up
sustaining themselves in isolated communities eking out a subsistence
existence. I just happen to think that's a last resort rather than a
viable political programme. And I'm not ready to give up on human
civilisation just yet.
> > > > > (d) Actually, if you look at Tibet prior to the Chinese takeover you'll
> > > > > find a nation where a very hefty percentage of people DID live in such
> > > > > communities -- the Buddhist 'monasteries'. I merely raise this as an
> > > > > historical aside.
> > > >
> > > > Um... do you really think the Buddhist monasteries were self-contained
> > > > systems that did not rely on extracting labour and resources from
> > > > external sources?
> > >
> > > Well if you want to argue that they were 'integrated into the global
> > > trading system' I think you're going to have your work cut out.
> >
> > Again, you're shifting frames of reference so quickly I can't follow.
> > Are you suggesting that the individual monestaries themselves were
> > examples of entirely self-contained "intentional communities" or that
> > Tibet as a state didn't rely on any integrated global trading system
> > prior to the Chinese invasion? If the former, you're wrong. If the
> > latter, you're only partially wrong, and in any case so what? Are the
> > prospects of life for your average Tibetan peasant at the turn of the
> > previous century your ideal of "paradise on earth" for the rest of the
> > world?
>
> At state level there was trade, but we have an example here of a state
> in which a large number of people (not a majority) lived in intentional
> communities --
No they didn't. The monasteries were quite dependent on the extraction
of a variety of resources from throughout the whole of the political
system which they governed. They were not self-contained communities
by any stretch of the imagination.
> > > And if
> > > pre-invasion Tibet is NOT an example of one of these self-sufficient
> > > communities then where is?
> >
> > Hey, like I already said, it worked perfectly well in medieval feudal
> > times as well.
>
> PRECISELY.
'Nuff said on this subject I think.
> > But if that's your idea of the golden age to which you
> > would like us all to return, I think I would be quite justified in
> > labelling you an ideological reactionary. Hell, even the Tibetan
> > independance movement knows better than to try and sell the
> > pre-invasion status-quo to their followers as a viable political
> > programme.
>
> For you sitting there in your luxurious surroundings with a computer
> and month-long holidays to distant parts of the world, a simpler, purer
> life would indeed be a step backwards. You would indeed wind up with
> less choice. Your medical attention would be worse. You would probably
> not live so long.
>
> For the starving billions of the world, I put it to you that a movement
> even towards medieval levels would be progress if it were sustainable
> and secure.
>
> But why this fixation with medieval levels? We have technologies that
> they didn't have in those days. And knowledge.
And social systems. But as you observe DIRECTLY ABOVE the sort of
system you are advocating would make many of those technologies and
many of that knowledge utterly useless and impracticable. No mass
transportation, no computers, no sophisticated medical care. Back to
the Middle Ages.
And, by the way, there is nothing stopping the "starving billions" from
developing self-sufficient communities at present if that is indeed a
progressive movement in terms of their standard of living. My only
point is that - if it is indeed possible - shouldn't they also be given
access to mass produced necessities that will be considerably cheaper
and therefore make their lives even easier to sustain?
> > > > And, in any case, this is another classic example of
> > > > a case where such a system was workable in the context of a pre-modern,
> > > > religiously (ideologically) grounded feudal-type society based on a
> > > > rigid hierarchy of resource distribution - which indeed can function
> > > > within its own context, but couldn't even begin to compete from the
> > > > standpoint of resource mobilisation with modern, integrated economies
> > > > based on the principle of growth.
> > >
> > > Most people in the world do not benefit from modern, integrated
> > > economies. It might be difficult for you to believe but MOST people in
> > > the world cannot afford to take month-long vacations in distant corners
> > > of the planet --
> >
> > Right, there is no good reason why MOST people in the world shouldn't
> > be able to. The resources of the world, properly organised,
>
> PROPERLY ORGANISED. That's the key phrase.
It is indeed. But your way of organising the world takes us in the
opposite direction, leading an even more inefficient use of labour and
capital than exists at present, with even smaller units further
duplicating each others efforts by each producing the same manner of
goods on a micro scale. It could not sustain even half the world's
current population with basic necessities. On the other hand, an
integrated system enables units to produce on a larger scale, ergo
cheaper for more people, thus enabling the world to feed, clothe, house
and sustain a much larger population at a higher standard of life.
(yes, I'm guessing wildly in terms of these figures, but the logic of
the argument should be clear to anyone who claims to have taken
first-year economics).
> > could
> > provide food, shelter, clothing, electricity and transport to more than
> > twice the population the planet already sustains, and still give them
> > six weeks off per year to explore cultures different from their own.
>
> So why doesn't it happen?
>
> Because under free-market capitalism the resources are not 'properly
> organised'.
What exactly do you mean by "free market capitalism", Dr. Michael, and
what actual resemblance does it have to 1) what I am *actually*
proposing, and 2) the way the world *actually* functions at present?
> > But I can still argue that the
> > decision these representatives of the people have made is detrimental
> > to their own material well-being and to the prospects of regional
> > peace. That is, after all, what we were discussing, remember?
>
> No, you were saying that people shouldn't be FORCED not to trade with
> Israel.
No, that was not focus of my point and you know it. We were discussing
whether a greater level of economic integration serves to prevent war.
You cited Lebanon as a relatively well integrated economy that is
nonetheless currently engaged in a war; I reminded you, yet again, to
look at the specifics of the case rather than painting in broad strokes
- namely, that the country currently attacking Lebanon has no economic
or diplomatic ties with it. I explained how one could speculate that
if such economic or diplomatic ties were permitted, the situation might
be considerably different. Ergo, your counter-example does not
effectively challenge my claim.
> > > > Evidently they neglected to explain the concept of "opportunity cost"
> > > > to you during your first-year economics course at St. Andrews.
> > >
> > > Right. Now what opportunities are the starving of Africa sacrificing by
> > > growing their own food rather than buying it from external sources?
> >
> > Right now, nothing. Which is why that is precisely what they are doing
> > at the moment: growing their own food, and starving when their crops,
> > for whatever reason, fail.
>
> So you diversify.That's basic community building for beginners lesson 1.
And the amount of labour and capital required to feed your community
just shot up exponentially... and with it the opportunity cost. In any
case, crops can still fail. War, disease, bad weather...
> And if you get some freak disaster like a plague of locusts or a
> tsunami that destroys ALL local resources, then that's going to knock
> you out whether you trade or nor.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong, Dr. Michael. Indeed, that's where
your entire argument about the vulnerability of communities dependent
on trade breaks down (and, by extension, why your rose-coloured
imaginings of life in the medieval Golden Age are so damn funny).
Because, as I have already explained to you, complex systems are far
more resilient than you give them credit for, and infinitely more
resilient than isolated units. If one connection is interrupted, there
are many others that can be strengthened to compensate; and if a major
node in the system is severely damaged it is in the interests of the
system as a whole to rebuild it.
Some concrete examples? OK. You keep telling me that I would be
unlikely to invest my money in New Orleans at the moment. And you're
probably right. But I am just one individual. There are plenty of
actors in this system who have a great stake in rebuilding New Orleans;
who will invest and expect a significant return on their investment,
regardless of the city's continued vulnerability. Do you really have
any doubt that it will be rebuilt a repopulated? And for all of the
complaints about how badly the U.S. government handed the situation -
and they are well earned - restoration of life in New Orleans was far
more rapid than for comparable disasters that might take place in, say,
West Africa. Now why is that, do you think?
Certain places recovered and were rebuilt much more quickly than others
after last year's tsunami. What was the difference based on, do you
reckon? Could it have been the ones that had more access to cheaper
resources from a greater variety of sources; the ones that some wider
economic system had a greater stake in seeing up and running sooner?
If Singapore were to sink into the sea tomorrow, just how long do you
think it would take them to build Singapore II?
On September 11, 2001 two passenger jets were crashed directly into the
largest office complex in the United States, bringing the buildings
crashing to the ground. And while the psychological impact of the
attack was considerable, for all of your gloating about the
effectiveness of the attack in fact the immediate economic impact was
miniscule. Why? Because most of the major companies based in those
buildings were up and running again at full capacity by *the next day*.
Contrast this with your isolated communities. Get hit by one tsunami,
catch one epidemic, get caught in the crossfire of one war, suffer a
spate of bad weather (global warming's a bitch) and lose your crops for
a few seasons. And that's it: your civilisation is wiped out. No
safety net, and no alternative. Thanx, buh bye.
Steven Mock
david_michael
Translation: you wish to revise your argument to try to meet my
objection.
> I do not propose that we shut up and ignore these problems. That is an
> outright lie.
No it isn't. You don't want 'waving the bloody shirt'. How the hell
does one discuss something like Qana or world poverty without 'waving
the bloody shirt'? One doesn't. One shuts up and pretends that God's in
his heaven and all's right with the world.
> On the contrary, we have both agreed that problems like
> starvation are quite serious in the world today. I have proposed, in
> practical terms, just what sort of measures could ameliorate these
> problems. You haven't, preferring instead to see the problems worsen
> so that when the world collapses you can build an alternative that
> better suits your ideological tastes.
But I thought you were objecting to 'waving the bloody shirt'. How can
we discuss these problems and, more to the point, MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO
TAKE ACTION, without rubbing people's noses in the dirt?
> Which is precisely why your attempt to associate these problems with my
> position - not by means of a logical argument but by means of
> misleading rhetoric that links both the problems and my position to
> some nebulous third term (the "New World Order" or "this wonderful
> world of free trade")
I have answered this point already in the very post to which you're
responding. See below.
You still haven't told me WHY we shouldn't draw attention to the bloody
shirt!
Hell, man, your free-trade buddies are causing an awful lot of bloody
shirts in the world -- and that's just among those who can afford
shirts! I think we're damn well right to wave them about and demand
that they stop their murderous exploits.
> > > 2) *post hoc ergo propter hoc* - "after it, therefore because of
> > > it"
> > >
> > > Examples:
> > > a) "before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons".
> > > b) "people have been engaging in trade for centuries, and yet
> > > children are still dying of starvation"
> >
> > Or 'before the war there was no free trade', eh?
>
> Which I never said. Shall we continue?
You said free trade prevents war. Now you're just telling whoppers.
> > > I have noticed that this form of misleading rhetoric is actually very
> > > prevalent in your discourse. Regardless of what subject you are
> > > debating, it is a tactic you almost invariably resort to sooner or
> > > later. In a nutshell, you invent some broad abstraction - the
> > > System, the New World Order, Neoliberal Globalism, etc. - which is
> > > treated as a unitary entity encompassing nearly all functioning
> > > political systems and loci of power in the world today. As such, it is
> > > taken as a given that this entity has been ruling the world for however
> > > long it has been in existence, and therefore it further goes without
> > > saying that any problems currently faced in the world are its fault and
> > > its responsibility.
> >
> > OK, so it is permissible to use terms such as Nazism, communism,
> > fascism, extremism, racism, denier, hate speech, and attribute all
> > sorts of evils to them, and it is permissible to use terms such as
> > democracy, freedom, equality, free-trade, and multiculturalism and
> > attribute all sorts of goods to them, and yet it is not permissible to
> > use terms critical of the current global power elite such as 'the
> > System', the New World Order, neoliberal globalism.
> >
> > Your double standards never cease to amaze me.
>
> Its hardly a double standard. The terms I use have clear definitions,
> and I will provide them if asked.
Fine, I suppose I can produce definitions too if I have enough time.
However, if we're going to define every term we use precisely before we
use it then we (by which I mean S Mock and D Michael) will have to (by
which I mean will be obliged to in order to do this) spend a lot of
time (by which I mean a large number of minutes) rewriting one set of
words in terms of another set of words.
> It is not the terms themselves I
> criticise but the way that you use them - merely as foils for your own
> perspective.
Well I'm sure as hell not going to use them for YOUR perspective!
> These terms, in the way that you use them, in fact have
> no meaning.
That sentence, in fact, has no meaning.
> The statement "we've had free trade for centuries" is
> meaningless.
No it isn't. Look:
WE -- the people of the world
HAVE HAD -- have experienced, endured, profited from, lost out from
FREE TRADE -- a state of affairs where people in one part of the world
have been able to buy and sell goods and services to people in other
parts of the world (as opposed to a state of affairs where only
nationalized industries trade)
FOR CENTURIES -- for a period exceeding 100 years (actually pretty much
as far back as recorded history goes, I think)
See, it does have meaning. Ergo your assertion that it does not is
false.
> The "New World Order" a catch all for any ideology you
> happen to be opposing at a given moment,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(political)
<begin quote>
The term "new world order" has been used to refer to a new period of
history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the
balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow
Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the
devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of
the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations
and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association
the phrase would bring to the failed League of Nations. In retrospect
however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the
order put in place by the WWII victors as a "new world order." The most
recent, and most widely discussed, application of the phrase came at
the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W.
Bush used the term to try and define the nature of the post Cold War
era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might
materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and
idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the
internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison,
much more circumscribed and pragmatic, perhaps even instrumental at
times, and closely linked to the First Gulf War. Perhaps not
surprisingly, the perception of what the new world order entailed in
the press and in the public imagination far outstripped what either
Gorbachev or Bush had outlined, and was characterized by nearly
comprehensive optimism.
. . .
in August 1990, U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles W. Freeman, Jr.
sent a cable to Washington from Saudi Arabia in which he argued that
U.S. conduct in the Gulf crisis would determine the nature of the
world. Bush would then refer to the "new world order" at least 42 times
from the summer of 1990 to the end of March 1991. They also note that
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney gave three priorities to the Senate on
fighting the Gulf War: prevent further aggression; protect oil
supplies; and, further a new world order. The authors note that the new
world order did not emerge in policy speeches until after Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait, maintaining that the concept was clearly not
critical in the U.S. decision to deploy. John Sununu later indicated
that the administration wanted to refrain from talking about the
concept until Soviet collapse was more clear. A reversal of Soviet
collapse would have been the death knell for the new order.[33]
Bush and Scowcroft were frustrated by the exaggerated and distorted
ideas surrounding the new world order. They did not intend to suggest
that the U.S. would yield significant influence to the UN, or that they
expected the world to enter an era of peace and tranquility. They
preferred multilateralism, but did not reject unilateralism. The new
world order did not signal peace, but a "challenge to keep the dangers
of disorder at bay."[33]
Bush's drive toward the Gulf War was based on the world making a
clear choice. Baker recalls that UNSCR 660's "language was simply and
crystal clear, purposely designed by us to frame the vote as being for
or against aggression". Bush's motivation centered around 1) the
dangers of appeasement, and 2) failure to check aggression could spark
further aggression. Bush repeatedly invoked images of World War II in
this connection, and became very emotional over Iraqi atrocities being
committed in Kuwait. He also believed that failure to check Iraqi
aggression would lead to more challenges to the U.S.-favored status quo
and global stability. While the end of the Cold War increased U.S.
security globally, it remained vulnerable to regional threats.
Furthermore, Washington believed that addressing the Iraqi threat would
help reassert U.S. predominance in light of growing concerns about
relative decline, following the resurgence of Germany and Japan.[33]
Eduard Shevardnadze, then Soviet Foreign MinisterThe Gulf War was also
framed as a test case for UN credibility. As a model for dealing with
aggressors, Scowcroft believed that the United States ought to act in a
way that others can trust, and thus get UN support. It was critical
that the U.S. not look like it was throwing its weight around. Great
power cooperation and UN support would collapse if the U.S. marched on
the Baghdad to try and remake Iraq. However, practically, superpower
cooperation was limited. For example, when the U.S. deployed troops to
Saudi Arabia, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze became
furious at not being consulted.[33]
By 1992, the authors note, the U.S. was already abandoning the idea of
collective action. The leaked draft of the (Wolfowitz-Libby) 1992
Defense Guidance Report effectively confirmed this shift, as it called
for a unilateral role for the U.S. in world affairs, focusing on
preserving American dominance.[33]
In closing A World Transformed, Scowcroft sums up what his expectations
were for the new world order. He states that the U.S. has the strength
and the resources to pursue its own in interests, but has a
disproportionate responsibility to use its power in pursuit of the
common good, as well as an obligation to lead and to be involved. The
U.S. is perceived as uncomfortable in exercising its power, and ought
to work to create predictability and stability in international
relations. America need not be embroiled in every conflict, but ought
to aid in developing multilateral responses to them. The U.S. can
unilaterally broker disputes, but ought to act whenever possible in
concert with equally committed partners to deter major aggression
<end quote>
There! That's roughly what I meant by the New World Order. Now isn't it
a helluva lot quicker, Mr M, to use the words 'New World Order'? I
usually use the term ironically and mockingly to indicate that all has
not gone well with the scheme.
> "the System" as every locus of
> political power in the world since World War II.
Inspired by Limonov's use of the term. In my essay *Unity in Diversity*
I wrote the following:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207105216/http://www.nationalanarchist.com/unity.html
<begin quote>
The 'left/right' distinction owes its origins to the seating plan
implemented on 5 May 1789 in the French National Assembly. The clergy
and nobility, who tended to oppose change, sat to the right of the
speaker whereas the commons, who tended to favour change, sat to the
left. However, many people who are opposed to change today are
classified as 'left wing' -- we could cite, for example, Fidel
Castro who, despite his image as a 'left-wing revolutionary',
nevertheless enshrined his version of socialism in Cuba's
constitution with the words 'The revolutionary process of socialism
cannot be reversed'.6 He is merely one of the more recent of numerous
'left-wing' luminaries who have sought, by one way or another, to
fossilize their favoured form of social order and guard it against
reform. By contrast, Hitler, often regarded as the epitomy of the
'extreme right', was scathing about the conservatism of the
'right-wing' parties of his day:
The parties of the Right have lost all energy: they see the flood
coming, but their one longing is just for once in their lives to form a
Government. Unspeakably incapable, utterly lacking in energy, cowards
all -- such are all these bourgeois parties and that at the moment when
the nation needs heroes -- not chatterers.7
Sometimes it is asserted that what distinguishes 'left' from
'right' is that the 'left' favours state control whereas the
'right' favours minimal state intervention. However, this does not
work either. Powerful state structures have often existed under
supposedly 'right-wing' regimes, such as those of Hitler's
Germany, Botha's South Africa or even Thatcher's Britain. And
whereas Marxists are often mocked for their supposed commitment to
state control, it should not be forgotten that their ultimate aim was
the 'withering away' of the state. Engels commented:
The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things
and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not
'abolished,' it withers away. It is from this standpoint that we must
appreciate the phrase 'a free people's state' -- both its temporary
justification for agitational purposes, and its ultimate scientific
inadequacy -- and also the demand of the so-called anarchists that the
state should be abolished overnight.8
As Lenin pointed out:
in speaking of the state 'withering away,' and the even more
graphic and colourful 'ceasing of itself', Engels refers quite
clearly and definitely to the period after 'the state has taken
possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of
society', that is, after the socialist revolution.9
And if this does not scupper thoroughly the notion of the so-called
'left' as 'statists', what are we to make of those
'left-wing' anarchists who write such things as this:
The State is the negation of Humanity. It is this in two ways: the
opposite of human freedom and human justice (internally), as well as
the forcible disruption of the common solidarity of mankind
(externally). The Universal State, repeatedly attempted, has always
proved an impossibility, so that as long as the State exists, States
will exist and since every State regards itself as absolute, and
proclaims the adoration of its power as the highest law, to which all
other laws must be subordinated, it therefore follows that as long as
States exist wars cannot cease. Every State must conquer, or be
conquered. Every State must build its power on the weakness or, if it
can do it without danger to itself, on the destruction, of other
States.
To strive for international justice, liberty, and perpetual peace,
and at the same time to uphold the State, is contradictory and naive.10
Sometimes it is asserted that what distinguishes 'left' from
'right' is that the so-called 'right' upholds notions such as
the nation, patriotism and race, whereas the 'left' decries these
notions in favour of one united world. How, strange, then that the
'left-wing' and 'communist' regime of North Korea should
describe its leader's views on nation and ethnicity in the following
terms:
Kim Jong Il . . . said that the basic indexes of a nation are
homogeneity of bloodline, a common language and a common territory; in
particular, that bloodline and language are the most important in
defining a nation, and that a nation is a solid group of people who are
united with homogeneity of bloodline, language and territory.
He went on to say that Korean nation has long lived in one
territory, inheriting the same bloodline and speaking the same
language, and it is a nation with a history of 5,000 years and with a
splendid culture, and that expatriates, too, belong to Korean nation. A
nation is a cohesive group of people that was formed historically and
the largest unit of social life. A nation is not formed or broken up
easily by a change in the social system. The formation of a nation
conditions the appearance of social classes and strata. Even in a
classless society the nation still exists. If one's bloodline and
language are same, one belongs to one and the same nation, even though
one's ideology, ideals and territory are different. This is his
outlook on the nation.
Kim Jong Il emphasizes that, according to the Juche-oriented
outlook on the nation, independence is the core of a nation's life
and existence.
As a man without independence can be likened to a dead man, so a
nation which has lost its independence cannot exist or develop. This is
common knowledge. Therefore the question of a nation's destiny is
directly linked with that of the nation's independence. The
nation's independence is its essential nature and life and soul. The
destiny of a nation is determined by whether the nation is independent
or not and by how it realizes and defends its independence. In order to
live and develop independently, every nation defends its national
character, traditions and spirit and desires its unity. In this way,
the spirit of national independence runs through the Juche-oriented
outlook on the nation. This is Kim Jong Il's view.
To promote the national independent spirit, one should posses
national dignity and revolutionary pride. If one lacks national dignity
and believes that one's nation is inferior to others, and if one
lacks pride in the revolution, one cannot truly live independently and
one is unable to defend national independence and dignity. This is also
part of Kim Jong Il's faith . . .
Since national nihilism and flunkeyism towards big powers are
deep-rooted among them due to the imperialist policy of assimilating
colonies and obliterating their national culture, small countries must
pay special attention to enhancing a sense of national dignity and
revolutionary pride, he emphasizes.
Flunkeyism is an attitude peculiar to slaves serving and
worshipping great powers and developed countries, and nihilism means
looking down upon one's own country and nation and despising them. If
a person falls for flunkeyism, he is a fool; if a nation is servile to
great powers, the country will go to ruin: and if a party is
subservient to great powers, it will make a mess of the revolution and
construction. This is what he teaches Government and Party officials.
The flunkeyist tendency of the ruling class of the successive feudal
dynasties hindered national development greatly, left after effects
and, in the end, ruined our country.11
What are we to make of the supposedly 'right-wing' regimes of
Europe and America that pursue the erosion of national boundaries, the
creation of supranational quasi-states such as the 'European
Union', the interests of multi-national corporations and the process
of 'globalization' to foster the interests of big business? And
what are we to make of the converse phenomenon: the 'left-wing
anti-globalization protestor'? Clearly, 'right' and 'left'
cannot be conceptualized in terms of nationalism versus
internationalism.
Finally, there are political movements in the world today that defy
any attempt at classification on a 'left/right' continuum. Where on
this spectrum are we to place the follower of Islam who denounces
America and its influence on the world today? Where are we to put the
environmentalist? The national-anarchist? The national-Bolshevik? The
Eurasian?
The 'left/right' political distinction is a cynical ploy to
divide the people and set them against each other so that they do not
unite against the single main enemy of us all: the Establishment. As
Eduard Limonov remarked: 'There's no longer any left or right.
There's the system and the enemies of the system.'
<end quote>
So here I am proposing that the left/right dualism is no longer
functional and could usefully be replaced with a different conception
of politics distinguishing between those who wield power in the modern
world (The System), which could be left or right or neither, and the
enemies of those who wield power in the modern world (who could be left
or right or neither).
Now, is it not quicker just to use 'The System' or do I have to type
that lot out every time?
> You claim the right
> to blame these abstractions - and any characteristic you attribute to
> them - for the world's ills, thus absolving yourself of any
> responsibility for really examining the causes of the problems you cite
> as justification for your politics.
The problems of the world can be analysed at various levels. Take
starvation in East Timor. We can look at the individual level -- the
factors that caused the people of village X to starve. We can look at
the local level -- the factors that caused trouble in a particular
locality. Or we can look at the global historical level. It is actually
rather difficult to discuss politics at the latter level without
invoking abstractions because otherwise you have to produce about six
paragraphs to explain every word. As the examples above show.
We just have to assume, when discussing these things, that people have
a reasonable degree of literacy. Just as when you engage in discussions
about social anthropology it's helpful if you acquaint yourself with
terms like 'structuralism', 'gendered', etc. etc., and when you discuss
trading you acquaint yourself with terms like 'moving average
convergence/divergence histogram', so it is helpful when you are
discussing politics to acquaint yourself with fairly commonly
understood terms like 'New World Order'.
> > I think it is quite permissible to use such terms as a sort of
> > shorthand. For example, if every time I wished to refer to 'the System'
> > I had to list hundreds of organizations and individuals (and the list
> > would keep changing and all sorts of issues could arise about who or
> > what to include), discussion would be impossible.
>
> But what if only a select number of organisations or individuals, or
> instrumentalities, or ideologies is responsible for the problem that
> you are, by means of this vague rhetoric, blaming on the entire
> practice of politics in the world today?
In a globalized world, with power concentrated in the hands of a very
few individuals, I think that they have to carry the can for what goes
on in the world. THEY are the people with the clout to stop the 'select
number' of whatever. THEY are the ones to be held to account for
failing to do so.
> The manner in which you use
> this language renders it a substitute for real critical thought.
On the contrary, the language is chosen to reflect a world in which
power is concentrated globally in a very few hands and the actions of
the Men Who Own the World (another of those terms) are responsible,
both directly and indirectly, for much of what is wrong in the world
today.
> > > If you are
> > > arguing with someone about democracy, then the System is all about
> > > democracy and yet we still have wars and war crimes, hence we must
> > > discard democracy.
> >
> > Interesting because I have never advanced such an argument.
>
> I was, for the most part, offering hypothetical examples of the sort of
> false logic you employ. It may be an oversimplification of your
> argument, but it captures the structure nicely. In a nutshell: X is
> wrong with the world. The System is therefore responsible for X. The
> System is characterised by Y. Therefore Y has caused (or failed to
> prevent) X.
Which reduces simply to Y has caused (or failed to prevent) X. Which is
fair comment. The System -- the order created by the people who run the
world today -- isn't working. But note that the Y -- the System -- is
not as vague and nebulous as you would have us believe. It refers quite
specifically to the new reallignment in modern politics whereby left
and right have been replaced by a global power elite.
> If you still don't understand the weakness of this line of logic, I'm
> afraid I can't help you.
I do understand it. You are simply not familiar with the technical
terms used and rather than inferring their meaning from the context you
are trying to suggest that the terms either should not be used at all
or should not be used in certain ways.
> > > And if you're arguing with someone about
> > > free trade? Well, the New World Order has pushed free trade for
> > > centuries, and yet we still have starvation, so free trade must be
> > > rejected in favour of isolated communities.
> >
> > No, that's not what I argued. Forget the New World Order -- that
> > concept isn't needed for this argument.
> >
> > Free trade has existed in the world for centuries. In pretty much every
> > country for pretty much all of the time, people have been trading both
> > locally and internationally. The exceptions are few and far between.
> > Yet we still have starvation.
>
> Yes, thank you for a perfect demonstration of this false logic. It is
> always better to get it from the horse's mouth.
>
> There is a massive middle step that you are lacking in this
> construction, and it is in that step that all of the real critical
> thought occurs.
>
> Trade - as a concept and in practice - has been around for centuries.
> But you have no idea, and don't want to bother examining what that
> actually means - where, when, and to what extent it has been
> implimented at any given time or another - or to actually dissect the
> dynamics of its relationship with the problem of starvation either
> logically or historically. Such nuances have the potential to hurt the
> elegance of your argument. All you need for your propaganda purposes
> is the broadest possible strokes:
So every time I use the word 'trade' you want me to go type the
Wikipedia definition of 'trade'?
> We've had free trade.
> We still have starvation.
> Therefore we must get rid of free trade to solve starvation.
But what you've missed -- and I keep repeating this point -- is that I
HAVE OUTLINED THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THIS OCCURS.
I have suggested that free trade is not a very good or reliable way to
solve world starvation because of the tendency of the capital to
accumulate in areas favourable to its growth while shunning areas where
there is risk. It migrates from the higher risk, lower return areas to
the lower risk, higher return areas. This results in massive
maldistribution of resources. As factors affecting risk and return are
always in flux, you're always going to get capital accumulation of this
kind and thus an ongoing maldistribution of resources.
Now it may be that you don't want to engage with this argument. Fine!
But PLEASE don't accuse me of not discussing mechanisms.
> In any case, I will leave this post here and ignore your plaintive
> whine that I am ignoring your reposted points the flaws of which I have
> already pointed out repeatedly in my previous posts. This post is
> about rhetoric - I will save the substance for my other responses.
>
> Steven Mock
It seems to me that the problems with 'rhetoric' are:
1. You do not understand basic technical terms like 'New World Order',
which actually have a well-documented history.
2. In a typical troll-like fashion, rather than inferring the meaning
attributed to relative neologisms like 'The System' from the context,
you try to suggest that the term somehow lacks meaning.
3. You fail to realize that sometimes an 'appeal to pity' is perfectly
justifiable and is functional in drawing attention to outrages and in
motivating people to deal with them.
4. You ignore technical explanations for phenomena when they are
advanced and then complain that technical explanations are not advanced
and that the discussion is too abstract!
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > david_michael wrote:
>
> > > If we're going to put an end to the misery in the world, Mr M, we have
> > > to draw attention to it. For example, if everyone just ignored what
> > > Israel is doing in Lebanon then it would be a good deal easier for them
> > > to get away with it. By screaming blue murder about it we just MIGHT
> > > increase the costs to them of their behaviour and thus save lives. Are
> > > you seriously suggesting that we should shut up about the fact that a
> > > child dies of starvation every 5 seconds? That we should just pretend
> > > that all is perfect in this wonderful world of free trade?
> >
> > No, Dr. Michael not at all. My point is that your characterisation of
> > my argument as such is a shameless straw-man, your resort to which
> > demonstrates at least an implicit awareness on your part that your own
> > argument cannot hold up to honest scrutiny.
>
> Translation: you wish to revise your argument to try to meet my
> objection.
No, I wish to call you on your repeated and shamless efforts to
misprepresent it because you either can't understand or can't deal with
what I am really saying.
> > I do not propose that we shut up and ignore these problems. That is an
> > outright lie.
>
> No it isn't. You don't want 'waving the bloody shirt'. How the hell
> does one discuss something like Qana or world poverty without 'waving
> the bloody shirt'?
You obviously didn't bother to read my explanation of the term "waving
the bloody shirt".
I am not referring to a mere act of protest. I am refer to the way you
employ emotional rhetoric to cover up the lack of an actual argument
justifying your appeal.
> But I thought you were objecting to 'waving the bloody shirt'. How can
> we discuss these problems and, more to the point, MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO
> TAKE ACTION, without rubbing people's noses in the dirt?
You realise you are still doing it. This entire response is merely
more of the same fallacious rhetoric.
Rub people's noses in the dirt all you like. That is not a substitute
for logically disputing the argument I have made that explains exactly
how the ACTION you are trying to MOTIVATE people to will only create
MORE dirt.
My point is that were I as dishonest as you, I could spend just as much
time as you do rubbing YOUR nose in the very same dirt, and merely
blaming people like YOU for the suffering of the world in lieu of
addressing your specific points. That is not a logical argument.
Drawing attention to poverty and suffering is fine. But the mere fact
that you draw attention to it does not *automatically* make your
assessment of its causes and prescription for its solution right, and
mine wrong.
Get it yet?
<snip: a whole lot more similar evasive rhetoric>
> > The statement "we've had free trade for centuries" is
> > meaningless.
>
> No it isn't. Look:
>
> WE -- the people of the world
> HAVE HAD -- have experienced, endured, profited from, lost out from
> FREE TRADE -- a state of affairs where people in one part of the world
> have been able to buy and sell goods and services to people in other
> parts of the world (as opposed to a state of affairs where only
> nationalized industries trade)
> FOR CENTURIES -- for a period exceeding 100 years (actually pretty much
> as far back as recorded history goes, I think)
>
> See, it does have meaning. Ergo your assertion that it does not is
> false.
Right. An utterly meaningless and vacuous assertion. We've also had
isolated communities of some kind or another for that long - as you
observe - and that hasn't solved starvation either. Does that stand as
an indictment of your perspective? Well no - because your argument, it
seems, is that we should have more such communities or that they should
be more isolated, or something like that.
Well same with my perspective on free trade. It has existed and been
applied to some extent in certain places and certain times over the
past few centuries, and generally where and when it has the
participants involved have become more comfortable and prosperous as a
result. I would like to extend those benefits to a wider number of
people.
Simply saying "we have had free trade for centuries" is meaningless
because it says nothing of where, when, and to what extent, and
therefore is useless towards establishing the causal relationship you
claim you have established.
I am snipping your wikipedia cut-n-pastes because they are beside the
point. I know that these terms have definitions. I am not simply
criticising your failure to define them, but I am criticising the
manner in which you use them: as, if I must repeat myself, nebulous
third terms through which you can associate your opponent's position or
ideology with the status quo, thereby blaming it for current problems
in the world without having to establish a causal relationship.
> > > I think it is quite permissible to use such terms as a sort of
> > > shorthand. For example, if every time I wished to refer to 'the System'
> > > I had to list hundreds of organizations and individuals (and the list
> > > would keep changing and all sorts of issues could arise about who or
> > > what to include), discussion would be impossible.
> >
> > But what if only a select number of organisations or individuals, or
> > instrumentalities, or ideologies is responsible for the problem that
> > you are, by means of this vague rhetoric, blaming on the entire
> > practice of politics in the world today?
>
> In a globalized world, with power concentrated in the hands of a very
> few individuals, I think that they have to carry the can for what goes
> on in the world. THEY are the people with the clout to stop the 'select
> number' of whatever. THEY are the ones to be held to account for
> failing to do so.
An extremely simplistic take on the dynamics of power in the world
today, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
> > The manner in which you use
> > this language renders it a substitute for real critical thought.
>
> On the contrary, the language is chosen to reflect a world in which
> power is concentrated globally in a very few hands and the actions of
> the Men Who Own the World (another of those terms) are responsible,
> both directly and indirectly, for much of what is wrong in the world
> today.
Exactly. This notion absolves you of actually having to THINK about
the multiplicity of factors that effect power in what is, in fact, a
very complex global context.
> > > > If you are
> > > > arguing with someone about democracy, then the System is all about
> > > > democracy and yet we still have wars and war crimes, hence we must
> > > > discard democracy.
> > >
> > > Interesting because I have never advanced such an argument.
> >
> > I was, for the most part, offering hypothetical examples of the sort of
> > false logic you employ. It may be an oversimplification of your
> > argument, but it captures the structure nicely. In a nutshell: X is
> > wrong with the world. The System is therefore responsible for X. The
> > System is characterised by Y. Therefore Y has caused (or failed to
> > prevent) X.
>
> Which reduces simply to Y has caused (or failed to prevent) X. Which is
> fair comment. The System -- the order created by the people who run the
> world today -- isn't working. But note that the Y -- the System -- is
> not as vague and nebulous as you would have us believe.
It is, because "Y", in this construction, does not refer to the system
itself. "Y" refers to whatever notion you happen to be opposing at the
moment. Say, for example "free trade". You use this construction to
assert the sweeping claim that "free trade" is the status quo globally
across the board, when in fact my entire argument is that the current
global reality is actually quite a bit more complicated than that.
Unable to dispute this argument, you employ rhetoric that simply
invites your simplistic equation without supporting it.
> > > Free trade has existed in the world for centuries. In pretty much every
> > > country for pretty much all of the time, people have been trading both
> > > locally and internationally. The exceptions are few and far between.
> > > Yet we still have starvation.
> >
> > Yes, thank you for a perfect demonstration of this false logic. It is
> > always better to get it from the horse's mouth.
> >
> > There is a massive middle step that you are lacking in this
> > construction, and it is in that step that all of the real critical
> > thought occurs.
> >
> > Trade - as a concept and in practice - has been around for centuries.
> > But you have no idea, and don't want to bother examining what that
> > actually means - where, when, and to what extent it has been
> > implimented at any given time or another - or to actually dissect the
> > dynamics of its relationship with the problem of starvation either
> > logically or historically. Such nuances have the potential to hurt the
> > elegance of your argument. All you need for your propaganda purposes
> > is the broadest possible strokes:
>
> So every time I use the word 'trade' you want me to go type the
> Wikipedia definition of 'trade'?
No, I want you to elaborate on and justify your claim that: "Free trade
has existed in the world for centuries".
I have already illustrated why this is meaningless. To put it another
way, it is not a binary proposition: that either there is "free trade"
or there is not. It is a question of degrees. Sure, people have been
trading for centuries. But have they being doing it too much or too
little? Claiming that we live in a world of "free trade" tells me
absolutely nothing about what really goes on in the world.
> > We've had free trade.
> > We still have starvation.
> > Therefore we must get rid of free trade to solve starvation.
>
> But what you've missed -- and I keep repeating this point -- is that I
> HAVE OUTLINED THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THIS OCCURS.
>
> I have suggested that free trade is not a very good or reliable way to
> solve world starvation because of the tendency of the capital to
> accumulate in areas favourable to its growth while shunning areas where
> there is risk. It migrates from the higher risk, lower return areas to
> the lower risk, higher return areas. This results in massive
> maldistribution of resources. As factors affecting risk and return are
> always in flux, you're always going to get capital accumulation of this
> kind and thus an ongoing maldistribution of resources.
>
> Now it may be that you don't want to engage with this argument. Fine!
> But PLEASE don't accuse me of not discussing mechanisms.
I already have engaged with this argument. And no, it does not address
the point, in that, while it may illustrate how a hypothetical system
ensuring uniform access to global markets might not distribute wealth
*evenly*, it does not illustrate any instance where such access will
actually *cause* starvation, in the sense of making people materially
worse off than they would be if they had no such access.
But we've been through all this before...
Steven Mock
david_michael
Do you think you could calm down a bit and summarize your argument?
I've read that post twice and it just looks like gobbledygook to me.
DEM
sm...@nizkor.org
> Do you think you could calm down a bit and summarize your argument?
> I've read that post twice and it just looks like gobbledygook to me.
I am perfectly calm, Dr. Michael, and enjoying the show you're putting
on immensely.
And I already did summarize my argument... two posts ago. You evaded
it in its entirety, snipping the first point and then lying about what
I had said, and posting massive cut-n-pastes from Wikipedia to cover up
your inability to address the second.
So now you're just playing your usual game of refusing to acknowledge /
pretending not to understand anything you'd rather not have to discuss.
Fine. I am content that I have explained myself in terms that anyone
with a grasp of simple logic and basic English will understand. If you
don't want to address my point, then that's where it stands.
Steven Mock
david_michael
sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > Do you think you could calm down a bit and summarize your argument?
> > I've read that post twice and it just looks like gobbledygook to me.
>
> I am perfectly calm, Dr. Michael, and enjoying the show you're putting
> on immensely.
Ah, 'playing' again. So tell me, do you find the victims of world
poverty more or less entertaining than the victims of American nuclear
bombs?
> And I already did summarize my argument... two posts ago. You evaded
> it in its entirety, snipping the first point
In fact I answered the first point in full and snipped only a
long-winded elaboration. But do continue to tell lies.
>and then lying about what I had said,
What precisely was this 'lie'? Kindly substantiate your libel or
retract and apologize.
>and posting massive cut-n-pastes from Wikipedia to cover up
> your inability to address the second.
>
> So now you're just playing your usual game of refusing to acknowledge /
> pretending not to understand anything you'd rather not have to discuss.
> Fine. I am content that I have explained myself in terms that anyone
> with a grasp of simple logic and basic English will understand. If you
> don't want to address my point, then that's where it stands.
>
> Steven Mock
Having observed your posting strategy for some years now, there are
sure signs when you want to withdraw from an argument.
1. Instead of responding to a post with one reply you post several,
which makes responding to the responses more complicated.
2. The phrase 'straw man' is repeated over and over again. BTW, I am
advised that the politically correct term now is 'straw person'
3. The amount of personal stuff increases exponentially.
4. You engage in meta-argument: argument about argument.
5. You start resurrecting arguments that were produced some time ago,
ignoring the answers.
>From that I conclude that you are now on your way out of this thread.
Let me then summarize my argument. I was challenged on how I would
address world poverty. I would distinguish between short-term fixes and
long-term sustainable solutions. I think we agree on the short-term
fixes. Redesignate funds that are currently being squandered on war,
etc., to provide immediate relief for the starving.
Where we differ seems to be on the long-term solution. Your 'solution'
is more integration into the global trading system. It is very
difficult to pin you down on the specifics of this but there is little
evidence of it having fixed the problem in the past. Moreover, there
are theoretical reasons to suppose that it will not work. First, the
tendency of capital to accumulate in high reward, low risk areas and to
shun high risk, low reward areas. Second, the inherent unreliability of
free trade in a dynamic environment. Moreover, it leads to dependency
and a concentration of political power globally in a very few hands,
which, I suggest, is not a desirable outcome.
My solution is to encourage the maximum possible self-sufficiency of
the people. They deal with crises through diversification and fraternal
aid. This does indeed mean a less luxurious lifestyle for those in the
West but I think that it leads to a gradual increase in the wellbeing
of most of the peoples of the world without the dependency, the
maldistribution of resources, the concentration of power and the
insecurity of the free-trade scenario.
DEM
david_michael
sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> david_michael wrote:
>
> > Do you think you could calm down a bit and summarize your argument?
> > I've read that post twice and it just looks like gobbledygook to me.
>
> I am perfectly calm, Dr. Michael, and enjoying the show you're putting
> on immensely.
Ah, 'playing' again. So tell me, do you find the victims of world
poverty more or less entertaining than the victims of American nuclear
bombs?
> And I already did summarize my argument... two posts ago. You evaded
> it in its entirety, snipping the first point
In fact I answered the first point in full and snipped only a
long-winded elaboration. But do continue to tell lies.
>and then lying about what I had said,
What precisely was this 'lie'? Kindly substantiate your libel or
retract and apologize.
>and posting massive cut-n-pastes from Wikipedia to cover up
> your inability to address the second.
>
> So now you're just playing your usual game of refusing to acknowledge /
> pretending not to understand anything you'd rather not have to discuss.
> Fine. I am content that I have explained myself in terms that anyone
> with a grasp of simple logic and basic English will understand. If you
> don't want to address my point, then that's where it stands.
>
> Steven Mock
Having observed your posting strategy for some years now, there are
sm...@nizkor.org
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > david_michael wrote:
> >
> > > Do you think you could calm down a bit and summarize your argument?
> > > I've read that post twice and it just looks like gobbledygook to me.
> >
> > I am perfectly calm, Dr. Michael, and enjoying the show you're putting
> > on immensely.
>
> Ah, 'playing' again.
Your words, not mine. You're the one who has abandoned the discussion
to this sort of silly trolling.
> So tell me, do you find the victims of world
> poverty more or less entertaining than the victims of American nuclear
> bombs?
I find neither of them entertaining. I find the ways that you try to
exploit both in the service of your own political propaganda... well,
if not entertaining, then at least fascinating in a morbid kind of way.
> > And I already did summarize my argument... two posts ago. You evaded
> > it in its entirety, snipping the first point
>
> In fact I answered the first point in full and snipped only a
> long-winded elaboration. But do continue to tell lies.
It is not a lie. You snipped the entire argument, leaving only the
title which you then proceeded to interpret as *you* wanted to
interpret it.
> >and then lying about what I had said,
>
> What precisely was this 'lie'? Kindly substantiate your libel or
> retract and apologize.
That my criticism of you lay in the mere fact that you *called
attention* to the problem of starvation. Anyone with two neurons to
rub together who had actually read the "elaboration" that you snipped
could easy see that it was a lie. And assuming you are such a person
with two neurons to rub together, I can only include it was an
intentional lie to evade a point your couldn't answer.
Here it is again:
<repost>
Whenever you're backed into a corner, you invoke the children dying of
starvation every 5 seconds. The problem with this as an argument is
that if I were just as dishonest as you, I could employ the very same
appeal against you and your "isolated communities" programme no less
effectively, and indeed more so. Your intent with this sort of line is
for the emotional content of your rhetoric to push enough buttons to
distract from the fact that you haven't supported any of the claims on
which this appeal rests. As Roger and I have both noted previously,
you have yet to make any argument whatsoever supporting your claim
either that a) "my way", or anything like it, really has been
implemented for "centuries"; or, b) that anything even remotely related
to what I propose has indeed been responsible, directly or indirectly,
for the starvation of children. Unable to support any such argument,
you hope that by repetitively juxtaposing "my way" against the
starvation of children you will convince stupid people that if they
care about starving children they have to accept your conclusion and
disagree with mine.
</repost>
Or, as I said in my subsequent post (which you dismissed as
"gobbledygook"):
"Drawing attention to poverty and suffering is fine. But the mere fact
that you draw attention to it does not *automatically* make your
assessment of its causes and prescription for its solution right, and
mine wrong."
Seems like pretty clear English to me.
> Having observed your posting strategy for some years now, there are
> sure signs when you want to withdraw from an argument.
And having observed your posting strategy for some years now, there is
at least ONE clear sign that you are trying to withdraw from an
argument:
You offer no substantive response to your opponent's points, save for
accusing him of trying to withdraw from the argument.
There are a few other signs, such as levelling a whole spate of
accusations relating to your opponent's supposed bad manners,
dismissing everything he says as "gibberish", and cutting and pasting
dishonest "summaries" of what you wish had just transpired rather than
addressing directly what he has actually argued.
In any case, there remain substanive points in this thread that
directly address your argument relating to the subject and hand and
that you have declined to even try to answer in lieu of playing these
silly games.
And everyone can see them.
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
this opportunity to take a closer look at his list of "sure signs when
you want to withdraw from an argument"
david_michael wrote:
> sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
> > david_michael wrote:
> Having observed your posting strategy for some years now, there are
> sure signs when you want to withdraw from an argument.
>
> 1. Instead of responding to a post with one reply you post several,
> which makes responding to the responses more complicated.
Right. So because I answer his posts thoroughly, taking a good chunk
of time to do so, I must be trying to "withdraw from the argument",
because I'm making it too hard for Dr. Michael to read.
> 2. The phrase 'straw man' is repeated over and over again.
Funny how that is. You misrepresent my position once, I will clarify,
and we can go on with the discussion. You misrepresent it the same way
repeatedly, even after I have clairified, and I conclude you are not
interested in serious discussion.
> 3. The amount of personal stuff increases exponentially.
Trans.: I have the nerve to continue disagreeing with him, and
disaproving of his increasing use of dishonest rhetoric.
> 4. You engage in meta-argument: argument about argument.
Again, funny how that is. You use fallacious logic; I have the nerve
to dissect it in the course of explaining why the conclusions you are
asserting therefore don't follow. A clear sign that I must be trying
to withdraw from the discussion.
But, just to make things neater, I provided my observations about Dr.
Michael's use of misleading rhetoric in a seperate post from the one in
which I continued discussion of the substance of the topic at hand
(another sign that I am trying to "withdraw from the argument, see 1.).
Note that he has *chosen* to respond to this post, and has (thus far)
left the one relating to the substance of the discussion to hang. His
choice.
> 5. You start resurrecting arguments that were produced some time ago,
> ignoring the answers.
Pot. Kettle. (cf. your absurd "summary" in the previous post)
> >From that I conclude that you are now on your way out of this thread.
I'm still here, Dr. Michael. And there is still a post on the
substance of the discussion waiting in the wings for you to answer.
I'm ready to proceed whenever you are.
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
this thread, and I mean it in all sincerity.
To those of you who think it is clear that Israeli is unequivocally in
the wrong over the current round of hostilities in Lebanon, could you
please answer me this question:
What should they have done? Or, more to the point, what would *you*
have done if you were in their place?
And please, I'm not interested right now in long-winded explanations as
to why Israel is in the wrong in their conflict with the Palestinians,
I'm not interested in hearing why the very foundation of the state is
illegitimate, I'm not interested in hearing about how Jews are all
diabolical child-murderers who despise humanity to a man. Why?
Because if this is what your answer is based on, you are pretty much
admitting that anyone who *doesn't* share these assumptions has every
business considering Israel to be in the right.
Just tell me, in the context of the immediate situation, what should a
country such as Israel have done. You are an independent, sovereign
state with a defined territory, population, government and army. Your
territory and population is being subjected to rocket attacks from
across the border, originating from a force that pledges to continue
such attacks. The government of the state from which these attacks are
being launched pretty much shrugs its shoulders and says "no my
problem". You have the military capability to put a stop to it. What
do you do?
Let me further explain where this question is coming from. When I read
the news, I am *appalled* at what is going on in Lebanon. I am shocked
at the destruction, I am sickened by the loss of innocent life. But at
the same time, I cannot think of an alternative answer to the question
I just posed. In the final analysis, the best I can do is criticise
Israel for certain aspects of the way they have *conducted* the war. I
cannot come up with a alternative suggestion as to what they could have
or should have done *other than* using military force. In which case,
most of the blame for the suffering now taking place (not all of it, by
any stretch, but most) has to go to Hezbollah.
Can someone out there please tell me what I'm missing here?
Steven Mock
david_michael wrote:
> The current activities of the Israeli Defence Force in Lebanon and Gaza
> are explained by 'Israeli' and US officials in terms of 'Israel's right
> to defend herself when attacked'.
>
> Do the Palestinians and Lebanese have a similar 'right'? If not, what
> makes Israel so special? If so, how can 'Israel' legitimately criticize
> attacks by Palestinians on its territory?
>
> Just wondered . . .
>
> David
Kurt Knoll
of their water supply and all your dirty tricks created the situation you
have in Israel now.
Kurt Knoll.
<sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
news:1154548681....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
sm...@nizkor.org
> Years of incitements against the Palestinians destroying their homes cutting
> of their water supply and all your dirty tricks created the situation you
> have in Israel now.
<sigh>
"And please, I'm not interested right now in long-winded explanations
as to why Israel is in the wrong in their (wider) conflict with the
Palestinians... Why? Because if this is what your answer is based on,
you are pretty much admitting that anyone who *doesn't* share these
assumptions has every business considering Israel to be in the right.
"Just tell me, in the context of the immediate situation, what should a
country such as Israel have done."
Can you answer the question or not?
Steven Mock
Kurt Knoll
Instigators. The American news media is always holding back information that
could but Israel into a bad light. Just watching BBC news American based
does give us all the facts.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14034.htm
Kurt Knoll
<sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
news:1154555661.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
sm...@nizkor.org
Would anyone else like to give it a shot?
Steven Mock
cheste...@fastmail.fm
>I would like to post a follow-up to Dr. Michael's original question in
>this thread, and I mean it in all sincerity.
>
>To those of you who think it is clear that Israeli is unequivocally in
>the wrong over the current round of hostilities in Lebanon, could you
>please answer me this question:
>
>What should they have done? Or, more to the point, what would *you*
>have done if you were in their place?
>
Israel would say:
We are tired of all the fighting and discord. We want to offer the
olive branch of lasting peace. This is what we will do.
Return to the pre '67 borders.
Return all seized property and rebuild all homes destroyed.
Respect all of your religious locations including the 'Dome.'
Destroy all nukes and share conventional weapons on a 50/50 basis
including aircraft to assure parity.
We will share [50/50] all money received from the U.S.
We will assist you in rebuilding your society and restoring your
culture.
We will acknowledge Jerusalem as a city owned by the world.
We will deal harshly with our warmongers.
In return, all we ask is a real and lasting peace and that you deal
harshly with your warmongers.
We can't change the past but we can change the future.
sm...@nizkor.org
I'm all for all of the above. Indeed, I would be overjoyed to see it
come to pass, and as far as I can tell so would most Israelis.
But is it realistic to demand this from them unilaterally, when clearly
there are "warmongers" to be dealt with on both sides? The real
question, then, is, what assurances are reasonable for them to demand
to ensure that the other side held up their end, and didn't just take
this as an opportunity to stage further attacks against a now more
vulnerable target.
After all, Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon, largely with the
expectation that Lebanon would, in turn, deal with its "warmongers"
harshly. Hezbollah returned and used it as a staging ground for
attacks. Israel pulled out of Gaza in the hope that it would be a
first step toward the Palestinians developing a viable state; Hamas
used it as a stanging ground for attacks.
And, in any case, you don't really address the immediate point.
Notwithstanding that we would all like to see peace, what does a
country do when an armed force attacks them and they have the power to
stop it? Let them keep doing it?
Steven Mock
Neil Harrington
> this thread, and I mean it in all sincerity.
>
> To those of you who think it is clear that Israeli is unequivocally in
> the wrong over the current round of hostilities in Lebanon, could you
> please answer me this question:
>
> What should they have done?
Give back the property.
> Or, more to the point, what would *you*
> have done if you were in their place?
Not stolen the property in the first place.
Neil
sm...@nizkor.org
> <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:1154548681....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >I would like to post a follow-up to Dr. Michael's original question in
> > this thread, and I mean it in all sincerity.
> >
> > To those of you who think it is clear that Israeli is unequivocally in
> > the wrong over the current round of hostilities in Lebanon, could you
> > please answer me this question:
> >
> > What should they have done?
>
> Give back the property.
What property exactly?
Steven Mock
cheste...@fastmail.fm
Covered above.
> The real
>question, then, is, what assurances are reasonable for them to demand
>to ensure that the other side held up their end, and didn't just take
>this as an opportunity to stage further attacks against a now more
>vulnerable target.
Each side purges their warmongers
>After all, Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon, largely with the
>expectation that Lebanon would, in turn, deal with its "warmongers"
>harshly. Hezbollah returned and used it as a staging ground for
>attacks. Israel pulled out of Gaza in the hope that it would be a
>first step toward the Palestinians developing a viable state; Hamas
>used it as a stanging ground for attacks.
Peace is not incremental.
>And, in any case, you don't really address the immediate point.
>Notwithstanding that we would all like to see peace, what does a
>country do when an armed force attacks them and they have the power to
>stop it? Let them keep doing it?
>
>Steven Mock
Send the warmongers from both sides to a big valley and let them have
it out using stick and rocks.
Ben Cramer
> this thread, and I mean it in all sincerity.
>
> To those of you who think it is clear that Israeli is unequivocally in
> the wrong over the current round of hostilities in Lebanon, could you
> please answer me this question:
>
> What should they have done? Or, more to the point, what would *you*
> have done if you were in their place?
I would never have been in their place. They swiped the Arab's lands in 1948
and are now paying the price for being brutal occupiers of land they have no
claim to.
Historically, what they're getting, is what all occupiers get. It's all very
simple, really.
Ben Cramer
Ben Cramer
<cheste...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:5cb2d29a2oasopm1r...@4ax.com...
There would be no need for any of the above if the country could go back to
the pre 1948 borders. Israel was created as a homeland for the jews, and
they've chosen, largely, to infest anywhere but israel. The world's been
had.
As a man of the cloth who posts here is wont to say "Use it or lose it".
sm...@nizkor.org
<snip>
> >After all, Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon, largely with the
> >expectation that Lebanon would, in turn, deal with its "warmongers"
> >harshly. Hezbollah returned and used it as a staging ground for
> >attacks. Israel pulled out of Gaza in the hope that it would be a
> >first step toward the Palestinians developing a viable state; Hamas
> >used it as a stanging ground for attacks.
>
> Peace is not incremental.
But it is reciprocal. If every time one side makes a move toward
peace, the other makes a move toward greater violence, what becomes the
next step?
> >And, in any case, you don't really address the immediate point.
> >Notwithstanding that we would all like to see peace, what does a
> >country do when an armed force attacks them and they have the power to
> >stop it? Let them keep doing it?
>
> Send the warmongers from both sides to a big valley and let them have
> it out using stick and rocks.
Would that it were so...
But I'd still like an answer to my question.
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
> <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:1154564124.3...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Neil Harrington wrote:
> >> <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> >> news:1154548681....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >I would like to post a follow-up to Dr. Michael's original question in
> >> > this thread, and I mean it in all sincerity.
> >> >
> >> > To those of you who think it is clear that Israeli is unequivocally in
> >> > the wrong over the current round of hostilities in Lebanon, could you
> >> > please answer me this question:
> >> >
> >> > What should they have done?
> >>
> >> Give back the property.
> >
> > What property exactly?
>
> Idiot.
How is it not a reasonable question.
Different people who make comments like that tend to mean different
things.
Are we talking about specific property to specific people? The
territories captured in 1967? The whole of state, deemed to have been
illegitimately founded? He offered no clue whatsoever what he meant.
And in any case, I hardly see how "giving back property", whatever he
means by that, amounts to a response to attacks on one's territory.
You may believe that they should "give back property" regardless, but
that does not address my question: how is a state respond to an attack
on its territory if it has at its disposal the capacity to stop it?
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
> <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:1154548681....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >I would like to post a follow-up to Dr. Michael's original question in
> > this thread, and I mean it in all sincerity.
> >
> > To those of you who think it is clear that Israeli is unequivocally in
> > the wrong over the current round of hostilities in Lebanon, could you
> > please answer me this question:
> >
> > What should they have done? Or, more to the point, what would *you*
> > have done if you were in their place?
>
> I would never have been in their place. They swiped the Arab's lands in 1948
> and are now paying the price for being brutal occupiers of land they have no
> claim to.
So you're saying that the only reason Israel is wrong is because Israel
shouldn't exist to begin with, ergo everything it does is wrong.
So what would you say to someone who didn't share this view?
Steven Mock
Ben Cramer
<sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
news:1154567978.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Pretty much. History backs my assertion up quite adequately.
>
> So what would you say to someone who didn't share this view?
Probably something along the lines of "Stay stupid, stupid".
Ben Cramer
<sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
news:1154567857.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ben Cramer wrote:
>> <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
>> news:1154564124.3...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Neil Harrington wrote:
>> >> <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
>> >> news:1154548681....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >I would like to post a follow-up to Dr. Michael's original question
>> >> >in
>> >> > this thread, and I mean it in all sincerity.
>> >> >
>> >> > To those of you who think it is clear that Israeli is unequivocally
>> >> > in
>> >> > the wrong over the current round of hostilities in Lebanon, could
>> >> > you
>> >> > please answer me this question:
>> >> >
>> >> > What should they have done?
>> >>
>> >> Give back the property.
>> >
>> > What property exactly?
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> How is it not a reasonable question.
It is not a reasonable question, because you are well aware of the property
of which I speak.
> Different people who make comments like that tend to mean different
> things.
>
> Are we talking about specific property to specific people? The
> territories captured in 1967? The whole of state, deemed to have been
> illegitimately founded? He offered no clue whatsoever what he meant.
The entire israel thing is a giant con. The Arab lands were swiped to create
a homeland for the yids, and the greater majority of them prefer to live
anywhere but in israel. The world's been conned.
>
> And in any case, I hardly see how "giving back property", whatever he
> means by that, amounts to a response to attacks on one's territory.
> You may believe that they should "give back property" regardless, but
> that does not address my question: how is a state respond to an attack
> on its territory if it has at its disposal the capacity to stop it?
Israel doesn't have the capacity to stop it. They spent 18 years trying to
defeat Hizbollah in Lebanon, and had to retreat with their tails between
their legs.
This war has been going since pre 1948 and is not going to end anytime soon.
Israel has won a few battles, but is nowhere near winning the war. A few
million jews are never going to defeat well over a billion Muslims. Now
that's a fact, Jack.
Ben Cramer
<sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
news:1154567556....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> cheste...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>> On 2 Aug 2006 16:49:35 -0700, sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> >After all, Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon, largely with the
>> >expectation that Lebanon would, in turn, deal with its "warmongers"
>> >harshly. Hezbollah returned and used it as a staging ground for
>> >attacks. Israel pulled out of Gaza in the hope that it would be a
>> >first step toward the Palestinians developing a viable state; Hamas
>> >used it as a stanging ground for attacks.
>>
>> Peace is not incremental.
>
> But it is reciprocal. If every time one side makes a move toward
> peace, the other makes a move toward greater violence, what becomes the
> next step?
Israel has more than adequately shown it has absolutely no interest in peace
in the ME, or anywhere else, for that matter.
They've broken almost every cease fire ever put by the various Arab militant
groups. Just check what they've done with the latest 48 hour cease fire.
sm...@nizkor.org
> <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> news:1154567857.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Ben Cramer wrote:
> >> <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> >> news:1154564124.3...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Neil Harrington wrote:
> >> >> <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1154548681....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >I would like to post a follow-up to Dr. Michael's original question
> >> >> >in
> >> >> > this thread, and I mean it in all sincerity.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To those of you who think it is clear that Israeli is unequivocally
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > the wrong over the current round of hostilities in Lebanon, could
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > please answer me this question:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What should they have done?
> >> >>
> >> >> Give back the property.
> >> >
> >> > What property exactly?
> >>
> >> Idiot.
> >
> > How is it not a reasonable question.
>
> It is not a reasonable question, because you are well aware of the property
> of which I speak.
No, I'm not. As I said...
> > Different people who make comments like that tend to mean different
> > things.
> >
> > Are we talking about specific property to specific people? The
> > territories captured in 1967? The whole of state, deemed to have been
> > illegitimately founded? He offered no clue whatsoever what he meant.
>
> The entire israel thing is a giant con. The Arab lands were swiped to create
> a homeland for the yids, and the greater majority of them prefer to live
> anywhere but in israel. The world's been conned.
So basically what you are saying is that in response to rocket attacks
on their territory, Israel should dissolve its entire existence as a
state.
An interesting take on the norms of international relations, I must
say.
But not at all a responsive answer to my query. Recall, I said: "I'm
not interested in hearing why the very foundation of the state is
illegitimate... Why? Because if this is what your answer is based on,
you are pretty much admitting that anyone who *doesn't* share these
assumptions has every business considering Israel to be in the right."
So back to my question: what does a state - any state - do when it is
attacked under such circumstances from across its border?
Steven Mock
sm...@nizkor.org
are so indignant about Israel's recent invastion of Lebanon, aren't
*really* indignant about Israel's recent invasion of Lebanon but rather
about the fact that Israel exists to begin with?
Is there no other grounds to be upset with what Israel has done?
Steven Mock
cheste...@fastmail.fm
>cheste...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>> On 2 Aug 2006 16:49:35 -0700, sm...@nizkor.org wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >After all, Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon, largely with the
>> >expectation that Lebanon would, in turn, deal with its "warmongers"
>> >harshly. Hezbollah returned and used it as a staging ground for
>> >attacks. Israel pulled out of Gaza in the hope that it would be a
>> >first step toward the Palestinians developing a viable state; Hamas
>> >used it as a stanging ground for attacks.
>>
>> Peace is not incremental.
>
>But it is reciprocal.
Don't change gears, here. Reciprocity is obvious.
> If every time one side makes a move toward
>peace, the other makes a move toward greater violence, what becomes the
>next step?
Cut the crap. Peace is not incremental.
>> >And, in any case, you don't really address the immediate point.
>> >Notwithstanding that we would all like to see peace, what does a
>> >country do when an armed force attacks them and they have the power to
>> >stop it? Let them keep doing it?
>>
>> Send the warmongers from both sides to a big valley and let them have
>> it out using stick and rocks.
>
>Would that it were so...
>
>But I'd still like an answer to my question.
>
>Steven Mock
You had your answer.