More administration realism?
Scott Erb
"victory" in Iraq would pressure Syria and Iran, and start a wave of change
in the region. Reality bites, however, and now we are faced with an Iraq
cozying up to Iran, an Iran with the hardliners strengthened and more
popular than ever, and Syria, also allied with Iran, recognizing it has
nothing to fear from a US bogged down in Iraq.
The administration has been showing signs of realism lately:
a) backing away from the claim this is a 'global war on terror' to a
'struggle against extremism;'
b) having plans for a massive reduction of forces from Iraq, even though
assaults on American troops are higher than ever (almost 70 a day) and the
insurgency shows no sign of weakening; and
c) releasing intelligence that says Iran is ten years from having nuclear
weapons, meaning there is no overarching need for a strike on Iran, no
rationale to expand the war.
The administration had been proclaiming Iran a real threat, and making all
the sounds it did early in the lead up to war against Saddam. Now, clearly,
they realize that they have no good options in Iran. Its regime is stable,
and the idea it would be threatened and pressured has proven false -- in
fact, the opposite has occurred. If the US angered Iran, one word would
start Shi'ite insurgencies (al-Sadr apparently is having Iranian help in
training his forces) which the US would not be able to handle. Iran is in
the drivers' seat. Not only that, but there is no way a military assault on
Iran would be successful. It's much bigger than Iraq, has rougher terrain,
and a public willing to fight. It also could mimic insurgency tactics in
Iraq, and use pressure there to counter the US. With the military already
stretched thin, that's a non-option.
Moreover, without using nuclear weapons, Iran's facilities that may be
engaged in a nuclear program (the new intelligence casts doubt even on that
claim!) would be safe from simple airstrikes -- and there may be places we
don't know about. Air strikes would cause anger throughout Iran and help
the hardliners, and if nukes were used, well, the US would be seen as
downright evil. In short: airstrikes are not a reasonable option.
So the realists seem to be winning again, the US is backing away from
defining Iran as a serious threat and recognizing that the fantasies of 2003
have been eclipsed by the realities of 2005.
Martin McPhillips
news:jwKHe.532002$cg1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> It's no secret that the neo-conservative fantasy was that
> somehow a US
> "victory" in Iraq would pressure Syria and Iran, and start
> a wave of change
> in the region.
Odd. Scott is known to root for terrorists, which
includes rooting for state-sponsors of terror like
Syria and Iran, but you would think he might have
noticed that Syria has pulled out of Lebanon and
that Iran is increasingly under pressure to curb
its nuclear programs. Anyway, no mention of Libya
turning in its WMD's, Scott? No mention of the
roll-up of the AQ Khan nuclear network? No mention
of the removal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia
with the consequence of putting an uncomfortable
distance between the U.S. and the Saudis over their
terror encouraging programs.
In short, in addition to the removal of the
extremely dangerous Hussein regime in Iraq,
and the initiation of a democratic process
there, the Bush grand strategy has produced
more change in the Middle East than that region
has seen since WWII.
No wonder Scott feels a need to talk it down:
he would rather see the Earth itself explode
before seeing an aggressive U.S. foreign policy
succeed. Why? Because he loathes the U.S., and
would even prefer to see it broken apart into
several smaller nation states. Yes, that is his
preference.
> Reality bites,
Then it surely must be about your turn, Scott.
blazing laser
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The administration has been showing signs of realism lately:
Not -realism-, more like -realpolitik-.
>c) releasing intelligence that says Iran is ten years from having nuclear
>weapons, meaning there is no overarching need for a strike on Iran, no
>rationale to expand the war.
This one thing shows the change in the admin's outlook--although if
you told them their view changed they'd deny it. In the runup to the
Iraq invasion, Bush told us at first that Saddam probably had one or
two nuclear weapons. When that didn't go over, he said Saddam was
very close to having nuclear weapons. This was downgraded to Saddam
having a nuclear weapons -program-, then nuclear 'program-related
activity', and finally the admin gave up talk of nukes altogether and
it was just about other WMDs.
However, in the nuclear-program and program-related-activity stages,
when Iraq was supposedly 10 years away from usable nukes, Bush still
insisted that we needed to invade IMMEDIATELY.
>Moreover, without using nuclear weapons, Iran's facilities that may be
>engaged in a nuclear program (the new intelligence casts doubt even on that
>claim!)
Why should anyone ever believe the Bush admin. again about supposed
weapons threats against the US? Bush completely sacrificed any
credibility it might have had.
>would be safe from simple airstrikes -- and there may be places we
>don't know about. Air strikes would cause anger throughout Iran and help
>the hardliners, and if nukes were used, well, the US would be seen as
>downright evil. In short: airstrikes are not a reasonable option.
The thing about airstrikes is that, politically speaking, they are a
free play. We get lots of stock footage of planes taking off from
carrier decks, which Americans seem to love. There are very few US
casualties, so no negative fallout for the president. Americans don't
really care about civilian 'collateral damage' and anyway the admin is
able to under-report and minimize this number.
The problem with airstrikes is that they can only get you so far. As
the old saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every
problem looks like a nail.
As for the prospect of hardening support for Iran, causing intense
anger and perhaps even more terrorism, doesn't worry the Bush admin.
They're doing exactly that in Iraq. Sometimes I think that is part of
the admin's strategic goal, to unite the Moslem world against the US.
>So the realists seem to be winning again, the US is backing away from
>defining Iran as a serious threat and recognizing that the fantasies of 2003
>have been eclipsed by the realities of 2005.
To the Bush admin, the definition o f'realism' is the limit of what
they can get away with.
Scott Erb
"blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
news:llave1tg94ebmb2jo...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:26:39 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >The administration has been showing signs of realism lately:
>
> Not -realism-, more like -realpolitik-.
Yes, I was thinking in terms of the theory of "political realism" (Rice's
supposed approach), which comes from ideals of Realpolitik. I'm not a
realist, but I find realism to be at least a better approach than
neo-conservatism.
> >c) releasing intelligence that says Iran is ten years from having nuclear
> >weapons, meaning there is no overarching need for a strike on Iran, no
> >rationale to expand the war.
>
> This one thing shows the change in the admin's outlook--although if
> you told them their view changed they'd deny it. In the runup to the
> Iraq invasion, Bush told us at first that Saddam probably had one or
> two nuclear weapons. When that didn't go over, he said Saddam was
> very close to having nuclear weapons. This was downgraded to Saddam
> having a nuclear weapons -program-, then nuclear 'program-related
> activity', and finally the admin gave up talk of nukes altogether and
> it was just about other WMDs.
>
> However, in the nuclear-program and program-related-activity stages,
> when Iraq was supposedly 10 years away from usable nukes, Bush still
> insisted that we needed to invade IMMEDIATELY.
You can bet that this new intelligence on Iran being ten years away would
not have seen the light of day if they still were trying to beat the war
drums for Iran. That's what convinces me that Iran won't be attacked; they
tend to bury information contrary to their policy preferences.
Bush may still try to push Iran as a threat, but I suspect they realize now
that they lack the power to accomplish much; in fact, Iraq by revealing the
limits of US power has made it harder for the Administration to cajole or
threaten others.
> >Moreover, without using nuclear weapons, Iran's facilities that may be
> >engaged in a nuclear program (the new intelligence casts doubt even on
that
> >claim!)
>
> Why should anyone ever believe the Bush admin. again about supposed
> weapons threats against the US? Bush completely sacrificed any
> credibility it might have had.
Indeed. That's why so many believed that Iraq must have a WMD program, they
figured US intelligence must be good.
Now they won't believe the US so quickly.
> >would be safe from simple airstrikes -- and there may be places we
> >don't know about. Air strikes would cause anger throughout Iran and help
> >the hardliners, and if nukes were used, well, the US would be seen as
> >downright evil. In short: airstrikes are not a reasonable option.
>
> The thing about airstrikes is that, politically speaking, they are a
> free play. We get lots of stock footage of planes taking off from
> carrier decks, which Americans seem to love. There are very few US
> casualties, so no negative fallout for the president. Americans don't
> really care about civilian 'collateral damage' and anyway the admin is
> able to under-report and minimize this number.
But, of course, in Iran it would really strengthen the hard liners. The
neo-cons used to claim that young Iranians were pro-American (hinting they'd
even welcome a US attack -- with flowers and candy, perhaps?), but now it's
clear that US actions are spurring an anti-Americanism not only among the
Arabs but also in Iran.
> The problem with airstrikes is that they can only get you so far. As
> the old saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every
> problem looks like a nail.
>
> As for the prospect of hardening support for Iran, causing intense
> anger and perhaps even more terrorism, doesn't worry the Bush admin.
> They're doing exactly that in Iraq. Sometimes I think that is part of
> the admin's strategic goal, to unite the Moslem world against the US.
I think they had a fantasy they could reshape the Mideast in a manner that
would benefit the US. It was pure hubris.
> >So the realists seem to be winning again, the US is backing away from
> >defining Iran as a serious threat and recognizing that the fantasies of
2003
> >have been eclipsed by the realities of 2005.
>
> To the Bush admin, the definition o f'realism' is the limit of what
> they can get away with.
But perhaps they are recognizing they can't get away with as much as they
thought they could.
-scott
Billy Beck
"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>> Reality bites,
>
>Then it surely must be about your turn, Scott.
*Again*.
Look: when was the last time anyone around here saw him in a
quivering jizz over Germany?
Billy
Scott Erb
"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote in message
news:jjvve1t2ti91rjpcj...@4ax.com...
>
> Look: when was the last time anyone around here saw him in a
> quivering jizz over Germany?
Germany needs a change of government, the SPD-Green coalition was unable to
make the necessary economic. Schroeder tried to be a Blair, but the left
wing of the party fought too hard to protect particular interests rather
than modernize the economy.
I think it is time for a change in Germany. Angela Merkl, the CDU leader
from East Germany, has a good mix of social programs and sound economic
policy. Plus a woman leader (a first for Germany) from the East (also a
first) would be cool. Reform will be hard for her too, though, but if the
CDU-FDP get into power, they won't have to deal with a Bundesrat that
opposed them the way the SPD-Greens had to (even if they start losing state
elections, they'll have at least two years without Bundesrat opposition --
if they have the nerve, they can push through needed reforms).
The hard thing will be if the new Linkspartei gets enough votes from the CDU
in the East to deny the CDU-FDP a majority, and set up either a grand
coalition, or some kind of minority government. The Linkspartei could get
10% or more, which would be problemmatic.
Germany's a rich country, and despite demographic problems and the cost of
rebuilding the east (over a trillion dollars), I think they'll be able to
reform. So at this point I'm hoping for a CDU-FDP majority. They simply
need to make changes, and given the Bundesrat make up, that's the best bet.
I'd hoped Schroeder could pull his party towards real reform, I think his
ideas were sound, but he just couldn't control his own coalition. (In
reality, he shouldn't have been re-elected in 2002 -- his re-election was a
gift from George W. Bush, whose Iraq policy gave him what he needed to win
enough votes to stay in power).
And I am really enjoying that Dishnet carries German television, so I can
follow the campaign and the news from Germany more easily. That and
internet newspapers are all worth a 'quivering jizz,' whatever that is.
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I think it is time for a change in Germany.
Wow, you do? <LOL> Have you told anyone in Germany about this?
--
Steve
Billy Beck
brain sushi:
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>> Look: when was the last time anyone around here saw him in a
>> quivering jizz over Germany?
>
>Germany needs a change of government, the SPD-Green coalition was
>unable...
<nod> "The Fourth Way."
It's pretty damned funny how insane people never grasp the
well-known popular definition of insanity.
Billy
Scott Erb
>
> brain sushi:
>
> >"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>
> >> Look: when was the last time anyone around here saw him in a
> >> quivering jizz over Germany?
> >
> >Germany needs a change of government, the SPD-Green coalition was
> >unable...
>
> <nod> "The Fourth Way."
>
> It's pretty damned funny how insane people never grasp the
> well-known popular definition of insanity.
Yes, you are amusing in that way.
You are way over your head when you try to talk politics, Billy. Stick with
amps and guitars, you know your stuff there.
blazing laser
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Not -realism-, more like -realpolitik-.
>
>Yes, I was thinking in terms of the theory of "political realism" (Rice's
>supposed approach), which comes from ideals of Realpolitik. I'm not a
>realist, but I find realism to be at least a better approach than
>neo-conservatism.
Not a realist? Hmmmm. How would you characterize yourself, Scott?
I've always found your posts to be very realistic, mostly debunking
self-indulgent Republican twaddle. Maybe you don't consider them so.
Would you consider yourself an ideologue? I'd say you were
anti-ideological.
>> However, in the nuclear-program and program-related-activity stages,
>> when Iraq was supposedly 10 years away from usable nukes, Bush still
>> insisted that we needed to invade IMMEDIATELY.
>
>You can bet that this new intelligence on Iran being ten years away would
>not have seen the light of day if they still were trying to beat the war
>drums for Iran. That's what convinces me that Iran won't be attacked; they
>tend to bury information contrary to their policy preferences.
Exactly. The whole purpose of intelligence is to justify ulterior
motives.
>Bush may still try to push Iran as a threat, but I suspect they realize now
>that they lack the power to accomplish much; in fact, Iraq by revealing the
>limits of US power has made it harder for the Administration to cajole or
>threaten others.
Worse than that. By invading Iraq and getting stuck in a quagmire
there, Bush has made Iraq the strongest nation in the Gulf, the new
leader.
>> Why should anyone ever believe the Bush admin. again about supposed
>> weapons threats against the US? Bush completely sacrificed any
>> credibility it might have had.
>
>Indeed. That's why so many believed that Iraq must have a WMD program, they
>figured US intelligence must be good.
>
>Now they won't believe the US so quickly.
The Bushies are claiming 'well -everyone- thought they had WMD, it
wasn't just us!' But I think the independant observer would easily
have seen Saddam had no WMD.
For one thing, the story shifted almost daily. First Saddam had
nukes, then he was working on nukes, then when that could no longer be
maintained with a straight face, it was WMD. Then he wasn't allowing
the inspectors access, then he was allowing them access but moving the
WMD around, then the admin. said he threw the inspectors out of the
country--which was never true. Then Cheney and Rummy said 'Well we
know he HAD WMD at one point because he USED them', but only in the
foreign press could one read that the WMD we sold him had a short
shelf-life and wouldn't be useable now. The question was never asked:
Where did he get the stuff to make new WMD during the a period of
sanctions and containment so severe that ~1 million people died for
lack of medicines and clean water?
Senators and Congressmen who voted for the war are trying to hedge
their bets now by saying 'Well Bush SAID he had WMD, that the
intelligence proved it! He lied!' They should have known he was
lying. I sure did.
>> The thing about airstrikes is that, politically speaking, they are a
>> free play. We get lots of stock footage of planes taking off from
>> carrier decks, which Americans seem to love. There are very few US
>> casualties, so no negative fallout for the president. Americans don't
>> really care about civilian 'collateral damage' and anyway the admin is
>> able to under-report and minimize this number.
>
>But, of course, in Iran it would really strengthen the hard liners. The
>neo-cons used to claim that young Iranians were pro-American (hinting they'd
>even welcome a US attack -- with flowers and candy, perhaps?), but now it's
>clear that US actions are spurring an anti-Americanism not only among the
>Arabs but also in Iran.
You could be right. I doubt it would make that much difference when
so many Islamic hard-liners in Iran remember the Shah, and what we've
done to them already. It might turn moderates against us, the
reformers who are trying to get Iran and USA back together.
>I think they had a fantasy they could reshape the Mideast in a manner that
>would benefit the US. It was pure hubris.
It sure was! The triumph of ideology over realism. Pride goeth
before a fall.
>> To the Bush admin, the definition o f'realism' is the limit of what
>> they can get away with.
>
>But perhaps they are recognizing they can't get away with as much as they
>thought they could.
I hope so.
Scott Erb
"blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:03:28 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Not -realism-, more like -realpolitik-.
> >
> >Yes, I was thinking in terms of the theory of "political realism" (Rice's
> >supposed approach), which comes from ideals of Realpolitik. I'm not a
> >realist, but I find realism to be at least a better approach than
> >neo-conservatism.
>
> Not a realist? Hmmmm. How would you characterize yourself, Scott?
> I've always found your posts to be very realistic, mostly debunking
> self-indulgent Republican twaddle. Maybe you don't consider them so.
> Would you consider yourself an ideologue? I'd say you were
> anti-ideological.
In International relations theory REALISM is a theory that defines interest
as power, sees sovereign states as the fundamental unit of the international
system, and says that states seek to maximize power by forming alliances and
balancing against stronger powers. For realists international politics is
neither moral nor immoral, but amoral, as states try to protect national
interest in a world defined by a negative human nature and anarchy (no world
police).
I disagree with realism on the assumptions of a negative human nature (I
think they are too pessimistic) and anarchy (there are rules written and
unwritten, and organizations that govern international relations, though far
more loosely than within a state). I also think morality matters in state
actions, and that the sovereign state itself is no longer as independent and
fundamental, given the rise of other actors, particularly IGOs and NGOs.
Other theories: LIBERALISM argues that due to economic interdependence and
globalization state interests are becoming more in line with each other, and
states have mutual interests in mataintaining trade. Thus liberals look
positively at the rise of IO's like the UN and WTO as facilitating this
global cooperation.
NEO-MARXIAN theories emphasize the discrepancy between the north and south,
and disagree with liberals on positive aspects of globalization. Rather,
they argue, the system is structured between a wealthy core and a poor
periphery, with the core maintaining its wealth and life style by exploiting
the periphery for cheap resources and cheap labor. They see globalization
as an untenable exploitive enterprise that will ultimately lead to systemic
breakdown.
CONSTRUCTIVIST theory sees the international system as a social
construction, built on norms, principles, rules and traditions that have
developed over time. The system may operate much like realists expect in
part because leaders have been trained in the realist tradition; or may
operate as liberals suspect because of the power of big money. They
disagree with the above theories because they claim the operation of the
system is not out of necessity (based on human nature and the environment)
but out of human choices. Constructivists believe the nature of the system
can be altered, but only if the norms and rules are changed, which involves
a different approach to how people think about international relations.
This is not easy, as ways of thinking tend to be fixed and more likely
reproduced than transformed.
I would put myself in the constructivist camp, though recognizing that
realist principles often "work" in the world because those are the norms and
rules that have been constructed. Furthermore, a liberal "hegemony" (as one
scholar puts it) has overtaken the industrialized West, meaning that most
western leaders accept that free trade and globalization are good, and
natural. NEO-CONSERVATIVES are liberals, in that sense, but radical
liberals who want to use force to spread democracy and change, believing
that this can change the system to one where all states are so
interdependent that they will not fight each other.
Economically, I think Neo-Marxians have a point about exploitation, liberals
have a point about the power of interdependence. Each overlooks political
aspects of world politics, and hence they don't see how much they have in
common if the politics could be brought in (my constructivist approach mixes
aspects of liberalism and neo-Marxian thought in analyzing the international
system).
> >> However, in the nuclear-program and program-related-activity stages,
> >> when Iraq was supposedly 10 years away from usable nukes, Bush still
> >> insisted that we needed to invade IMMEDIATELY.
> >
> >You can bet that this new intelligence on Iran being ten years away would
> >not have seen the light of day if they still were trying to beat the war
> >drums for Iran. That's what convinces me that Iran won't be attacked;
they
> >tend to bury information contrary to their policy preferences.
>
> Exactly. The whole purpose of intelligence is to justify ulterior
> motives.
That isn't new. When I was studying for my MA, I had a prof who had worked
for the CIA, and Casey (then CIA director) essentially fired him and refused
to accept his conclusions since it didn't fit with administration desire to
undertake efforts to topple the Sandinistas. The idea of cooking
intelligence to fit the policy is, unfortunately, nothing new.
> >Bush may still try to push Iran as a threat, but I suspect they realize
now
> >that they lack the power to accomplish much; in fact, Iraq by revealing
the
> >limits of US power has made it harder for the Administration to cajole or
> >threaten others.
>
> Worse than that. By invading Iraq and getting stuck in a quagmire
> there, Bush has made Iraq the strongest nation in the Gulf, the new
> leader.
I assume you mean Iran in that last sentence? If so, yes, Iran has emerged
as the leader in the region, and virtually invulnerable to outside pressure.
But they may be lured by WTO entry and similar enticements to give up their
nuclear program in time.
> >> Why should anyone ever believe the Bush admin. again about supposed
> >> weapons threats against the US? Bush completely sacrificed any
> >> credibility it might have had.
> >
> >Indeed. That's why so many believed that Iraq must have a WMD program,
they
> >figured US intelligence must be good.
> >
> >Now they won't believe the US so quickly.
>
> The Bushies are claiming 'well -everyone- thought they had WMD, it
> wasn't just us!' But I think the independant observer would easily
> have seen Saddam had no WMD.
Chirac and many of the weapons inspectors expressed doubts. The US "sold"
their cooked intelligence so well that much of the world bought it.
> For one thing, the story shifted almost daily. First Saddam had
> nukes, then he was working on nukes, then when that could no longer be
> maintained with a straight face, it was WMD. Then he wasn't allowing
> the inspectors access, then he was allowing them access but moving the
> WMD around, then the admin. said he threw the inspectors out of the
> country--which was never true. Then Cheney and Rummy said 'Well we
> know he HAD WMD at one point because he USED them', but only in the
> foreign press could one read that the WMD we sold him had a short
> shelf-life and wouldn't be useable now. The question was never asked:
> Where did he get the stuff to make new WMD during the a period of
> sanctions and containment so severe that ~1 million people died for
> lack of medicines and clean water?
>
> Senators and Congressmen who voted for the war are trying to hedge
> their bets now by saying 'Well Bush SAID he had WMD, that the
> intelligence proved it! He lied!' They should have known he was
> lying. I sure did.
Definitely. It was clear to me as well that policy preferences were driving
intelligence and the interpretation of intelligence. That in and of itself
is "standard fare" in Washington. What made this so egregious is that it
was used to justify a war, and to attack allys and others who would dare
disagree. Look how Chirac and the French were treated, and it turns out
they were right after all!
> >> The thing about airstrikes is that, politically speaking, they are a
> >> free play. We get lots of stock footage of planes taking off from
> >> carrier decks, which Americans seem to love. There are very few US
> >> casualties, so no negative fallout for the president. Americans don't
> >> really care about civilian 'collateral damage' and anyway the admin is
> >> able to under-report and minimize this number.
> >
> >But, of course, in Iran it would really strengthen the hard liners. The
> >neo-cons used to claim that young Iranians were pro-American (hinting
they'd
> >even welcome a US attack -- with flowers and candy, perhaps?), but now
it's
> >clear that US actions are spurring an anti-Americanism not only among the
> >Arabs but also in Iran.
>
> You could be right. I doubt it would make that much difference when
> so many Islamic hard-liners in Iran remember the Shah, and what we've
> done to them already. It might turn moderates against us, the
> reformers who are trying to get Iran and USA back together.
It already is turning young people, who dislike the strict conservative rule
and previously had been more friendly toward the US, towards the
conservatives. US actions may be turning around (hopefully temporarily)
societal moves towards liberalization in Iran which the clerics had to
follow if they wanted to maintain their position.
> >I think they had a fantasy they could reshape the Mideast in a manner
that
> >would benefit the US. It was pure hubris.
>
> It sure was! The triumph of ideology over realism. Pride goeth
> before a fall.
Exactly. Ultimately reality defies any ideology.
Billy Beck
mush:
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>> >> Look: when was the last time anyone around here saw him in a
>> >> quivering jizz over Germany?
>> >
>> >Germany needs a change of government, the SPD-Green coalition was
>> >unable...
>>
>> <nod> "The Fourth Way."
>>
>> It's pretty damned funny how insane people never grasp the
>> well-known popular definition of insanity.
>
>Yes, you are amusing in that way.
>
>You are way over your head when you try to talk politics, Billy.
You can giggle that like a little girl all day long if you want
to, Scotti, but I'm only one of a legion of Usenet posters who've been
kicking your empty head in for nearly a decade. All you've got is a
con that you're running on the University of Maine so you don't have
to steal pizzas for the downtrodden masses anymore, and the
unqualified endorsement of stark morons around here.
>Stick with amps and guitars, you know your stuff there.
You wouldn't know that in any case, because you're a very general
idiot.
Billy
1821 Dead
wrote:
>
>mush:
>
>>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>
>>> >> Look: when was the last time anyone around here saw him in a
>>> >> quivering jizz over Germany?
>>> >
>>> >Germany needs a change of government, the SPD-Green coalition was
>>> >unable...
>>>
>>> <nod> "The Fourth Way."
>>>
>>> It's pretty damned funny how insane people never grasp the
>>> well-known popular definition of insanity.
>>
>>Yes, you are amusing in that way.
>>
>>You are way over your head when you try to talk politics, Billy.
>
> You can giggle that like a little girl all day long if you want
>to, Scotti, but I'm only one of a legion of Usenet posters who've been
>kicking your empty head in for nearly a decade. All you've got is a
>con that you're running on the University of Maine so you don't have
>to steal pizzas for the downtrodden masses anymore, and the
>unqualified endorsement of stark morons around here.
Hear that, Scott.
Billy here says his name is legion.
Didn't you always kinda suspect as much?
>
>>Stick with amps and guitars, you know your stuff there.
>
> You wouldn't know that in any case, because you're a very general
>idiot.
>
>
>Billy
>
>http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Billy Beck
The Oily Donut-Crumb wrote:
>Billy Beck <wjb...@htva.net> wrote:
>>mush:
>>>> >> Look: when was the last time anyone around here saw him in a
>>>> >> quivering jizz over Germany?
>>>> >
>>>> >Germany needs a change of government, the SPD-Green coalition was
>>>> >unable...
>>>>
>>>> <nod> "The Fourth Way."
>>>>
>>>> It's pretty damned funny how insane people never grasp the
>>>> well-known popular definition of insanity.
>>>
>>>Yes, you are amusing in that way.
>>>
>>>You are way over your head when you try to talk politics, Billy.
>>
>> You can giggle that like a little girl all day long if you want
>>to, Scotti, but I'm only one of a legion of Usenet posters who've been
>>kicking your empty head in for nearly a decade. All you've got is a
>>con that you're running on the University of Maine so you don't have
>>to steal pizzas for the downtrodden masses anymore, and the
>>unqualified endorsement of stark morons around here.
>
>Hear that, Scott.
>
>Billy here says his name is legion.
No, Zepp: that's what *you* just wrote.
Why do you lie like that?
Billy
Scott Erb
>
> mush:
>
> >"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>
> >> >> Look: when was the last time anyone around here saw him in a
> >> >> quivering jizz over Germany?
> >> >
> >> >Germany needs a change of government, the SPD-Green coalition was
> >> >unable...
> >>
> >> <nod> "The Fourth Way."
> >>
> >> It's pretty damned funny how insane people never grasp the
> >> well-known popular definition of insanity.
> >
> >Yes, you are amusing in that way.
> >
> >You are way over your head when you try to talk politics, Billy.
>
> You can giggle that like a little girl all day long if you want
> to, Scotti, but I'm only one of a legion of Usenet posters who've been
> kicking your empty head in for nearly a decade.
The reason you just call names is because you know if you were to take me
on, you'd lose. You don't form coherent arguments, you don't know how to
defend your views. You can't deal with someone who questions your
assumptions and definitions.
Face it, you're scared of a real discussion, so you lie about some 'legion
of usenet posters' (huh?), call names, and run. What a wimp.
1821 Dead
wrote:
>
Not part of a legion then.
Tch. Mercury poisoning.
It's a sad thing.
Martin McPhillips
Billy is absolutely right, Scott.
But aside from the fact that you're dishonest,
girlish, don't know your own field, have a
two-stroke agenda (socialism and anti-Americanism)
that dominates everything you write, show no
learning curve at all, and have had your ass
beat repeatedly, you've done just fine on Usenet.
After all, look at the quality of your entourage!
Long ago I said that you are a passive-aggressive
narcissist who is mildly psychopathic, and you
reinforce that conclusion for me just about
every time you post. And I will again say that
I do not regard it as any kind of coincidence
that you married into a family of former Soviet
communists (former only because the Soviet
Union is former) and that your father-in-law
ran a collectivized farm (i.e., he was a
slave master).
That you would wind up in that sort of
arrangement is consistent with everything
there is to conclude about you.
Will you be in Berlin when they dedicate the
newly proposed statue of Lenin? My money says
you'll be there for it. How about it?
blazing laser
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In International relations theory REALISM is a theory that defines interest
>as power, sees sovereign states as the fundamental unit of the international
>system, and says that states seek to maximize power by forming alliances and
>balancing against stronger powers. For realists international politics is
>neither moral nor immoral, but amoral, as states try to protect national
>interest in a world defined by a negative human nature and anarchy (no world
>police).
That might be REALISM in the academic sense, but I would call it more
cynicism. By 'realism' I meant simply being realistic, reacting to
facts as one sees them rather than to base one's perceptions on
ideology or quasi-religious or self-indulgent beliefs.
>I would put myself in the constructivist camp, though recognizing that
>realist principles often "work" in the world because those are the norms and
>rules that have been constructed. Furthermore, a liberal "hegemony" (as one
>scholar puts it) has overtaken the industrialized West, meaning that most
>western leaders accept that free trade and globalization are good, and
>natural. NEO-CONSERVATIVES are liberals, in that sense, but radical
>liberals who want to use force to spread democracy and change, believing
>that this can change the system to one where all states are so
>interdependent that they will not fight each other.
The trouble with all these classical labels (including such things as
liberalism, communism, fascism, capitalism) is that none of them exist
in their pure state. They are abstract concepts used to classify
real-world situations that are much more complex. It's been many
years since my college days, but even then I felt people talking about
20th century politics and history tried to hard to put everyone in a
box with a label on it.
In the last couple of decades all bets are off. Contemporary American
'conservatives' don't really share much with the classical idea of
'conservatism'. They've glommed onto certain ideas they found
attractive and simply labelled them as part of conservatism--like the
idea that huge budget deficits don't matter, or that the first
amendment was misguided. They've labeled as 'liberal' anything they
disagree with.
I think globalization can be either liberal or conservative depending
on who's in charge and what their goals and motives are. The way I
see globalizaton being established in the last couple of presidential
administrations, it's based on maximizing short-term profits,
empowering corporations against government regulation, and the
predictable 'race to the bottom' in workers' standards of living.
That's not either liberal or conservative in the classical sense.
It's not even really capitalism, the way we were all taught capitalism
was supposed to work.
>Economically, I think Neo-Marxians have a point about exploitation, liberals
>have a point about the power of interdependence. Each overlooks political
>aspects of world politics, and hence they don't see how much they have in
>common if the politics could be brought in (my constructivist approach mixes
>aspects of liberalism and neo-Marxian thought in analyzing the international
>system).
The difference is the goals and motivations. 8^) Political theorists
are working towards improvement of standards of living for the masses,
world peace and stability, equity, etc. In real life almost nobody
wants this. Americans are encouraged to believe they simply deserve a
bigger share of the world's wealth and resources. Some people
actually believe this is God's plan! Americans who believe this way
are exploited by politicians whose beliefs are more cynical. Most of
them will 'believe' anything that furthers their own goals, which
today have mostly to do with concentration of wealth and short-term
corporate return on investment.
>> Exactly. The whole purpose of intelligence is to justify ulterior
>> motives.
>
>That isn't new. When I was studying for my MA, I had a prof who had worked
>for the CIA, and Casey (then CIA director) essentially fired him and refused
>to accept his conclusions since it didn't fit with administration desire to
>undertake efforts to topple the Sandinistas. The idea of cooking
>intelligence to fit the policy is, unfortunately, nothing new.
It's one reason the CIA has never quite worked as it should. Besides
'intelligence', they have gotten preoccupied in dirty tricks, covert
ops, pulling strings, etc.
>> Worse than that. By invading Iraq and getting stuck in a quagmire
>> there, Bush has made Iraq the strongest nation in the Gulf, the new
>> leader.
>
>I assume you mean Iran in that last sentence? If so, yes, Iran has emerged
>as the leader in the region, and virtually invulnerable to outside pressure.
>But they may be lured by WTO entry and similar enticements to give up their
>nuclear program in time.
Yes I meant Iran. (It was late at night. 8^) )
>Chirac and many of the weapons inspectors expressed doubts. The US "sold"
>their cooked intelligence so well that much of the world bought it.
It wasn't just Chirac. The admin's strategy was to spotlight the
French because they were the most convenient target. We could just as
easily have made it the Germans or even the Canadians. In fact I
don't think there was a single country in the world where a majority
of people believed Bush, though their leaders, being politicians after
all, found it advisable to go along with him. This is one reason we
have lost so many members of the 'coalition of the willing'. And it
goes a long way towards explaining why further terrorism has been
aimed at them rather than us.
>> Senators and Congressmen who voted for the war are trying to hedge
>> their bets now by saying 'Well Bush SAID he had WMD, that the
>> intelligence proved it! He lied!' They should have known he was
>> lying. I sure did.
>
>Definitely. It was clear to me as well that policy preferences were driving
>intelligence and the interpretation of intelligence. That in and of itself
>is "standard fare" in Washington. What made this so egregious is that it
>was used to justify a war, and to attack allys and others who would dare
>disagree. Look how Chirac and the French were treated, and it turns out
>they were right after all!
The attacks on them were not based on whether they were right. The
purpose of the attacks on France was to make the point that
disagreement with Bush was somehow subversive and 'destabilizing',
that France was standing in the way of us solving the world's
problems, of enacting the Will of God. French Fries became 'freedom
fries' because the French were against 'freedom'.
>> You could be right. I doubt it would make that much difference when
>> so many Islamic hard-liners in Iran remember the Shah, and what we've
>> done to them already. It might turn moderates against us, the
>> reformers who are trying to get Iran and USA back together.
>
>It already is turning young people, who dislike the strict conservative rule
>and previously had been more friendly toward the US, towards the
>conservatives. US actions may be turning around (hopefully temporarily)
>societal moves towards liberalization in Iran which the clerics had to
>follow if they wanted to maintain their position.
There is one theory that the Bush admin are doing all they can to set
the Middle East against us, deliberately focussing Islamic anger to
coalesce into a fighting force. You can see how terrorism helps Bush.
It also replaces Communism as a chimerical threat to justify huge
defense spending.
Billy Beck
Pretty Boy:
>The reason you just call names is because...
...a thing is only what it *is*, and it can't be anything else.
It's too goddamned bad that you have a problem with the Law of
Identity, Erb, but I don't.
Billy
Scott Erb
>
> Pretty Boy:
>
> >The reason you just call names is because...
>
> ...a thing is only what it *is*, and it can't be anything else.
>
> It's too goddamned bad that you have a problem with the Law of
> Identity, Erb, but I don't.
Well, you are just a whole bunch of up quarks, down quarks, and electrons.
Billy Beck
Professorboy:
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>> >The reason you just call names is because...
>>
>> ...a thing is only what it *is*, and it can't be anything else.
>>
>> It's too goddamned bad that you have a problem with the Law of
>> Identity, Erb, but I don't.
>
>Well, you are just a whole bunch of up quarks, down quarks, and electrons.
That may be true, but at least I don't pose around with a PhD.
Billy
Scott Erb
PhD's are irrelevant. What matters is the argument and evidence.
Eagle Eye
Zepp <zepp1821#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:53:32 -0400, Billy Beck <wjb...@htva.net>
>wrote:
>>The Oily Donut-Crumb wrote:
>>>Billy Beck <wjb...@htva.net> wrote:
>>>>to, Scotti, but I'm only one of a legion of Usenet posters
>>>>who've been kicking your empty head in for nearly a decade.
>>>Hear that, Scott.
>>>
>>>Billy here says his name is legion.
>> No, Zepp: that's what *you* just wrote.
>>
>> Why do you lie like that?
>Not part of a legion then.
Why are you pretending that the noun "legion" is interchangable
with the adjective, particularly since you have to twist the
context (by inserting the word "name" yourself) to make a different
part of speech fit?
Incidentally Erb, is THIS the sort of superior argument you think
"frustrate[s]" Zepp's opponents?
=====
EE
Eagle Eye
Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote in message
>news:5jk1f19oq2cv19kp8...@4ax.com...
>> mush:
>> >You are way over your head when you try to talk politics,
>> >Billy.
>> You can giggle that like a little girl all day long if you want
>> to, Scotti, but I'm only one of a legion of Usenet posters
>> who've been kicking your empty head in for nearly a decade.
>The reason you just call names is because you know if you were to
>take me on, you'd lose.
<laugh>
<laugh>
<laugh>
For years, I watched Billy kick you around on a near-daily basis.
That statement of yours is a 100% reversal of the truth and anyone
else who watched it in progress knows this--including YOU.
I understand that it must be harmful to your fragile ego for a mere
"roady" to be more intelligent and informed, to have a broader
range of knowledge and experience, and to be able to write ten
times better than you on your best day.
Build a bridge and get over it.
[snipdelusions]
>you lie about some 'legion of usenet posters' (huh?)
There is a legion of posters who have made mincemeat of your
arguments, Scott. That's no lie.
[snip]
=====
EE
Scott Erb
"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:2005080317565...@nym.alias.net...
> For years, I watched Billy kick you around on a near-daily basis.
> That statement of yours is a 100% reversal of the truth and anyone
> else who watched it in progress knows this--including YOU.
You and Billy can keep telling yourself that, but you know it's not true.
He doesn't even try, he admits it. You try sometimes, but seem to run back
to throwing insults when the argument gets too hard. Pity, you sometimes
show some thought, you just don't follow through.
> I understand that it must be harmful to your fragile ego for a mere
> "roady" to be more intelligent and informed, to have a broader
> range of knowledge and experience, and to be able to write ten
> times better than you on your best day.
>
> Build a bridge and get over it.
>
> [snipdelusions]
> >you lie about some 'legion of usenet posters' (huh?)
>
> There is a legion of posters who have made mincemeat of your
> arguments, Scott. That's no lie.
So you claim. There's a lot of noise from a few of you, but no substance.
But hey, if you feel better by proclaiming that you're better than me, go
ahead. If you really are, then show it in a substantive discussion.
Billy Beck
Herr Doktor Professorboy:
>"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote...
>
>> For years, I watched Billy kick you around on a near-daily basis.
>> That statement of yours is a 100% reversal of the truth and anyone
>> else who watched it in progress knows this--including YOU.
>You and Billy can keep telling yourself that, but you know it's not true.
>He doesn't even try, he admits it.
"Try" what, Erb? You're equivocating between your desperate wish
that I might validate your premises, and something that you leave
un-named in that sentence, and for good reason. I have many
*hundreds* of posts in the record, directly dismantling your
horseshit, so stop lying.
>> There is a legion of posters who have made mincemeat of your
>> arguments, Scott. That's no lie.
>
>So you claim. There's a lot of noise from a few of you, but no substance.
That's your stock back-fill every single time someone posts a
shot-on-goal against your lying crap, Scotti. If I had a dollar for
every time someone posted a perfectly clear and obvious argument
against your rot and you called it "vague" or "without substance", I
could probably field an armored cavalry company by myself.
"You just turn your pretty head and walk away."
(The James Gang)
Billy
Eagle Eye
Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:2005080317565...@nym.alias.net...
>> For years, I watched Billy kick you around on a near-daily
>> basis. That statement of yours is a 100% reversal of the truth
>> and anyone else who watched it in progress knows this--including
>> YOU.
>You and Billy can keep telling yourself that, but you know it's
>not true. He doesn't even try, he admits it.
Try WHAT?
Convincing you, shaming you, refuting your arguments, and using you
as an illustration are four different things. It's not necessary
to make any headway on the first two to succeed in the latter two,
or the first three to succeed in the last.
[snip]
=====
EE
Martin McPhillips
>
> "Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
> message
> news:2005080317565...@nym.alias.net...
>
>> For years, I watched Billy kick you around on a
>> near-daily basis.
>> That statement of yours is a 100% reversal of the truth
>> and anyone
>> else who watched it in progress knows this--including
>> YOU.
>
> You and Billy can keep telling yourself that, but you know
> it's not true.
It's so true that it is nearly a self-evident
truth. It's not even a question of any of
the people who threw you around the room
agreeing with one another about many things
or anything at all.
It's just the thoroughness with which one
person after another made a monkey of you.
The longest lasting effect of it all is
precisely what everyone has seen in the
past few days: you snuggling into the arms
of the most pronounced delusional liar and
idiot in evidence: Zepp.
But lying has never bothered you, Scott,
and so the fact that it's Zepp's lifestyle
hardly phases you.
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>he reason you just call names is because you know if you were to take me
>on, you'd lose. You don't form coherent arguments, you don't know how to
>defend your views. You can't deal with someone who questions your
>assumptions and definitions.
Irony from Erb??? Look at how he defends his loony ideas..
Scott Erb still totally fails to explain how he says both
that the common element of socialism can be the rejection
of capitalism, and that social democracy which embraces
capitalism is a form of socialism.
Sid9
Someone wrote that you RRR's have a binary brain, 0 or 1.
Capitalism is just fine if it's kept under control.
Otherwise you have the ingredients for revolution.
We have a mixed economy.
We have the SEC.
We have the Sherman Anti-trust act
We have Social Security
We have Banking laws
We have Labor laws
Plus much more that makes our society sustainable
Your "binary" Socialism doesn't exist in the United States
nor does ot have many adherents.
RRR's use it as a bogey man to scare the fools among us
Steven Canyon
>Steven Canyon wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:57:25 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> he reason you just call names is because you know if you were to
>>> take me on, you'd lose. You don't form coherent arguments, you
>>> don't know how to defend your views. You can't deal with someone
>>> who questions your assumptions and definitions.
>>
>>
>> Irony from Erb??? Look at how he defends his loony ideas..
>>
>>
>> Scott Erb still totally fails to explain how he says both
>> that the common element of socialism can be the rejection
>> of capitalism, and that social democracy which embraces
>> capitalism is a form of socialism.
>
>Someone wrote that you RRR's have a binary brain, 0 or 1.
irony anyone?
>Capitalism is just fine if it's kept under control.
>Otherwise you have the ingredients for revolution.
>
>We have a mixed economy.
>We have the SEC.
>We have the Sherman Anti-trust act
>We have Social Security
>We have Banking laws
>We have Labor laws
>Plus much more that makes our society sustainable
>
>
>Your "binary" Socialism doesn't exist in the United States
>nor does ot have many adherents.
>
>RRR's use it as a bogey man to scare the fools among us
>
Nothing in your post addresses the issue I raised, that being that
Scott Erb claimed that the common element of socialism is the
rejection of capitalism, and that social democracy which embraces
capitalism is a form of socialism. The two claims that Erb made
contradict each other you hapless moron and Erb simply runs away from
them....
--
Steve
Billy Beck
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Capitalism is just fine if it's kept under control.
>Otherwise you have the ingredients for revolution.
"Let the peasants have other peoples' factories or we'll burn
them down."
Billy
Scott Erb
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:xbbIe.1071$%X1....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Exactly. Social Democrats reject pure capitalism in favor of a mixed
economy, as do even most Republicans.
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
But, Erb says that social democracy and capitalism are not
contradictory, and yet he also says that the common element of
socialism is the rejection of capitalism.. More double talk from
Erb.... The poor perfessor doesn't have clue....
--
Steve
Scott Erb
"blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:31:59 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >In International relations theory REALISM is a theory that defines
interest
> >as power, sees sovereign states as the fundamental unit of the
international
> >system, and says that states seek to maximize power by forming alliances
and
> >balancing against stronger powers. For realists international politics
is
> >neither moral nor immoral, but amoral, as states try to protect national
> >interest in a world defined by a negative human nature and anarchy (no
world
> >police).
>
> That might be REALISM in the academic sense, but I would call it more
> cynicism. By 'realism' I meant simply being realistic, reacting to
> facts as one sees them rather than to base one's perceptions on
> ideology or quasi-religious or self-indulgent beliefs.
When people talk about "realists" in the administration, usually they mean
the academic sense, especially with Condi Rice who, like Kissinger,
specifically labels herself a realist. Obviously, even neo-conservatives
consider themselves "realistic." (That's a tad delusional, perhaps, but...)
> >I would put myself in the constructivist camp, though recognizing that
> >realist principles often "work" in the world because those are the norms
and
> >rules that have been constructed. Furthermore, a liberal "hegemony" (as
one
> >scholar puts it) has overtaken the industrialized West, meaning that most
> >western leaders accept that free trade and globalization are good, and
> >natural. NEO-CONSERVATIVES are liberals, in that sense, but radical
> >liberals who want to use force to spread democracy and change, believing
> >that this can change the system to one where all states are so
> >interdependent that they will not fight each other.
>
> The trouble with all these classical labels (including such things as
> liberalism, communism, fascism, capitalism) is that none of them exist
> in their pure state. They are abstract concepts used to classify
> real-world situations that are much more complex.
They are starting points, based on different assumptions about the nature of
international relations, politics, and indeed human nature. They are
different 'world views,' but rarely do they exist in their pure state, and
if you get away from some of the more 'intellectual' types (Rice, many of
the neo-cons, and the think tank types) politicians and leaders go more by
their own psychological states and biases than an academic theory. Academic
theories try to analyze both what's best to do, or explain via a theory why
things work out the way they do. (In Poli-Sci that distinguishes
International Relations study from Foreign Policy analysis).
>It's been many
> years since my college days, but even then I felt people talking about
> 20th century politics and history tried to hard to put everyone in a
> box with a label on it.
Yeah, but you categorize to start, or to use as a tool for analysts. For
instance, there are numerous theories of foreign policy decision making
(bureaucratic politics, rational actor, social psychological approaches,
etc.) and these are theories for analysts to use as tools to try to
understand policy; students often mistake it as tools for policy makers
(e.g., he should use a rational actor approach rather than bureaucratic
politics). The boxes are useful as a starting point, to categorize and work
through the issues, but aren't themselves "real."
> In the last couple of decades all bets are off. Contemporary American
> 'conservatives' don't really share much with the classical idea of
> 'conservatism'.
True, their a mix of radical economic liberalism (capitalism/free markets)
and often traditional social conservatism (gay marriage, prayer in schools,
etc.) An odd mix.
> They've glommed onto certain ideas they found
> attractive and simply labelled them as part of conservatism--like the
> idea that huge budget deficits don't matter, or that the first
> amendment was misguided. They've labeled as 'liberal' anything they
> disagree with.
It's sort of an good vs. evil thing with those types, very simplistic and
rather idiotic. It's partially the result of radio talk jocks using
emotional appeals rather than reason to boost ratings. Demonize "liberals,"
proclaim conservatives as true Americans, and use ridicule rather than
reason. For instance, I was zipping through the dial and heard that Hannity
guy say, "Durbin compared our soldiers with Nazis, how can anybody believe
anything he says." Wow. First, Durbin didn't do that, he said one might
think some acts that took place came from Nazi Germany (and he has a point).
Second, once he realized how it was being interpreted (or mis-interpreted),
he apologized. The idea one can jump from that to paint him as a wild eyed
idiot and that "can never be believed..." Well, that's Goebbelsesque.
> I think globalization can be either liberal or conservative depending
> on who's in charge and what their goals and motives are. The way I
> see globalizaton being established in the last couple of presidential
> administrations, it's based on maximizing short-term profits,
> empowering corporations against government regulation, and the
> predictable 'race to the bottom' in workers' standards of living.
> That's not either liberal or conservative in the classical sense.
Sort of classical liberal in the sense of limited government -- after all,
that liberal era saw the rise of the original sweat shops in Britain.
Neo-liberal is the term en vogue now, which is an internationalization of
liberal economics, seeing development as best served by free markets.
I agree with what you say -- globalization can take many forms, right now
it's serving the interests of wealthy corporations in the West, but actions
of NGOs and IOs can move to limit that, just as the labor movement
ultimately limited abuse of such power during the industrial revolution.
> It's not even really capitalism, the way we were all taught capitalism
> was supposed to work.
>
> >Economically, I think Neo-Marxians have a point about exploitation,
liberals
> >have a point about the power of interdependence. Each overlooks
political
> >aspects of world politics, and hence they don't see how much they have in
> >common if the politics could be brought in (my constructivist approach
mixes
> >aspects of liberalism and neo-Marxian thought in analyzing the
international
> >system).
>
> The difference is the goals and motivations. 8^) Political theorists
> are working towards improvement of standards of living for the masses,
> world peace and stability, equity, etc. In real life almost nobody
> wants this. Americans are encouraged to believe they simply deserve a
> bigger share of the world's wealth and resources. Some people
> actually believe this is God's plan! Americans who believe this way
> are exploited by politicians whose beliefs are more cynical. Most of
> them will 'believe' anything that furthers their own goals, which
> today have mostly to do with concentration of wealth and short-term
> corporate return on investment.
And, of course, if the rest of the world developed, there would be too much
pollution for the planet to handle. Rather than all of us altering our
ways, best to keep the third world down! I've actually heard people argue
that.
> >> Exactly. The whole purpose of intelligence is to justify ulterior
> >> motives.
> >
> >That isn't new. When I was studying for my MA, I had a prof who had
worked
> >for the CIA, and Casey (then CIA director) essentially fired him and
refused
> >to accept his conclusions since it didn't fit with administration desire
to
> >undertake efforts to topple the Sandinistas. The idea of cooking
> >intelligence to fit the policy is, unfortunately, nothing new.
>
> It's one reason the CIA has never quite worked as it should. Besides
> 'intelligence', they have gotten preoccupied in dirty tricks, covert
> ops, pulling strings, etc.
Yes. A lot of good people work there, really dedicated. It's usually the
politicians at the top that thwart them, and the Iraq case and its aftermath
is a classic example.
>
> >> Worse than that. By invading Iraq and getting stuck in a quagmire
> >> there, Bush has made Iraq the strongest nation in the Gulf, the new
> >> leader.
> >
> >I assume you mean Iran in that last sentence? If so, yes, Iran has
emerged
> >as the leader in the region, and virtually invulnerable to outside
pressure.
> >But they may be lured by WTO entry and similar enticements to give up
their
> >nuclear program in time.
>
> Yes I meant Iran. (It was late at night. 8^) )
>
> >Chirac and many of the weapons inspectors expressed doubts. The US
"sold"
> >their cooked intelligence so well that much of the world bought it.
>
> It wasn't just Chirac. The admin's strategy was to spotlight the
> French because they were the most convenient target. We could just as
> easily have made it the Germans or even the Canadians. In fact I
> don't think there was a single country in the world where a majority
> of people believed Bush, though their leaders, being politicians after
> all, found it advisable to go along with him. This is one reason we
> have lost so many members of the 'coalition of the willing'. And it
> goes a long way towards explaining why further terrorism has been
> aimed at them rather than us.
The Daily Show had a funny bit after the London bombings, as one of the
"reporters" praised George W. Bush's plan, noting that "the coalition of the
willing is the coalition of the bombable -- most of them far easier to get
at than us." A lot of the tiny countries involved were promised a quick
victory and perks of Iraqi oil; they now realize that's not coming, and
America is too stretched to be able to offer them much. East Europeans
realize their bread and butter lies with western Europe, not the US.
> >> Senators and Congressmen who voted for the war are trying to hedge
> >> their bets now by saying 'Well Bush SAID he had WMD, that the
> >> intelligence proved it! He lied!' They should have known he was
> >> lying. I sure did.
> >
> >Definitely. It was clear to me as well that policy preferences were
driving
> >intelligence and the interpretation of intelligence. That in and of
itself
> >is "standard fare" in Washington. What made this so egregious is that it
> >was used to justify a war, and to attack allys and others who would dare
> >disagree. Look how Chirac and the French were treated, and it turns out
> >they were right after all!
>
> The attacks on them were not based on whether they were right. The
> purpose of the attacks on France was to make the point that
> disagreement with Bush was somehow subversive and 'destabilizing',
> that France was standing in the way of us solving the world's
> problems, of enacting the Will of God. French Fries became 'freedom
> fries' because the French were against 'freedom'.
Oh yeah, demonization and emotionalization, it was bizarre.
> >> You could be right. I doubt it would make that much difference when
> >> so many Islamic hard-liners in Iran remember the Shah, and what we've
> >> done to them already. It might turn moderates against us, the
> >> reformers who are trying to get Iran and USA back together.
> >
> >It already is turning young people, who dislike the strict conservative
rule
> >and previously had been more friendly toward the US, towards the
> >conservatives. US actions may be turning around (hopefully temporarily)
> >societal moves towards liberalization in Iran which the clerics had to
> >follow if they wanted to maintain their position.
>
> There is one theory that the Bush admin are doing all they can to set
> the Middle East against us, deliberately focussing Islamic anger to
> coalesce into a fighting force. You can see how terrorism helps Bush.
> It also replaces Communism as a chimerical threat to justify huge
> defense spending.
More likely they simply committed that typical great power error:
overestimated their ability to project power to shape political ends,
weakening their country and their ability to shape results. I think Bush
really thought he was going to be remembered for 'spreading freedom.' It
was pure hubris.
>
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
That's an argument for saying that almost everyone is a socialist,
clearly not true. The problem is that 'socialism' really doesn't have a
non self contradictory definition, at least on its edges. It's a bit
like defining what a 'fish' is.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Steven Canyon wrote:
>
> Nothing in your post addresses the issue I raised, that being that
> Scott Erb claimed that the common element of socialism is the
> rejection of capitalism,
>
Perhaps the rejection of pure capitalism. Most people are not pure
marketists, but most people aren't self defined 'socialists' either. I
think that believing in the nation-state and federal government doesn't
make one a socialist, more is required.
> and that social democracy which embraces
> capitalism is a form of socialism. The two claims that Erb made
> contradict each other you hapless moron and Erb simply runs away from
> them....
>
In all fairness, no one seems able to define what 'socialism' means to
include all people who self-define themselves as 'socialists'. This
alone should suggest that 'socialism' isn't really one thing and other
names for various views currently attributed to 'socialists' should be
defined.
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
> news:hlr0f15i9a5sat1qr...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:03:28 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> > <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Not -realism-, more like -realpolitik-.
> > >
> > >Yes, I was thinking in terms of the theory of "political realism" (Rice's
> > >supposed approach), which comes from ideals of Realpolitik. I'm not a
> > >realist, but I find realism to be at least a better approach than
> > >neo-conservatism.
> >
> > Not a realist? Hmmmm. How would you characterize yourself, Scott?
> > I've always found your posts to be very realistic, mostly debunking
> > self-indulgent Republican twaddle. Maybe you don't consider them so.
> > Would you consider yourself an ideologue? I'd say you were
> > anti-ideological.
>
> In International relations theory REALISM is a theory that defines interest
> as power, sees sovereign states as the fundamental unit of the international
> system,
>
Do you disagree with that? The concept of the sovereign nation state is
really the fundamental bit that both socialists and fascists seek in
common to void. Socialists and fascists are both at heart "empireists".
They seek to enlarge themselves by swallowing up the nation-state model.
That might seem odd for fascists who are often claimed to be
nationalists but not really since fascists are only supportive of their
own nation, really an empire. Socialists are more obviously
internationalists, seeking things like one government for the entire of
Europe. It amazes me that that isn't termed 'empire' by American
Liberals.
Steven Canyon
of recirculation')" <pre...@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
>
>
>Steven Canyon wrote:
>>
>
>> Nothing in your post addresses the issue I raised, that being that
>> Scott Erb claimed that the common element of socialism is the
>> rejection of capitalism,
>>
>Perhaps the rejection of pure capitalism. Most people are not pure
>marketists, but most people aren't self defined 'socialists' either. I
>think that believing in the nation-state and federal government doesn't
>make one a socialist, more is required.
At the time I was trying to pin ERb down on what he thought socialism
really was, since he as wafting all around and lecturing everyone,
including me an all the things he said socialism wasn't.. he'd even
rejected his own earlier definitions, when someone else used it... In
his desperation, he finally suggested that the common element of all
types of socialism was the rejection of capitalism....
...and later, he casually noted that social democracy actually
embraced capitalism, yet was a form of socialism...
>> and that social democracy which embraces
>> capitalism is a form of socialism. The two claims that Erb made
>> contradict each other you hapless moron and Erb simply runs away from
>> them....
>>
>In all fairness, no one seems able to define what 'socialism' means to
>include all people who self-define themselves as 'socialists'. This
>alone should suggest that 'socialism' isn't really one thing and other
>names for various views currently attributed to 'socialists' should be
>defined.
Well, yes, it's true that socialism is many different things, but it
must have some common element that makes it socialism. I think it's
something as simple as being it's communalism, IOW, making the needs
and wants of the individual subservient to that of the society as a
whole.
Communalism is always going to fail because the human individual is
simply not a communalistic creature. The needs and wants of the
society can only be defined by the individuals and they will always
vote for their own individual needs and wants.
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
of recirculation')" <pre...@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
Then perhaps Erb should stop trying to define it...
--
Here's Martin McPhillip's brilliant disassembling of
Scott Erb from back in the good old old days.
**************************************************************************
Here you bash Pale Rider for defining socialism
as the people "owning the means of production"--
11/9/99
Pale Rider:
>Look, Scott, socialism is where the people
>own the means of production collectively and
>capitalism is where they own it
>individually.
Erb:
Wrong. There are many different forms of
each ideology, it can't be so
simplistically turned into a dichotomy.
Social Democracy in fact is defined
as a type of socialism which embraces
private property. You need to learn more
about the variations within the ideologies.
--------
Here you bash Schneider with the same
definition of socialism that you bash Pale
Rider for using--
4/10/97
Erb:
Mikey, you really do need to learn how
concepts are defined before you use
them. Socialism is not the same as state
capitalism of the sorts the East
Asian NICs used to industrialized and enter
the world economy. Socialism is
the state OWNING the means of production.
State planning is something
different. It can be criticized, but your
attempt to argue by labelling is
not only logically fallcious, but you don't
even know what the concepts mean!
You really aren't too bright, are you?
cheers, scott
--------
Here you are asking Pale Rider "Where do
you get this stuff" for using the definition of socialism
you used when you told Schneider that "you
don't even know what these concepts mean!"--
11/10/99--
Pale Rider:
>Defined by who? If the MOP is not
>owned collectively it ain't
>socialism. That's what socialism is.
Erb:
You assert that, but its NOT TRUE!
You are simply wrong. Where
do you get this stuff?
----------------
Here you say that "social democracy"
is a form of socialism, insisting that the
"collective ownership" definition of socialism
is only properly used to define "orthodox Marxism"--
11/9/99--
Erb:
Social Democracy is a form of socialism
defined by its acceptance
of markets and private ownership of the means
of production.
Pale Rider:
> In order for an economic system to
> be defined as socialism the means
> of production must be owned by the
> people collectively, otherwise it
> isn't socialism because that's
> what socialism is.
Erb:
No, you're mixing orthodox Marxian
thought with socialism. Marx's
"scientific socialism" (an
objectivist philosophy based on the
truthbeing knowable and objectively
provable) had that kind of statement,
but many socialists of different
outlooks disagree considerably with
Marx on this.
-------------
Here, when Sabotta calls Sweden "socialist"
and is answered by Anders that Sweden is
not socialist, you agree with Anders, and
draw a sharp distinction between "social
democracy" and "socialism"---
11/14/95
John Sabotta:
>>But since virtually everybody - including
>>Sweden's admirers - consider Sweden to
>>be some form of socialist state,
>>your insistance that it is not
>>is unusually perverse.
Anders (from Sweden, apparently):
>In my opinion it is your "everybody knows"
>arguments that are perverse. If you look
>at the facts you will find that Sweden
>is no less capitalistic and in many
>ways more free, compared to the US.
Erb:
Quite true. The poster apparently doesn't
understand the difference between Social
Democracy and Socialism as defined as a
planned economy with the state owning the
means of production. People throw out
socialism to describe everything they
don't like (here in Maine I heard someone
accuse another of being a socialist
because they supported a manditory seat belt
law!).
-------------
Here, without mentioning the term "social
democracy" you refer to the "Swedish Socialists"
and the system they created in, I assume, Sweden,
and in this context you allud
blazing laser
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> The trouble with all these classical labels (including such things as
>> liberalism, communism, fascism, capitalism) is that none of them exist
>> in their pure state. They are abstract concepts used to classify
>> real-world situations that are much more complex.
>
>They are starting points, based on different assumptions about the nature of
>international relations, politics, and indeed human nature. They are
>different 'world views,' but rarely do they exist in their pure state, and
>if you get away from some of the more 'intellectual' types (Rice, many of
>the neo-cons, and the think tank types) politicians and leaders go more by
>their own psychological states and biases than an academic theory. Academic
>theories try to analyze both what's best to do, or explain via a theory why
>things work out the way they do. (In Poli-Sci that distinguishes
>International Relations study from Foreign Policy analysis).
The funny thing is that ideologs like the PNAC geniuses usually think
they've broken free of old thinking, that they've found not only a new
way but -the- way. You'd think Newt Gingrich, with a PhD in history,
would have a wider perspective. I'm not sure what Condi's educational
qualifications are (I'm sure they're impressive!) but her actions and
words make her seem really just a cynic, hiding motives behind
ideology she thinks will sell.
>> In the last couple of decades all bets are off. Contemporary American
>> 'conservatives' don't really share much with the classical idea of
>> 'conservatism'.
>
>True, their a mix of radical economic liberalism (capitalism/free markets)
>and often traditional social conservatism (gay marriage, prayer in schools,
>etc.) An odd mix.
It's not so much about 'conservatism' any more. 'Conservative' has
become a code word, meaning different things to different people,
usually something self-serving. 95% of people who vote Republican
couldn't tell you what 'conservatism' means, except that there's
something in it they want--moralism or gun freedom or a tax cut. The
rest they don't care about, but it's the rest that's destroying them
little by little and they don't see it.
>
>> They've glommed onto certain ideas they found
>> attractive and simply labelled them as part of conservatism--like the
>> idea that huge budget deficits don't matter, or that the first
>> amendment was misguided. They've labeled as 'liberal' anything they
>> disagree with.
>
>It's sort of an good vs. evil thing with those types, very simplistic and
>rather idiotic. It's partially the result of radio talk jocks using
>emotional appeals rather than reason to boost ratings. Demonize "liberals,"
>proclaim conservatives as true Americans, and use ridicule rather than
>reason. For instance, I was zipping through the dial and heard that Hannity
>guy say, "Durbin compared our soldiers with Nazis, how can anybody believe
>anything he says." Wow. First, Durbin didn't do that, he said one might
>think some acts that took place came from Nazi Germany (and he has a point).
>Second, once he realized how it was being interpreted (or mis-interpreted),
>he apologized. The idea one can jump from that to paint him as a wild eyed
>idiot and that "can never be believed..." Well, that's Goebbelsesque.
Couldn't agree more. But again, people believe this stuff because
there's one part of it that sounds good to them. They don't
understand the rest of it but they -pretend- to understand.
Also I think the right-wingers take advantage of a characteristic of
human nature. People don't like to have to think too deeply about
things. They'd rather get their understanding pre-digested. The
right-wing talk shows make it easy for them, they dont' so much give
them news as a pre-packaged understanding, like intellectual
convenience food. It doesn't help matters that we also have a strong
anti-intellectual streak in the American culture.
>I agree with what you say -- globalization can take many forms, right now
>it's serving the interests of wealthy corporations in the West, but actions
>of NGOs and IOs can move to limit that, just as the labor movement
>ultimately limited abuse of such power during the industrial revolution.
I see that happening when the great majority of people start realizing
that the agenda doesn't serve them at all, and stop voting against
their own interests. But I think it will have to get a lot worse
before it gets better. It's only pain that wakes people up, and it
hasn't gotten painful enough just yet.
>And, of course, if the rest of the world developed, there would be too much
>pollution for the planet to handle. Rather than all of us altering our
>ways, best to keep the third world down! I've actually heard people argue
>that.
This is another aspect of the American culture, the idea that God
favors us and wants us to use more than our share of the world's
resources, even if we have to kill people to get them. I remember
reading that in the late 18th/early 19th century there were terrible
epidemics among American Indians that decimated their population, and
some American politicians said they thought this was God's work, to
get the Indians out of the way so we could expand westward.
>The Daily Show had a funny bit after the London bombings, as one of the
>"reporters" praised George W. Bush's plan, noting that "the coalition of the
>willing is the coalition of the bombable -- most of them far easier to get
>at than us." A lot of the tiny countries involved were promised a quick
>victory and perks of Iraqi oil; they now realize that's not coming, and
>America is too stretched to be able to offer them much. East Europeans
>realize their bread and butter lies with western Europe, not the US.
I tend to think the small members of the coalition--actually probably
all of them except England--were the countries that depended on US aid
and were afraid to cheese off Bush. The Bush admin told them they
only had to agree in principle, not to send troops or spend money.
>More likely they simply committed that typical great power error:
>overestimated their ability to project power to shape political ends,
>weakening their country and their ability to shape results. I think Bush
>really thought he was going to be remembered for 'spreading freedom.' It
>was pure hubris.
Bush made the mistake of substituting ideological expertise for
practical expertise. He trusted people like Wolfowitz and Perle and
Feith, put them in charge of areas they really knew nothing about.
This is exactly what Republicans always accuse Democrats of
doing--substituting brains and ideolgy and abstract knowledge for
practical experience.
Scott Erb
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
news:1123124642.577d7e31902398807017d120898987fd@teranews...
No, socialists are internationalists, fascists are nationalists who usually
put a premium on sovereignty (though they are often willing to violate the
sovereignty of others for their own gain -- something realists would oppose.
Sovereignty, a concept first applied to international politics by Grotius,
and put into practical existence by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648,
defined the modern state system. Yet it is becoming obsolete for a number
of reasons: 1) most states are not viable in the third world, as they are
colonial constructs rather than natural political entities; 2) within the
developed world borders are becoming less important, as capital, people,
technology and information flow. Where once you could talk about an
"American car company," now national identity is often irrelevant to global
production and investment; and 3) States are beginning the process of
forming cooperative arrangements that blurs borders legally -- NAFTA and
CAFTA are minor examples (as is the WTO), the EU is the most advanced
(coming from the continent that gave us sovereignty in the first place!)
Large powers like China, the US, and a few others, might be able to defend
sovereignty for awhile, but especially as new issues and dangers emerge in
the coming century, it's fading in importance.
>Socialists and fascists are both at heart "empireists".
> They seek to enlarge themselves by swallowing up the nation-state model.
I'm not sure about socialists -- most aren't supportive of expansive wars --
but fascists usually want to expand. But Franco didn't. Fascism is a
different sort of ideology because its not objectivist like socialism, and
relies on a belief in power, will, nation, national identity/character,
emotion, and leadership.
> That might seem odd for fascists who are often claimed to be
> nationalists but not really since fascists are only supportive of their
> own nation, really an empire.
Again, it depends. Nationalism is defined in terms of support of ones' own
nation.
> Socialists are more obviously
> internationalists, seeking things like one government for the entire of
> Europe. It amazes me that that isn't termed 'empire' by American
> Liberals.
Who's conquering who? What 'socialists' are you talking about?
Scott Erb
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<pre...@postpend.net.ru> wrote in message
news
> In all fairness, no one seems able to define what 'socialism' means to
> include all people who self-define themselves as 'socialists'. This
> alone should suggest that 'socialism' isn't really one thing and other
> names for various views currently attributed to 'socialists' should be
> defined.
Usually in political science there are various was to describe socialism:
Bureaucratic socialism (often communism) which sees a big government
planning the entire economy and controlling the system.
Democratic Socialism: Usually they see a powerful government, but one that
is chosen in elections and which stands in elections.
Social Democracy (or reformist socialists): Saw in horror what the USSR
became, realized that governmental control is not the answer, these people
embrace markets, private property, and other things anathema to bureaucratic
socialists, who deride them as "welfare capitalists." The goal of Social
Democrats is usually to try to equalize social opportunity and to some
extent outcomes, and expand basic rights (e.g., right to health care, etc.)
This has been the only kind of socialism which has had success in the real
world.
Post-Marxism: A wide range of theories ditch Marx and argue that true
socialism is not the kind of government planned economy, but a revolt in
culture and thinking about the structure of human relations. These are
often utopian theories, though some like Roberto Unger (whose socialism is
labeled anti-statist socialism) try to grapple with practicalities as well.
Academic Marxism: Academic Marxism, fading in most fields, but still strong
in especially Development studies, uses Marxian analysis, redeveloped to
take into account all the errors Marx made, to investigate the international
political economy. Most of these scholars scoff that the things called
socialism in the real world have little to do with Marx's goals and ideas.
And there are others....
The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so many
different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At the
very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use it,
since there is no one standard definition. They share a rejection of
capitalism as the best form of economic interaction, but how much of it they
reject varies; post-Marxists and Social Democrats are often very pro-market
in their policies.
Billy Beck
slip-slide:
>The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so many
>different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
>usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At the
>very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use it,
>since there is no one standard definition.
Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
Billy
Scott Erb
Too simplistic. Marx, for instance, argued for communism in order to free
individuals from being cogs in a machine, exploited and devoid of true
humanity in order to, as he saw it, produce value for the capitalist class.
Most socialists believe their position is ultimately individualist, with an
emphasis on ending alienation and exploitation. They argue that capitalism
is anti-individualist.
Billy Beck
dim:
>
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>> >The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so
>> >many different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
>> >usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At
>> >the very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use
>> >it, since there is no one standard definition.
>>
>> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>
>Too simplistic.
That is very often the nature of fact, Scotti. I know it's not
confusing enough to accomodate your sense of poltical profit, but
that's too bad.
Billy
Scott Erb
I guess it's simply above your head. You want simple sloganistic truths,
apparently. Reality doesn't work that way. You need to recognize reality,
not a fantasy world concocted to service your own whims. Reality, Billy.
Deal with it.
Oh, and here's what you snipped:
Billy Beck
flap:
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>> >> >The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so
>> >> >many different variants, and the word for average folk has such
>> >> >powerful and usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless.
>> >> >At the very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they
>> >> >use it, since there is no one standard definition.
>> >>
>> >> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>> >
>> >Too simplistic.
>>
>> That is very often the nature of fact, Scotti. I know it's not
>> confusing enough to accomodate your sense of poltical profit, but
>> that's too bad.
>
>I guess it's simply above your head.
Keep guessing.
>You want simple sloganistic truths, apparently.
It's bloody disgusting watching someone who pretends to
philosophy using terms the way you do, Erb. What I "want" has nothing
to do with. I "want" you to fall out of your chair and bump your
head, but that's irrelevent. Likewise; what any given thing *is*. It
simply is what it is. It is the task of human beings to figure it
out, and then -- if they intend to impart knowledge of the world
between each other -- to relate that existence according to
essentials. Of course, the more that crickets like you work at
"sloganeering" the essentials out of any given referent, the more
impossible that becomes, and it's a dandy make-work program for
graduated pizza-thieves.
>Reality doesn't work that way.
"Reality" is a lot more than the minute fact of what you get away
with in front of the kiddies, Erb.
Billy
Scott Erb
>
> flap:
>
> >"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>
> >> >> >The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has
so
> >> >> >many different variants, and the word for average folk has such
> >> >> >powerful and usually negative connotations, that it is seen as
rather useless.
> >> >> >At the very least, analysts have to explain and define the term
when they
> >> >> >use it, since there is no one standard definition.
> >> >>
> >> >> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
> >> >
> >> >Too simplistic.
> >>
> >> That is very often the nature of fact, Scotti. I know it's not
> >> confusing enough to accomodate your sense of poltical profit, but
> >> that's too bad.
> >
> >I guess it's simply above your head.
>
> Keep guessing.
>
> >You want simple sloganistic truths, apparently.
>
> It's bloody disgusting watching someone who pretends to
> philosophy using terms the way you do, Erb. What I "want" has nothing
> to do with. I "want" you to fall out of your chair and bump your
> head, but that's irrelevent. Likewise; what any given thing *is*. It
> simply is what it is.
Well duh, what a thing is, is what it is. That's hardly bold new ground.
>It is the task of human beings to figure it
> out, and then -- if they intend to impart knowledge of the world
> between each other -- to relate that existence according to
> essentials. Of course, the more that crickets like you work at
> "sloganeering" the essentials out of any given referent, the more
> impossible that becomes, and it's a dandy make-work program for
> graduated pizza-thieves.
You make a lot of noise, but your claim that socialism is the opposite of
individualism is simply undefended and unsupported.
Anyone can assert things, call names, and the like. That's not thinking,
that's avoidance of thought.
> >Reality doesn't work that way.
>
> "Reality" is a lot more than the minute fact of what you get away
> with in front of the kiddies, Erb.
You don't even try to understand reality, Billy, you seem locked in your own
set of beliefs, defending them like a faith. You act like a fundamentalist
attacking anyone who dares challenge your orthodoxy, an orthodoxy that seems
bizarre, ill thought out, and has at its base your emotional desire to be
left alone and define for yourself what things mean and what you should do.
That's understandable at an emotional level, but it is *not* philosophy, nor
is it clear thinking.
Billy Beck
Doktor Rogers:
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>> >> >> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>> >> >
>> >> >Too simplistic.
>> >>
>> >> That is very often the nature of fact, Scotti. I know it's not
>> >> confusing enough to accomodate your sense of poltical profit, but
>> >> that's too bad.
>> >
>> >I guess it's simply above your head.
>>
>> Keep guessing.
>>
>> >You want simple sloganistic truths, apparently.
>>
>> It's bloody disgusting watching someone who pretends to
>> philosophy using terms the way you do, Erb. What I "want" has nothing
>> to do with. I "want" you to fall out of your chair and bump your
>> head, but that's irrelevent. Likewise; what any given thing *is*. It
>> simply is what it is.
>
>Well duh, what a thing is, is what it is. That's hardly bold new ground.
I haven't said it is.
But it's how a rational person can distinguish between socialism
and individualism, which is something completely opposite your
interest in conflating the two essentially different things.
>>It is the task of human beings to figure it
>> out, and then -- if they intend to impart knowledge of the world
>> between each other -- to relate that existence according to
>> essentials. Of course, the more that crickets like you work at
>> "sloganeering" the essentials out of any given referent, the more
>> impossible that becomes, and it's a dandy make-work program for
>> graduated pizza-thieves.
>
>You make a lot of noise, but your claim that socialism is the opposite of
>individualism is simply undefended and unsupported.
It's not under remotely respectable attack and it stands quite
superbly on its own.
Billy
Scott Erb
>
> Doktor Rogers:
>
> >> It's bloody disgusting watching someone who pretends to
> >> philosophy using terms the way you do, Erb. What I "want" has nothing
> >> to do with. I "want" you to fall out of your chair and bump your
> >> head, but that's irrelevent. Likewise; what any given thing *is*. It
> >> simply is what it is.
> >
> >Well duh, what a thing is, is what it is. That's hardly bold new ground.
>
> I haven't said it is.
>
> But it's how a rational person can distinguish between socialism
> and individualism, which is something completely opposite your
> interest in conflating the two essentially different things.
Because, Billy, you are assuming definitions that are by no means set in
either philosophy or political theory. Not only that, but there are so many
contradictory variants of socialism that glibly defining it as 'opposite of
individualism' makes no sense at all. You apparently want to say you know
what socialism REALLY is, and by that you mean, apparently some kind of Borg
cube where everyone is doing their role for the hive. If that's how you
define socialism, then you can claim it as opposite to individualism, but
that's certainly not how various socialists define it.
> >>It is the task of human beings to figure it
> >> out, and then -- if they intend to impart knowledge of the world
> >> between each other -- to relate that existence according to
> >> essentials. Of course, the more that crickets like you work at
> >> "sloganeering" the essentials out of any given referent, the more
> >> impossible that becomes, and it's a dandy make-work program for
> >> graduated pizza-thieves.
> >
> >You make a lot of noise, but your claim that socialism is the opposite of
> >individualism is simply undefended and unsupported.
>
> It's not under remotely respectable attack and it stands quite
> superbly on its own.
With absolutely no meaning other than your own word game.
Billy Beck
drain:
>
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>> >> It's bloody disgusting watching someone who pretends to
>> >> philosophy using terms the way you do, Erb. What I "want" has nothing
>> >> to do with. I "want" you to fall out of your chair and bump your
>> >> head, but that's irrelevent. Likewise; what any given thing *is*. It
>> >> simply is what it is.
>> >
>> >Well duh, what a thing is, is what it is. That's hardly bold new ground.
>>
>> I haven't said it is.
>>
>> But it's how a rational person can distinguish between socialism
>> and individualism, which is something completely opposite your
>> interest in conflating the two essentially different things.
>
>Because, Billy, you are assuming definitions that are by no means set in
>either philosophy or political theory.
Sez you.
>Not only that, but there are so many
>contradictory variants of socialism that glibly defining it as 'opposite of
>individualism' makes no sense at all.
*Except*, of course, when one is referring to essential
attributes and not attempting to toss them in word-salads like *you*.
> You apparently want to say you know
>what socialism REALLY is, and by that you mean, apparently some kind of Borg
>cube where everyone is doing their role for the hive. If that's how you
>define socialism, then you can claim it as opposite to individualism, but
>that's certainly not how various socialists define it.
Look, Erb: your ad verecundiam is worth less than a half a Zepp
in this market, so save it for the brats. It makes no difference at
all how many hand-wavers you wish to line up in order to disregard
abstraction of essential: they won't go away just because you want
them to.
Billy
chris.holt
> slip-slide:
Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
--
Billy Beck
"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> slip-slide:
>
>>>The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so many
>>>different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
>>>usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At the
>>>very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use it,
>>>since there is no one standard definition.
>
>> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>
>Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
>don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
A person call call himself a pumpkin if he wants to, Chris, but
that won't make it true.
Billy
Scott Erb
>
> drain:
>
> >
> >"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>
> >> >> It's bloody disgusting watching someone who pretends to
> >> >> philosophy using terms the way you do, Erb. What I "want" has
nothing
> >> >> to do with. I "want" you to fall out of your chair and bump your
> >> >> head, but that's irrelevent. Likewise; what any given thing *is*.
It
> >> >> simply is what it is.
> >> >
> >> >Well duh, what a thing is, is what it is. That's hardly bold new
ground.
> >>
> >> I haven't said it is.
> >>
> >> But it's how a rational person can distinguish between socialism
> >> and individualism, which is something completely opposite your
> >> interest in conflating the two essentially different things.
> >
> >Because, Billy, you are assuming definitions that are by no means set in
> >either philosophy or political theory.
>
> Sez you.
Sez reality.
> >Not only that, but there are so many
> >contradictory variants of socialism that glibly defining it as 'opposite
of
> >individualism' makes no sense at all.
>
> *Except*, of course, when one is referring to essential
> attributes and not attempting to toss them in word-salads like *you*.
And what are these essential attributes?
> > You apparently want to say you know
> >what socialism REALLY is, and by that you mean, apparently some kind of
Borg
> >cube where everyone is doing their role for the hive. If that's how you
> >define socialism, then you can claim it as opposite to individualism, but
> >that's certainly not how various socialists define it.
>
> Look, Erb: your ad verecundiam is worth less than a half a Zepp
> in this market, so save it for the brats. It makes no difference at
> all how many hand-wavers you wish to line up in order to disregard
> abstraction of essential: they won't go away just because you want
> them to.
I think all your rhetoric, name calling, and the like is the equivalent of a
kid covering his ears and going "lalalalalalalalala" so he doesn't have to
hear what is being said. You are very comfortable with your beliefs, so you
put a wall around you to protect you from ever having to question them.
Convenient.
That's not philosophy, that's faith.
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote in message
>news:r3t4f1lv9ifgnt79k...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Doktor Rogers:
>>
>> >> It's bloody disgusting watching someone who pretends to
>> >> philosophy using terms the way you do, Erb. What I "want" has nothing
>> >> to do with. I "want" you to fall out of your chair and bump your
>> >> head, but that's irrelevent. Likewise; what any given thing *is*. It
>> >> simply is what it is.
>> >
>> >Well duh, what a thing is, is what it is. That's hardly bold new ground.
>>
>> I haven't said it is.
>>
>> But it's how a rational person can distinguish between socialism
>> and individualism, which is something completely opposite your
>> interest in conflating the two essentially different things.
>
>Because, Billy, you are assuming definitions that are by no means set in
>either philosophy or political theory. Not only that, but there are so many
>contradictory variants of socialism that glibly defining it as 'opposite of
>individualism' makes no sense at all.
<LOL> and yet Erb himself glibly defined the common element of
socialism as the rejection of capitalism....
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
<chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> slip-slide:
>
>>>The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so many
>>>different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
>>>usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At the
>>>very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use it,
>>>since there is no one standard definition.
>
>> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>
>Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
>don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
Of course anyone that would call themselves a socialist has some
serious self-image problems anyway.
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so many
>different variants, and the word for average folk has such powe
Which is exactly why socialists like Erb are always inventing new
names for it..
Erb's latest attempt is <LOL> "left-libertarianism." And he expects
people not to notice that the two words are contradictory.
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
wrote:
Exactly
>
>Billy
>
>http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
<LOL> Irony anyone? All forms of socialism are opposed to the
individualism. That's what makes them socialist and Erb has done
nothing to refute that statement except bluster and fume as always...
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote in message
>news:nlo4f15brp1qhkh5e...@4ax.com...
>>
>> slip-slide:
>>
>> >The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so
>many
>> >different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
>> >usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At
>the
>> >very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use
>it,
>> >since there is no one standard definition.
>>
>> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>
>Too simplistic. Marx, for instance, argued for communism in order to free
>individuals from being cogs in a machine,
But then Marx was a moron....
>exploited and devoid of true
>humanity in order to, as he saw it, produce value for the capitalist class.
>Most socialists believe their position is ultimately individualist, with an
>emphasis on ending alienation and exploitation. They argue that capitalism
>is anti-individualist.
>
But anyone that so argues is also a moron.... or simply a liar.
Socialism argues for communalism.. the opposite of individualism.
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote in message
>news:1tq4f19053irmd0l4...@4ax.com...
>>
>> dim:
>>
>> >
>> >"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>>
>> >> >The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so
>> >> >many different variants, and the word for average folk has such
>powerful and
>> >> >usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless.
>At
>> >> >the very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they
>use
>> >> >it, since there is no one standard definition.
>> >>
>> >> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>> >
>> >Too simplistic.
>>
>> That is very often the nature of fact, Scotti. I know it's not
>> confusing enough to accomodate your sense of poltical profit, but
>> that's too bad.
>
>I guess it's simply above your head. You want simple sloganistic truths,
>apparently. Reality doesn't work that way. You need to recognize reality,
>not a fantasy world concocted to service your own whims. Reality, Billy.
>Deal with it.
Socialism is anti-individualist, Erb, deal with it.
--
Steve
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Steven Canyon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:01:09 -0700, "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus
> of recirculation')" <pre...@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Steven Canyon wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Nothing in your post addresses the issue I raised, that being that
> >> Scott Erb claimed that the common element of socialism is the
> >> rejection of capitalism,
> >>
> >Perhaps the rejection of pure capitalism. Most people are not pure
> >marketists, but most people aren't self defined 'socialists' either. I
> >think that believing in the nation-state and federal government doesn't
> >make one a socialist, more is required.
>
> At the time I was trying to pin ERb down on what he thought socialism
> really was, since he as wafting all around and lecturing everyone,
> including me an all the things he said socialism wasn't.. he'd even
> rejected his own earlier definitions, when someone else used it... In
> his desperation, he finally suggested that the common element of all
> types of socialism was the rejection of capitalism....
>
I think that we can see if there is indeed any commonality, it is the
rejection of the nation-state model that typifies the socialist.
> ...and later, he casually noted that social democracy actually
> embraced capitalism, yet was a form of socialism...
>
> >> and that social democracy which embraces
> >> capitalism is a form of socialism. The two claims that Erb made
> >> contradict each other you hapless moron and Erb simply runs away from
> >> them....
> >>
> >In all fairness, no one seems able to define what 'socialism' means to
> >include all people who self-define themselves as 'socialists'. This
> >alone should suggest that 'socialism' isn't really one thing and other
> >names for various views currently attributed to 'socialists' should be
> >defined.
>
> Well, yes, it's true that socialism is many different things, but it
> must have some common element that makes it socialism.
>
That's not necessary. I brought up the term "fish". What is a "fish"?
> I think it's
> something as simple as being it's communalism, IOW, making the needs
> and wants of the individual subservient to that of the society as a
> whole.
>
But in digging further down, you might find that that is really the view
of the empireist. The nation-state model (and the city-state and the
tribe) are all just generalizations of the idea of personal freedom to
the government. The empire is about subjugation of government and thence
of people to the all pervasive state.
> Communalism is always going to fail because the human individual is
> simply not a communalistic creature.
>
Families usually operate this way. Nations fighting in war do. Humans
thrive on teams and even seek this sort of thing, one reason we have
sport. If there wasn't anything naturally human about this, there
wouldn't be so many willing socialists. Of course as humans seek
community, they also seek conflict, the challenge. This is true in war
and sport and business, even arguing on usenet. The trick is figuring
out the correct balance between these two desires, needs.
> The needs and wants of the
> society can only be defined by the individuals and they will always
> vote for their own individual needs and wants.
>
If we believe that humans are purely selfish and can't act in goodness,
then we believe in a pretty bleak world indeed. I think if we try to
understand where to compete and where to have compassion and render
help, we can improve this world. The answer is certainly not pacific
indifference to evil nor insistence that we must bankrupt ourselves to
make sure that peoples who themselves are unwilling to even try get
endless economic and military assistance.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote in message
> news:nlo4f15brp1qhkh5e...@4ax.com...
> >
> > slip-slide:
> >
> > >The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so
> many
> > >different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
> > >usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At
> the
> > >very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use
> it,
> > >since there is no one standard definition.
> >
> > Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>
> Too simplistic.
>
I'm not that sure it is. When socialists oppose the nation state model,
what they are doing is demanding aa world empire that would end the
redundancy of choice that the many countries provides. Similarly, when
the socialist demands that government increase its control over the
individual, the redundancy of billions of free brains deciding what and
when they will act is reduced.
> Marx, for instance, argued for communism in order to free
> individuals from being cogs in a machine, exploited and devoid of true
> humanity in order to, as he saw it, produce value for the capitalist class.
>
It certainly seems to be possible to have capitalism in a society with
slaves therefore I'm not sure there's a problem with Marx looking sadly
at individuals under some system like that.
> Most socialists believe their position is ultimately individualist, with an
> emphasis on ending alienation and exploitation. They argue that capitalism
> is anti-individualist.
>
We really need to define capitalism. This dictionary definition in no
way seems to conflict with what some would call largely socialist
societies:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism
#begin quote
cap搏暗al搏sm
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution
are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to
the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
#end quote
Scott Erb
>
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > "Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote in message
> > news:nlo4f15brp1qhkh5e...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > slip-slide:
> > >
> > > >The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has
so
> > many
> > > >different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful
and
> > > >usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless.
At
> > the
> > > >very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they
use
> > it,
> > > >since there is no one standard definition.
> > >
> > > Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
> >
> > Too simplistic.
> >
> I'm not that sure it is. When socialists oppose the nation state model,
> what they are doing is demanding aa world empire that would end the
> redundancy of choice that the many countries provides.
I honestly don't know of ANYONE who argues for that as a policy. If that's
what socialists want, there are no socialists left in the world. Well,
maybe a couple, but it's certainly nothing that has a mass following. A lot
more people claim to be Social Democrat or socialist, but not with that
agenda.
>Similarly, when
> the socialist demands that government increase its control over the
> individual, the redundancy of billions of free brains deciding what and
> when they will act is reduced.
Government control over individuals is usually not a good thing.
> > Marx, for instance, argued for communism in order to free
> > individuals from being cogs in a machine, exploited and devoid of true
> > humanity in order to, as he saw it, produce value for the capitalist
class.
> >
> It certainly seems to be possible to have capitalism in a society with
> slaves therefore I'm not sure there's a problem with Marx looking sadly
> at individuals under some system like that.
He was looking at the abuse of workers in industrial England. He wrongly
thought that capitalists had all the power and would continue to squeeze the
worker, with no chance for change without overthrowing the system.
Marx had some insights, but overall his theory was wrong.
> > Most socialists believe their position is ultimately individualist, with
an
> > emphasis on ending alienation and exploitation. They argue that
capitalism
> > is anti-individualist.
> >
> We really need to define capitalism. This dictionary definition in no
> way seems to conflict with what some would call largely socialist
> societies:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalism
> #begin quote
> cap搏暗al搏sm
> An economic system in which the means of production and distribution
> are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to
> the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
> #end quote
I think maybe, like socialism, capitalism is not a very useful term.
Perhaps "market economies" would be better. Just about everyone wants some
kind of so-called "mixed" economy, but if socialism and capitalism are
defined as extremes, how can they be mixed?
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote in message
>news:8905f1luot1i3oatm...@4ax.com...
>>
>> drain:
>>
>> >
>> >"Billy Beck" <wjb...@htva.net> wrote...
>>
>> >> >> It's bloody disgusting watching someone who pretends to
>> >> >> philosophy using terms the way you do, Erb. What I "want" has
>nothing
>> >> >> to do with. I "want" you to fall out of your chair and bump your
>> >> >> head, but that's irrelevent. Likewise; what any given thing *is*.
>It
>> >> >> simply is what it is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well duh, what a thing is, is what it is. That's hardly bold new
>ground.
>> >>
>> >> I haven't said it is.
>> >>
>> >> But it's how a rational person can distinguish between socialism
>> >> and individualism, which is something completely opposite your
>> >> interest in conflating the two essentially different things.
>> >
>> >Because, Billy, you are assuming definitions that are by no means set in
>> >either philosophy or political theory.
>>
>> Sez you.
>
>Sez reality.
A typical Erb argument....
>> >Not only that, but there are so many
>> >contradictory variants of socialism that glibly defining it as 'opposite
>of
>> >individualism' makes no sense at all.
>>
>> *Except*, of course, when one is referring to essential
>> attributes and not attempting to toss them in word-salads like *you*.
>
>And what are these essential attributes?
>
>> > You apparently want to say you know
>> >what socialism REALLY is, and by that you mean, apparently some kind of
>Borg
>> >cube where everyone is doing their role for the hive. If that's how you
>> >define socialism, then you can claim it as opposite to individualism, but
>> >that's certainly not how various socialists define it.
>>
>> Look, Erb: your ad verecundiam is worth less than a half a Zepp
>> in this market, so save it for the brats. It makes no difference at
>> all how many hand-wavers you wish to line up in order to disregard
>> abstraction of essential: they won't go away just because you want
>> them to.
>
>I think all your rhetoric, name calling, and the like is the equivalent of a
>kid covering his ears and going "lalalalalalalalala" so he doesn't have to
>hear what is being said. You are very comfortable with your beliefs, so you
>put a wall around you to protect you from ever having to question them.
>Convenient.
Oh.... The irony.....
>That's not philosophy, that's faith.
>
--
Steve
Steven Canyon
Socialism insists that the individual subjugate himself to the state.
>> Communalism is always going to fail because the human individual is
>> simply not a communalistic creature.
>>
>Families usually operate this way. Nations fighting in war do. Humans
>thrive on teams and even seek this sort of thing, one reason we have
>sport. If there wasn't anything naturally human about this, there
>wouldn't be so many willing socialists. Of course as humans seek
>community, they also seek conflict, the challenge. This is true in war
>and sport and business, even arguing on usenet. The trick is figuring
>out the correct balance between these two desires, needs.
well yes, families are indeed, communalists, but just as in your other
examples, these examples of communalism working all have some sort of
bonding going on. That's never going to happen on large scale. We
may bond together in family units and to some extent in other groups,
but without the bonding, people are not communalistic.
>> The needs and wants of the
>> society can only be defined by the individuals and they will always
>> vote for their own individual needs and wants.
>>
>If we believe that humans are purely selfish and can't act in goodness,
>then we believe in a pretty bleak world indeed.
Bullshit. People voting their own interest is what we all do. We
moderate that by what we consider to be right vs. wrong, but beyond
that, we vote our own interests.
I think if we try to
>understand where to compete and where to have compassion and render
>help, we can improve this world. The answer is certainly not pacific
>indifference to evil nor insistence that we must bankrupt ourselves to
>make sure that peoples who themselves are unwilling to even try get
>endless economic and military assistance.
--
Steve
Scott Erb
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
news:1123195975.0080575c2f632af764e328cd88c2ec43@teranews...
-snip-
> > Communalism is always going to fail because the human individual is
> > simply not a communalistic creature.
> >
> Families usually operate this way. Nations fighting in war do. Humans
> thrive on teams and even seek this sort of thing, one reason we have
> sport. If there wasn't anything naturally human about this, there
> wouldn't be so many willing socialists. Of course as humans seek
> community, they also seek conflict, the challenge. This is true in war
> and sport and business, even arguing on usenet. The trick is figuring
> out the correct balance between these two desires, needs.
Ultimately the best form of communalism is chosen and not forced. I think
social democracies work best in small states where people do not feel
government is controlling them, but they are using government as a tool to
achieve mutual goals, and that government must answer to them. A
Scandinavian welfare state in the US would be too bureaucratic and not fit
with American cultural norms (though within states, if states were allowed
more of the tax revenue taken, some interesting experiments could occur).
We have to find our own approach.
> > The needs and wants of the
> > society can only be defined by the individuals and they will always
> > vote for their own individual needs and wants.
> >
> If we believe that humans are purely selfish and can't act in goodness,
> then we believe in a pretty bleak world indeed. I think if we try to
> understand where to compete and where to have compassion and render
> help, we can improve this world. The answer is certainly not pacific
> indifference to evil nor insistence that we must bankrupt ourselves to
> make sure that peoples who themselves are unwilling to even try get
> endless economic and military assistance.
True, effective welfare programs reward initiative and "help people help
themselves." Fostering dependency is to do more harm than good. In Africa
some economists (African, not western) have complained that western aid has
made it easier for African countries to avoid doing what is necessary to
become self-sufficient. There is a real danger that trying to help people
may have negative consequences. That doesn't mean avoid the problem, but it
does mean that just giving money doesn't necessarily help, and can harm.
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
><pre...@postpend.net.ru> wrote in message
>news:1123195975.0080575c2f632af764e328cd88c2ec43@teranews...
>
>-snip-
>
>> > Communalism is always going to fail because the human individual is
>> > simply not a communalistic creature.
>> >
>> Families usually operate this way. Nations fighting in war do. Humans
>> thrive on teams and even seek this sort of thing, one reason we have
>> sport. If there wasn't anything naturally human about this, there
>> wouldn't be so many willing socialists. Of course as humans seek
>> community, they also seek conflict, the challenge. This is true in war
>> and sport and business, even arguing on usenet. The trick is figuring
>> out the correct balance between these two desires, needs.
>
>Ultimately the best form of communalism is chosen and not forced.
That only works when there is a bonding among the people involved.
Family members might voluntarily communalize, but that's about it when
it comes to communalizing the economy.
> I think
>social democracies work best in small states where people do not feel
You think so eh????? <LOL>
>government is controlling them, but they are using government as a tool to
>achieve mutual goals, and that government must answer to them. A
>Scandinavian welfare state in the US would be too bureaucratic and not fit
>with American cultural norms (though within states, if states were allowed
>more of the tax revenue taken, some interesting experiments could occur).
>We have to find our own approach.
Our approach is to continue to reject the whole thing...
>> > The needs and wants of the
>> > society can only be defined by the individuals and they will always
>> > vote for their own individual needs and wants.
>> >
>> If we believe that humans are purely selfish and can't act in goodness,
>> then we believe in a pretty bleak world indeed. I think if we try to
>> understand where to compete and where to have compassion and render
>> help, we can improve this world. The answer is certainly not pacific
>> indifference to evil nor insistence that we must bankrupt ourselves to
>> make sure that peoples who themselves are unwilling to even try get
>> endless economic and military assistance.
>
>True, effective welfare programs reward initiative and "help people help
>themselves." Fostering dependency is to do more harm than good. In Africa
>some economists (African, not western) have complained that western aid has
>made it easier for African countries to avoid doing what is necessary to
>become self-sufficient. There is a real danger that trying to help people
>may have negative consequences. That doesn't mean avoid the problem, but it
>does mean that just giving money doesn't necessarily help, and can harm.
>
--
Steve
Scott Erb
>
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > No, socialists are internationalists,
> >
> So you do agree with that fundamental point, that socialists oppose the
> nation state?
In theory many do, though socialists (defined here as the most left of the
politicians and parties in Europe) in the EU also are the most opposed to
further European integration, claiming it aids capitalism and prevents
states from protecting workers. So in practice, they often get
protectionist.
> > fascists are nationalists who usually
> > put a premium on sovereignty (though they are often willing to violate
the
> > sovereignty of others for their own gain -- something realists would
oppose.
> >
> I think this 'nationalism' isn't really what you are claiming. I think
> it clearly is empireism. Conflating the two ideas is what is often used
> to give true nationalists, those who love and support their own
> sovereign nation, a bad name.
Nationalism itself isn't a virtue (Franco was a non-expansive nationalist).
Nationalism is a mindless love for ones' country simply because one was born
there, regardless of what the country does or is. Patriotism could be a
better term for people who are willing to criticize their country, but have
love and devotion in the values and ideals of their country. Not because
its the piece of dirt they were born on, but because they believe it stands
for values and ideals that are worth defending and proclaiming.
> > Sovereignty, a concept first applied to international politics by
Grotius,
> > and put into practical existence by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648,
> > defined the modern state system.
> >
> The problem in the Middle East is that it is still trying operate under
> a pre-Westphalian and pre-Reformation code of conduct. Instead of the
> sovereign nation state, they have the empire, the city-state and the
> tribe.
Throughout the third world that is a problem. States were imposed by the
Europeans, but they don't fit the political realities of most of the rest of
the world.
> > Yet it is becoming obsolete for a number
> > of reasons: 1) most states are not viable in the third world, as they
are
> > colonial constructs rather than natural political entities;
> >
> What national political entity is the United States? Yet it is the most
> viable of nations.
One of the best kinds -- built on ideals and values, not on ethnicity or
exclusivity. Anybody of any background, race, or religion can become an
American, and believe in America's ideals.
> > 2) within the
> > developed world borders are becoming less important, as capital, people,
> > technology and information flow.
> >
> Business is transacted around the globe but one must always be of some
> nation first. And people vote that way.
A lot of corporations aren't of one nation, and there has been a dramatic
increase in dual and even triple citizenships. But I think you're right
that the nation-state is not going to disappear, and that as a legal concept
sovereignty is not going to go away. It's practical meaning is changing,
and its becoming less important.
Talk to computer science students who live on the internet, and they claim
(at least some I know) that they don't even think in terms of states and
borders, that their world is wherever their computers can reach. That's an
extreme, but a sign of the times. I can do research in my office or from
home that I used to have to travel to Germany to do (and I get German and
Russian TV on dishnet). None of this takes away from the existence of
states and sovereignty, but are all aspects of how our sense of identity and
boundaries is changing.
> > Where once you could talk about an
> > "American car company," now national identity is often irrelevant to
global
> > production and investment; and 3) States are beginning the process of
> > forming cooperative arrangements that blurs borders legally -- NAFTA and
> > CAFTA are minor examples (as is the WTO), the EU is the most advanced
> > (coming from the continent that gave us sovereignty in the first place!)
> >
> The EU is driven by socialists. These are the people who think that
> national borders are anachronistic. They are wrong.
Yikes, the left in the EU claims that capitalists are driving the EU. The
EU is driven primarily by European business interests, who want to save
costs of things like currency transactions, who want fewer regulations on
capital flow across borders, and who want more ability to seek lower wage
states, and merge across borders. Look at the most strong supporters of
more European integration, and you see the business community.
>The nation state
> provides the sort of redundancy that allowed the world to resist threats
> such as Nazism and Communism and will allow it to win the current war
> against the Islamic hypernihilists.
I think the EU will end up NOT being a new state, the European states will
continue. But, for instance, within the German CDU (the conservative party,
likely to win next month's elections -- which, you might be surprised to
learn, I think at this point is probably a good thing for Germany for a
variety of reasons I can explain if you want, but which would probably bore
you) the term 'sovereignty' has virtually been replaced by 'subsidiarity,'
where power starts at the level closest to the individual, and then goes to
regions, states, and finally the EU if needed to deal with particular issues
and problems. Sovereignty isn't disappearing, it's been redefined and
occupies a less central role.
> It's interesting that France got the US to help them not get swallowed
> up two times by Germany in the 20th century and now they've formed the
> EU Germance block of their own free will. I would say that socialists
> may not want to use war as their means but they want the same sort of
> thing that fascists desire, empire.
Most look at that as a victory for capitalism and markets -- trade and
interdependence, along with democracy, led them to see war as not being in
their interest. They've gotten rich by avoiding war, had poverty when
engaging in it. But the EU is definitely not socialist, the leftists in
Europe are its strongest opponents, and conservatives tend to support it,
especially market oriented conservatives. Remember, capitalism or free
market economists see states as getting in the way of free exchanges between
companies and individuals.
> > but fascists usually want to expand. But Franco didn't. Fascism is a
> > different sort of ideology because its not objectivist like socialism,
and
> > relies on a belief in power, will, nation, national identity/character,
> > emotion, and leadership.
> >
> So far the only commonality we've been able to find between all
> socialists is their desire to destroy the nation state model. The only
> other model is that of empire.
I daresay that doesn't describe the leftists called socialists or who call
themselves socialists today.
> > Again, it depends. Nationalism is defined in terms of support of ones'
own
> > nation.
> >
> You wouldn't claim that someone who supported the Roman empire wasn't a
> "nationalist", would you? Clearly nationalists can support empire. This
> is a different type of nationalist than the one who believes in the
> nation state model, of course. They are, however, the very people you
> can legitimately complain about.
Realists are relativists when it comes to nation-states, the do not believe
one state should intervene on what another state does internally, they
should only look out for their national interest. In that sense, they are
nationalists.
> > > Socialists are more obviously
> > > internationalists, seeking things like one government for the entire
of
> > > Europe. It amazes me that that isn't termed 'empire' by American
> > > Liberals.
> >
> > Who's conquering who? What 'socialists' are you talking about?
> >
> The United States grew as a single nation and is a nation-state. The EU
> is created from nation states, is an empire. Just because someone votes
> to join an empire doesn't mean that they were not subjugated to that
> empire.
Again, the EU is not only not an empire (not centralized enough, or under
one leader), but its formation and growth has been driven by business, the
"capitalists," not the socialists. You'd have the leftists in Europe
shocked if you tried to tell them the EU is a socialist party, they see it
as a threat to socialism and as a plot by big business.
The US is arguably an empire. We defeated a lot of natives of this
continent, marching westward and annexing their land. The fact they don't
exist in large numbers doesn't take away from the fact this was imperialist.
-scott
Scott Erb
"blazing laser" <none> wrote in message
news:6me4f1hilei4gnjqa...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 02:23:46 GMT, "Scott Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >They are starting points, based on different assumptions about the nature
of
> >international relations, politics, and indeed human nature. They are
> >different 'world views,' but rarely do they exist in their pure state,
and
> >if you get away from some of the more 'intellectual' types (Rice, many of
> >the neo-cons, and the think tank types) politicians and leaders go more
by
> >their own psychological states and biases than an academic theory.
Academic
> >theories try to analyze both what's best to do, or explain via a theory
why
> >things work out the way they do. (In Poli-Sci that distinguishes
> >International Relations study from Foreign Policy analysis).
>
> The funny thing is that ideologs like the PNAC geniuses usually think
> they've broken free of old thinking, that they've found not only a new
> way but -the- way. You'd think Newt Gingrich, with a PhD in history,
> would have a wider perspective. I'm not sure what Condi's educational
> qualifications are (I'm sure they're impressive!) but her actions and
> words make her seem really just a cynic, hiding motives behind
> ideology she thinks will sell.
I have respect for Rice (and Kissinger) as academics, but as politicians
they play the same game others do, and perhaps are a bit more prone to some
kinds of
error because of their academic background (perhaps a bit more hubris,
thinking they understand the stuff better because they have PhDs and all of
that).
Both Condi and Kissinger come from a realist tradition that strongly
believes that foreign policy should be in the hands of experts, and the
public should not question or be involved in it (the public will be either
too angry and want war when it is inappropriate, or too sympathetic and not
want to act when action is warranted). Thus they have a build in belief
that the public is a nuisance. In a democracy which is built on a different
ideal, that leads to the kind of cynical actions you note.
> >> In the last couple of decades all bets are off. Contemporary American
> >> 'conservatives' don't really share much with the classical idea of
> >> 'conservatism'.
> >
> >True, their a mix of radical economic liberalism (capitalism/free
markets)
> >and often traditional social conservatism (gay marriage, prayer in
schools,
> >etc.) An odd mix.
>
> It's not so much about 'conservatism' any more. 'Conservative' has
> become a code word, meaning different things to different people,
> usually something self-serving. 95% of people who vote Republican
> couldn't tell you what 'conservatism' means, except that there's
> something in it they want--moralism or gun freedom or a tax cut. The
> rest they don't care about, but it's the rest that's destroying them
> little by little and they don't see it.
They've also managed to try to paint themselves as the 'average joe' party,
and the democrats as the protector of the extreme poor and minorities. So
middle class and working folk hurt by GOP policies vote for them out of
emotional connection (the kind of thing talk radio types create --
ridiculing the liberals, create a self-esteem thing where people feel
superior by being part of the 'in' group).
> >> They've glommed onto certain ideas they found
> >> attractive and simply labelled them as part of conservatism--like the
> >> idea that huge budget deficits don't matter, or that the first
> >> amendment was misguided. They've labeled as 'liberal' anything they
> >> disagree with.
> >
> >It's sort of an good vs. evil thing with those types, very simplistic and
> >rather idiotic. It's partially the result of radio talk jocks using
> >emotional appeals rather than reason to boost ratings. Demonize
"liberals,"
> >proclaim conservatives as true Americans, and use ridicule rather than
> >reason. For instance, I was zipping through the dial and heard that
Hannity
> >guy say, "Durbin compared our soldiers with Nazis, how can anybody
believe
> >anything he says." Wow. First, Durbin didn't do that, he said one might
> >think some acts that took place came from Nazi Germany (and he has a
point).
> >Second, once he realized how it was being interpreted (or
mis-interpreted),
> >he apologized. The idea one can jump from that to paint him as a wild
eyed
> >idiot and that "can never be believed..." Well, that's Goebbelsesque.
>
> Couldn't agree more. But again, people believe this stuff because
> there's one part of it that sounds good to them. They don't
> understand the rest of it but they -pretend- to understand.
It's emotion. I used the term Goebbelsesque for a reason -- appeal to
emotion to generate support was something that he mastered, and modern
politicians use the same techniques.
> Also I think the right-wingers take advantage of a characteristic of
> human nature. People don't like to have to think too deeply about
> things. They'd rather get their understanding pre-digested. The
> right-wing talk shows make it easy for them, they dont' so much give
> them news as a pre-packaged understanding, like intellectual
> convenience food. It doesn't help matters that we also have a strong
> anti-intellectual streak in the American culture.
Exactly. Goebbels again loved to attack the intellectual elite and
'softies' who would keep Germany from standing its ground, rejecting the
Versailles treaty, and reclaiming its rightful place in Europe. It was
about national pride, a strong sense of identity, and an emotional
connection to a movement, with the opposition considered weak, treasonous,
and idiotic. People now scream "Goodwin's law" when any comparison to
German fascism is made, but if you look at the rise to power of the nazis,
separate from Hitler's evil wars and the holocaust, you see a very
sophisticated propaganda and political machine, using emotion, nationalism,
and demonization of others to create a sense that they knew how things
should be, and could make the country work. The propaganda of talk radio,
much of Fox news, and the like, is very similar (and no, that's not saying
they want a holocaust, but they do seem to have been eager to get America to
go to war in Mideast...)
> >I agree with what you say -- globalization can take many forms, right now
> >it's serving the interests of wealthy corporations in the West, but
actions
> >of NGOs and IOs can move to limit that, just as the labor movement
> >ultimately limited abuse of such power during the industrial revolution.
>
> I see that happening when the great majority of people start realizing
> that the agenda doesn't serve them at all, and stop voting against
> their own interests. But I think it will have to get a lot worse
> before it gets better. It's only pain that wakes people up, and it
> hasn't gotten painful enough just yet.
Exactly. Humans learn the hard way.
> >And, of course, if the rest of the world developed, there would be too
much
> >pollution for the planet to handle. Rather than all of us altering our
> >ways, best to keep the third world down! I've actually heard people
argue
> >that.
>
> This is another aspect of the American culture, the idea that God
> favors us and wants us to use more than our share of the world's
> resources, even if we have to kill people to get them. I remember
> reading that in the late 18th/early 19th century there were terrible
> epidemics among American Indians that decimated their population, and
> some American politicians said they thought this was God's work, to
> get the Indians out of the way so we could expand westward.
Well, wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who said that it would be no diaster for the
'red race' to disappear and make way for the 'great white race.' And we
honor him on Mt. Rushmore!
> >The Daily Show had a funny bit after the London bombings, as one of the
> >"reporters" praised George W. Bush's plan, noting that "the coalition of
the
> >willing is the coalition of the bombable -- most of them far easier to
get
> >at than us." A lot of the tiny countries involved were promised a quick
> >victory and perks of Iraqi oil; they now realize that's not coming, and
> >America is too stretched to be able to offer them much. East Europeans
> >realize their bread and butter lies with western Europe, not the US.
>
> I tend to think the small members of the coalition--actually probably
> all of them except England--were the countries that depended on US aid
> and were afraid to cheese off Bush. The Bush admin told them they
> only had to agree in principle, not to send troops or spend money.
Yeah, though I think many also thought that the US would win easily, they'd
get nice contracts in the new Iraq, and the US would favor them over other
countries.
> >More likely they simply committed that typical great power error:
> >overestimated their ability to project power to shape political ends,
> >weakening their country and their ability to shape results. I think Bush
> >really thought he was going to be remembered for 'spreading freedom.' It
> >was pure hubris.
>
> Bush made the mistake of substituting ideological expertise for
> practical expertise. He trusted people like Wolfowitz and Perle and
> Feith, put them in charge of areas they really knew nothing about.
> This is exactly what Republicans always accuse Democrats of
> doing--substituting brains and ideolgy and abstract knowledge for
> practical experience.
The thing is, those guys (well, not Feith, but the others) are indeed SMART.
So is Rumsfeld, and Rice. They are among the 'best and the brightest.'
And what happened the last time the 'best and the brightest' guided American
foreign policy, so sure that our power and ideals could easily conquer,
especially in the third world....
Sid9
>>
>> slip-slide:
>>
>>> The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has
>>> so many different variants, and the word for average folk has such
>>> powerful and usually negative connotations, that it is seen as
>>> rather useless. At the very least, analysts have to explain and
>>> define the term when they use it, since there is no one standard
>>> definition.
>>
>> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>
> to free individuals from being cogs in a machine, exploited and
> devoid of true humanity in order to, as he saw it, produce value for
> ultimately individualist, with an emphasis on ending alienation and
> exploitation. They argue that capitalism is anti-individualist.
This so much arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The United States has a mixed economy
including much of capitalism and some
elements of control on capitalists.
Sicialism and Communism have long
been discredited and have no more to
with the American economy than buggy whips
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
"chris.holt" wrote:
>
> Billy Beck wrote:
> > slip-slide:
>
> >>The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so many
> >>different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
> >>usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At the
> >>very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use it,
> >>since there is no one standard definition.
>
> > Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>
> Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
> don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
>
That's a large part of the problem. There is no self consistent meaning
for the word "socialism" that encompasses all the meanings that all
people self described as "socialists" have. It's like the word "fish".
1825 Dead
of recirculation')" <pre...@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
>
>
>"chris.holt" wrote:
>>
>> Billy Beck wrote:
>> > slip-slide:
>>
>> >>The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so many
>> >>different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
>> >>usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At the
>> >>very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use it,
>> >>since there is no one standard definition.
>>
>> > Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>>
>> Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
>> don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
>>
>That's a large part of the problem. There is no self consistent meaning
>for the word "socialism" that encompasses all the meanings that all
>people self described as "socialists" have. It's like the word "fish".
Guess what? That applies to all political terms.
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Scott Erb
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
news:1123202823.29d6195a9fad78b55aae67cef84fa7e0@teranews...
>
>
> "chris.holt" wrote:
> >
> > Billy Beck wrote:
> > > slip-slide:
> >
> > >>The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so
many
> > >>different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful
and
> > >>usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless.
At the
> > >>very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use
it,
> > >>since there is no one standard definition.
> >
> > > Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
> >
> > Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
> > don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
> >
> That's a large part of the problem. There is no self consistent meaning
> for the word "socialism" that encompasses all the meanings that all
> people self described as "socialists" have. It's like the word "fish".
Billy seems to think there are 'essential traits' to socialism, but that
doesn't make sense, given that the term is made up by humans who use it to
label an ideology they construct. And so many people use the term
differently (have different ideological claims) that to say there are any
'essential properties' to socialism doesn't make sense. That also means its
not quite like fish, because at least with fish you have something natural
and real; ideologies are human attempts to make sense of the world, and thus
are an abstraction from reality.
-scott
Steven Canyon
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy seems to think there are 'essential traits' to socialism, but that
>doesn't make sense,
...and yet, Erb claimed that the common element was the rejection of
capitalism.. IOW, once gain, Erb contradicts himself..
>given that the term is made up by humans who use it to
>label an ideology they construct. And so many people use the term
>differently (have different ideological claims) that to say there are any
>'essential properties' to socialism doesn't make sense. That also means its
>not quite like fish, because at least with fish you have something natural
>and real; ideologies are human attempts to make sense of the world, and thus
>are an abstraction from reality.
>-scott
This is all Erb-bullshit... Erb, being a socialist himself, and
knowing that so many people simply reject the communalism that *is*
the essential element of socialism, would like to muddy the waters so
that the socialist agenda can be snuck in through the back door.
--
Steve
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
> <pre...@postpend.net.ru> wrote in message
> news:1123195143.533b9dd9412c612291aa31ea92f85289@teranews...
> >
> >
> > Scott Erb wrote:
>
> > > No, socialists are internationalists,
> > >
> > So you do agree with that fundamental point, that socialists oppose the
> > nation state?
>
> In theory many do, though socialists (defined here as the most left of the
> politicians and parties in Europe) in the EU also are the most opposed to
> further European integration, claiming it aids capitalism and prevents
> states from protecting workers. So in practice, they often get
> protectionist.
>
But do you doubt that any of them would support further EU integration
on their own terms? That's the real issue here, do you believe in the
nation state model or do you want to swallow it up with empire,
obviously of your own design of course.
> > > fascists are nationalists who usually
> > > put a premium on sovereignty (though they are often willing to violate
> the
> > > sovereignty of others for their own gain -- something realists would
> oppose.
> > >
> > I think this 'nationalism' isn't really what you are claiming. I think
> > it clearly is empireism. Conflating the two ideas is what is often used
> > to give true nationalists, those who love and support their own
> > sovereign nation, a bad name.
>
> Nationalism itself isn't a virtue (Franco was a non-expansive nationalist).
>
The democratic nation state is the only stable and redundant model of
government we've come up with. That there are empireists who claim to be
nationalists isn't something I can prevent.
> Nationalism is a mindless love for ones' country simply because one was born
> there, regardless of what the country does or is.
>
That sounds like the definition of socialism that you claimed was too
simple.
> Patriotism could be a
> better term for people who are willing to criticize their country, but have
> love and devotion in the values and ideals of their country. Not because
> its the piece of dirt they were born on, but because they believe it stands
> for values and ideals that are worth defending and proclaiming.
>
For whatever reason, the nationalist as I'm defining him (not an
empireist) isn't interested in expanding his country into other
sovereign nations. Why he loves his country more than others is up to
him. If he loves the smell of the dirt, that's no business of mine.
> > > Sovereignty, a concept first applied to international politics by
> Grotius,
> > > and put into practical existence by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648,
> > > defined the modern state system.
> > >
> > The problem in the Middle East is that it is still trying operate under
> > a pre-Westphalian and pre-Reformation code of conduct. Instead of the
> > sovereign nation state, they have the empire, the city-state and the
> > tribe.
>
> Throughout the third world that is a problem. States were imposed by the
> Europeans, but they don't fit the political realities of most of the rest of
> the world.
>
In the Middle East, the worst example is that of the Kurds. Of course
the Middle East is a test of my views. Can love of nation spring up even
when borders aren't perfectly based on religion, language, or ethnicity?
> > > Yet it is becoming obsolete for a number
> > > of reasons: 1) most states are not viable in the third world, as they
> are
> > > colonial constructs rather than natural political entities;
> > >
> > What national political entity is the United States? Yet it is the most
> > viable of nations.
>
> One of the best kinds -- built on ideals and values, not on ethnicity or
> exclusivity. Anybody of any background, race, or religion can become an
> American, and believe in America's ideals.
>
Right. So what's wrong with the same thing in any nation state? One of
the main points of the modern pluralistic democratic nation state is
that it is not based solely on race, religion, ethnicity or native
language.
> > > 2) within the
> > > developed world borders are becoming less important, as capital, people,
> > > technology and information flow.
> > >
> > Business is transacted around the globe but one must always be of some
> > nation first. And people vote that way.
>
> A lot of corporations aren't of one nation,
>
A company can have divisions in different nations. All people are of
some nation.
> and there has been a dramatic
> increase in dual and even triple citizenships. But I think you're right
> that the nation-state is not going to disappear, and that as a legal concept
> sovereignty is not going to go away. It's practical meaning is changing,
> and its becoming less important.
>
If we imagine a world without the nation state, what happens if a Hitler
gets elected? That might not happen for five hundred years but
eventually it might and without other sovereign nations, what are we
going to do?
> Talk to computer science students who live on the internet, and they claim
> (at least some I know) that they don't even think in terms of states and
> borders, that their world is wherever their computers can reach. That's an
> extreme, but a sign of the times. I can do research in my office or from
> home that I used to have to travel to Germany to do (and I get German and
> Russian TV on dishnet). None of this takes away from the existence of
> states and sovereignty, but are all aspects of how our sense of identity and
> boundaries is changing.
>
One of the problems of thinking only locally is that you might not
understand why would you are doing is a problem for other people. I'm
pretty sure that Hitler hadn't travelled outside of German speaking
areas and didn't speak any language but German. Now he was also a nut,
but you can sort of see my point.
> > > Where once you could talk about an
> > > "American car company," now national identity is often irrelevant to
> global
> > > production and investment; and 3) States are beginning the process of
> > > forming cooperative arrangements that blurs borders legally -- NAFTA and
> > > CAFTA are minor examples (as is the WTO), the EU is the most advanced
> > > (coming from the continent that gave us sovereignty in the first place!)
> > >
> > The EU is driven by socialists. These are the people who think that
> > national borders are anachronistic. They are wrong.
>
> Yikes, the left in the EU claims that capitalists are driving the EU.
>
The problem is that socialism and capitalism are not extremes of one
line. EUers are happy to compete with subsidized Airbus. This mixes
socialist ideas of government control with the market.
> The
> EU is driven primarily by European business interests, who want to save
> costs of things like currency transactions, who want fewer regulations on
> capital flow across borders, and who want more ability to seek lower wage
> states, and merge across borders. Look at the most strong supporters of
> more European integration, and you see the business community.
>
One thing it does is expand the welfare state so that other countries
can't gain an advantage.
> >The nation state
> > provides the sort of redundancy that allowed the world to resist threats
> > such as Nazism and Communism and will allow it to win the current war
> > against the Islamic hypernihilists.
>
> I think the EU will end up NOT being a new state, the European states will
> continue.
>
But this is only because the people have reached in and brought some
sanity to the process. The people running it are full tilt socialists
who want an EU empire.
> But, for instance, within the German CDU (the conservative party,
> likely to win next month's elections -- which, you might be surprised to
> learn, I think at this point is probably a good thing for Germany for a
>
Don't assume that I support 'conservative parties' around the world
because they use the word 'conservative' in their names. I specifically
capitalize Liberal and Conservative when referring to Liberals and
Conservatives in the US in 2005 because I want to differentiate them
from people who happen to be liberal or conservative about some policy
issue in some other context or in a generic context.
> variety of reasons I can explain if you want, but which would probably bore
> you) the term 'sovereignty' has virtually been replaced by 'subsidiarity,'
> where power starts at the level closest to the individual,
>
That's interesting because I was trying for a long time to explain my
concept of "closer rights", that is that rights that are closer to the
individual should be preserved first over those farther away.
> and then goes to
> regions, states, and finally the EU if needed to deal with particular issues
> and problems. Sovereignty isn't disappearing, it's been redefined and
> occupies a less central role.
>
You can't be partly sovereign.
> > It's interesting that France got the US to help them not get swallowed
> > up two times by Germany in the 20th century and now they've formed the
> > EU Germance block of their own free will. I would say that socialists
> > may not want to use war as their means but they want the same sort of
> > thing that fascists desire, empire.
>
> Most look at that as a victory for capitalism and markets -- trade and
> interdependence, along with democracy, led them to see war as not being in
> their interest. They've gotten rich by avoiding war, had poverty when
> engaging in it. But the EU is definitely not socialist, the leftists in
> Europe are its strongest opponents, and conservatives tend to support it,
> especially market oriented conservatives. Remember, capitalism or free
> market economists see states as getting in the way of free exchanges between
> companies and individuals.
>
> > > but fascists usually want to expand. But Franco didn't. Fascism is a
> > > different sort of ideology because its not objectivist like socialism,
> and
> > > relies on a belief in power, will, nation, national identity/character,
> > > emotion, and leadership.
> > >
> > So far the only commonality we've been able to find between all
> > socialists is their desire to destroy the nation state model. The only
> > other model is that of empire.
>
> I daresay that doesn't describe the leftists called socialists or who call
> themselves socialists today.
>
I think we have to decide if the EU is Liberal or not. I think it is.
And I think we need to decide whether the EU is about destroying the
nation state model. Maybe the new model is that of the Orwell's triple
empire in "1984".
> > > Again, it depends. Nationalism is defined in terms of support of ones'
> own
> > > nation.
> > >
> > You wouldn't claim that someone who supported the Roman empire wasn't a
> > "nationalist", would you? Clearly nationalists can support empire. This
> > is a different type of nationalist than the one who believes in the
> > nation state model, of course. They are, however, the very people you
> > can legitimately complain about.
>
> Realists are relativists when it comes to nation-states, the do not believe
> one state should intervene on what another state does internally, they
> should only look out for their national interest. In that sense, they are
> nationalists.
>
> > > > Socialists are more obviously
> > > > internationalists, seeking things like one government for the entire
> of
> > > > Europe. It amazes me that that isn't termed 'empire' by American
> > > > Liberals.
> > >
> > > Who's conquering who? What 'socialists' are you talking about?
> > >
> > The United States grew as a single nation and is a nation-state. The EU
> > is created from nation states, is an empire. Just because someone votes
> > to join an empire doesn't mean that they were not subjugated to that
> > empire.
>
> Again, the EU is not only not an empire (not centralized enough, or under
> one leader),
>
It's not an empire right now, of course. I'm saying that is the
direction that the socialists are pushing.
> but its formation and growth has been driven by business, the
> "capitalists," not the socialists. You'd have the leftists in Europe
> shocked if you tried to tell them the EU is a socialist party, they see it
> as a threat to socialism and as a plot by big business.
>
So are you trying to claim that the EU is fascist?
> The US is arguably an empire. We defeated a lot of natives of this
> continent,
>
The natives were nothing different from other backwards people displaced
in every other part of the world. The displacement, really the
assimilation, was inevitable. What happened here and everywhere else in
the world shows clearly why the nation state model is a requirement for
stability, peace and security for all people everywhere.
> marching westward and annexing their land.
>
Who said that they owned the land? Many indians didn't even believe that
land could be owned.
> The fact they don't
> exist in large numbers doesn't take away from the fact this was imperialist.
>
Of course it was imperialistic at the time. That doesn't mean it is an
empire today.
Billy Beck
fog:
>Billy seems to think there are 'essential traits' to socialism, but that
>doesn't make sense, given that the term is made up by humans who use it to
>label an ideology they construct. And so many people use the term
>differently (have different ideological claims) that to say there are any
>'essential properties' to socialism doesn't make sense. That also means its
>not quite like fish, because at least with fish you have something natural
>and real; ideologies are human attempts to make sense of the world, and thus
>are an abstraction from reality.
In these instant ninety-four words, Scotti endorses the idea that
humans use terms to no useful purpose because they're "made up" for
the purpose of useage. Widespread useage of terms not useful
therefore makes them less useful. "Socialism", in this case, is
un-natural and not real, because it's only an abstraction, and
therefore cannot be made sense of in the real world.
Does everyone understand?
Billy
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Which is one of the connections between socialism and empire.
> >> Communalism is always going to fail because the human individual is
> >> simply not a communalistic creature.
> >>
> >Families usually operate this way. Nations fighting in war do. Humans
> >thrive on teams and even seek this sort of thing, one reason we have
> >sport. If there wasn't anything naturally human about this, there
> >wouldn't be so many willing socialists. Of course as humans seek
> >community, they also seek conflict, the challenge. This is true in war
> >and sport and business, even arguing on usenet. The trick is figuring
> >out the correct balance between these two desires, needs.
>
> well yes, families are indeed, communalists, but just as in your other
> examples, these examples of communalism working all have some sort of
> bonding going on. That's never going to happen on large scale. We
> may bond together in family units and to some extent in other groups,
> but without the bonding, people are not communalistic.
>
It's really a human duality. People want community and then want
conflict, something to push against.
> >> The needs and wants of the
> >> society can only be defined by the individuals and they will always
> >> vote for their own individual needs and wants.
> >>
> >If we believe that humans are purely selfish and can't act in goodness,
> >then we believe in a pretty bleak world indeed.
>
> Bullshit. People voting their own interest is what we all do.
>
You mean you vote to give yourself as much from government as possible
to hell with the big picture? I specifically oppose that and believe
that members of congress should not attempt to pork out for their
constituents.
> We
> moderate that by what we consider to be right vs. wrong, but beyond
> that, we vote our own interests.
>
> I think if we try to
> >understand where to compete and where to have compassion and render
> >help, we can improve this world. The answer is certainly not pacific
> >indifference to evil nor insistence that we must bankrupt ourselves to
> >make sure that peoples who themselves are unwilling to even try get
> >endless economic and military assistance.
>
> --
>
> Steve
--
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
> <pre...@postpend.net.ru> wrote in message
> news:1123195975.0080575c2f632af764e328cd88c2ec43@teranews...
>
> -snip-
>
> > > Communalism is always going to fail because the human individual is
> > > simply not a communalistic creature.
> > >
> > Families usually operate this way. Nations fighting in war do. Humans
> > thrive on teams and even seek this sort of thing, one reason we have
> > sport. If there wasn't anything naturally human about this, there
> > wouldn't be so many willing socialists. Of course as humans seek
> > community, they also seek conflict, the challenge. This is true in war
> > and sport and business, even arguing on usenet. The trick is figuring
> > out the correct balance between these two desires, needs.
>
> Ultimately the best form of communalism is chosen and not forced. I think
> social democracies work best in small states where people do not feel
> government is controlling them, but they are using government as a tool to
> achieve mutual goals, and that government must answer to them.
>
The real question is how a social democracy works to benefit these
people compared to whatever the other choices are.
> A
> Scandinavian welfare state in the US would be too bureaucratic and not fit
> with American cultural norms (though within states, if states were allowed
> more of the tax revenue taken, some interesting experiments could occur).
> We have to find our own approach.
>
The question is what will happen in those states when the oil windfall
runs out.
> > > The needs and wants of the
> > > society can only be defined by the individuals and they will always
> > > vote for their own individual needs and wants.
> > >
> > If we believe that humans are purely selfish and can't act in goodness,
> > then we believe in a pretty bleak world indeed. I think if we try to
> > understand where to compete and where to have compassion and render
> > help, we can improve this world. The answer is certainly not pacific
> > indifference to evil nor insistence that we must bankrupt ourselves to
> > make sure that peoples who themselves are unwilling to even try get
> > endless economic and military assistance.
>
> True, effective welfare programs reward initiative and "help people help
> themselves." Fostering dependency is to do more harm than good. In Africa
> some economists (African, not western) have complained that western aid has
> made it easier for African countries to avoid doing what is necessary to
> become self-sufficient. There is a real danger that trying to help people
> may have negative consequences. That doesn't mean avoid the problem, but it
> does mean that just giving money doesn't necessarily help, and can harm.
>
I've mentioned Horando de Soto's book "THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL Why
Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere" before. There may
be comparatively simple things that can be done to reap big rewards.
Scott Erb
>
> fog:
>
> >Billy seems to think there are 'essential traits' to socialism, but that
> >doesn't make sense, given that the term is made up by humans who use it
to
> >label an ideology they construct. And so many people use the term
> >differently (have different ideological claims) that to say there are any
> >'essential properties' to socialism doesn't make sense. That also means
its
> >not quite like fish, because at least with fish you have something
natural
> >and real; ideologies are human attempts to make sense of the world, and
thus
> >are an abstraction from reality.
>
> In these instant ninety-four words, Scotti endorses the idea that
> humans use terms to no useful purpose because they're "made up" for
> the purpose of useage.
Why would you claim that abstractions from reality necessarily serve 'no
useful purpose?'
You are simply wrong, these terms can serve a useful purpose. They just
don't represent 'essential traits.'
> Widespread useage of terms not useful
> therefore makes them less useful. "Socialism", in this case, is
> un-natural and not real, because it's only an abstraction, and
> therefore cannot be made sense of in the real world.
It is an abstraction, but it can be made sense of, by people willing to
discuss.
> Does everyone understand?
You obviously do not.
blazing laser
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have respect for Rice (and Kissinger) as academics, but as politicians
>they play the same game others do, and perhaps are a bit more prone to some
>kinds of
>error because of their academic background (perhaps a bit more hubris,
>thinking they understand the stuff better because they have PhDs and all of
>that).
Kissinger got involved in govt. when asked to do work for the Johnson
admin during the Viet Nam War. In the '68 election he went to the
Nixon campaign and offered to give them all the info he had. Nixon
saw his amoral opportunistic zeal and gave him a high place in the
admin., but kept him low-profile at first because he was afraid people
would be put off by his accent. Evidence suggests (though it was neer
proven, still it wouldn't surprise me a bit) that he was involved in
negotiating with the North Vietnamise govt. to get them to reject
Johnson's diplomacy. The point is he got where he is by being a liar
and a cheat. Maybe he congratulates himself on being 'realistic' but
he's also a liar and a cheat, at least, maybe a traitor.
Condie seems to share that same amoral 'realist' quality, the idea
that, as Nixon put it so well, 'If the president does it, then it's
not a crime.'
>Both Condi and Kissinger come from a realist tradition that strongly
>believes that foreign policy should be in the hands of experts, and the
>public should not question or be involved in it (the public will be either
>too angry and want war when it is inappropriate, or too sympathetic and not
>want to act when action is warranted). Thus they have a build in belief
>that the public is a nuisance. In a democracy which is built on a different
>ideal, that leads to the kind of cynical actions you note.
I believe in expertise too, and all the details don't have to be shown
in a bright light. But that's not what's happening here. These
people have the idea that the law, even the Constitution, doesn't
apply to them, that they can do anything they can get away with, and
they can get away with more if nobody knows.
>They've also managed to try to paint themselves as the 'average joe' party,
>and the democrats as the protector of the extreme poor and minorities. So
>middle class and working folk hurt by GOP policies vote for them out of
>emotional connection (the kind of thing talk radio types create --
>ridiculing the liberals, create a self-esteem thing where people feel
>superior by being part of the 'in' group).
They really are able to use psychology to get a majority of people to
vote against their own best interests. This includes exploiting
unfortunate defects in the American culture like anti-intellectualism
and all kinds of intolerance. The Republicans bring out the worst in
us.
>> Couldn't agree more. But again, people believe this stuff because
>> there's one part of it that sounds good to them. They don't
>> understand the rest of it but they -pretend- to understand.
>
>It's emotion. I used the term Goebbelsesque for a reason -- appeal to
>emotion to generate support was something that he mastered, and modern
>politicians use the same techniques.
Yeah, I'm sure it's older even than Goebbels.
>> Also I think the right-wingers take advantage of a characteristic of
>> human nature. People don't like to have to think too deeply about
>> things. They'd rather get their understanding pre-digested. The
>> right-wing talk shows make it easy for them, they dont' so much give
>> them news as a pre-packaged understanding, like intellectual
>> convenience food. It doesn't help matters that we also have a strong
>> anti-intellectual streak in the American culture.
>
>Exactly. Goebbels again loved to attack the intellectual elite and
>'softies' who would keep Germany from standing its ground, rejecting the
>Versailles treaty, and reclaiming its rightful place in Europe. It was
>about national pride, a strong sense of identity, and an emotional
>connection to a movement, with the opposition considered weak, treasonous,
>and idiotic. People now scream "Goodwin's law" when any comparison to
>German fascism is made, but if you look at the rise to power of the nazis,
>separate from Hitler's evil wars and the holocaust, you see a very
>sophisticated propaganda and political machine, using emotion, nationalism,
>and demonization of others to create a sense that they knew how things
>should be, and could make the country work. The propaganda of talk radio,
>much of Fox news, and the like, is very similar (and no, that's not saying
>they want a holocaust, but they do seem to have been eager to get America to
>go to war in Mideast...)
The difference between the Repubs and the Nazis is one of magnitude.
The principles are the same! (BTW, IIRC Goodwin's Law refers only to
personal attacks, not descriptions of admin. tactics.)
>> I see that happening when the great majority of people start realizing
>> that the agenda doesn't serve them at all, and stop voting against
>> their own interests. But I think it will have to get a lot worse
>> before it gets better. It's only pain that wakes people up, and it
>> hasn't gotten painful enough just yet.
>
>Exactly. Humans learn the hard way.
"Experience keeps a very dear school, but fools will learn at no
other." Unfortunately those of us who know better will have to suffer
too.
>Well, wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who said that it would be no diaster for the
>'red race' to disappear and make way for the 'great white race.' And we
>honor him on Mt. Rushmore!
It doesn't sound like him. He would be considered a radical liberal
today.
>> I tend to think the small members of the coalition--actually probably
>> all of them except England--were the countries that depended on US aid
>> and were afraid to cheese off Bush. The Bush admin told them they
>> only had to agree in principle, not to send troops or spend money.
>
>Yeah, though I think many also thought that the US would win easily, they'd
>get nice contracts in the new Iraq, and the US would favor them over other
>countries.
Who knows what the Bush admin. promised them! They were nuts to trust
him though.
>The thing is, those guys (well, not Feith, but the others) are indeed SMART.
>So is Rumsfeld, and Rice. They are among the 'best and the brightest.'
>And what happened the last time the 'best and the brightest' guided American
>foreign policy, so sure that our power and ideals could easily conquer,
>especially in the third world....
I don't know if they are the best and brightest. I know the Bushes
have always employed Ivy Leaguers (George Schultz has the Princeton
Tiger tattooed on his ass!) I agree they're bright, but they're also
devious and amoral. They have a hidden agenda (well, these days it's
not so hidden!) It's -that- that gets them into trouble, not brains
or competence.
Malibu Skipper
>
> "chris.holt" wrote:
>
>>Billy Beck wrote:
>>
>>>slip-slide:
>>
>>>>The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so many
>>>>different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
>>>>usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At the
>>>>very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use it,
>>>>since there is no one standard definition.
>>
>>> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>>
>>Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
>>don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
>>
>
> That's a large part of the problem. There is no self consistent meaning
> for the word "socialism" that encompasses all the meanings that all
> people self described as "socialists" have. It's like the word "fish".
>
>
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
1825 Dead wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:52:43 -0700, "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus
> of recirculation')" <pre...@postpend.net.ru> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"chris.holt" wrote:
> >>
> >> Billy Beck wrote:
> >> > slip-slide:
> >>
> >> >>The term 'socialism' is becoming increasingly infrequent, as it has so many
> >> >>different variants, and the word for average folk has such powerful and
> >> >>usually negative connotations, that it is seen as rather useless. At the
> >> >>very least, analysts have to explain and define the term when they use it,
> >> >>since there is no one standard definition.
> >>
> >> > Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
> >>
> >> Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
> >> don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
> >>
> >That's a large part of the problem. There is no self consistent meaning
> >for the word "socialism" that encompasses all the meanings that all
> >people self described as "socialists" have. It's like the word "fish".
>
> Guess what? That applies to all political terms.
>
You've got a point. Maybe I should've prepended "sword".
--
"And he did bring them. It took a number of years, but one by one he
brought them here. Except for his father, that old man died where he was
born." -+ "Elia Kazan, "America, America"
1827 Dead
wrote:
Bill, the way you use the term "socialism" is NOT widespread. It's
not even recognizable. Political labels ARE vague, and I've seen the
term applied from anything from suggesting that speed limits on the
highways is a wise idea to Stalinism. This being Usenet, we get our
share of complete lunatics who try to insist that both modalities are
equal.
>
>
>Billy
>
>http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
Steven Canyon
I don't think it's that at all. I think people want a government
structure simply to enforce the basic laws of nature... the right to
life, liberty, and property. The trouble is that the more the
government encroaches on our individuality, the more we expect to get
from it. Dependency can be an addiction. It takes a lot of
self-control to resist it. The socialists, OTOH, have simply give in
to it and wait eagerly for the nanny government to wipe their noses
and bring them their next meal.
>> >> The needs and wants of the
>> >> society can only be defined by the individuals and they will always
>> >> vote for their own individual needs and wants.
>> >>
>> >If we believe that humans are purely selfish and can't act in goodness,
>> >then we believe in a pretty bleak world indeed.
>>
>> Bullshit. People voting their own interest is what we all do.
>>
>You mean you vote to give yourself as much from government as possible
>to hell with the big picture? I specifically oppose that and believe
>that members of congress should not attempt to pork out for their
>constituents.
Well, yes, me too, but you see that it still happens all the time.
What was the quote I heard somewhere about how democracy will fail as
soon as the people discover they can vote themselves a government
handout? The problem is very simple and I addressed it below. It is
simply wrong for anyone to use the government to pick somebody else's
pocket. Too many people have decided that it isn't wrong. That's
sad.
>> We
>> moderate that by what we consider to be right vs. wrong, but beyond
>> that, we vote our own interests.
>>
>> I think if we try to
>> >understand where to compete and where to have compassion and render
>> >help, we can improve this world. The answer is certainly not pacific
>> >indifference to evil nor insistence that we must bankrupt ourselves to
>> >make sure that peoples who themselves are unwilling to even try get
>> >endless economic and military assistance.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Steve
--
Steve
Scott Erb
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > > So you do agree with that fundamental point, that socialists oppose
the
> > > nation state?
> >
> > In theory many do, though socialists (defined here as the most left of
the
> > politicians and parties in Europe) in the EU also are the most opposed
to
> > further European integration, claiming it aids capitalism and prevents
> > states from protecting workers. So in practice, they often get
> > protectionist.
> >
> But do you doubt that any of them would support further EU integration
> on their own terms? That's the real issue here, do you believe in the
> nation state model or do you want to swallow it up with empire,
> obviously of your own design of course.
But if capitalists and socialists (whatever those terms mean) each support
European integration on their own terms, then it's hardly a distinguishing
characteristic.
Integration is not empire, since states are GIVING UP control over their own
destiny to supra-national institutions. In International Relations terms,
the use of 'empire' to describe this is just plain wrong, no state is taking
control of other states. Rather, they are forming international
institutions to facilitate cooperation and handle disputes. Integration is
simply a higher level of this, the WTO is similar, but at a lower level of
integration (in part because there isn't as much shared interests, values
and history world wide as in Europe).
> > Nationalism itself isn't a virtue (Franco was a non-expansive
nationalist).
> >
> The democratic nation state is the only stable and redundant model of
> government we've come up with. That there are empireists who claim to be
> nationalists isn't something I can prevent.
I don't know what you mean there.
> > Nationalism is a mindless love for ones' country simply because one was
born
> > there, regardless of what the country does or is.
> >
> That sounds like the definition of socialism that you claimed was too
> simple.
How does that sound like the definition of socialism?
> > Patriotism could be a
> > better term for people who are willing to criticize their country, but
have
> > love and devotion in the values and ideals of their country. Not
because
> > its the piece of dirt they were born on, but because they believe it
stands
> > for values and ideals that are worth defending and proclaiming.
> >
> For whatever reason, the nationalist as I'm defining him (not an
> empireist) isn't interested in expanding his country into other
> sovereign nations. Why he loves his country more than others is up to
> him. If he loves the smell of the dirt, that's no business of mine.
That's not rational, and I hope such mindless types don't make policy for a
country. But if they want to be that way, that's fine.
> > Throughout the third world that is a problem. States were imposed by
the
> > Europeans, but they don't fit the political realities of most of the
rest of
> > the world.
> >
> In the Middle East, the worst example is that of the Kurds. Of course
> the Middle East is a test of my views. Can love of nation spring up even
> when borders aren't perfectly based on religion, language, or ethnicity?
Nations are artificial entities, real only to the extent people have
socially constructed them and imbued them with meaning.
That can happen for things other than a territorially defined state, and
again, I think the state is in transition, with sovereignty and
"nationalism" as you define it becoming obsolete.
> > > What national political entity is the United States? Yet it is the
most
> > > viable of nations.
> >
> > One of the best kinds -- built on ideals and values, not on ethnicity or
> > exclusivity. Anybody of any background, race, or religion can become an
> > American, and believe in America's ideals.
> >
> Right. So what's wrong with the same thing in any nation state? One of
> the main points of the modern pluralistic democratic nation state is
> that it is not based solely on race, religion, ethnicity or native
> language.
And, of course, this need not be bound with a territorial unit. The EU is
seen as a community of common values, whereby national identity is not
contradicted by a European identity.
> > A lot of corporations aren't of one nation,
> >
> A company can have divisions in different nations. All people are of
> some nation.
Or nations -- there is a right to citizenship. But that doesn't alter the
main point; sovereignty and citizenship as legal concepts remain and will
remain for some time. What they mean in terms of international politics is
changing dramatically.
> > and there has been a dramatic
> > increase in dual and even triple citizenships. But I think you're right
> > that the nation-state is not going to disappear, and that as a legal
concept
> > sovereignty is not going to go away. It's practical meaning is
changing,
> > and its becoming less important.
> >
> If we imagine a world without the nation state, what happens if a Hitler
> gets elected? That might not happen for five hundred years but
> eventually it might and without other sovereign nations, what are we
> going to do?
That's an odd scenario. First, states will continue to exist, the nature of
sovereignty is simply altered. Cooperative institutions that bind countries
in new ways will have to have their set of checks and balances built in.
The modern sovereign democratic state is a recent creation, and there is no
reason to think it will or can last forever. My personal belief is that
we'll see a mix whereby power is decentralized to sub-state units
(localities, even individuals and voluntary organizations), as technology
now allows individuals more power at their finger tips, and groups more
ability to get information and act. Furthermore, some of this power will be
devolved to NGO's, or voluntary organizations that make connections across
borders, and IO's, which involve institutionalized governmental cooperation.
This is happening all over the third world now, as NGO's, corporations, and
governments negotiate and compromise on issues like workers' rights,
environmental concerns, etc.
Other aspects will be delegated upward to a supranational organization like
the WTO or EU, with limited powers. The state will remain, in between,
having lost power in both directions. The decentralized power should be
significant enough to allow it to check the supranational authority if it
tries to abuse power, and states will remain an important check on both of
them. Sovereignty and the state will still exist, but in a different kind
of way.
> > Talk to computer science students who live on the internet, and they
claim
> > (at least some I know) that they don't even think in terms of states and
> > borders, that their world is wherever their computers can reach. That's
an
> > extreme, but a sign of the times. I can do research in my office or
from
> > home that I used to have to travel to Germany to do (and I get German
and
> > Russian TV on dishnet). None of this takes away from the existence of
> > states and sovereignty, but are all aspects of how our sense of identity
and
> > boundaries is changing.
> >
> One of the problems of thinking only locally is that you might not
> understand why would you are doing is a problem for other people. I'm
> pretty sure that Hitler hadn't travelled outside of German speaking
> areas and didn't speak any language but German. Now he was also a nut,
> but you can sort of see my point.
And that is one reason why the emerging system contains a potential check on
Hitler types; locally isn't defined just by a small geographic region, but
can be shared interests and ideals across borders. Technology is literally
changing the nature of space and time as far as politics goes.
> > > The EU is driven by socialists. These are the people who think that
> > > national borders are anachronistic. They are wrong.
> >
> > Yikes, the left in the EU claims that capitalists are driving the EU.
> >
> The problem is that socialism and capitalism are not extremes of one
> line. EUers are happy to compete with subsidized Airbus. This mixes
> socialist ideas of government control with the market.
Gee, the energy bill passed by Congress for President Bush is full of
subsidies for oil companies. Does that make it a socialist bill, with
George W. Bush being a socialist? To define socialism as being government
subsidies seems a really broad definition.
> > The
> > EU is driven primarily by European business interests, who want to save
> > costs of things like currency transactions, who want fewer regulations
on
> > capital flow across borders, and who want more ability to seek lower
wage
> > states, and merge across borders. Look at the most strong supporters of
> > more European integration, and you see the business community.
> >
> One thing it does is expand the welfare state so that other countries
> can't gain an advantage.
How is it doing that? The EU has very little in terms of standardized
requirements on social welfare protections. Most of that is voluntary.
> > I think the EU will end up NOT being a new state, the European states
will
> > continue.
> >
> But this is only because the people have reached in and brought some
> sanity to the process. The people running it are full tilt socialists
> who want an EU empire.
Well, I've studied the EU all my adult life, and have talked to both
Europhiles and Europhobes, and while some running the EU are idealistic,
most are pragmatic problem solvers who believe the capitalist kind of
argument that war and conflict are too expensive and draining on an economy,
while cooperation and trade makes everyone better off. To them it's just a
matter of finding a way to compromise on diverse interests and coordinate
state laws. I don't know of anyone who would want to get rid of European
states, I don't think you really know the kind of people who run the EU. On
what are you basing your claims?
-snip-
> > variety of reasons I can explain if you want, but which would probably
bore
> > you) the term 'sovereignty' has virtually been replaced by
'subsidiarity,'
> > where power starts at the level closest to the individual,
> >
> That's interesting because I was trying for a long time to explain my
> concept of "closer rights", that is that rights that are closer to the
> individual should be preserved first over those farther away.
>
>
> > and then goes to
> > regions, states, and finally the EU if needed to deal with particular
issues
> > and problems. Sovereignty isn't disappearing, it's been redefined and
> > occupies a less central role.
> >
> You can't be partly sovereign.
You are denying what is standard in international relations theory these
days. Legally, a state is sovereign, meaning it has certain rights in
international law. In that sense, you can't be partly sovereign.
Practically, though, states are not able to control what goes on within
their borders, because so much power has gone to IO's, and outside non-state
actors can exercise considerable influence. In the EU, most states don't
even control their monetary policies (control of money is second to security
in terms of sovereign powers), and in the third world outside states and
actors can often dictate to governments. So legally they are sovereign, but
in terms of real power to do what sovereignty entails: have complete control
of all that happens within their borders, and be able to have an independent
foreign policy -- they are only partly sovereign.
-snip-
> > I daresay that doesn't describe the leftists called socialists or who
call
> > themselves socialists today.
> >
> I think we have to decide if the EU is Liberal or not. I think it is.
Liberal in the ideological sense of focusing on market capitalism and
limited government.
> And I think we need to decide whether the EU is about destroying the
> nation state model. Maybe the new model is that of the Orwell's triple
> empire in "1984".
Again, if you really study what's going on in the EU, it's not about
destroying states, it's about coordinating policy and improving cooperation
and trade. It's driven by business interests, and doesn't seek to somehow
subvert the state. It's just changing the nature of the state and its
sovereign powers.
-snip-
> > The US is arguably an empire. We defeated a lot of natives of this
> > continent,
> >
> The natives were nothing different from other backwards people displaced
> in every other part of the world. The displacement, really the
> assimilation, was inevitable. What happened here and everywhere else in
> the world shows clearly why the nation state model is a requirement for
> stability, peace and security for all people everywhere.
>
>
> > marching westward and annexing their land.
> >
> Who said that they owned the land? Many indians didn't even believe that
> land could be owned.
So, if you conquer a people and push them off the land upon which they live,
whether they have a concept of ownership or not (the Kurds are another
example -- as nomads, they didn't have a clear sense of territoriality),
it's imperialism.
> > The fact they don't
> > exist in large numbers doesn't take away from the fact this was
imperialist.
> >
> Of course it was imperialistic at the time. That doesn't mean it is an
> empire today.
Today it's a different kind of empire, using economic leverage, military
threats/power, and other such things to exert influence that prevents other
countries from having fully sovereign powers, and gives the US the power to
influence, sometimes considerably, the way other countries behave.
-Scott
Scott Erb
>
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > Ultimately the best form of communalism is chosen and not forced. I
think
> > social democracies work best in small states where people do not feel
> > government is controlling them, but they are using government as a tool
to
> > achieve mutual goals, and that government must answer to them.
> >
> The real question is how a social democracy works to benefit these
> people compared to whatever the other choices are.
And that question is, I believe, the reason why democratic governments
function best -- people routinely have a chance to express their beliefs
about such issues at the ballot box, making democracy a self-correcting form
of government, capable of improvement over time.
> > A
> > Scandinavian welfare state in the US would be too bureaucratic and not
fit
> > with American cultural norms (though within states, if states were
allowed
> > more of the tax revenue taken, some interesting experiments could
occur).
> > We have to find our own approach.
> >
> The question is what will happen in those states when the oil windfall
> runs out.
Oil windfall? That helps Norway, but not the rest.
> > True, effective welfare programs reward initiative and "help people help
> > themselves." Fostering dependency is to do more harm than good. In
Africa
> > some economists (African, not western) have complained that western aid
has
> > made it easier for African countries to avoid doing what is necessary to
> > become self-sufficient. There is a real danger that trying to help
people
> > may have negative consequences. That doesn't mean avoid the problem,
but it
> > does mean that just giving money doesn't necessarily help, and can harm.
> >
> I've mentioned Horando de Soto's book "THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL Why
> Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere" before. There may
> be comparatively simple things that can be done to reap big rewards.
I don't know the book, but to me the biggest killer of economic development
is corruption.
Corruption is a parasite that in much of the third world has about devoured
the host. Add to that no stable rule of law (something that of course makes
corruption likely), and no set of shared social norms about appropriate
economic behavior, and it's hard for any system to work.
I think the fallacy is to believe there is one "right" system that will work
for any culture at any time.
-Scott
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Billy Beck wrote:
>>> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>>Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
>>don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
> A person call call himself a pumpkin if he wants to, Chris, but
> that won't make it true.
Sure. But when you associate a word with a meaning, it's
usually for the purpose of communication, and the
oppositional approach to definitions isn't usually very
helpful. This is because you have to say opposite
in a particular sense or context. The opposite of
0 could be 1, or infinity, or something else
altogether.
I was just trying to suggest that your observation
while possibly true in some instances, isn't true in
others; that is, it's not definitionally true.
--
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" wrote:
>>Billy Beck wrote:
>>> Socialism is the opposite of individualism.
>>Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
>>don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
> That's a large part of the problem. There is no self consistent meaning
> for the word "socialism" that encompasses all the meanings that all
> people self described as "socialists" have. It's like the word "fish".
All it means is that when engaging in a discussion involving
socialism of one form or another, you have to agree on what
it means first. If you want to discuss different kinds of
socialism, you can either find different words for them or
start using subscripts: socialism[1], socialism[2] etc.
--
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
There some be some commonality if the word is to be of use. You'll
notice that we are discussing socialism and people are rarely
disambiguating various versions of it.
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
If they are laws of nature, they wouldn't need a government to enforce
them. And eat or be eaten, actually usually eat and then be eaten, is
the basic law of nature. Most people don't want that.
> the right to
> life, liberty, and property. The trouble is that the more the
> government encroaches on our individuality, the more we expect to get
> from it. Dependency can be an addiction. It takes a lot of
> self-control to resist it. The socialists, OTOH, have simply give in
> to it and wait eagerly for the nanny government to wipe their noses
> and bring them their next meal.
>
Of course it is also easy to be rich and tell the poor to buck up not
seek sustenance at the government teat.
> >> >> The needs and wants of the
> >> >> society can only be defined by the individuals and they will always
> >> >> vote for their own individual needs and wants.
> >> >>
> >> >If we believe that humans are purely selfish and can't act in goodness,
> >> >then we believe in a pretty bleak world indeed.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. People voting their own interest is what we all do.
> >>
> >You mean you vote to give yourself as much from government as possible
> >to hell with the big picture? I specifically oppose that and believe
> >that members of congress should not attempt to pork out for their
> >constituents.
>
> Well, yes, me too, but you see that it still happens all the time.
>
> What was the quote I heard somewhere about how democracy will fail as
> soon as the people discover they can vote themselves a government
> handout?
>
As long as only a minority of the people feel they have something to
lose with high taxes for more social programmes, the people will vote
for more social programmes.
> The problem is very simple and I addressed it below. It is
> simply wrong for anyone to use the government to pick somebody else's
> pocket. Too many people have decided that it isn't wrong. That's
> sad.
>
But it is in your best interest if you have less money than someone else
to vote to have that other guy's wealth taken and redistributed to you.
You said you voted for what was in your best interest, personally in
your best interest.
> >> We
> >> moderate that by what we consider to be right vs. wrong, but beyond
> >> that, we vote our own interests.
> >>
> >> I think if we try to
> >> >understand where to compete and where to have compassion and render
> >> >help, we can improve this world. The answer is certainly not pacific
> >> >indifference to evil nor insistence that we must bankrupt ourselves to
> >> >make sure that peoples who themselves are unwilling to even try get
> >> >endless economic and military assistance.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Steve
>
> --
>
> Steve
--
Eric da Red
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
> "chris.holt" wrote:
...
> >
>> Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
> > don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
> >
> That's a large part of the problem. There is no self consistent meaning
> for the word "socialism" that encompasses all the meanings that all
> people self described as "socialists" have. It's like the word "fish".
Are you still referring to yourself as a "libertarian conservative?"
Or are you more comfortable with "fish?"
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
I'm a libertarian Conservative.
> Or are you more comfortable with "fish?"
>
Only if you are a bicycle.
Malibu Skipper
>
> Eric da Red wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
>>
>>>"chris.holt" wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>>Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
>>>>don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's a large part of the problem. There is no self consistent meaning
>>>for the word "socialism" that encompasses all the meanings that all
>>>people self described as "socialists" have. It's like the word "fish".
>>
>>Are you still referring to yourself as a "libertarian conservative?"
>>
>
> I'm a libertarian Conservative.
>
>
>
>>Or are you more comfortable with "fish?"
>>
>
> Only if you are a bicycle.
>
>
conservatives, Bill? What about with chamber of commerce conservatives?
Is it just low taxes?
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Malibu Skipper wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
> >
> > Eric da Red wrote:
> >
> >>Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
> >>
> >>>"chris.holt" wrote:
> >>
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Not for many people who call themselves socialists; and you
> >>>>don't get to decide for them what they mean by the word.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>That's a large part of the problem. There is no self consistent meaning
> >>>for the word "socialism" that encompasses all the meanings that all
> >>>people self described as "socialists" have. It's like the word "fish".
> >>
> >>Are you still referring to yourself as a "libertarian conservative?"
> >>
> >
> > I'm a libertarian Conservative.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Or are you more comfortable with "fish?"
> >>
> >
> > Only if you are a bicycle.
> >
> >
> What do libertarian conservatives
>
It's libertarian Conservative.
> have in common with kulturekampf
> conservatives, Bill? What about with chamber of commerce conservatives?
> Is it just low taxes?
>
I don't know what you are talking about.
cliff...@yahoo.co.uk
Saddam's hatred of Shiite extremism in general and the Ayatollah
Khamenei in particular. In this regard, Saddam had much in common with
George Bush and the US and they both started a senseless, expensive war
because of it.
What would really be ironic is if Iran and Shiite extremists wind up
with dominance and control of the Middle East as a result of George
Bush's war. Something else that Saddam and Bush have in common and is
ironic, I suppose, is that they have both have been accused of war and
humanity crimes in the process, while Iran's hands appear to stay clean
and unlike Iraq, they really do have a nuclear program.
The bottom line is that war is not the solution to religious extremism
and that Clinton was correct with his policy of containment of Saddam
and "Bring 'em on" George Bush was 100% wrong.
chris.holt
> "chris.holt" wrote:
>>All it means is that when engaging in a discussion involving
>>socialism of one form or another, you have to agree on what
>>it means first. If you want to discuss different kinds of
>>socialism, you can either find different words for them or
>>start using subscripts: socialism[1], socialism[2] etc.
> There some be some commonality if the word is to be of use. You'll
> notice that we are discussing socialism and people are rarely
> disambiguating various versions of it.
Well, why do you think people get so angry and confused when
they try to discuss it?
--