Fascism puts Left foot forward
Antimulticulture
www.heraldsun.com.au
by Andrew Bolt
November 25th, 2005
CALLING Prime Minister John Howard a fascist has become quite chic among
certain people.
You know the sort I mean - the people now ignoring the far more alarming
words of Labor hero Paul Keating.
This week, for instance, a Queensland University history lecturer, Dr Andrew
Bonnell, wrote to the Australian to compare the Howard Government's alleged
censorship of critics with that of Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.
Earlier this month, prominent Sydney Morning Herald columnist Alan Ramsey
likewise compared the Government to the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini
under the headline: "Here and there, the signs of tyranny".
And in evidence this month to a Senate inquiry, the NSW Industrial Relations
Minister, Labor's John Della Bosca, swore that Howard's new workplace laws
were "very close to fascism".
Oh, and don't forget last month's rally against Howard's anti-terrorism
laws, in which Greens leader Bob Brown addressed demonstrators carrying
signs such as "Death to Fascism".
[Ed. There are heaps of examples of that from this clown - i like the way
he wishes to suppress the questioning of evolution in schools and
can manage to keep a straight face when talking an open-society...]
All this jumping at shadows, yet when a true voice of state oppression
speaks, the same critics go deaf.
[Ed. Where are they on Mugabe or the chaos in South Africa or Darfur? Or
China's human rights record? Where are the feminazi's on Islam's track
record of abuse?...]
Fascism is in fact an ideology of the Left, as Hitler (the Nazi Socialist)
and Mussolini (the former editor of Italy's official Socialist newspaper
Avanti) showed.
And it's the Left that still gives us plans to join Big Government to Big
Unions and Big Business to bully small citizens. It's still the Left that
gives us most of our street-battle protests.
[Ed. It is the left that gives us multiculturalism, open-borders and
demographic change without consulting the people...]
It's still the Left that can give us political leaders such as Brown, who
endorsed the violent blockade of a World Economic Forum meeting in Melbourne
on September 11, 2000, and former Labor leader Mark Latham, who preached
hatred, attacked civility as a plot against the poor and boasted of breaking
a taxi driver's arm.
And it's the Left which gave us former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating,
who said this month he'd have locked up Governor-General Sir John Kerr
rather than let him sack Gough Whitlam's Labor Government in 1975.
[Ed. Whitlam was sacked twice, once by the GG and again by the people. I don't
know how leftist grubs can keep trading on this event as a "travesty"...]
Speaking at a book launch, Keating said he'd told a Labor colleague at the
time "we should put Kerr immediately under house arrest". His audience of
sympathisers laughed and clapped in approval, but Keating added: "Oh, I
meant it, I meant it. And had I been Prime Minister, I certainly would've."
[Ed. This is the patriotic grub who called Australia "the arse end of the
world" no wonder he was thrashed in the polls soon after...]
I have seen not a word of criticism of Keating's talk of locking up our
effective head of state, presumably with the army's help. Maybe what is
fascism in a Liberal is sweet revolution in Labor.
If you think Keating just had a brain spasm, I should add he also appeared
last week on the ABC Late Night Live show of his adoring disciple, Phillip
Adams, to discuss Jack Lang, the NSW Premier who was himself sacked by a
Governor, Sir Philip Game, in 1932.
This time Keating said he was sorry that Lang, his old mentor, didn't "stand
Game up" and resist.
Lang had told him he hadn't wanted his state police fighting the army, but
Keating said that was "not a convincing answer".
Lang had just felt "he didn't have enough political authority to lock Game
up ... but the pity was that he never tried. That's the real pity". If a
Game or Kerr "criminalise themselves in this way, they should be dealt with
accordingly".
Once again, no one criticised Keating's call for political force, if not
possible civil war. Adams, the unapologetic former member of the Communist
Party, certainly was unshocked.
I agree, fascism is sinister. But the Howard haters who claim to fear it
most should turn around to confront the real dangers behind them.
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multiculty
"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"
Fran
Antimulticulture wrote:
> Fascism puts Left foot forward
> www.heraldsun.com.au
> by Andrew Bolt
> November 25th, 2005
>
Antimulticulti, you quote Bolt approvingly as follows:
"I agree, fascism is sinister. But the Howard haters who claim to fear
it
most should turn around to confront the real dangers behind them."
> Jim
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
> Union Against Multiculty
And then follows your sig:
"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"
Now, last time I looked, stringing up people was a form of killing
them. Killing those seen as "race traitors" was very much a fascist
marker. What business would someone like you have complaining about
fascism? Calling it "left wing" is just silly on the face of it. I
don't believe you are saying you're a lefty and yet you are exactly in
sync with the Hitlerian method.
Really, you're not only a racist reactionary. You're so far gone you
have no idea what you're quoting and why you're quoting it.
Fran
B.L. Zebub
Labor Party. The track record of the current British parliament proves that
beyond a doubt.
Glen Hallick
the right like communism is the extreme of the left. What some people such
as you are tyring to pull off is to present a very false image of the right
being throughly tolerant and devoutly democratic.
Glen
"Antimulticulture" <Antimult...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:438aeccc$0$10205$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Fran
What the devil are you on about? ;-)
I never said anything about the Labor Party being left.
Fran
John B
"Glen Hallick" <gNOSPAM...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:cmFif.11791$Ay6...@fe13.lga...
> More revisionist crapola. The fact is fascism and nazism are
> the extremes of the right like communism is the extreme of the
> left. What some people such as you are tyring to pull off is to
> present a very false image of the right being throughly
> tolerant and devoutly democratic.
>
> Glen
Get a grip. They are of the left because they violate individual
rights. The right is represented by capitalism... or individual
freedom.
Learn the distinction.
joe
>
> Get a grip. They are of the left because they violate individual
> rights. The right is represented by capitalism... or individual
> freedom.
>
Bullshit. Educate yourself a little before spouting off and making a
fool of yourself.
Joe
John Therault
He sounds as if he's received his entire political education from second rate
propaganda pamphlets.
John B
"joe" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:dmfqfe$305$1...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Yeah? Seems you are another cloud-cuckoo reality-denying mystic.
Sure are a lot of ewe's about.
John B
"John Therault" <john.the...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133211435.2bae720395...@fe5.teranews.com...
Who are you? A pretty uselss **** I reckon. Slimy character that
attacks the messenger instead of the message.
Fran
That's an unwarranted generalisation. Some on the right (eg the
followers of Rand) favour an individual rights approach, but the bulk
of the right takes a far more "communitarian" view. There are all
manner of restrictions on "individual rights" advocated by the right --
most obviously at the moment in the current "anti-terror" legislation,
but also in areas such as drug and alcohol policy, IR legislation
(where employers and employees are explicitly disbarred under fine from
including certain provisions in agreements) , censorship, etc ...
Conversely, there are many on the left (I'm one of them) who favour
strongly individual rights as a starting point for social policy and
see the development of collective restraints on individual rights to
act as defencible only on the grounds on defence of legitimate
individual interests.
In practice of course, the distinctions between individual rights and
group rights, especially when goes beyond mere lifestyle choices, is
often blurry, precisely because society and the benefits produced by it
that make the exercise of individual freedoms a matter of debate and
exercise, are centrally the product of human collaboration.
Consequently, the central challenge for advocates of individual freedom
(as opposed to those spouting it merely as a slogan in order to advance
the privileges of the already privileged at the expense of the many) is
to find appropriate vehicles for genuine common public interests to be
manifest in policy and for genuinely private interests and individual
autonomy to be ring fenced against intrusive state intervention.
Fran
Angus
of
> the right like communism is the extreme of the left. What some people such
> as you are tyring to pull off is to present a very false image of the
right
> being throughly tolerant and devoutly democratic.
>
> Glen
I agree with you to a degree. Fascism is of the Right in that it stresses
nationalism, ethnicity and traditional values and uses force to put these
ideas into practise. But like communism it is based on the underlying
assumption that an elite has a duty to make decisions on behalf of and
compel an ignorant mass of people who don't know what is in their best
interests. This is really obvious in communism where there is the notion of
the revolutionary vanguard and the idea of false consciousness.
The idea that individuals are best situated to make decisions about their
own welfare and resource allocation is a principle seen more often among the
right than the left. The idea of free enterprise, and the freedom of
individual economic units to do as they think best with their time and
resources is one that is still abhorred even today by the moderate left and
this can be seen in the ALP and ABC but is championed by the liberal and
libertarian right.
It is this belief in the intellectual and moral superiority of an elite and
a suspicion of the people that von Hayek said was common to communism and
fascism and is the basis for the almost inevitable descent into
totalitarianism seen in communism and fascism..
SNIP
Fran
Angus wrote:
> "Glen Hallick" <gNOSPAM...@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:cmFif.11791$Ay6...@fe13.lga...
> > More revisionist crapola. The fact is fascism and nazism are the extremes
> of
> > the right like communism is the extreme of the left. What some people such
> > as you are tyring to pull off is to present a very false image of the
> right
> > being throughly tolerant and devoutly democratic.
> >
> > Glen
>
> I agree with you to a degree. Fascism is of the Right in that it stresses
> nationalism, ethnicity and traditional values and uses force to put these
> ideas into practise. But like communism it is based on the underlying
> assumption that an elite has a duty to make decisions on behalf of and
> compel an ignorant mass of people who don't know what is in their best
> interests. This is really obvious in communism where there is the notion of
> the revolutionary vanguard and the idea of false consciousness.
>
This is a misunderstanding of the role of the "vanguard". The idea of
the vanguard is simply a recognition that in circumstances where a
class is in the process of formation or development, or in retreat as
it is borne down upon by hostile forces, that professional
revolutionaries are better placed to explain and interpret the world
according to the long term interests of the class. The relationship is
not one of master and servant but of consultant and client.
> The idea that individuals are best situated to make decisions about their
> own welfare and resource allocation is a principle seen more often among the
> right than the left.
What the right fails to recognise is that some key matters of interest
can only be determined in collaboration with others -- ie public and
common interests -- while others are purely private. Conflating these
too can in the end, only subvert the capacity of individuals in the
main to make autonomous choices about where their best interest lie --
since most will get Hobson's choice.
> The idea of free enterprise, and the freedom of
> individual economic units to do as they think best with their time and
> resources is one that is still abhorred even today by the moderate left and
> this can be seen in the ALP and ABC but is championed by the liberal and
> libertarian right.
>
No it isn't -- the current IR legislation being case in point.
> It is this belief in the intellectual and moral superiority of an elite and
> a suspicion of the people that von Hayek said was common to communism and
> fascism and is the basis for the almost inevitable descent into
> totalitarianism seen in communism and fascism..
>
>
We communists favour abolition, or more precisely, *dissolution* of
elites -- through raising productivity on a world scale to a sufficient
standard to cause class rule to wither. We see nobody as morally or
ethically superior, or having a greater claim upon the world's
resources than another. That's the central point of difference --
because either in theory or in practice, that is what unites the right.
The fascists want these privileges extracted using brute force, whereas
the mainstream right see this as a natural consequence of organic
processes caused either by withdrawal of state intervention (Hayek,
Rand, Friedman) or by more traditional conservative regulatory means
such as we see under Howard and Blair and as we would see under Beazley
too.
Fran
>
>
>
> SNIP
Constantine
But why don't we ask the father of fascism what it meas. From Mussolini:
Italians! Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is
revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against
prejudice.
For the political problem: We demand:
a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional
representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.
b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office
holders at 25 years.
c) The abolition of the Senate.
d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for
which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the
State.
e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy,
for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc.
Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with
legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with
ministerial powers.
For the social problems: We demand:
a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour
workday for all workers.
b) A minimum wage.
c) The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of
industry commissions.
d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be
technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public
servants.
e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the
transport industries.
f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum
retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.
For the military problem: We demand:
a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for
training and exclusively defensive responsibilities.
b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national
culture in the world.
For the financial problem: We demand:
a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion
of all wealth.
b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the
abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on
the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of
the profits therein.
----------
As with National Socialism and Communism, it is easy to see that far from
being a right-wing ideology, fascism is simply another variant of leftist
worship of the State.
In 1925, Mussolini encapsulated the heart of fascist philosophy in a
memorable phrase:
Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.
This means "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing
against the State."
"Glen Hallick" <gNOSPAM...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:cmFif.11791$Ay6...@fe13.lga...
Angus
"Fran" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133217030.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Exactly, they have , according to Marxist theory, an understanding of
historical materialism and as such are better placed to understand what is
in the best interests of deluded, ignorant masses suffering from "false
consciousness". In other words, an elite that forces, as history has shown
repeatedly, the masses to do their bidding with the almost inevitable result
..totalitarian dictatorship, mass murder, economic inefficiency and decline,
censorship, repression and the desire of its subjects to escape to
capitalistic societies.
And like any system that posits an elite that knows better than people
themselves, the result are very often, always??, dictatorship.
In fact, Marx talked about communism as being a dictatorship, the
dictatorship of the proletariat in which classes of people are denied
freedoms and are kept under the control by the state military.
>The relationship is
> not one of master and servant but of consultant and client.
>
It is as history, as repeatedly shown, a relationship where an elite enjoys
privileges and abuses those under its control.
It's record for mass murder easily exceeds that of Nazism and even ,
perhaps, exceeds that of the Muslim invasions of India.
I hope you aren't going to try to compare the practice of capitalism with
the theory of communism.
> > The idea that individuals are best situated to make decisions about
their
> > own welfare and resource allocation is a principle seen more often among
the
> > right than the left.
>
> What the right fails to recognise is that some key matters of interest
> can only be determined in collaboration with others
Liberal and libertarian capitalism doesn't deny people the opportunity to
collaborate except where such collaboration seeks to seeks to restrict
overall economic welfares through price manipulation and other restrictive
trade practices.
> -- ie public and
> common interests
That's exactly what free enterprise capitalism seeks through allowing
economic freedom.Right wingers generally trust the people to do what is best
whereas left - wingers, ever distrustful of ordinary people, believe that
decisions are best left to an elite to make decisions form them
> -- while others are purely private. Conflating these
> too can in the end, only subvert the capacity of individuals in the
> main to make autonomous choices about where their best interest lie --
> since most will get Hobson's choice.
In other words, you are arguing for greater restriction of people's freedom.
>
> > The idea of free enterprise, and the freedom of
> > individual economic units to do as they think best with their time and
> > resources is one that is still abhorred even today by the moderate left
and
> > this can be seen in the ALP and ABC but is championed by the liberal and
> > libertarian right.
> >
>
> No it isn't -- the current IR legislation being case in point.
How is that?
>
> > It is this belief in the intellectual and moral superiority of an elite
and
> > a suspicion of the people that von Hayek said was common to communism
and
> > fascism and is the basis for the almost inevitable descent into
> > totalitarianism seen in communism and fascism..
> >
> >
>
> We communists favour abolition,
You're a communist!
How do you follow a theory that has a terrible history of mass murder?
> or more precisely, *dissolution* of
> elites --
Yeah, right...we've certainly seen that state disolve away in communist
nations, haven't we?
> through raising productivity on a world
Yeah, right...we've certainly seen rapidly rising productivity rates in
communist nations, haven't we?
> scale to a sufficient
> standard to cause class rule to wither.
No sign of a wihering away of class war in communist states.
> We see nobody as morally or
> ethically superior,
No, then what about the bourgeois?
> or having a greater claim upon the world's
> resources than another.
That is a claim that hasn't been verified by the behavior of communist
nations.
>That's the central point of difference --
> because either in theory or in practice, that is what unites the right.
Uh?...what unites the right?
> The fascists want these privileges extracted using brute force,
What priviledges?
>whereas
> the mainstream right see this
What does "this" refer to?
Tetris
>Nazi party in it's full form is National Socialist Workers Party.
And North Korea is the Democratic Republic of North Korea,
Are you saying that just because they call it something, that it must be so?
If that's the case, North Korea's really a democracy.
Communist East Germany was called the German Democratic Repubic, it wasn't a
democracy either.
Are you also saying that neo-Nazis are Leftists?
You're just regurgitating the same old shallow revisionist right wing bull
crap which defies the history books.
You neo-Cons are all alike, fools seldom differ.
Hill
>In 1925, Mussolini encapsulated the heart of fascist philosophy in a
>memorable phrase:
>
>Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.
>This means "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing
>against the State."
>
You're using fascist propaganda as proof that fascism is socialist!
You're real dummy, aren't you? I bet that you slurp up everything that Fox
New's Bill O'Reilly says and probably listen to Rush Limbaugh as well.
It's easy to tell a dimwit just by your style.
Pick up a history book and stop reading right wing propaganda website,
perhaps you'll learn history instead of that junk-food spin you've been fed.
Constantine
"Tetris" <tet...@ausmail.co.au> wrote in message
news:1133224120.6be65ba1f5...@fe5.teranews.com...
Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted
Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those
German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism
as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism.
The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to
business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what
amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly
controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and
interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all
building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year
with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the
Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized
agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
(Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)
Hitler setup the Labour Front. Both employers and employees joined it.
According to the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would
exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than
twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under
the control of the government.
Hitler was a to-the-bone socialist. His economic and social policies
clearly demonstate this.
BTW, I'm not a neo-con. If I must be pigeon-holed, the label me a
paleo-con. I share your disdain for Bush and his neo-con cabal :)
Constantine
Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted
Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those
German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism
as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism.
The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to
business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what
amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly
controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and
interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all
building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year
with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the
Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized
agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
(Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)
Hitler setup the Labour Front. Both employers and employees joined it.
According to the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would
exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than
twenty persons. In other words, both employers and employees were put under
the control of the government.
Hitler was a to-the-bone socialist. His economic and social policies
clearly demonstated this.
Constantine
"Hill" <hill....@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:1133224279.21fe3cdda4...@fe5.teranews.com...
> Constantine con...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>In 1925, Mussolini encapsulated the heart of fascist philosophy in a
>>memorable phrase:
>>
>>Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.
>>This means "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing
>>against the State."
>>
>
> You're using fascist propaganda as proof that fascism is socialist!
But Mussolini nationalized most of what he set out to do. The state and
it's power ballooned on a massive scale under Mussolini. Are these the
actions of left-minded politician or a right-minded politician. His actions
clearly followed his manifesto.
>
> You're real dummy, aren't you? I bet that you slurp up everything that
> Fox
> New's Bill O'Reilly says and probably listen to Rush Limbaugh as well.
You would lose that bet. I don't subscribe to Faux News here in Canada.
And no Canadian radio stations pick up Lush Bimbo.
>
> It's easy to tell a dimwit just by your style.
I thought we were trying to have a discussion here. Can we set aside the
insults?
Angus
>
> >Nazi party in it's full form is National Socialist Workers Party.
>
> And North Korea is the Democratic Republic of North Korea,
>
> Are you saying that just because they call it something, that it must be
so?
>
> If that's the case, North Korea's really a democracy.
>
> Communist East Germany was called the German Democratic Repubic, it wasn't
a
> democracy either.
>
> Are you also saying that neo-Nazis are Leftists?
But both of those nations regarded themselves as democracies and as such
they were, in terms of the understanding of democracy, being accurate.
Communists regard bourgeois democracy as a sham where the constitutional
government is , in the words of Marx, merely a board to register the wishes
of the bourgeois. In a communist state the proletariat, or more accurately
an elite, would be dictators, the so called "dictatorship of the
proletariat" and would be a more effective democracy than one based on
elections. I know the reasoning of communists sounds stupid but that's what
they believe.
The NSDAP, the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Nazis, were
anti-capitalistic in their rhetoric but as events showed they did allow
certain favored companies to thrive under their rule. The Nazis certainly
belived in state socialist control of the economy and organised the
allocation of resources under national programs under Goering and Speer.
They were not however, despite left-wing mythology to the contrary,
generally supported by German business.
Angus
Do you a fact or some line of reasoning to offer or are you merely content
to heap abuse on those who question your unexamined prejudices?
Constantine
"Angus" <gona...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:438b...@news1.veridas.net...
Good point. There are strong parallels in this regard to the current Bush
administration. Corporations such as Haliburton and Bechtel are not true
free enterprises operating in a free-market economy. Rather, they are just
extension of the DoD. This is neo-socialist corporatism and not true
laissez faire capitalism.
Here is a good article, specifically about Haliburton:
http://www.mises.org/story/1643
The closing parapgraph is a gem:
"If Halliburton were cut off the government payroll, I have no doubt that
many of its intellectual and physical resources could be profitably employed
in a genuine market setting. Let's forget about privatizing the warfare
state and privatize Halliburton instead. Let it, and all its far-flung
clients the world over, sink or swim in a genuine free-market economy. At
that point, we'll raise a glass to its profitability. Until then, it
deserves all the disdain ever heaped on any able-bodied welfare cheat."
----------------
Fran
They don't think the masses are deluded and ignorant -- but,
understandably, merely preoccupied with the needs of the moment. The
vanguard retains the lessons of past battles with the ruling class, and
becuase it is international, rather than parochial, is able to relate
the struggles of the class in one country with the needs of the class
in another and avoid nationalism and accomodation to local pressures.
> In other words,
Be honest ... in your words ...
> an elite that forces, as history has shown
> repeatedly, the masses to do their bidding with the almost inevitable result
> ..totalitarian dictatorship, mass murder, economic inefficiency and decline,
> censorship, repression and the desire of its subjects to escape to
> capitalistic societies.
>
People are still trying to escape those capitalist societies that have
arisen in their place, not because they are fleeing "communism" but
poverty and lack of opportunity. On the whole, people tend to make for
the place where life is easiest to live, as bets they understand it.
During the Reagan years in particular, the Wrest encouraged those in
the Comecon bloc to see capitalism, "free enterprise" and "democracy"
as some sort of magic pudding. Signe here for a better life, they were
told. Well life, predictably, is no better, and many say they were
better off under Brezhnev and Honecker.
That's irrelevant of course, because the possibility of that life
evaporated largely through the incompetence of the regimes in question,
the oil price spike of the 70s and their inability to reconcile the
needs of the population with the massive amounts they needed to keep up
their side of the arms contest with the west.
What this shows is not that socialism is impossible, but merely that
trying to erect it in places where there is little settled industry and
where indutrialisation needs must take place by extracting agricultural
surpluses from largely subsistence farming is doomed to failure.
Socialism, by definition, presumes the existence of a large, skilled
and educated workingclass working in very efficient industries that can
trade retail and light industrial goods for agricultural products on
good terms, precisely so as to produce the surpluses needed to permit
the working day to be cut while maintaining and improving living
standards.
> And like any system that posits an elite that knows better than people
> themselves, the result are very often, always??, dictatorship.
>
> In fact, Marx talked about communism as being a dictatorship, the
> dictatorship of the proletariat in which classes of people are denied
> freedoms and are kept under the control by the state military.
>
Here, you confuse terms. Dictatorship in this context refers merely to
"class rule" since in Marx's view the forms under which class rule were
sustained were mere trappings of something beyond argument -- class
power. Under capitalism, we have "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"
which is to say that the state defends and seeks to augment the
property rights -- in particular the right to trade in labour power for
private gain -- of the capitalist class. Whether this dictatorship of
property happened also to permit civil liberties or even universal
adult suffrage was moot for Marx because they couldn't vote out
capitalism. In The Civil War in France, Marx noted that the Paris
Commune was very democratic, but it certainly meant to insitute a new
form of property based on common ownership of the means of production
and protect that against the deposed ruling class. That made it a
dictatorship of the proletariat. In the end, the French and Prussian
ruling classes set aside their differences, remembered that socialists
threatened their privielges in both places, and murdered the communards
without mercy, reinstating the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
Communism, if it is ever achieved, will not be a dictatorship, but
classless society. Since all states express the needs of the ruling
class, a society without social classes would be stateless -- at least
in any sense that contemporary people think of states. So Marx didn't
see communist society as a dictatorship, even in his terms. That's a
long way away from where we are today. Even in the most favourable of
material and political circumstances, it will certainly take many
generations for the world to get to this condition. In 250 years,
perhaps we might get there.
>
>
>
>
> >The relationship is
> > not one of master and servant but of consultant and client.
> >
>
>
> It is as history, as repeatedly shown, a relationship where an elite enjoys
> privileges and abuses those under its control.
>
What is shown is the results of collectivism under scarcity and ruin.
> It's record for mass murder easily exceeds that of Nazism and even ,
> perhaps, exceeds that of the Muslim invasions of India.
>
The Stalinist record is indeed bloody, but had capitalism not been
overturned in Russia, the results would probably have been even worse.
Can one imagine what Hitler would have done with an A Bomb?
> I hope you aren't going to try to compare the practice of capitalism with
> the theory of communism.
>
>
No, but I'm not going to allow a comparison between collectivism in a
series of ruined countries and capitalism in developed countries to
stand as the historical record for the two systems.
>
>
> > > The idea that individuals are best situated to make decisions about
> their
> > > own welfare and resource allocation is a principle seen more often among
> the
> > > right than the left.
> >
> > What the right fails to recognise is that some key matters of interest
> > can only be determined in collaboration with others
>
> Liberal and libertarian capitalism doesn't deny people the opportunity to
> collaborate except where such collaboration seeks to seeks to restrict
> overall economic welfares through price manipulation and other restrictive
> trade practices.
>
Capitalism as it is typically played out supports cartelisation and
privileges the buyers of labour power over the sellers of it. As a
matter of business theory, anyone can set up a business, but as a
business reality only those with massive lines of credit and viable
business plans can. That privileges the existing players over everyone
else and of course, purely on defensive grounds the capitalist must
keep expanding either through horizontal integration or vertically. If
the capitalist can organise business across a number of states he can
play each one off, minimising labour costs, transferring profits into
the place most favourable to him, and using this weap[on against all
comers. Collaborating AGAINST such a person is a matter of life and
death, quite literally, for all workers, and when they do that, we call
that industrial action.
>
> > -- ie public and
> > common interests
>
> That's exactly what free enterprise capitalism seeks through allowing
> economic freedom.Right wingers generally trust the people to do what is best
> whereas left - wingers, ever distrustful of ordinary people, believe that
> decisions are best left to an elite to make decisions form them
>
Actually, it's almost entirely the other way around. Right wingers
occasionally SAY they trust the people to do what is best, but in
practice they know that "the people" will never have a real say in
anything that toucvhes the interests of the capitalist class.
Conversely, it's us leftwingers who are distrustful of the handful of
corporate schysters and their polticians who claim to know what's best
for us and insist that all matters of interest to working people should
be matters of policy determined by them.
This latest tactic of the right to present the left as favouring
"elites" is just a hokey and intellectually insulting scam. Bush knows
who his "base" is, and so does Howard.
>
>
> > -- while others are purely private. Conflating these
> > too can in the end, only subvert the capacity of individuals in the
> > main to make autonomous choices about where their best interest lie --
> > since most will get Hobson's choice.
>
>
> In other words, you are arguing for greater restriction of people's freedom.
>
In YOUR words. Not mine. I'm for separating out purely private matters
and keeping them separate from matters of public policy.
>
> >
> > > The idea of free enterprise, and the freedom of
> > > individual economic units to do as they think best with their time and
> > > resources is one that is still abhorred even today by the moderate left
> and
> > > this can be seen in the ALP and ABC but is championed by the liberal and
> > > libertarian right.
> > >
> >
> > No it isn't -- the current IR legislation being case in point.
>
>
>
> How is that?
>
The current proposed law has already ruled some matters NOT open to
negotiation and FINES for either party can follow for even raising it.
He can also deny other matters as well. Unions can be held financially
accountable for losses even if NON MEMBERS take strike action in
concert with members or even if they wildcat.
>
> >
> > > It is this belief in the intellectual and moral superiority of an elite
> and
> > > a suspicion of the people that von Hayek said was common to communism
> and
> > > fascism and is the basis for the almost inevitable descent into
> > > totalitarianism seen in communism and fascism..
> > >
> > >
> >
> > We communists favour abolition,
>
>
>
> You're a communist!
>
>
Yes
> How do you follow a theory that has a terrible history of mass murder?
>
>
It's not communist theory that has a history of mass murder. Had the
KPD triumphed in Germany in 1923, and the left opposition in the USSR
there'd have been no Hitler and no Stalin or Mao. They were crushed and
over their bodies arose Hitler and Stalin.
> > or more precisely, *dissolution* of
> > elites --
>
> Yeah, right...we've certainly seen that state disolve away in communist
> nations, haven't we?
>
Just the point -- they weren't communist.
>
>
> > through raising productivity on a world
>
> Yeah, right...we've certainly seen rapidly rising productivity rates in
> communist nations, haven't we?
>
Just the point -- they weren't communist.
>
> > scale to a sufficient
> > standard to cause class rule to wither.
>
>
> No sign of a wihering away of class war in communist states.
>
Trotsky made that very point -- they weren't communist.
> > We see nobody as morally or
> > ethically superior,
>
> No, then what about the bourgeois?
>
What about them? Let them be considered the equals of the rest of us --
no more and no less. Let them play their part in doing the socially
necessary work, and let us all move forward together.
>
> > or having a greater claim upon the world's
> > resources than another.
>
> That is a claim that hasn't been verified by the behavior of communist
> nations.
>
Just the point -- they weren't communist.
>
>
> >That's the central point of difference --
> > because either in theory or in practice, that is what unites the right.
>
>
> Uh?...what unites the right?
>
The desire to protect the trading privileges of capitalists whatever
they say about individual freedom. It's simply code for "let the rich
do as they please and everyone else choose their path to hell."
> > The fascists want these privileges extracted using brute force,
>
>
> What privileges?
>
See above (typo corrected)
>
> >whereas
> > the mainstream right see this
>
>
> What does "this" refer to?
See above
Glezer
abolishment of all left wing parties. Judging by your post it is you who is
the fascist.
"Antimulticulture" <Antimult...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:438aeccc$0$10205$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Noons
>
> As with National Socialism and Communism, it is easy to see that far from
> being a right-wing ideology, fascism is simply another variant of leftist
> worship of the State.
There *IS* a reason it was called "national SOCIALISM"...
Angus
Then what does the concept of "false consciousness" imply if not delusions
and ignorance?
>The
> vanguard retains the lessons of past battles with the ruling class, and
> becuase it is international, rather than parochial, is able to relate
> the struggles of the class in one country with the needs of the class
> in another and avoid nationalism and accomodation to local pressures.
>
Well, what does this mean?
Frankly, it sounds likle a convoluted attempt to avoid being explicit about
the corrollary of Marxist notions of fasle consciousness.
The idea of false consciousness is almost the "sine qua non" of leftism and
inevitable leads into that other critical element of leftism, elitism.
Just look at how those who imagine themselves to be an elite look down o the
Australian people. They deride them as racist, materialistic, crass,
vulgar,unrefined,uncultured, unread, ignorant and insensitive. Still, they,
the population at large, had the good sense to ignore the hectoring of the
media and not to vote for Latham as the lefties would have had them do.
Just look at how leftists want to introduce a Bill of Rights so that they
can avoid demovratic procedures and have laws created by unelected elitist
judges.
Just look at the fear of populism among elitists.
> > In other words,
>
> Be honest ... in your words ...
>
Of course, my interpretatation of what you mean.
>
> > an elite that forces, as history has shown
> > repeatedly, the masses to do their bidding with the almost inevitable
result
> > ..totalitarian dictatorship, mass murder, economic inefficiency and
decline,
> > censorship, repression and the desire of its subjects to escape to
> > capitalistic societies.
> >
>
> People are still trying to escape those capitalist societies that have
> arisen in their place,
Have you forgotten the Berlin Wall?
Cuba?
North Vietnam?
North Korea?
The history of Eastern Bloc nations?
They , having been denied the opportunity to vote at elections, voted with
their feet and fled from the dictatoship of the proletariat not to flee to
other "workers' paradises" but to the capitalistic West.
.
> not because they are fleeing "communism" but
> poverty and lack of opportunity.
The empirically established inevtiable corrollary of communism.
Remember those presictions by 30's Marxists of communistic Russia outpacing
capitalist nations?
> On the whole, people tend to make for
> the place where life is easiest to live,
Of course, and that is in capitalistic free enterprise nations. And the
biggest maganet for them has been the USA.
> as bets they understand it.
> During the Reagan years in particular, the Wrest encouraged those in
> the Comecon bloc to see capitalism, "free enterprise" and "democracy"
> as some sort of magic pudding.
They encouraged them to see the world beyond the increasingly desperate and
absurd and unrealistic communist propaganda.
> Signe here for a better life, they were
> told. Well life, predictably, is no better, and many say they were
> better off under Brezhnev and Honecker.
>
Most don't want to return to Communism.
However, Russia is in a desperate situation that directly has arisen from
three factors
1. The communistic destruction of a sense of self reliance and
entrepreneurial talent.
2. The dramatically falling birth rate. The destruction of a Christian
basis( incidentally, I am an atheist) of moral behavior. You might remember
that even Khomeini predicted Russia's problems in this respect but urged
that they adopt Islam to fill the void left by atheistic communism.
3. The corrupt uncompetitive system that has taken shape in place of
communism..In other words they need more FREE enterprise, the rule of law
and anti-trust legislation.
With its falling population, I don't see any future for Russia except for it
being incorporated into China and an expanding Islamic federation.
> That's irrelevant of course, because the possibility of that life
> evaporated largely through the incompetence of the regimes in question,
> the oil price spike of the 70s and their inability to reconcile the
> needs of the population with the massive amounts they needed to keep up
> their side of the arms contest with the west.
>
That's the neocon argument - the idea that Reagan beat the USSR by upping
the stakes .
> What this shows is not that socialism is impossible,
No? Given that every attempt has failed miserably and usually with the
brutal mass murder it certainly looks like it.
> but merely
merely???
I tis defintely not "mere"
> that
> trying to erect it in places where there is little settled industry and
> where indutrialisation needs must take place by extracting agricultural
> surpluses from largely subsistence farming is doomed to failure.
> Socialism, by definition, presumes the existence of a large, skilled
> and educated workingclass working in very efficient industries that can
> trade retail and light industrial goods for agricultural products on
> good terms, precisely so as to produce the surpluses needed to permit
> the working day to be cut while maintaining and improving living
> standards.
>
Then Marxism is theoretically flawed in addition to having an emprically
established proclivity to mass murder, poverty, and totalitarianism.
By your reckoning then Marxism in theory and practise is flawed.
How can you subscribe to a sytem of belief that fails theoretically and in
practise?
> > And like any system that posits an elite that knows better than people
> > themselves, the result are very often, always??, dictatorship.
> >
> > In fact, Marx talked about communism as being a dictatorship, the
> > dictatorship of the proletariat in which classes of people are denied
> > freedoms and are kept under the control by the state military.
> >
>
> Here, you confuse terms. Dictatorship in this context refers merely to
> "class rule" since in Marx's view the forms under which class rule were
> sustained were mere trappings of something beyond argument -- class
> power. Under capitalism, we have "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"
> which is to say that the state defends and seeks to augment the
> property rights -- in particular the right to trade in labour power for
> private gain -- of the capitalist class. Whether this dictatorship of
> property happened also to permit civil liberties or even universal
> adult suffrage was moot for Marx because they couldn't vote out
> capitalism. In The Civil War in France, Marx noted that the Paris
> Commune was very democratic, but it certainly meant to insitute a new
> form of property based on common ownership of the means of production
> and protect that against the deposed ruling class. That made it a
> dictatorship of the proletariat. In the end, the French and Prussian
> ruling classes set aside their differences, remembered that socialists
> threatened their privielges in both places, and murdered the communards
> without mercy, reinstating the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
>
Hey, can the bourgeois vote for free market system in a communist country?
No.
In fact, there is only on party in a communistic state...the communist
party.
Marx specifically wrote of the necessity of repressing undesirable classes
and not only the bourgeois but also the lumpen proletariat who he described
as rabel..
> Communism, if it is ever achieved,
No, communism has been achieved a number of times. The USSR officllay
proclaimed itself as having succesfully transitioned from socialism to
communism in 1963.
various other communist nations also make these claims. They are of course
murderous dictatorships.
>will not be a dictatorship, but
> classless society. Since all states express the needs of the ruling
> class, a society without social classes would be stateless -- at least
> in any sense that contemporary people think of states. So Marx didn't
> see communist society as a dictatorship, even in his terms. That's a
> long way away from where we are today. Even in the most favourable of
> material and political circumstances, it will certainly take many
> generations for the world to get to this condition. In 250 years,
> perhaps we might get there.
>
> >
Really, Marx said revolution was imminent and inevitable.
> >
> >
> >
> > >The relationship is
> > > not one of master and servant but of consultant and client.
> > >
> >
> >
> > It is as history, as repeatedly shown, a relationship where an elite
enjoys
> > privileges and abuses those under its control.
> >
>
> What is shown is the results of collectivism under scarcity and ruin.
>
It shows the inevitable results of having an elite that doesn't trust people
to act in accord with their own decisions.
> > It's record for mass murder easily exceeds that of Nazism and even ,
> > perhaps, exceeds that of the Muslim invasions of India.
> >
>
> The Stalinist record is indeed bloody, but had capitalism not been
> overturned in Russia, the results would probably have been even worse.
Hard to imagine how.
> Can one imagine what Hitler would have done with an A Bomb?
>
Can you imagine what Stalin would have done with an A-bomb without the
deterrent of the USA?
> > I hope you aren't going to try to compare the practice of capitalism
with
> > the theory of communism.
> >
> >
>
> No, but I'm not going to allow a comparison between collectivism in a
> series of ruined countries and capitalism in developed countries to
> stand as the historical record for the two systems.
>
Consider North and South Korea. Both were devastated after the Korean War
but capitalistic South Korea became a rich democracy while the North is your
typical repressive , mass murdering , backward communist dictatorship. The
two nations comprise people who are racially and culturally the same but are
different in one crucial respect - one is communist and the other is
capitalistic.
The same for East and West Germany...same people with the same culture but a
different political system....one rich and free and the other poor and
brutal.
> >
> >
> > > > The idea that individuals are best situated to make decisions about
> > their
> > > > own welfare and resource allocation is a principle seen more often
among
> > the
> > > > right than the left.
> > >
> > > What the right fails to recognise is that some key matters of interest
> > > can only be determined in collaboration with others
> >
> > Liberal and libertarian capitalism doesn't deny people the opportunity
to
> > collaborate except where such collaboration seeks to seeks to restrict
> > overall economic welfares through price manipulation and other
restrictive
> > trade practices.
> >
>
> Capitalism as it is typically played out supports cartelisation and
> privileges the buyers of labour power over the sellers of it. As a
> matter of business theory, anyone can set up a business, but as a
> business reality only those with massive lines of credit and viable
> business plans can.
Not true...I set up a business with little capital and with little more than
an idea.
> That privileges the existing players over everyone
> else and of course, purely on defensive grounds the capitalist must
> keep expanding either through horizontal integration or vertically.
Not true, this is Leninistic mythology. Firms do not have to expand.
>If
> the capitalist can organise business across a number of states he can
> play each one off, minimising labour costs, transferring profits into
> the place most favourable to him, and using this weap[on against all
> comers.
Look at the examples of China and India which have welcomed foreign capital
into their domestic markets and now reap a whirlwind of economic growth and
massively lower rates of poverty.
Due to gobalization world poverty rates have fallen DRAMATICALLY
> Collaborating AGAINST such a person is a matter of life and
> death, quite literally, for all workers, and when they do that, we call
> that industrial action.
>
HUh????
> >
> > > -- ie public and
> > > common interests
> >
> > That's exactly what free enterprise capitalism seeks through allowing
> > economic freedom.Right wingers generally trust the people to do what is
best
> > whereas left - wingers, ever distrustful of ordinary people, believe
that
> > decisions are best left to an elite to make decisions form them
> >
>
> Actually, it's almost entirely the other way around. Right wingers
> occasionally SAY they trust the people to do what is best, but in
> practice they know that "the people" will never have a real say in
> anything that toucvhes the interests of the capitalist class.
>
This is simply not true.
Common people are incressingly buying shres and as such can influence
company policies.
Also, the political system allows for significant influence over business
activities.
> Conversely, it's us leftwingers who are distrustful of the handful of
> corporate schysters and their polticians who claim to know what's best
> for us and insist that all matters of interest to working people should
> be matters of policy determined by them.
>
> This latest tactic of the right to present the left as favouring
> "elites" is just a hokey and intellectually insulting scam.
But it is true. It i sbased in Marxist notions of false consciousness.
>Bush knows
> who his "base" is, and so does Howard.
>
You mean the empirically established increasing number of the working class
that vote for them?
> >
> >
> > > -- while others are purely private. Conflating these
> > > too can in the end, only subvert the capacity of individuals in the
> > > main to make autonomous choices about where their best interest lie --
> > > since most will get Hobson's choice.
> >
> >
> > In other words, you are arguing for greater restriction of people's
freedom.
> >
>
> In YOUR words.
Of course.
> Not mine. I'm for separating out purely private matters
> and keeping them separate from matters of public policy.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > The idea of free enterprise, and the freedom of
> > > > individual economic units to do as they think best with their time
and
> > > > resources is one that is still abhorred even today by the moderate
left
> > and
> > > > this can be seen in the ALP and ABC but is championed by the liberal
and
> > > > libertarian right.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No it isn't -- the current IR legislation being case in point.
> >
> >
> >
> > How is that?
> >
>
> The current proposed law has already ruled some matters NOT open to
> negotiation and FINES for either party can follow for even raising it.
> He can also deny other matters as well. Unions can be held financially
> accountable for losses even if NON MEMBERS take strike action in
> concert with members or even if they wildcat.
>
But they do give individuals greater freedom to act in accord with their
interests and also allow them to use the services of unions if they want.
Again, it is the left that wants to remove the greater scope for freesom of
negotiation that changes will allow.
> >
> > >
> > > > It is this belief in the intellectual and moral superiority of an
elite
> > and
> > > > a suspicion of the people that von Hayek said was common to
communism
> > and
> > > > fascism and is the basis for the almost inevitable descent into
> > > > totalitarianism seen in communism and fascism..
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > We communists favour abolition,
> >
> >
> >
> > You're a communist!
> >
> >
>
> Yes
>
>
> > How do you follow a theory that has a terrible history of mass murder?
> >
> >
>
> It's not communist theory that has a history of mass murder. Had the
> KPD triumphed in Germany in 1923, and the left opposition in the USSR
> there'd have been no Hitler and no Stalin or Mao. They were crushed and
> over their bodies arose Hitler and Stalin.
>
Come on!! Such a murderous history hasn't occurred as a result of historical
accident.
Youb guys have a hundred million skeletons in your closet.
> > > or more precisely, *dissolution* of
> > > elites --
> >
> > Yeah, right...we've certainly seen that state disolve away in communist
> > nations, haven't we?
> >
>
> Just the point -- they weren't communist.
>
They said they were communists. Other communists said they were communists.
They put into practice policies directly derived from communist theory. They
were supported by other communists around the world.
> >
> >
> > > through raising productivity on a world
> >
> > Yeah, right...we've certainly seen rapidly rising productivity rates in
> > communist nations, haven't we?
> >
>
> Just the point -- they weren't communist.
>
They said they were communists. Other communists said they were communists.
They put into practice policies directly derived from communist theory. They
were supported by other communists around the world.
> >
> > > scale to a sufficient
> > > standard to cause class rule to wither.
> >
> >
> > No sign of a wihering away of class war in communist states.
> >
>
> Trotsky made that very point -- they weren't communist.
>
I see, with every communist state that inevbitable fails you simply say ,
"Oh, thet wasn't a communist state".
>
> > > We see nobody as morally or
> > > ethically superior,
> >
> > No, then what about the bourgeois?
> >
>
> What about them? Let them be considered the equals of the rest of us --
> no more and no less. Let them play their part in doing the socially
> necessary work, and let us all move forward together.
>
Well, that is not communist theory.
> >
> > > or having a greater claim upon the world's
> > > resources than another.
> >
> > That is a claim that hasn't been verified by the behavior of communist
> > nations.
> >
>
> Just the point -- they weren't communist.
>
> >
They said they were communists. Other communists said they were communists.
They put into practice policies directly derived from communist theory. They
were supported by other communists around the world.
SNIP...no time to address the rest
Thom
you forgot capitalism is also greed (a mental illness, corruption,
lies, over pricing, dirty deals, price fixing, lieing and poverty in
any country where it exists.
By the way speaking of violating rights whats is GITMO?
THOM
>
>Learn the distinction.
>
>
John B
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:438c32f...@news.melbpc.org.au...
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:39:32 +1300, "John B"
> <m...@anywherenearthere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Glen Hallick" <gNOSPAM...@mts.net> wrote in message
>>news:cmFif.11791$Ay6...@fe13.lga...
>>> More revisionist crapola. The fact is fascism and nazism are
>>> the extremes of the right like communism is the extreme of
>>> the
>>> left. What some people such as you are tyring to pull off is
>>> to
>>> present a very false image of the right being throughly
>>> tolerant and devoutly democratic.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>
>>Get a grip. They are of the left because they violate
>>individual
>>rights. The right is represented by capitalism... or individual
>>freedom.
>
> you forgot capitalism is also greed (a mental illness,
> corruption,
> lies, over pricing, dirty deals, price fixing, lieing and
> poverty in
> any country where it exists.
Greed is not a mental illness. Besides, it's the leftards that
suffer from your meaning of greed because they are the ones
always wanting what they haven't produced themselves. They don't
like people being successful and becoming wealthy. So they also
suffer from destructive envy in that if they can't have the good
they see others enjoying then they'd sooner see it destroyed.
>
> By the way speaking of violating rights whats is GITMO?
You tell me.
John
>
> The two things about fascism were intolerance to other races and the
>abolishment of all left wing parties. Judging by your post it is you who is
>the fascist.
>
>
You haven't read the rest of the crap he posts. He's a right wing religious
fanatic hypocrite and an extreme Fascist on top of being a scum bag racist.
My guess is that he's probably a closet queer.
Fran
It's worth pointing out that Marx himself nevcer used the term, and
Engels
used it but once, in a letter to Franz Mehring, almost as a throwaway
line.
He didn't develop the idea, probably because in the balance between
social
being and consciousness, orthodox Marxists definitely come down on the
side
of social being as being determinate of consciousness, rather than the
other
way around. Engels introduces the idea as follows:
||||
Otherwise there is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx
and I
always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to which
we are
all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and were bound to lay,
the
main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political,
juridical
and other ideological notions, and of actions arising through the
medium of
these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so doing we neglected
the
formal side - the ways and means by which these notions, etc., come
about -
for the sake of the content.
||||
He then goes on to say ...
||||
Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker
consciously,
indeed, but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him
remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process
at
all. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. Because it is a
process of
thought he derives both its form and its content from pure thought,
either
his own or that of his predecessors. He works with mere thought
material
which he accepts without examination as the product of thought, he does
not
investigate further for a more remote process independent of thought;
indeed
its origin seems obvious to him, because as all action is produced
through
the medium of thought it also appears to him to be ultimately based
upon
thought. The ideologist who deals with history (history is here simply
meant
to comprise all the spheres - political, juridical, philosophical,
theological-belonging to society and not only to nature), the
ideologist
dealing with history then, possesses in every sphere of science
material
which has formed itself independently out of the thought of previous
generations and has gone through an independent series of developments
in
the brains of these successive generations. True, external facts
belonging
to its own or other spheres may have exercised a co-determining
influence on
this development, but the tacit pre-supposition is that these facts
themselves are also only the fruits of a process of thought, and so we
still
remain within that realm of pure thought which has successfully
digested the
hardest facts.
||||
Pretty obscure material really -- and hardly a credo for a division
between
the vanguard and the proletariat, although the Stalinists later dug
this up
so tjhey could use it for their own ends.
Since this time, the Stalinists aside, the term false consciousness has
been
used by Lukacs in his paper Class Consciousness:
||||
"It might look as though ... we were denying consciousness any
decisive role
in the process of history. It is true that the conscious reflexes of
the
different stages of economic growth remain historical facts of great
importance; it is true that while dialectical materialism is itself the
product of this process, it does not deny that men perform their
historical
deeds themselves and that they do so consciously. But as Engels
emphasises
in a letter to Mehring, this consciousness is false. However, the
dialectical method does not permit us simply to proclaim the
'falseness' of
this consciousness and to persist in an inflexible confrontation of
true and
false. On the contrary, it requires us to investigate this 'false
consciousness' concretely as an aspect of the historical totality and
as a
stage in the historical process."
||||
Lukacs always uses the inverted commas, precisely because he's not sure
in
what senses the consciousness is "false". He wants to look at each
instance
as part of "historical totality".
The intellectual figure who liked the idea of false consciousness most
strongly was the Hegelian third worldist anti-Marxist Marcuse, who said
in
One-Dimensional Man:
"To the degree to which they correspond to the given reality, thought
and
behavior express a false consciousness, responding to and contributing
to
the preservation of a false order of facts. And this false
consciousness has
become embodied in the prevailing technical apparatus which in turn
reproduces it."
This really harkens back to the anti-Marxist Frankfurt School of
Sociology,
people such as Adorno, Horkheimer, and that tradition.
In short, the term "false consciousness" far from being something
foundational to Marxism is something that is in conflict with other
assumptions more typically made by Marxists. It's more useful, as I
said
above, to see the realtionship between the vanguard and the class as
being a
collaboration -- a partnership, in which the working class keeps the
vanguard anchored to it by pressing forward its interests and
compelling the
vanguard to declare itself adequately on how best to advance the
immediate
struggle, while the vanguard attempts to set the struggles within the
wider
context of the global and longer term interests of the class so that
they
lay the foundations for future victories. The working class of course
is the
principal source of human material for the vanguard so there is no
separation between the two.
> >The
> > vanguard retains the lessons of past battles with the ruling class, and
> > becuase it is international, rather than parochial, is able to relate
> > the struggles of the class in one country with the needs of the class
> > in another and avoid nationalism and accomodation to local pressures.
> >
>
>Well, what does this mean?
>
It recognises that sometimes being too close to things can be a
disadvantage. Seeing the bigger picture is of benefit. Working 50, 60
or 70
hours per week isn't always consistent with being across all that is
happening to one's fellow workers elsewhere, the behaviour of the
ruling
classes in other countries etc.
>Frankly, it sounds likle a convoluted attempt to avoid being explicit about
>the corollary of Marxist notions of false consciousness.
They aren't Marxist notions. [typos corrected]
>
>The idea of false consciousness is almost the "sine qua non" of leftism and
>inevitable leads into that other critical element of leftism, elitism.
>
It's true that they are de rigeur amongst many leftist radicals --
particularly "counter-cultural" leftists, who are essentially
Hegelians. But
you'll struggle to find the concept taken seriously in Marxims. Even
the
topic "ideology" is very spotty in Marx, with the result that just
about
every would be Marxist has had a go at saying what it means without
anyone
really pinning it down. Again, this is because Marx never saw himself
as a
philosopher, but as an activist. He wasn't that interested in minds --
he
was interested in acts of human collaboration and their consequences
for
further human collaboration.
>Just look at how those who imagine themselves to be an elite look down o
>the
>Australian people. They deride them as racist, materialistic, crass,
>vulgar,unrefined,uncultured, unread, ignorant and insensitive. Still, they,
Interestingly while attributing this attitude to "the elite" you use
the
third person yourself in relation to Australians. Of what "elite" are
you a
part? Are you trying to say that "those who imagine themsleves to be an
elite" aren't thinking about you "racist, materialistic, crass,
vulgar,unrefined,uncultured, unread, ignorant and insensitive?"
>the population at large, had the good sense to ignore the hectoring of the
>media and not to vote for Latham as the lefties would have had them do.
>
I wasn't proposing a vote to Latham -- or to anyone. The media as far
as I
could tell, had a 50-50 bet on who should win. Having said that, I
don't
imagine that anyone thought they were voting away their civil liberties
and
their rights at work when they voted Howard back in. I believe they
thought
they were voting for the status quo as against the unknown -- which
rather
makes the point about seeing the bigger picture. Latham was no answer
--
he'd have been as bad -- but it does underline the problem that there
is no
real correspondence between people's felt needs and the parties in
power,
and that reflects the fact that as things stand there is no vehicle for
putting together the interests of working people in a coherent
framework.
>Just look at how leftists want to introduce a Bill of Rights so that they
>can avoid democratic procedures and have laws created by unelected elitist
>judges.
>
That must be why socialism is on the march under Bush ... all those
unelected elitist leftist judges that keep pushing the Supreme Court to
legislate free love and milk and honey for all.
>Just look at the fear of populism among elitists.
>
Elitists love populism. What are you talking about? It was populism
that got
Mussolini and Hitler into power and Fraser and Thatcher elected. It's
populism that will get these "anti-terror" laws in. Populism is what
gives
us law and order elections and bidding wars on how much taxes can be
cut and
how much of public infratsrutcure should be flogged off for private
benefit
at massive cost so a line in the budget ledger can produce a paer
suprplus
while everyone is paying through the nose for something. Populism is
why we
are getting a desal plant instead of recycling -- because it's a
solution in
a box that the government can boast about next election and get
reelected
with even though it's poorer than recycling. It's why all those years
ago,
compensation clauses were built into the contracts for water treatment
to
protect the contractors against recycling.
What elites DON'T love is not *populism* but democracy -- real
democracy --
where people get to find out what's going on in real time and ensure
that
public benefits are allocated to the public rather than private
interests.
>
>
> > > In other words,
> >
> > Be honest ... in your words ...
> >
>
>Of course, my interpretatation of what you mean.
>
>
> >
> > > an elite that forces, as history has shown
> > > repeatedly, the masses to do their bidding with the almost inevitable
>result
> > > ..totalitarian dictatorship, mass murder, economic inefficiency and
>decline,
> > > censorship, repression and the desire of its subjects to escape to
> > > capitalistic societies.
> > >
> >
> > People are still trying to escape those capitalist societies that have
> > arisen in their place,
>
>
>Have you forgotten the Berlin Wall?
>
Err no ... I think I mentioned Honecker.
>Cuba?
No ...
>
>
>North Vietnam?
>
>
>North Korea?
>
>
>The history of Eastern Bloc nations?
>
I've forgotten none of it. What's your point?
>
>
>They , having been denied the opportunity to vote at elections, voted with
>their feet and fled from the dictatoship of the proletariat not to flee to
>other "workers' paradises" but to the capitalistic West.
>
>.
What do you suppose would happen if Australia announced to ... India or
Thailand or Sri Lanka or the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Egypt
or
Argentina or Mexico that henceforth, all their citizens could freely
come to
Australia to live and work? There'd be a flood. And it would have
nothing
whatever to do with fleeing communism.
>
>
>
> > not because they are fleeing "communism" but
> > poverty and lack of opportunity.
>
>
>The empirically established inevitable corollary of communism.
A corollary of starting with a basket case and doing what you can. The
US
tried to strangle Cuba from the first. They bombed Vietnam back to the
stone
age -- violating the Paris Peace Accords, poisoning their groundwater
with
defoliants from which children are still suffering, and denying them
even
the indemnities they promised for remediation and placing a trade
embargo on
them while funding the ousted Khmer Rouge to attack them by proxy. They
attacked North Korea in the 1950s.
What's "inevitable" is that if some country is poor and a basket case
and if
clumsy attempts to drag the country into the 20th century are made that
threaten the privileges of local elites, then the US will stomp all
over the
place with hobnailed boots and say "see, we told you they'd be
repressive.
See what happens when you mess with privileged elites? We're the only
ones
allowed to that!" For years, they lorded it over South and Central
America
installing every dictator they wanted at gunpoint. Before Castro, no
Cuban
President every made it to office without US approval. They knocked off
the
Arbenz goivernment in Guatemala in 54. They knocked over the Dominican
Republic in 65. Hell -- the whole of Latin America was one Langley/Fort
Bragg club of trained killers and torturers. Nicaragua, Paraguay,
Brazil,
Chile, Argentina etc ... In between all that they had time to screw
Vietnam,
Cambodia and Laos, help a coup in Indonesia that killed 500000 people
in
1965, install the Ba'athists in power in Iraq in 68 after pulling a
young
Saddam out of several scrapes and giving him lists of Nasserites and
lefties
to murder, give Gaddafi a leg up in Libya, get Jonas Savimbi UNITA
murderers
going in Angola, play pick the president in Uganda between Idi Amin and
Milton Obote ... all in the name of freedom apparently.
Gosh, how can anyone support such a bankrupt idea?
>
>Remember those presictions by 30's Marxists of communistic Russia outpacing
>capitalist nations?
>
>
Bluster ... nonsense. Transparently so, as the Marxists outside of the
USSR
noted at the time.
>
> > On the whole, people tend to make for
> > the place where life is easiest to live,
>
>
>
>Of course, and that is in capitalistic free enterprise nations. And the
>biggest magnet for them has been the USA.
>
Well they are ripping off most of the world's resources so why not? I
mean,
if you had a choice between some sweatshop in Mexico where you get ten
dollars a day and one in LA where you get 50 dollars a day, what would
you
choose? I'm currently wearing shoes that cost me $AUS170 but which some
kid
in Indonesia or Saipan probably made for 50 cents. And frankly, that
kid's a
lot more ripped off than I am. Right now, the US economy is being
supported
by cheap goods coming out of China and India, which are cheap because
Chinese and Indian workers are paid a pittance and work their butts
off.
>
> > as best they understand it.
> > During the Reagan years in particular, the Wrest encouraged those in
> > the Comecon bloc to see capitalism, "free enterprise" and "democracy"
> > as some sort of magic pudding.
>
>
>They encouraged them to see the world beyond the increasingly desperate and
>absurd and unrealistic communist propaganda.
>
They encouraged them to accept absurd and unrealistic capitalist
propaganda
instead.
>
> > Sign here for a better life, they were
> > told. Well life, predictably, is no better, and many say they were
> > better off under Brezhnev and Honecker.
> >
>
>Most don't want to return to Communism.
>
It wasn't communisms but that aside -- that's far from clear -- many
surveys
suggest most want their old life back -- but of course, that's gone for
good.
>However, Russia is in a desperate situation that directly has arisen from
>three factors
>
>1. The communistic destruction of a sense of self reliance and
>entrepreneurial talent.
>
Nonsense. There was too little basic infrastructure and a low skill
base and
what there was had been run down.
>2. The dramatically falling birth rate. The destruction of a Christian
>basis( incidentally, I am an atheist) of moral behavior. You might remember
>that even Khomeini predicted Russia's problems in this respect but urged
>that they adopt Islam to fill the void left by atheistic communism.
>
Wacko ... Who in their right mind would want to raise children in
Russia
now? The place is the murder capital of Europe. It's a criminal free
fire
zone with gambling and prostitution on tap.
>3. The corrupt uncompetitive system that has taken shape in place of
>communism..In other words they need more FREE enterprise, the rule of law
>and anti-trust legislation.
>
Aint going to happen anytime soon. It took hundreds of years without
external pressure and with the benefits of colonial markets and/or
slaves to
exploit to develop free enterprise and democracy in the west. A
mountain of
bodies is the foundation for what we now regard as freedom here. Russia
won't see anything like that for *at least* fifty years, if ever going
the
way they are going.
>With its falling population, I don't see any future for Russia except for
>it
> being incorporated into China and an expanding Islamic federation.
>
Hard to say. Certainly the collapse of the old USSR, though inevitable,
is
proving to be a cruel joke on all those who thought they'd live like
westerners if they tossed out the purely nominal lefties in charge.
>
>
> > That's irrelevant of course, because the possibility of that life
> > evaporated largely through the incompetence of the regimes in question,
> > the oil price spike of the 70s and their inability to reconcile the
> > needs of the population with the massive amounts they needed to keep up
> > their side of the arms contest with the west.
> >
>
>That's the neocon argument - the idea that Reagan beat the USSR by upping
>the stakes .
>
>
There is some truth in that. It's more the case though that they
brought
forward the collapse of a system that was already moribund. A less
aggressive posture would have made for a more orderly and controllable
collapse, and may have allowed the west to prevent the outbreak of
communalist violence, to begin revitalising local infrastructure --
especially those ageing nuclear power plants -- many of which are still
holding nuclaer materials behind gates protected by padlocks etc ...
> > What this shows is not that socialism is impossible,
>
>
>No? Given that every attempt has failed miserably and usually with the
>brutal mass murder it certainly looks like it.
>
>
Only if you ignore the critical role of workers in Marxist theory.
Countries
woith tiny workingclasses aren't suited to establish workers'
societies. ...
duh
>
> > but merely
>
>
>merely???
>
>
>I tis defintely not "mere"
>
> > that
> > trying to erect it in places where there is little settled industry and
> > where industrialisation needs must take place by extracting agricultural
> > surpluses from largely subsistence farming is doomed to failure.
> > Socialism, by definition, presumes the existence of a large, skilled
> > and educated workingclass working in very efficient industries that can
> > trade retail and light industrial goods for agricultural products on
> > good terms, precisely so as to produce the surpluses needed to permit
> > the working day to be cut while maintaining and improving living
> > standards.
> >
>
>
>
>Then Marxism is theoretically flawed in addition to having an emprically
>established proclivity to mass murder, poverty, and totalitarianism.
>
No ... Marx thought that it would take centuries for the least
developed
countries to arrive at socialism. He didn't think Russia was up to it
any
time soon. Sadly, the situation in Russia in the autumn of 1917 was so
bad,
that there was little good alternative to revolution. Did that make it
a
good idea? Not really. But the alternative was worse.
>By your reckoning then Marxism in theory and practise is flawed.
>
No
>How can you subscribe to a sytem of belief that fails theoretically and in
>practice?
>
I don't
>
>
> > > And like any system that posits an elite that knows better than people
> > > themselves, the result are very often, always??, dictatorship.
> > >
> > > In fact, Marx talked about communism as being a dictatorship, the
> > > dictatorship of the proletariat in which classes of people are denied
> > > freedoms and are kept under the control by the state military.
> > >
> >
> > Here, you confuse terms. Dictatorship in this context refers merely to
> > "class rule" since in Marx's view the forms under which class rule were
> > sustained were mere trappings of something beyond argument -- class
> > power. Under capitalism, we have "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"
> > which is to say that the state defends and seeks to augment the
> > property rights -- in particular the right to trade in labour power for
> > private gain -- of the capitalist class. Whether this dictatorship of
> > property happened also to permit civil liberties or even universal
> > adult suffrage was moot for Marx because they couldn't vote out
> > capitalism. In The Civil War in France, Marx noted that the Paris
> > Commune was very democratic, but it certainly meant to insitute a new
> > form of property based on common ownership of the means of production
> > and protect that against the deposed ruling class. That made it a
> > dictatorship of the proletariat. In the end, the French and Prussian
> > ruling classes set aside their differences, remembered that socialists
> > threatened their privielges in both places, and murdered the communards
> > without mercy, reinstating the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
> >
>
>
>
>Hey, can the bourgeois vote for free market system in a communist country?
>
The bourgeois, ex-bourgeois and petit bourgeois can help decide how
labour
power will be allocated and how capital should be deployed, along with
all
the other citizen-workers.
>No.
>
>In fact, there is only on party in a communistic state...the communist
>party.
>
As I keep saying, if there's a state, it has classes, and if there are
classes, it's not communist.
>Marx specifically wrote of the necessity of repressing undesirable classes
>and not only the bourgeois but also the lumpen proletariat who he described
>as rabble..
>
>
Lumpens were drifters, petty crims, beggars, etc Most of your lot want
to
suppress them too. Marx thought you rightwingers would find them useful
to
throw against workers.
>
>
>
> > Communism, if it is ever achieved,
>
>
>No, communism has been achieved a number of times. The USSR officllay
>proclaimed itself as having succesfully transitioned from socialism to
>communism in 1963.
>
It was bullshit though.
>various other communist nations also make these claims. They are of course
>murderous dictatorships.
>
>
Hmmm I wonder what Marx said it was:
||||
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have
disappeared, and
all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association
of
the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.
Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of
one
class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest
with the
bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize
itself
as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling
class,
and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production,
then it
will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for
the
existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will
thereby
have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old
bourgeois
society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an
association in which the free development of each is the condition for
the
free development of all.
The Communist Manifesto
||||
And also in The German Ideology
||||
Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant
peoples
"all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal
development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up
with
communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers - the utterly
precarious position of labour - power on a mass scale cut off from
capital
or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely
temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life -
presupposes
the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only
exist
world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a
"world-historical" existence. World-historical existence of individuals
means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world
history.
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established,
an
ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism
the
real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The
conditions of
this movement result from the premises now in existence.
||||
What about what Lenin thought it was?
||||
"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority,
have
learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into
their
own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist
minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits
and
over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism -
from
this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear
altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when
it
becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of
the
armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of
the
word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.
"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the
first
phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism],
and
with it the complete withering away of the state.
State and Revolution Chapter 5
||||
>
> >will not be a dictatorship, but
> > classless society. Since all states express the needs of the ruling
> > class, a society without social classes would be stateless -- at least
> > in any sense that contemporary people think of states. So Marx didn't
> > see communist society as a dictatorship, even in his terms. That's a
> > long way away from where we are today. Even in the most favourable of
> > material and political circumstances, it will certainly take many
> > generations for the world to get to this condition. In 250 years,
> > perhaps we might get there.
> >
> > >
>
>
>Really, Marx said revolution was imminent and inevitable.
>
>
He said no such thing. If it were "inevitable" why would there have
been a
need for political parties?
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >The relationship is
> > > > not one of master and servant but of consultant and client.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is as history, as repeatedly shown, a relationship where an elite
>enjoys
> > > privileges and abuses those under its control.
> > >
> >
> > What is shown is the results of collectivism under scarcity and ruin.
> >
>
>It shows the inevitable results of having an elite that doesn't trust
>people
>to act in accord with their own decisions.
>
>
> > > It's record for mass murder easily exceeds that of Nazism and even ,
> > > perhaps, exceeds that of the Muslim invasions of India.
> > >
> >
> > The Stalinist record is indeed bloody, but had capitalism not been
> > overturned in Russia, the results would probably have been even worse.
>
>
>Hard to imagine how.
>
>
>
>
> > Can one imagine what Hitler would have done with an A Bomb?
> >
>
>Can you imagine what Stalin would have done with an A-bomb without the
>deterrent of the USA?
>
Much what the United States did. But how is this relevant? Stalin
acquired
critical parts of the technology from the US. Had there been no USSR,
Hitler
would almost certainly have got the "Lebensraum" he wanted, and he'd
have
had an empire of slaves to milk and exploit and murder. The US would
then
have had a much more serious rival who would have been every bit as
willing
to use the bomb as they were, and who had already developed ballistic
missiles. The US could not have poached all those German rocket
scientists.
There'd have been a lot more that 27 million dead Soviets.
>
> > > I hope you aren't going to try to compare the practice of capitalism
>with
> > > the theory of communism.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No, but I'm not going to allow a comparison between collectivism in a
> > series of ruined countries and capitalism in developed countries to
> > stand as the historical record for the two systems.
> >
>
>
>
>Consider North and South Korea. Both were devastated after the Korean War
>but capitalistic South Korea became a rich democracy while the North is
>your
>typical repressive , mass murdering , backward communist dictatorship. The
>two nations comprise people who are racially and culturally the same but
>are
>different in one crucial respect - one is communist and the other is
>capitalistic.
>
Hardly -- the South was also a murderous backward place for years, run
by
large mafia-like business cartels known as "chaebols". They were far
more
industrialised at the start and suffered litle of the damage associated
with
the Korean War. In fact, money was poured in from the West under
Marshall
Plan principles. The north is run by a backward Stalinoid sect -- a
kind of
quasi-feudal autocracy really.
>The same for East and West Germany...same people with the same culture but
>a
>different political system....one rich and free and the other poor and
>brutal.
>
>
Again, German industry was largely rebuilt in the west as a buffer to
the
East with Marshall Plan money. And there was an element of payback in
the
way the USSR treated East Germany post-War. Stalin was nothing if not
paranoid.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The idea that individuals are best situated to make decisions
>about
> > > their
> > > > > own welfare and resource allocation is a principle seen more often
>among
> > > the
> > > > > right than the left.
> > > >
> > > > What the right fails to recognise is that some key matters of
>interest
> > > > can only be determined in collaboration with others
> > >
> > > Liberal and libertarian capitalism doesn't deny people the opportunity
>to
> > > collaborate except where such collaboration seeks to seeks to restrict
> > > overall economic welfares through price manipulation and other
>restrictive
> > > trade practices.
> > >
> >
> > Capitalism as it is typically played out supports cartelisation and
> > privileges the buyers of labour power over the sellers of it. As a
> > matter of business theory, anyone can set up a business, but as a
> > business reality only those with massive lines of credit and viable
> > business plans can.
>
>
>Not true...I set up a business with little capital and with little more
>than
>an idea.
>
Can you set up your own Car Plant? Building and Construction company?
Radio
and TV Network? Retail or Banking chain?
And will your "business" be trading in five years?
>
>
> > That privileges the existing players over everyone
> > else and of course, purely on defensive grounds the capitalist must
> > keep expanding either through horizontal integration or vertically.
>
>Not true, this is Leninistic mythology. Firms do not have to expand.
>
If they don't, they get absorbed by those who do, or lose their
markets.
Where's Gowings these days? How come there's no afternoon paper in
Sydney?
> >If
> > the capitalist can organise business across a number of states he can
> > play each one off, minimising labour costs, transferring profits into
> > the place most favourable to him, and using this weapon against all
> > comers.
>
>
>
>Look at the examples of China and India which have welcomed foreign capital
>into their domestic markets and now reap a whirlwind of economic growth and
>massively lower rates of poverty.
>
>Due to globalization world poverty rates have fallen DRAMATICALLY
>
But relative inequality has risen. And in some places, poverty has
intensified.
>
> > Collaborating AGAINST such a person is a matter of life and
> > death, quite literally, for all workers, and when they do that, we call
> > that industrial action.
> >
>
>
>HUh????
What's confusing?
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > -- ie public and
> > > > common interests
> > >
> > > That's exactly what free enterprise capitalism seeks through allowing
> > > economic freedom.Right wingers generally trust the people to do what
>is
>best
> > > whereas left - wingers, ever distrustful of ordinary people, believe
>that
> > > decisions are best left to an elite to make decisions form them
> > >
> >
> > Actually, it's almost entirely the other way around. Right wingers
> > occasionally SAY they trust the people to do what is best, but in
> > practice they know that "the people" will never have a real say in
> > anything that touches the interests of the capitalist class.
> >
>
>
>This is simply not true.
>
>
>Common people are increasingly buying shares and as such can influence
>company policies.
>
Oh right ... those institutional investors count for squat. It's the
big
blocks of shares that count.
>Also, the political system allows for significant influence over business
>activities.
>
Oh that's clear -- ask a question and see how much is "commercial in
confidence".
>
> > Conversely, it's us leftwingers who are distrustful of the handful of
> > corporate schysters and their polticians who claim to know what's best
> > for us and insist that all matters of interest to working people should
> > be matters of policy determined by them.
> >
>
> > This latest tactic of the right to present the left as favouring
> > "elites" is just a hokey and intellectually insulting scam.
>
>
>But it is true. It i sbased in Marxist notions of false consciousness.
>
You're really stuck on that aren't you?
> >Bush knows
> > who his "base" is, and so does Howard.
> >
>
>You mean the empirically established increasing number of the working class
>that vote for them?
>
>
No, the decreasing numbers of super rich he made the comment to at a
Republican fundraiser.
>Again, it is the left that wants to remove the greater scope for freedom of
>negotiation that changes will allow.
>
No they don't. They give emplyers greater freedom to hire and fire, to
cancel award conditions and to deprive working people of protection
from
exploitation. They even strip away the minimal protections afforded
piece
rate workers working at home for hardly anything. Some freedom!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > It is this belief in the intellectual and moral superiority of an
>elite
> > > and
> > > > > a suspicion of the people that von Hayek said was common to
>communism
> > > and
> > > > > fascism and is the basis for the almost inevitable descent into
> > > > > totalitarianism seen in communism and fascism..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We communists favour abolition,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You're a communist!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes
> >
> >
> > > How do you follow a theory that has a terrible history of mass murder?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It's not communist theory that has a history of mass murder. Had the
> > KPD triumphed in Germany in 1923, and the left opposition in the USSR
> > there'd have been no Hitler and no Stalin or Mao. They were crushed and
> > over their bodies arose Hitler and Stalin.
> >
>
>Come on!! Such a murderous history hasn't occurred as a result of
>historical
>accident.
>
I didn't say it was.
>Youb guys have a hundred million skeletons in your closet.
>
>
Gosh .. my house must have many secret rooms.
>
>
> > > > or more precisely, *dissolution* of
> > > > elites --
> > >
> > > Yeah, right...we've certainly seen that state disolve away in
>communist
> > > nations, haven't we?
> > >
> >
> > Just the point -- they weren't communist.
> >
>
>They said they were communists.
So?
>Other communists said they were communists.
You mean their groupies?
>They put into practice policies directly derived from communist theory.
No they didn't.
>They
>were supported by other communists around the world.
>
Their fellow groupies. Not by most of us though.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > through raising productivity on a world
> > >
> > > Yeah, right...we've certainly seen rapidly rising productivity rates
>in
> > > communist nations, haven't we?
> > >
> >
> > Just the point -- they weren't communist.
> >
>
>They said they were communists. Other communists said they were communists.
>They put into practice policies directly derived from communist theory.
>They
>were supported by other communists around the world.
>
>
As above
>
> > >
> > > > scale to a sufficient
> > > > standard to cause class rule to wither.
> > >
> > >
> > > No sign of a wihering away of class war in communist states.
> > >
> >
> > Trotsky made that very point -- they weren't communist.
> >
>
>I see, with every communist state that inevbitable fails you simply say ,
>"Oh, that wasn't a communist state".
Well I am going to stick with the offical definition. If you want to
redefine the term "communist" to mean something else for the purpose of
this
discussion, you'll need to make a specific proposal. What's wrong with
the
term "primitive semi-agrarian collectivism" for most of the states you
want
to talk about? Oh that's right, if you used that you wouldn't be able
to
slander communists.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > > We see nobody as morally or
> > > > ethically superior,
> > >
> > > No, then what about the bourgeois?
> > >
> >
> > What about them? Let them be considered the equals of the rest of us --
> > no more and no less. Let them play their part in doing the socially
> > necessary work, and let us all move forward together.
> >
>
>Well, that is not communist theory.
>
Based on what?
>
> > >
> > > > or having a greater claim upon the world's
> > > > resources than another.
> > >
> > > That is a claim that hasn't been verified by the behavior of communist
> > > nations.
> > >
> >
> > Just the point -- they weren't communist.
> >
> > >
>
>They said they were communists. Other communists said they were communists.
>They put into practice policies directly derived from communist theory.
>They
>were supported by other communists around the world.
>
>
See above
>
>
>SNIP...no time to address the rest
Fran
Thom
<m...@anywherenearthere.com> wrote:
I'm sorry but it is and in the major churches its also a major moral
disorder. Up till about 1400 for instance usery was a sin (until the
Vatical realized how much money they could make off it). Greed is one
of the 7 Capital Sins (sins: Greed, Pride, avarice/envy, wrath, lust,
gluttony, and sloth)) but of course Reagan made it into a sacrament.
When I was going for a psych degree we actually had to learn how to
treat Greed and we used to jokingly call it Greeditus. Greed comes
from massive feelings of inferiority and the sufferer uses the
gathering to wealth to compensate for these feelings of inadiquacy.
Since they equate worth with wealth they can never satisfy their lust
for money because money and property isn't the root cause of their
problems. In serious cases it can turn into psychosis especially when
combined with another problem called "Resonse-outcome-independence"
>Besides, it's the leftards that
>suffer from your meaning of greed because they are the ones
>always wanting what they haven't produced themselves.
Oh here we go with that BS..... snooooore.
>They don't
>like people being successful and becoming wealthy.
wrong, we don't like nutters being successful and powerful.
>So they also
>suffer from destructive envy in that if they can't have the good
>they see others enjoying then they'd sooner see it destroyed.
yah like I really want to be owned by my money. Its like being owned
by a cat.
>
>>
>> By the way speaking of violating rights whats is GITMO?
>
>You tell me.
Its a prison camp Bush has where POW's rights are violated, torture
occurs plus some other non-WOT tuff goes on like fueling ships.
THOM
>
>
ferdie
certain people.
You know the sort I mean – the people now ignoring the far more alarming
words of Labor hero Paul Keating.
This week, for instance, a Queensland University history lecturer, Dr Andrew
Bonnell, wrote to the Australian to compare the Howard Government's alleged
censorship of critics with that of Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.
Earlier this month, prominent Sydney Morning Herald columnist Alan Ramsey
likewise compared the Government to the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini
under the headline: "Here and there, the signs of tyranny".
And in evidence this month to a Senate inquiry, the NSW Industrial Relations
Minister, Labor's John Della Bosca, swore that Howard's new workplace laws
were "very close to fascism".
Oh, and don't forget last month's rally against Howard's anti-terrorism
laws, in which Greens leader Bob Brown addressed demonstrators carrying
signs such as "Death to Fascism".
All this jumping at shadows, yet when a true voice of state oppression
speaks, the same critics go deaf.
Fascism is in fact an ideology of the Left, as Hitler (the Nazi Socialist)
and Mussolini (the former editor of Italy's official Socialist newspaper
Avanti) showed.
And it's the Left that still gives us plans to join Big Government to Big
Unions and Big Business to bully small citizens. It's still the Left that
gives us most of our street-battle protests.
It's still the Left that can give us political leaders such as Brown, who
endorsed the violent blockade of a World Economic Forum meeting in Melbourne
on September 11, 2000, and former Labor leader Mark Latham, who preached
hatred, attacked civility as a plot against the poor and boasted of breaking
a taxi driver's arm.
And it's the Left which gave us former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating,
who said this month he'd have locked up Governor-General Sir John Kerr
rather than let him sack Gough Whitlam's Labor Government in 1975.
Speaking at a book launch, Keating said he'd told a Labor colleague at the
time "we should put Kerr immediately under house arrest". His audience of
sympathisers laughed and clapped in approval, but Keating added: "Oh, I
meant it, I meant it. And had I been Prime Minister, I certainly would've."
I have seen not a word of criticism of Keating's talk of locking up our
effective head of state, presumably with the army's help. Maybe what is
fascism in a Liberal is sweet revolution in Labor.
If you think Keating just had a brain spasm, I should add he also appeared
last week on the ABC Late Night Live show of his adoring disciple, Phillip
Adams, to discuss Jack Lang, the NSW Premier who was himself sacked by a
Governor, Sir Philip Game, in 1932.
This time Keating said he was sorry that Lang, his old mentor, didn't "stand
Game up" and resist.
Lang had told him he hadn't wanted his state police fighting the army, but
Keating said that was "not a convincing answer".
Lang had just felt "he didn't have enough political authority to lock Game
up ... but the pity was that he never tried. That's the real pity". If a
Game or Kerr "criminalise themselves in this way, they should be dealt with
accordingly".
Once again, no one criticised Keating's call for political force, if not
possible civil war. Adams, the unapologetic former member of the Communist
Party, certainly was unshocked.
I agree, fascism is sinister. But the Howard haters who claim to fear it
most should turn around to confront the real dangers behind them.
HeraldSun
TS
good one..
People are strange.They are always looking for a perfect government but
don't really appreciate when they have a good one..
it's time to grow up
"ferdie" <fer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:438e826b$0$8542$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> CALLING Prime Minister John Howard a fascist has become quite chic among
> certain people.
>
> You know the sort I mean - the people now ignoring the far more alarming
Angus
I don't have the time or energy to respond to material you presented - there
is just too much.
I'll content myself by quoting the entomologist E. O.Wilson's comment asbout
Communism which I think sums up the difficulties in implementing communism.
"Nice theory. Wrong species"
Thom
wrote:
True communism has only been successful at the Vatican where you have
1. a strong dictator not elected by the people
2. No parliament or representation
3. Everyone gets the same pay
4. Everyone lives in state owned communes called Convents, monistaries
and the like.
5. History (2000+ years) of killing and jailing people who disagree
with their policies (progromes and inquisitions)
But of course capitalism hasn't been all that successful either except
for the few.
Maybe somewhere there in the middle is the answer?
THOM
>
>
Thom
wrote:
>CALLING Prime Minister John Howard a fascist has become quite chic among
>certain people.
>
>You know the sort I mean – the people now ignoring the far more alarming
>words of Labor hero Paul Keating.
sorry but no. very few labor people liked him and couldn't figure out
why he wasn't a Liberal.
THOM
Horace
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote
> But of course capitalism hasn't been all that successful either except
> for the few.
>
> Maybe somewhere there in the middle is the answer?
>
My theory is that the Left is eternally Evil while the Right is eternally
good. This gives the Right justification to revise history and portray all
History's Evil deeds as actions of the Satan Worshipping Left. It will be
much easier once we shut down those damn Universities which keep churning
out those damn pseudo-intelligent Lefties with their fancy book learnin'
educations who always show off by tellin' us things that we don't know
ourselves!
icono'clast
wrote:
>My theory is that the Left is eternally Evil while the Right is eternally
>good. This gives the Right justification to revise history and portray all
>History's Evil deeds as actions of the Satan Worshipping Left. It will be
>much easier once we shut down those damn Universities which keep churning
>out those damn pseudo-intelligent Lefties with their fancy book learnin'
>educations who always show off by tellin' us things that we don't know
>ourselves!
As people do better, they start voting like Republicans unless they
have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be
too much of a good thing." ~~ Karl Rove
scato
Is China a sucsess???
They will soon Own America!
They Are still Comunist.
Attact less inosent countries than the USA in the last 50 years!
Get Ready to make toys for chinees children you guys.
"Horace" <horace...@cox.com> wrote in message
news:1133479930.cc611d8616...@fe5.teranews.com...
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote
>> But of course capitalism hasn't been all that successful either except
>> for the few.
>>
>> Maybe somewhere there in the middle is the answer?
>>
>
>
>My theory is that the Left is eternally Evil while the Right is eternally
>good.
History proves the oppsite
> This gives the Right justification to revise history and portray all
>History's Evil deeds as actions of the Satan Worshipping Left.
The left does not worship Satan in fact what lefties are left don't
worship anyone
>It will be
>much easier once we shut down those damn Universities which keep churning
>out those damn pseudo-intelligent Lefties with their fancy book learnin'
>educations who always show off by tellin' us things that we don't know
>ourselves!
Sounds like your getting a sunburn on your neck fella. Here's a clue
for you, lets take the Viet Nam War, the vast majority of the college
draft dodgers and protesters ended up as yuppies making big bucks.
They worship the route of all evil... money
THOM
>
>
ferdie
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:56:18 +1100, "ferdie" <fer...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>CALLING Prime Minister John Howard a fascist has become quite chic among
>>certain people.
>>
>>words of Labor hero Paul Keating.
>
> sorry but no. very few labor people liked him and couldn't figure out
> why he wasn't a Liberal.
keating is a typical lefty
Hates all of Australia's institutions and culture
Darling of the laber party
Thom
wrote:
what bull. Keating was in the Labour Party because of his father. he
was as far right as you can get there and he had just as much a
cynical disregard for the impact of his policies and packages on
families and young people seeking work as the current monkey faced PM
does now.
And hates Australia's institutions and culture? May I remind you it
the current simion PM thats trying to replace the Australian culture
with an American dog eat dog economy.
THOM
>
>
RodneyK
But back to "fascism".
The following 'cut/paste' is self explanatory and is a perfect example of
govt by 'anyone' who can make 'anyone' seem ' anything' by applying
socialist realism.
THE FOURTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, wrote an article about fascism
which appeared in Free Inquiry magazine, a journal of humanist thought. Dr.
Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy),
Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the
regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying
characteristics of fascism. The article is titled "Fascism Anyone?," and
appears in Free Inquiry’s Spring 2003 issue on page 20.
The 14 characteristics are:
1.. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make
constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing
and in public displays.
2.. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies
and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that
human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people
tend to ‘look the other way’ of even approve of torture, summary executions,
assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people
are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a
perceived common threat or foe; racial, ethnic or religious minorities;
liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc.
4.. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread domestic
problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government
funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service
are glamorized.
5.. Rampant Sexism – The government if fascist nations tend to be almost
exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles
are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and
anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes the media is directly controlled by
the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by
government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and
executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.
7.. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivation tool by
the government over the masses.
8.. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations
tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate
public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government
leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically
opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9.. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy
of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders in
power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and
power elite.
10.. Labour Power is Suppressed – Because the organizing power of labour is
the only real threat to a fascist government, labour unions are either
eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.
11.. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to
promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is
not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even
arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments
often refuse to fund the arts.
12.. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under fascist regimes, the police
are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often
willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the
name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually
unlimited power in fascist nations.
13.. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Fascist regimes almost always are
governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to
government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to
protect their friends from accountability.
14.. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a
complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns
against (or even the assassination of) the opposition candidates, the use of
legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and
the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their
judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
--
RodneyK
Government is like a giant mirror reflecting the soul of the nation. While
the clarity of that reflection will shift from administration to
administration, we generally get the government we deserve. Or as Plato
wrote, the state is the soul writ large.
-anon
ferdie
>
> And hates Australia's institutions and culture? May I remind you it
> the current simion PM thats trying to replace the Australian culture
> with an American dog eat dog economy.
>
> THOM
On the contrary, John Howard is a mild conservative.
Thom
wrote:
all true but unnecessary. All you have to do is refer to the book
Mussolini wrote in 1929 where he invented Fascism and described it as
the blending of the interests of government and corporations. Thats
America and Australia today.
THOM
Thom
wrote:
training SAS troops to go after the dock workers after talking their
guns and then setting dogs on them is not being mild.
THOM
>
>
ferdie
It worked didn't it - Now we have efficient ports that can compete.
Thom
problem is socialism isn't right wing, fascism is.
THOM
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>news:4392063...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:19:19 +1100, "ferdie" <fer...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>>>news:4390d6ec...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>>>>
>>>> And hates Australia's institutions and culture? May I remind you it
>>>> the current simion PM thats trying to replace the Australian culture
>>>> with an American dog eat dog economy.
>>>>
>>>> THOM
>>>
>>>On the contrary, John Howard is a mild conservative.
>>
>> training SAS troops to go after the dock workers after talking their
>> guns and then setting dogs on them is not being mild.
>>
>> THOM
>
>It worked didn't it - Now we have efficient ports that can compete.
compete with what? Theres only one port there unless you think
Portland can compete. AND lieing and underhanded crap is NEVER
acceptable behavior for any government no matter what party.
THOM
>
>
ferdie
>
> compete with what? Theres only one port there unless you think
> Portland can compete. AND lieing and underhanded crap is NEVER
> acceptable behavior for any government no matter what party.
>
> THOM
You are pretty far gone THOM -
'behavior' is American English
Thom
trop...@gmail.com
I thought you were from New Jersey?
RodneyK
Naaaaah. Fascism is the right wing of socialism. Which is to the left of
Liberal.
Try this link, do the test (5 minutes) and tell the score. I got (0,2).
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
--
RodneyK
There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it
is that half of them are true.
-Winston Churchill
Fran
That's both silly, and at odds with the assumptions of the survey you
recommend below.
> Try this link, do the test (5 minutes) and tell the score. I got (0,2).
> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
It's a silly survey as some of the questions have assumptions embedded
that no serrious leftist could endorse, but which they cannot avoid in
order to answer the question.
And there are questions that are just downright silly.
eg
||||
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the
arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
||||
I answered "Strongly Agree" to this one. Having a one-party state does
have that consequence. Does that mean I think one party states are
desirable? Not at all. but presumably my answer makes me somewhat more
authoritarian.
||||
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered
art at all.
||||
I pondered before I disagreed with that one, but it's hard to see any
connection between that and the fact that I'm a leftist. All art
"represents" something -- even if it's only one's sentiments. And of
course, there's the role of readers in deciding for themselves what
every piece means to them. If a work inclines you to think, consider
and be critical, it's arguably art, even if others respond differently
and there's no consensus on what it means. Ern Malley and the Angry
Penguins intended their poetry to be a spoof -- an attempt to send up
pretentiousness by composing drivel. Some people claimed to see meaning
in it though the authors ultimately denied it. Yet it was "art" because
its design shed light on the literary world at the time, and provoked
debate.
I disagreed that some people were "naturally unlucky" because I think
"luck" is a religious concept. Presumably, that makes me more
economically right wing?
||||
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the
environment, they require regulation
||||
I pondered here and finally decided that "corporations" probably meant
"private corporations" (rather than those that might be obtain under
some workers democracy) and then decided that yes, I'd like them
regulated *if* capitalism was to persist.
||||
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment
||||
It is true that we now have "infotainment" but that's been the case for
a very long time, and it's probably not greatly different or more
worrying now than it was in the early 1900s. Sure there's more of it
about, but now more of us are literate, and skeptical, are aware of the
problem whereas before it was disguised and we have alternative sources
of data. Still, it is intellectually disturbing, now as before ... I
decided "Agree".
For the record
-7.75, -7.75 ....
Fran
RodneyK
Your score indicates a strong left wing anarchist. Somehow I don't think you
are (an anarchist)
To the questions you quoted, my answers were; A - agree with you, D -
Disagree with you.
ADAAA
Valid or not, it is an interesting and liberating (for me) test to do.
--
RodneyK
"Diversity is all very well - but only up to a point. This is the
contradiction at the heart of many western liberal democracies. So-called
secular values are not always as inclusive - or neutral - as they are made
out be, especially when veiled in political rhetoric.
" - anon
ferdie
and you hate Americans ?
Thom
I was raised in New Jersey stalker nut case. Do keep up if your going
to harrass people.
THOM
>
trop...@gmail.com
Kinda hard to keep up with your ever-changing stories.
BTW, what "harrassment" would that be?
Fran
Actually, I see myself as rather closer to anarchist socialism than
anything else. Anarchists don't oppose collaboration or organisation
and generally recognise that this implies the existence of legitimate
restraints upon individual freedom. I differ with the anarchists in
that I believe some form of state is inevitable in the here and now and
that some forms of social enterprise perhaps comprising significant
sections of what is done now under capitalism, are, at least in the
short term, best left to individuals to arrange without explicit and
swingeing intervention by the community.
Fran
RodneyK
Tell me; is there much revolution in the air?
Are these exciting times for anarchistic socialists?
Or is it more like a spiritual journey where you will arrive at a distant
place at some future time?
--
RodneyK
Thom
wrote:
Bull. No socialist would embrace any part of fascism especially the
invading Poland or Iraq part.
>Try this link, do the test (5 minutes) and tell the score. I got (0,2).
>http://www.politicalcompass.org/
sorry, I don't do links, post if you want us to read something. The
trend among the wacko right wing today is to try and shift right wing
guilt (especially about WW2 and the holocaust) onto the center
(socialism) and whats left of the left. Thinking people don't buy it.
THOM
Thom
maybe because your mentally ill you have a hard time keeping track of
things. With all that free time you have at work being a worthless
Canberra shiny bum one would think you would take notes or something.
>
>BTW, what "harrassment" would that be?
I suggest you look at the new Stalking Laws moron.
THOM
>
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>news:43936846...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:26:46 +1100, "ferdie" <fer...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>>>news:43926bd5...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>>>>
>>>> compete with what? Theres only one port there unless you think
>>>> Portland can compete. AND lieing and underhanded crap is NEVER
>>>> acceptable behavior for any government no matter what party.
>>>>
>>>> THOM
>>>
>>>You are pretty far gone THOM -
>>>'behavior' is American English
>>
>> I'm from Colorado
>>
>> THOM
>
>and you hate Americans ?
Nothing wrong with most Americans per say, they struggle every day to
keep body and soul together. Its the fact their government is
controlled by the fascist Neo-Cons right now I have a problem with.
The Neo-Cons have the ultimate goal (as described by Mussolini) of
totally blending government with corporations.
Their president is a liar, a military deserter (twice even), an
admitted drug user and a drunk. He'se also a huge embarrassment to
the American people.
THOM
>
>
Fran
Not all bankers are equally worthy .... ;-)
> Tell me; is there much revolution in the air?
No, at least, not of the kind that give socialists heart.
> Are these exciting times for anarchistic socialists?
Utterly dreadful
> Or is it more like a spiritual journey where you will arrive at a distant
> place at some future time?
> --
Not a spiritual journey in any sense. I'm not into metaphysics. But as
I said to someone lese recently, I call is as I see it. If others don't
heed the call, then that's not my problem, and any misery that follows
is nothing to do with me. It might well be that eventually, people will
begin to pay attention and do things differently, and if they do that
before humanity gets to a point where barbarism on a world scale is
inevitable, that will be a fine thing.
I don't pretend to know when that point is of course, so I continue to
urge people to take a more constructive and human-centred approach to
policy as soon as possible.
Fran
> RodneyK
ferdie
>
> Nothing wrong with most Americans per say, they struggle every day to
> keep body and soul together. Its the fact their government is
> controlled by the fascist Neo-Cons right now I have a problem with.
> The Neo-Cons have the ultimate goal (as described by Mussolini) of
> totally blending government with corporations.
Did you know that Mussolini was a socialist
RodneyK
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:43949fb6...@news.melbpc.org.au...
Think again. But invade Poland from the east.
>>Try this link, do the test (5 minutes) and tell the score. I got (0,2).
>>http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
> sorry, I don't do links, post if you want us to read something. The
> trend among the wacko right wing today is to try and shift right wing
> guilt (especially about WW2 and the holocaust) onto the center
> (socialism) and whats left of the left. Thinking people don't buy it.
>
If socialism is the center, the left must be commie.
Your words not mine. Probably a family matter.
ferdie
"RodneyK" <possu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xadlf.12918$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
> If socialism is the center, the left must be commie.
> Your words not mine. Probably a family matter.
>
>
>> THOM
'communism is socialism'
Karl Marx
Stan Pierce
"ferdie" <fer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:439516c9$0$22297$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
But when in power he knew who actually *is* the power...wealth creators. They
provided funds for infrastructure, and Mussolini was into roads and railways.
He quickly changed his tune. Don't forget Gramsci was put in jail by Mussolini
for being a threat to the state and you couldn't be more Socialist than Gramsci.
Thom
wrote:
Yup. Modern socialism is a balance between public and private
enterprise. The goal posts tend to change as does the use of the
term. When Robert Owen tried the first socialist experiments in the
19th century it was better described as Communalism. Marx and others
based their writings on his communes or other experiments and pushed
Owen to the right.
The original commune at the New Lanark Mills in Scotland was an
experiment in the viability of co-operative factory communities. He
then expended his utopian socialist ideas into the New Harmony
Community in America in the 1840's.
These concepts spread and various FREE LOVE communes blossomed in New
York State and Pennslyvania such as the Oneida Colony which had I
believe 3 differ locations. There were also anti-sex communes such as
the Shakers. Oneida produced some of the finest furniture produced
then and the commune prospered both as a group and with indivusal
profits. One can still visit whats left of these colonies today. The
poor shakers are down to 3 woman I believe since they didn't believe
in sex and had to recruit rather than produce.
One would not call these groups communistic because they were
democratic and stick more to the original Owenite's beliefs in
Communalism.
Problem with labels like this is they change. When communism and the
USSR died, the right wing tried to push the centerests to the left and
we refuse. Now since the right wing is fighting the right wing the
pressure if off except for the morons like Andrew Bolt and others who
are trying to say Hitler was a socialist and the right wing and
fascism had nothing to do with the Holocaust.
THOM
Thom
wrote:
so now you believe everything Marx says?
Do you also believe that Saddam had WMD on every street corner too, or
that the DDR was German and Democratic or there's such a thing as a
whiter white?
THOM
>
>
Thom
wrote:
when pigs fly. Tell us what Italian industries he nationalized?
Funny but history records he was actually a puppet of the Fiat Family
just like Hitler was financed by German fat cats such as Kruppt.
Henry Ford was also trying to kiss Benito's butt too (the government
let him open up a ford plant in 1922 called "Ford Italiana SpA" in
Trieste.) which raised the hair on Fiats neck. Henry and Clara Ford,
travelled under false passports and names and the couple was known as
'Mr & Mrs Robinson. The camels back was broken when Ford Italiana
announced further expansion at a new site at Livorno. Italian big
business which owned Mussolini sent Giovanni Agnelli of Fiat to remind
him who the boss is and Ford was blocked till after the war.
Mussolini founded Fascism and in his 1929 book on the subject
described it as a blending of Corporate and Government interests. You
have read the book of course?
Benito a socialist! Please please I can't stop laughning!
THOM
>
>
trop...@gmail.com
Thom wrote:
> >BTW, what "harrassment" would that be?
>
> I suggest you look at the new Stalking Laws moron.
Which ones would they be? Do they actually exist (unlike your
"lawyers")?
ferdie
You are such a clot - THOM
If you knew anything at all about Karl Marx, you'd know that he is the one
that gave socialism its name i.e. communism
ferdie
Hey THOM - Learn something about history and politics will you.
Mussolini was the editor of the Italian socialist party newspaper
Fran
Your use of the verb "was" would have been more accurate on both
occasions had you exchanged it for "had been".
Mussolini exchanged syndicalist socialism for nationalism/imperialism
and a pitch at the glory of ancient Rome.
Fran
ferdie
>
> Mussolini exchanged syndicalist socialism for nationalism/imperialism
> and a pitch at the glory of ancient Rome.
>
>
> Fran
A good socialist till the end
Fran
Actually, the idea that "the workers of the world have no country" is
one of the better known pieces of Marxist canon.
Interestingly, Marx was not the first to use the word "communism"
Goodwyn Barmby, a chartists who was heavily influenced by the religious
ideas of Unitarianism and the reforming worker-centred egalitarian
ideas of Owenism first used the term, when, along with his feminist
wife (Catherine, IIRC) set up the "Communist Church".
Barmby was a Chartist, meaning he was inter alia, for electoral reform
but it wasn't long before the word was picked up by Marx (who was then
a radical Hegelian rather than a "Marxist") and as he moved left and
codified his ideas, gave it its more distinctive Marxist usage.
Fran
Rifty
> If you knew anything at all about Karl Marx, you'd know that he is the one
> that gave socialism its name i.e. communism
Communism is just a subset of socialism, and there are other forms.
Communism advocated violence to overthrow the system - but many other
forms, such as Fabian socialism, did not.
They are all past. Finished. A failed experiment in social, political
and economic control. What they call communism these days is state
controlled fascism operating proto-capitalist economies.
Rifty
--
Academic and Computing Help
http://rifty.net
Rifty
> A good socialist till the end
A good *National* Socialist. Like Hitler. The Nazi Party's name was the
National Socialist Party.
Just shows how silly labels can be, huh?
ferdie
"Rifty" <ri...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:1h783pr.1ysyi6dfogc8yN%ri...@tpg.com.au...
> ferdie <fer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you knew anything at all about Karl Marx, you'd know that he is the
>> one
>> that gave socialism its name i.e. communism
>
> Communism is just a subset of socialism,
Not according to its originator
ferdie
Interesting how all these lefties inherited wealth
ferdie
> ferdie <fer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A good socialist till the end
>
> A good *National* Socialist. Like Hitler. The Nazi Party's name was the
> National Socialist Party.
You left out workers'
Fran
Rifty wrote:
> ferdie <fer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you knew anything at all about Karl Marx, you'd know that he is the one
> > that gave socialism its name i.e. communism
>
> Communism is just a subset of socialism, and there are other forms.
> Communism advocated violence to overthrow the system
*Communism* didn't advocate it -- it merely observed a common feature
in history.
- but many other
> forms, such as Fabian socialism, did not.
>
Ah, the slogan of the Fabians ...
What do we want?
Gradual change.
When do we want it?
When nobody cares.
> They are all past. Finished. A failed experiment in social, political
> and economic control.
An idea about the possibility of conscious collaboration for agreed
legitimate ends.
> What they call communism these days is state
> controlled fascism operating proto-capitalist economies.
>
I don't care what *they* think.
Fran
ferdie
>
> Ah, the slogan of the Fabians ...
>
> What do we want?
> Gradual change.
>
> When do we want it?
>
> When nobody cares.
Fran - For such a smarty I cant believe you are so dumb.
In fact I don't believe it.
I think you will be OK
Fran
Care to elaborate?
Fran
ferdie
Your fondness for socialism
Fran
Yes it is. What it shows is a paradox -- namely, that ideas that rise
beyond the demands of mere survival typically come from disaffected
sections of the privileged rather than the oppressed classes. It's in
the nature of oppression to oppress. It would have been astonishing if
people with a life expectancy of about 50 who commonly began long hours
of arduous work before they were ten, who had little formal education,
who typically worked in conditions that inflicted terrible injuries on
them and whose fondest hope was to have aneough of their children
survive and marry well enough to support them when their capacity to
work inevitably failed could consider anything beyond the thought that
they'd been dealt a rough hand by a bunch of rich bastards. Typically,
they thought god was punishing them for some sin several generations
earlier. One of the few pieces of "property" a working class man had
then was his wife and family -- his own personal dynasty -- hence the
idea that "a man's home is his castle". Needless to say, this view of
the world had horrible implications for the treatment of women and
children (who were kind of like the mans' serfs), for other ethnic
groups etc.
What it also says is that freedom from labour is a condition for human
intellectual and social progress -- for the realisation of every
person's journey towards realisation of their full humanity. So long as
material scarcity persists, labour is unavoidable and inevitable, and
thus what is rational is to strive for that balance which is, as far as
it is materially feasible, in favour of leisure rather than labour on
as ubiquitous a distribution as possible.
Democracy and freedom are meaningful only to the extent that every
person is in an equal position to make rational, considered and
informed decisions about their interests. And thus, democracy and
freedom positively demand egalitarian policies based on sustainable
growth and labor allocation on the basis of actual human need. Because
the classes with the principal and immediate interest in such a policy
are the workingclasses and their allies amongst the rural poor,
communism chose for itself the symbol of the hammer and the sickle.
Fran
ferdie
>>
> Yes it is. What it shows is a paradox -- ........
What it shows is hypocrisy
Lead the peasants into the abyss while keep your upper-class parachute on.
Nothing changes !
Thom
wrote:
>
no fuckwit Robert Ownen was using the name as early as 1848. Its
clear you know nothing about the history of socialism, communism,
communalism and Stalinism. Plus if you want true communism try the
catholic church
1. strong unelected leader
2. no representation of the people
3. people living in communes called convents and monestaries
4. centuries of agreesive wars and progromes
etc etc
It appears that your one of these right wing wackos whose trying to
push right wing guilt for things like the holocaust onto the very
people that Hitler arrested within a year after he came to power.
THOM
>
>
Thom
>ferdie <fer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you knew anything at all about Karl Marx, you'd know that he is the one
>> that gave socialism its name i.e. communism
>
>Communism is just a subset of socialism, and there are other forms.
>Communism advocated violence to overthrow the system - but many other
>forms, such as Fabian socialism, did not.
wasn't Fabian Paul Keatings thing?
THOM
Rifty
Rifty
> > Communism is just a subset of socialism, and there are other forms.
> > Communism advocated violence to overthrow the system
>
>
> *Communism* didn't advocate it -- it merely observed a common feature
> in history.
OK. I'm probably referring more to Lenin's contribution. I'm talking
about what happened pragmatically than the theoretical position. There
have only been a couple of places in the world where communist
governments have come to power by democratic means.
> > They are all past. Finished. A failed experiment in social, political
> > and economic control.
>
> An idea about the possibility of conscious collaboration for agreed
> legitimate ends.
Yes. I know. It's a wonderful idea. And communist governments have had
significant achievements to their credit - but in the end they all,
without exception, become as self-serving as the worst capitalist
systems, and even more dictatorial. Socialism in its ideal form is a
worthy human endeavour - maybe the most selfless ideal in the history of
humanity - but in its communist form at least, it has produced misery.
The socialism of political parties in representative forms of democracy
has achieved significant advances for people at the bottom end of the
social and economic scale, and we have much to thank them for, but which
parties in our own society now are genuinely socialist? The greatest
failure of the Labor Party has been to try to act like Liberals, and has
given their traditional supporters no reason to vote for them. Which is
precisely why they continue to be in the political wilderness right now.
> > What they call communism these days is state
> > controlled fascism operating proto-capitalist economies.
> >
>
>
> I don't care what *they* think.
In that case, I'll substitute "any person looking coolly at the history
of the twentienth century" for "they". You need to care what "they"
think in that case. You *have* to care what the electorate thinks if you
are going to win government in a representative democratic system like
ours.
I would like to see the Labor Party stand up strongly for values that
they seem to have abandoned over the past 20 years or so. They are, for
example, disgracefully mealy-mouthed about Iraq. They need to enunciate
clearly what it is they stand for, and prove it by their actions. If
they don't, then voters will go along with the smoothly delivered
deceptions and nonsense that John Howard and his acolytes have fed us
over the past decade or so, because they don't see any viable
alternative. They have let him gain control of both houses of
parliament, through knee-jerk election policies that have scared off
traditional labor supporters. That is a great tragedy for this country
because it has allowed the government to ram through parliament badly
drafted and ill-thought out legislation that has now become law.
Labor's faction-driven party machine is increasingly a disaster, because
it stops the best and most dynamic people from coming to the top -
because those who engineer the factional votes are the ones who push
their candidates through. That's got to change if the party is to
re-establish the credibility it used to have - with sufficient numbers
of voters to bring them to power. They can't just hope to win on the
strength of LNP mistakes and stupidities - evidence of which abound
right now. They have got to regain the imagination and confidence of
their traditional supporters.
Having a government run riot in both houses of parliament is never good
for producing sensible, reflective legislation, and it is sad that the
only person forcing any sorts of compromises is one lone National Party
senator - who no doubt will be brought into line over the next 12 months
or so.
Thom
wrote:
Robert Owen? Sorry but no. Marx and Engles used alot of Owens ideas
especially the Utopian Owenism concepts.
THOM
>
>
Thom
wrote:
I did on my second BA that's why I'm trying to teach it to you.
>Mussolini was the editor of the Italian socialist party newspaper
You mean Avanti? Then tell us why he had his "squadristi"
(black shirts) attack and burn it He owned a paper named (poor
translantion) The people of Italy or something like that.
If you knew anything about history you would know that he left the
center-left Italian Socialist Party in 1911. He stayed with Avanti
till 1914 because it gave him a bully pulpit against the government.
He ran with the Fascist Party in the 1913 elections and his right wing
pigs got 53 seats but he wasn't elected. Benito went into the army
when WW1 started and avoided the front with a phony training injury.
In 1921 his Fascists joined with the ultra right wing Liberals to gain
35 more seats. The Libs needed this to keep the socialists from
gaining seats From this alliance he caught the eye of Italian
millionaires and industrialiats. They gave him the power and money to
become PM in 1922 at the age of 39, youngest ever.
The rest we know, big government contracts especially to Fiat for
tanks and planes. Fascism at its best.
THOM
>
>
Thom
I stand corrected
>
>Mussolini exchanged syndicalist socialism for nationalism/imperialism
>and a pitch at the glory of ancient Rome.
Its quite true. He may have been a baffoon but he knew how to play
the masses. I can see how Hitler played the game by becoming a father
figure to millions of fatherless kids because of the losses in the war
but Italy didn't get blooded like that and was on the winning side. I
know it happened but I could never get a feel for just why the
Italians bought into this "New Rome" rubbish. maybe the Italians of
the day liked all the pomp with the Roman salute and the fasces (3
axes bundled in sticks) on their airplanes. There was also "The cult
of Il Duce" and cults I understand. I don't understand why they
bought into "the Theory of the Corporate State" which Mussolini
preached. My speciality in College for my history degree was nazi
Germany and theres still alot I have to learn about Fascist Italy
especially the social aspect of Italy between the 2 world wars.
THOM
>
>
>Fran
>
Thom
wrote:
if he had been a socialist he wouldn't have invaded the Balkans and
Africa
THOM
>
>
Thom
>ferdie <fer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A good socialist till the end
>
>A good *National* Socialist. Like Hitler. The Nazi Party's name was the
>National Socialist Party.
>
>Just shows how silly labels can be, huh?
yah like the DDR. Like they were really German and democratic
THOM
Thom
wrote:
all right wingers leave them out
THOM
>
>