Anarchy's Cossack (Makhno)
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Book Review: Anarchy's Cossack
by Jose Antonio Gutierrez
WSM
Red and Black Revolution
Tuesday, Dec 20 2005, 12:03pm
mailto:wsm_i...@yahoo.com
russia / ukraine / belarus / anarchist movement / review
a review of the latest book on Makhno
This was a much awaited book. Published originally in French
back in 1982, its English version finally saw the light of
day, and the wait was well worth it. For those who are not
familiar with the subject, the Makhnovists were a
libertarian movement, deeply rooted in the traditions of
anarchist-communism, that developed an experience of
revolutionary changes in the economic and political
structures of the backwarded Ukrainian society. To defend
the gains of the Social Revolution, they launched a
guerrilla warfare in Ukraine against a number of enemies:
foreign troops, Nationalists, Whites, different warlords and
Bolsheviks.
Book Review:
Anarchy's Cossack Nestor Makhno
By Alexandre Skirda
Published by AK Press 13.00str
This was a much awaited book. Published originally in French
back in 1982, its English version was advertised for a
couple of years by AK Press, until it finally saw the light
of day, and the wait was well worth it. This fine edition
includes the interesting photographs of the original
edition, plus a new appendix to discuss the state of the
research around the Makhnovist movement after the date of
its first edition. It constitutes an invaluable document in
anarchist history, and provides a vivid glimpse of the
anarchist principles in action and of a number of good
lessons to be drawn for tomorrow's revolutions. Needless to
say, we're very glad to have such a book available in English.
For those who are not familiar with the subject, the
Makhnovists were a libertarian movement, deeply rooted in
the traditions of anarchist-communism, that developed an
experience of revolutionary changes in the economic and
political structures of the backwarded Ukrainian society --
its name coming from Nestor Makhno, a remarkable militant
who remained the main figure of the movement. To defend the
gains of the Social Revolution, they launched a guerrilla
warfare in Ukraine against a number of enemies: foreign
troops, Nationalists, Whites, different warlords and
Bolsheviks. Finally defeated treacherously by the
Bolsheviks, the book tells the story of the movement from
its very origin, contradicting the traditional view of it as
appearing literally from nowhere.
The movement sprung from the rebellious history of the
peasant and cossack revolts of the region, and the ground
for anarchist ideas was well prepared for more than 10 years
before the 1917 revolution by the agitational activities of
the Gulyai Polye anarchist-communist group, founded by the
Semenyuta brothers and V. Antoni. Thus, anarchism had a
local tradition among the local population and it was this
advantage that made it fertile soil for the Makhnovist
experience. At the same time, it gives a very fine
description of Makhno's own life. To understand the
radicality of its revolutionary convictions: the serf
origins of his family, his hard life as a child labourer,
his brief schooling years, his experiences of early revolt
against unfair treatment given by landlords, his activities
in the Gulyai Polye anarchist-communist group, the terrorist
years and his imprisonement in the different dungeons of the
Czar.
The bulk of the book is dedicated to the revolutionary
period between 1917, when Makhno gained his freedom with the
February revolution, to 1921, when the Bolsheviks won
complete control over Ukraine. It depicts, with first hand
information and using a wide range of sources, the
Makhnovist campaigns, the difficulties of revolutionary
warfare and the political struggle for the triumph of the
"free soviets". Well informed, it brings together valuable
accounts that discredit most of the usual charges of the
Bolshevik historical mythomania against him and his
movement: banditry, anti-semitism, his alleged alcoholism
and their self-indulgence in orgies (!). All these are
systematically exposed as utter lies, with no factual
evidence, but the intention of discrediting the movement. It
is important to take into account that even the sacrosanct
"official anarchist historian" of the Russian Revolution,
Volin, echoes these false accusations -- presumably, as part
of a personal vendetta against Makhno, with whom they
clashed over a number of issues, mainly when in exile in
Paris. Thus, by way of repeating a lie again and again, many
ended up accepting it as truth. This book is a healthy way
of putting the record straight on the movement.
The other merit of the book, is showing the absurdity of the
claim that the exile in Paris was a period of complete
decadence for Makhno in terms of his activity as an
anarchist militant. Quite the opposite: it's this time that
proved to be the richest in terms of his literary and
theoretical contributions to the anarchist movement, mainly
through the paper Dyelo Trouda, despite all of the
difficulties of life in exile. It was here that he started
writing his memoirs, that he had time to draw the
conclusions from his own experiences in the Revolution and
that he takes part in drafting the famous "Platform". Thus,
his active participation into the debates of the time on
organisation and what way to follow for the anarchist
movement, that shaped in one way or another the
international anarchist movement for decades to come, have
still a resounding importance, and give enough material for
thought and practice even in our times.
Only people that were hostile to the thesis of the Platform,
their organisational approach and their revolutionary
class-struggle anarchism, could have depicted his exile as
unproductive, in order not to deal with this most important
legacy to the movement and try to silence it. It is easier
to accept the figure of Makhno only as part of the anarchist
"folklore" of somewhere far away, on the Ukrainian steppes,
than to let him expose the historical failures of our
movement. All in all, self-criticism has never been a strong
feature of anarchists.
We can't leave unnoticed, though, certain aspects of the
book that seriously undermine its value, specially to the
eyes of the non-anarchist reader: first of all, we have
Skirda's style that is full of adjectives and too obviously
takes sides. We all know that absolute objectivity in
history is nothing but a myth, but a historical book (in
opposition to a political diatribe, or a
historical-political polemic) shouldn't go as far as Skirda
does in terms of using nicknames for the side that doesn't
happen to be in the author's grace: there's no need to say
things like "blotting paper revolutionaries", "supreme
guide" (referring to Lenin) or to resort to ridicule
everytime one is to mention the Bolsheviks, no matter how
justified the indignation of Skirda against them might be.
In that point of view, it reminds me of an inverse sort of
"Bolshevik" history, where anarchists were usually depicted
as "bandits", "dreamers", "individualists", "petty-burgeois"
and so on. Immediately, one has a ground to doubt the
"objectivity" of the author -- understood as a respect for
historical and factual accuracy. And when one suspects that
the bias is too much, the natural reaction is to leave the
book aside and entertain youself with some other book.
Instead of writing history, sometimes it appears he's just
bitching.
His tendency, as well, to blame the Bolsheviks for
absolutely every evil in the Civil War, makes his genuine
complaints about them appear less credible to the
non-anarchist reader. For example, blaming the Bolsheviks
for the emergence of the Whites, as Skirda insinuates in
some parts of his book, is inaccurate and naive: "(Shkuro)
had begun to fight the Bolsheviks (...), having tasted their
summary methods of justice" (p144) or "(The Kuban Cossacks),
at first neutral, (...) they had quickly been persuaded of
the danger inherent in the Bolsheviks who abruptly abolished
their traditional rights and, moreover, brutally
commandeered their foodstuffs and belongings" (p70). He
seems somehow to be justifying not the revolt against the
Bolsheviks, but white revolt against the Bolsheviks --
Makhno, who wasn't a pro-Bolshevik at all, agreed that the
worst catastrophe for Russia would be the triumph of the
whites. It is naive to explain the side taken by reactionary
militaries, indoctrinated in their distrust for the riff
raff, in terms of the "excesses" of Lenin's goverment, as we
can explain many of the workers' and peasants' revolts of
the time -- rather, they can be explained by their fear to
lose the privileges they enjoyed in the former regime. Every
revolution faces opposition from reactionary quarters, that
are not particularly motivated by the "excesses" of the
revolutionaries, as the very excesses of all these
counter-revolutionaries show. This undermines claims, that
have a factual ground -- like the military mistakes and
actual sabotage of the southern front by the Bolsheviks as
the main reason for Denikin's successful offensive in mid 1919.
The same could be said about the support of the Allies to
the Whites: "Discovering its perilous consequences (of the
Soviet regime and its truce with the Central Empires, ed.)
in the shape of German offensives on the French front,
Paris, London and Washington were forced to make a stand"
(p73). Skirda seems to forget the fact that this was a time
of violent proletarian upheavals in most of Europe and the
example set by the Russian Revolution was sparking flames
everywhere! This was the main reason why the reactionaries
in the West wanted to see the revolution smashed, not for
secondary military tactical matters; in fact, after the end
of the WWI, they kept supporting the whites -- so "forced"
they were to take a stand!
His anti-Bolshevism as well, can lead sometimes to ambiguous
positions like his defense of the Constituent Assembly (pp.
43-44, 72). He forgets that the defense of the Constituent
Assembly was the defense of the burgeois concept of
representative and parliamentary democracy, of the "liberal"
State, in opposition to the direct democracy and the organic
workers' and peasants' society being formed from below
through the Soviets and Factory Commitees, and the whole
network of rank and file organisation that flourished in
Russia during 1917. It's true that Bolshevik opposition to
the Assembly was not progressive at all: they attacked the
liberal State (where they were a minority) for the sake of
the dictatorship of their sole party, but they were not
alone in their criticisms and many quarters, with different
arguments, did criticise it; indeed, he doesn't mention the
fact that he surely knows, in the face of his deep knowledge
of Russian anarchism, that the Assembly was dissolved
actually by the detachment of the anarchist Anatoli
Zheleshniakov! But again, he'd still blame the Bolsheviks.
I think it is time to move beyond the history of "goodies"
and "baddies", of "marxists" versus "anarchists" and try to
see the underlying forces operating in society as a whole.
Skirda's anarchist point about the State as a reactionary
institution to be abolished is seriously undermined by his
moralistic and simplistic approach to the Bolshevik strategy
of seizure of power: "(Lenin) had merely played upon these
(popular) aspirations for the sole purpose of ensconcing
himself in power; once at the controls, he was to devote
himself primarily to consolidation of his tenous authority"
(p43).
Thus, it could be understood the treason of the revolution
due to the Bolshevik's greediness for power, instead of the
unavoidable logic of the bourgeois division of powers in the
form of Statist institutions. No matter how genuine Lenin or
other Bolsheviks were as revolutionaries (and certainly many
weren't) the results couldn't have been any different, and
that is the main strength of anarchism as a revolutionary
alternative: it's not about who's in power, is about how we
control the power from below.
Finally, Paul Sharkey's translation, also, is a bit
difficult to the reader, full of twists and turns, literal
translations and words in French, that give a certain
elegance to the edition, but seriously make the reading
quite difficult at points, even to the extent of making the
reader unsure of the real meaning behind some paragraphs.
This is noted in others of Sharkey's translations as well
(like Facing the Enemy, for instance).
These flaws that are commented upon don't invalidate the
work at all; but they make it more directed to an anarchist
public, than to a non-anarchist one; and unfortunately, the
information provided here is quite strong and well
researched, and would be very valuable to discuss with a
broader leftist audience, but the language makes it a bit
difficult, as it sounds sectarian. We are still waiting for
a further history on the Makhnovist movement that is done in
such a fashion that allows us to start that discussion
around the methods of the revolution under the light of this
historical experience.
We want to finish the review thanking the people of AK Press
for the fantastic work they've done in providing us with so
many interesting books and documents, certainly filling many
gaps in anarchist history and theory in English speaking
countries. In particular, to thank them for providing us
with this jewel of anarchist history that is Skirda's work
on the Makhnovist movement, a book that definitely will make
any libertarian militant vibrate.
Reviewed by Jose Antonio Gutierrez
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"Don't just question authority,
Don't forget to question me."
-- Jello Biafra
Walter Traprock
> Book Review: Anarchy's Cossack
> by Jose Antonio Gutierrez
> WSM
> Red and Black Revolution
> Tuesday, Dec 20 2005, 12:03pm
> mailto:wsm_i...@yahoo.com
> russia / ukraine / belarus / anarchist movement / review
>
> a review of the latest book on Makhno
>
> This was a much awaited book. Published originally in French
> back in 1982, its English version finally saw the light of
Who cares? The subject line implies you're talking about a book by
Makhno himself. Why read about him when you can read the man himself,
or can you? Did Makhno write any books?
Paul Ilechko
It's the clueless expert again.
Don'tcha love people who are able to make such vehement pronouncements
on things they know nothing about?
David O'Bedlam
> Don'tcha love people who are able to make such vehement pronouncements
> on things they know nothing about?
Like who? Most of us hear on rec.arts.books, maybe? (Hi Mike & Moggin!)
D.
--
"Some think it's noise, I think it's pretty."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) 2005 by 'TheDavid^TM' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
Paul Ilechko
> In rec.arts.books Paul Ilechko <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Don'tcha love people who are able to make such vehement pronouncements
>>on things they know nothing about?
>
>
> Like who? Most of us hear on rec.arts.books, maybe? (Hi Mike & Moggin!)
>
Yeah, but Traprock explains that he know nothing as part of his claims,
unlike you guys.
Spike
This website is a current and ongoing battle with a nasty Govt.
Learn from my mistakes! Check back and see how things are going.
I'm adding taped phone calls now.
Merry x-mas punker types,
spike
http://thevandalnextdoordeaththreatsandmore.asar-intl.com/
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:43A80B46...@columbia-center.org...
Stan de SD
> the Makhnovists were a
> libertarian movement, deeply rooted in the traditions of
> anarchist-communism
Contradiction...
Paul Ilechko
No.
Stan de SD
Paul Ilechko
Hate to tell you this, Stan, but it's on you to explain why you think so.
James A. Donald
> > > > > the Makhnovists were a
> > > > > libertarian movement, deeply rooted in the
> > > > > traditions of anarchist-communism
> > > > Contradiction...
> > >No.
> > Yes.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:07:14 -0500, Paul Ilechko
> Hate to tell you this, Stan, but it's on you to
> explain why you think so.
1. Makhno ruled despotically, consulting no one, and
executing people without charges or trials.
2. That is inherent in communism: Property rights in
the means of production are the boundaries between one
man's plan and another man's plan. Without property
rights to separate one man's plan from another man's
plan, only one plan can be permitted, and any pursuit of
alternate goals, or pursuit of the same goals through
alternate methods is "wrecking", and must be crushed.
Without property rights in the means of production there
can only be one plan, and one set of planners, to which
all must submit.
The noble ideal that makes socialists particularly
effectual at murdering people is material equality.
Material equality is an impossible ideal, for if people
are free to do what they want, each will act to get what
he wants, and some will succeed much better than others.
Thus the only way to attain substantial material
equality is to have an apparatus that decides what
people shall do, and makes them do it, and decides what
they shall have, and gives it to them. This of course
requires a class of people do the deciding, and this
class is going to be superior to those it commands
Very commonly this apparatus kills an enormous number of
people.
Because of diseconomies of scale in decision making,
this class, the nomenklatura, is subject to perverse
incentives to kill people and waste resources, and even
with the best will in the world, a lot of people and
resources are going to slip through the cracks and get
killed or wasted.
It is always difficult, in any business, to measure
inputs consumed against results produced. The larger
the organization, the more difficult it is. Socialist
economies tend to have large numbers of "indicators",
which would make accounts very confusing even if those
doing the book-keeping were highly skilled and had good
intentions. Of course, those doing the book-keeping tend
to have bad intentions. The more obscure and
incomprehensible their accounts, the harder it is for
the capital to hold far off members of the nomenklatura
in the provinces responsible for what they do, and in
the early days of any socialist regime, the book-keepers
are unskilled, if there is any book-keeping at all.
Thus individual members of the nomenklatura,
particularly in the early days of any socialist regime,
find themselves judged by the results they produce, and
not by the resources, including the human lives, used up
in producing those results. After the Soviet Union
fell, a lot of people attempted to go through the
records to determine what socialism had cost, and found
themselves not much the wiser.
As in so many matters, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
provides the paradigmatic example, the illustration of
why socialists murder.
As several historians have told us, most infamously
David Chandler, the Khmer Rouge leadership were saints.
Cambodia is largely a flood plain, with most food coming
from land that is regularly under water. Thus if the
central planners were wise and good, centrally planned
agriculture could produce much more food, much more
efficiently, than private agriculture where each peasant
acts without regard for the effects on those downstream
of him, and without knowledge of what peasants upstream
of him are doing.
The Khmer Rouge leadership decided on a program of very
rapid economic development, development by command.
Agriculture and industry based on agriculture would come
first.
To ensure compliance, the Khmer Rouge prohibited
peasants from obtaining food from sources that were
independent of centrally planned water, such as fishing,
fruit trees, and mountain leap rice, and commanded them
to focus on paddy rice, which depends on the flow of
water being controlled, depends on the correct amount of
water being applied at the correct time. They also
issued a flood of very detailed commands about ditches
and dikes to control the flow of water, so that the
correct water would be applied to the rice at the
correct time.
Of course since the central planners issuing these
commands were far away from the water that was flowing,
the mud that had to be moved, and the people that had to
move it, these commands were mostly nonsense.
The unfortunates receiving these commands from the
center found it very difficult to tell the center that
they were screwing up. The high command correctly and
reasonably believed that there were numerous
conspiracies, both internal and foreign sponsored,
seeking to overthrow the high command, and incorrectly
and unreasonably believed that any failure or problem
was a result of the malevolent activities of these
conspiracies.
Thus when someone in the provinces, in command of a few
thousand slaves received a disastrous command the safest
course was to attempt to obey it, no matter what the
likely cost in human lives.
The high command would from time to time shift large
numbers of slaves from one task to another, without
keeping track of how many people were assigned to what,
so they never realized that the number of captives was
diminishing at a disturbing rate.
Because no one dared tell them what was really
happening, they honestly believed that the sacrifices
they commanded were successful and popular, and rapidly
building a new and prosperous Cambodia, when in fact
huge numbers of people were dying, and Cambodia was
collapsing to the stone age.
They intended to do good to people, and honestly
believed they were highly successful in doing so. Like
most similarly saintly do gooders, they intended to do
good to people by confiscating their property, by
enslaving them, and by torturing and killing anyone so
benighted, selfish, and wicked as to stand in the way of
all the good that they intended to do.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
qFhNXPYOPU1Jt/wyr731TzCDM6l0VYeQgxESlQxF
4v655wQL6vLqdq1ZkKaQQc3agNqPNq76cZ1wbK8Pu
Walter Traprock
> > >>the Makhnovists were a
> > >>libertarian movement, deeply rooted in the traditions of
> > >>anarchist-communism
> > >
> > > Contradiction...
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes.
Nope, no contradiction. Nestor Makhno has a 34 page book out called:
Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1894925149/
It starts out as:
"General Section
1) Class Struggle, it's role and meaning
There is no one single humanity.
There is a humanity of classes.
Slaves and Masters
Like all those that preceded it, the bourgeois capitalist society of our
times is not 'one humanity'. It is divided...."
And so on. So that's Libertarian Communism, but, doesn't really sound
like, say, Ron Paul's way of talking to me, but what do I know?
Walter Traprock
> >>Don'tcha love people who are able to make such vehement pronouncements
> >>on things they know nothing about?
> >
> > Like who? Most of us hear on rec.arts.books, maybe? (Hi Mike & Moggin!)
>
> Yeah, but Traprock explains that he know nothing as part of his claims,
> unlike you guys.
Sorry for being honest, Charlie. I've been trying to lie more, but I'm
not very good at it.
Stan de SD
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:ghomq11pcejseql9r...@4ax.com...
> --
> > > > > > the Makhnovists were a
> > > > > > libertarian movement, deeply rooted in the
> > > > > > traditions of anarchist-communism
>
> > > > > Contradiction...
>
> > > >No.
>
> > > Yes.
>
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:07:14 -0500, Paul Ilechko
> > Hate to tell you this, Stan, but it's on you to
> > explain why you think so.
>
> 1. Makhno ruled despotically, consulting no one, and
> executing people without charges or trials.
That would obviously make him an idol of the Left, as to be able to do such
is their primary goal in life...
> 2. That is inherent in communism: Property rights in
> the means of production are the boundaries between one
> man's plan and another man's plan. Without property
> rights to separate one man's plan from another man's
> plan, only one plan can be permitted, and any pursuit of
> alternate goals, or pursuit of the same goals through
> alternate methods is "wrecking", and must be crushed.
>
> Without property rights in the means of production there
> can only be one plan, and one set of planners, to which
> all must submit.
Again, the ideal of the Left...
> The noble ideal that makes socialists particularly
> effectual at murdering people is material equality.
> Material equality is an impossible ideal, for if people
> are free to do what they want, each will act to get what
> he wants, and some will succeed much better than others.
> Thus the only way to attain substantial material
> equality is to have an apparatus that decides what
> people shall do, and makes them do it, and decides what
> they shall have, and gives it to them. This of course
> requires a class of people do the deciding, and this
> class is going to be superior to those it commands
Bingo.
Stan de SD
"Walter Traprock" <wetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wetraprock-C6A39...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> "Stan de SD" <stan...@covad.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>the Makhnovists were a
> > > >>libertarian movement, deeply rooted in the traditions of
> > > >>anarchist-communism
> > > >
> > > > Contradiction...
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Nope, no contradiction. Nestor Makhno has a 34 page book out called:
>
> Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (Paperback)
The fact that you can't see the inherent contradiction shows your
cluelessness... :O|
Paul Ilechko
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:ghomq11pcejseql9r...@4ax.com...
>
>> --
>>
>>>>>> > the Makhnovists were a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>libertarian movement, deeply rooted in the
>>>>>>>traditions of anarchist-communism
>>
>>>>>>Contradiction...
>>
>>>>>No.
>>
>>>>Yes.
>>
>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:07:14 -0500, Paul Ilechko
>>
>>>Hate to tell you this, Stan, but it's on you to
>>>explain why you think so.
>>2. That is inherent in communism: Property rights in
>>the means of production are the boundaries between one
>>man's plan and another man's plan. Without property
>>rights to separate one man's plan from another man's
>>plan, only one plan can be permitted, and any pursuit of
>>alternate goals, or pursuit of the same goals through
>>alternate methods is "wrecking", and must be crushed.
>>
>>Without property rights in the means of production there
>>can only be one plan, and one set of planners, to which
>>all must submit.
>
>
> Again, the ideal of the Left...
<lots of other stuff snipped>
The problem is that both of you are viewing the situation at that time
through the lens of future events. Very easy to do, of course, but does
not in any way invalidate the belief of the people _at that point in
time_ that it was possible to have social equality and pure freedom.
Misguided, maybe, but not in an of itself contradictory.
G*rd*n
> The problem is that both of you are viewing the situation at that time
> through the lens of future events. Very easy to do, of course, but does
> not in any way invalidate the belief of the people _at that point in
> time_ that it was possible to have social equality and pure freedom.
> Misguided, maybe, but not in an of itself contradictory.
That's too complicated for them. Do you believe in
the True Faith, or not? That is the only question
that matters.
Anyway, it's nice to know that we live under the best of
all possible political arrangements in the best of all
possible worlds. Otherwise we might observe war, crime,
poverty, ignorance, despair, disease, disorder, ugliness,
decay, superstition, corruption, violence, oppression and
so forth. But as it is everything is wonderful, except
for a few pockets of misery caused by Welfare payments
or leftover environmental regulations.
Dan Clore
http://www.nestormakhno.info/
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/makhno/Makhno.html
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
MDFranklin
news:doh4kc$9bc$1...@reader1.panix.com...
You, however, are not being interesting. One hardly needs
yet another case of the same-old same-old.
So why don't you surprise us and come up with something
new and not lifted from someone else? You must have had some original idea.
Try to remember.
You wrote: "Anyway, it's nice to know that we live under the best of
all possible political arrangements in the best of all
possible worlds. Otherwise we might observe war, crime,
poverty, ignorance, despair, disease, disorder, ugliness,
decay, superstition, corruption, violence, oppression and
so forth. But as it is everything is wonderful, except
for a few pockets of misery caused by Welfare payments
or leftover environmental regulations." You can explain this, back it up by
telling us whose ideas they were in the first place, or
keep on dancing around and making yourself look silly.
Paul Ilechko
> You wrote: "Anyway, it's nice to know that we live under the best of
> all possible political arrangements in the best of all
> possible worlds. Otherwise we might observe war, crime,
> poverty, ignorance, despair, disease, disorder, ugliness,
> decay, superstition, corruption, violence, oppression and
> so forth. But as it is everything is wonderful, except
> for a few pockets of misery caused by Welfare payments
> or leftover environmental regulations."
> You can explain this, back it up by
> telling us whose ideas they were in the first place, or
> keep on dancing around and making yourself look silly.
Since when is it expected that you *explain* sarcasm?
James A. Donald
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:30:01 -0500,
> > > > > > > > the Makhnovists were a libertarian
> > > > > > > > movement, deeply rooted in the
> > > > > > > > traditions of anarchist-communism
> > > > > > > Contradiction...
[...]
Paul Ilechko
> The problem is that both of you are viewing the
> situation at that time through the lens of future
> events.
At the time, it was easy to believe simultaneously in
socialism, communism, libertarianism, and even, like
Jack Wolf and George Bernard Shaw, also fascism, all at
the same time.
However, it was not feasible to practice them
simultaneously, and Makhno did not succeed in practicing
them simultaneously.
> does not in any way invalidate the belief of the
> people _at that point in time_ that it was possible to
> have social equality and pure freedom. Misguided,
> maybe, but not in an of itself contradictory.
They sincerely believed, but the internal contradictions
in their beliefs manifested in self contradictory
slogans, most infamously "property is theft". When
these self contradictory slogans were put into practice,
they resulted in self contradictory actions - which is
to say, resulted in hypocrisy and betrayal.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8Fgk+IYNMRqG9TKMOao05AcsgxpOwMwLgRIqWGtc
4DLG70oR05UXFzm6XpviGUFBz6+074LLM4E/33ZGC
James A. Donald
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:47:40 -0800, Walter Traprock
> Nope, no contradiction. Nestor Makhno has a 34 page
> book out called:
>
> Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists
> (Paperback)
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1894925149/
An organizational platform that is conspicuously far
from libertarian: The party shall determine the line,
and everyone shall in public agree with the line, and
when the line changes, shall affirm that they agree with
the new line, and always did so: This organizational
form is Leninist, not libertarian. Throughout the
twentieth century the communists attracted much ridicule
for their absurd authoritarianism in following this form
of organization, particularly from anarchists and
libertarians who always had a good time whenever the
line changed, as it did with great frequency.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9jBgcPQXU5Y/OIdyBnhImc3vVW54ckFNpl6A4uHM
48f/ppuNF2TfyuPmteIYufWqcGoXQDFstAcHurJ47
Paul Ilechko
> --
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:30:01 -0500,
>
>>>>>>>>>the Makhnovists were a libertarian
>>>>>>>>>movement, deeply rooted in the
>>>>>>>>>traditions of anarchist-communism
>
>
>>>>>>>>Contradiction...
>
>
> [...]
>
> Paul Ilechko
>
>>The problem is that both of you are viewing the
>>situation at that time through the lens of future
>>events.
>
>
> At the time, it was easy to believe simultaneously in
> socialism, communism, libertarianism, and even, like
> Jack Wolf and George Bernard Shaw, also fascism, all at
> the same time.
>
> However, it was not feasible to practice them
> simultaneously, and Makhno did not succeed in practicing
> them simultaneously.
Could it be that the problem was Makhno, rather than the ideas?
Charismatic leadership tends to cause problems within small-scale,
idealistic movements.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > At the time, it was easy to believe simultaneously
> > in socialism, communism, libertarianism, and even,
> > like Jack Wolf and George Bernard Shaw, also
> > fascism, all at the same time.
> >
> > However, it was not feasible to practice them
> > simultaneously, and Makhno did not succeed in
> > practicing them simultaneously.
Paul Ilechko
> Could it be that the problem was Makhno, rather than
> the ideas?
I just posted an argument as to why it is impossible to
practice any two of the above ideas simultaneously.
Message-ID: <ghomq11pcejseql9r...@4ax.com>
If you disagree with that argument, you might reply to
it.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
cT46HjKPgeEs9lgwhYaN6IEXQNzInbz+/PIftd8R
47CdXk49uhLPW+OkKg9zpegjyYObuivip/+bu7xEh
James A. Donald
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:20:44 +0000 (UTC), g...@panix.com
(G*rd*n) wrote:
> That's too complicated for them. Do you believe in
> the True Faith, or not? That is the only question
> that matters.
I provided an argument as to why one cannot be both an
anarchist or a communist. Seems that argument is a bit
too complicated for you to reply to.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
jOpBDDNqzvQzcFIoJXJrQ2j4c2BnUFIi+yH0/FuW
4u1ZGmjBSFswn2KYFoZ8nzaW3CvD0AkwRYS0upjAD
Paul Ilechko
> --
> James A. Donald:
>
>>>At the time, it was easy to believe simultaneously
>>>in socialism, communism, libertarianism, and even,
>>>like Jack Wolf and George Bernard Shaw, also
>>>fascism, all at the same time.
>>>
>>>However, it was not feasible to practice them
>>>simultaneously, and Makhno did not succeed in
>>>practicing them simultaneously.
>
>
> Paul Ilechko
>
>>Could it be that the problem was Makhno, rather than
>>the ideas?
>
>
> I just posted an argument as to why it is impossible to
> practice any two of the above ideas simultaneously.
> If you disagree with that argument, you might reply to
> it.
"...but the internal contradictions in their beliefs manifested in self
contradictory slogans" is hardly an argument. You're basically saying
"it's true because I say it is".
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > > > At the time, it was easy to believe
> > > > simultaneously in socialism, communism,
> > > > libertarianism, and even, like Jack Wolf and
> > > > George Bernard Shaw, also fascism, all at the
> > > > same time.
> > > >
> > > > However, it was not feasible to practice them
> > > > simultaneously, and Makhno did not succeed in
> > > > practicing them simultaneously.
Paul Ilechko
> > > Could it be that the problem was Makhno, rather
> > > than the ideas?
James A. Donald:
> > I just posted an argument as to why it is impossible
> > to practice any two of the above ideas
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > If you disagree with that argument, you might reply
> > to it.
Paul Ilechko
> "...but the internal contradictions in their beliefs
> manifested in self contradictory slogans" is hardly an
> argument. You're basically saying "it's true because I
> say it is".
Reinserting the argument you are failing to reply to:
Property rights in the means of production are the
boundaries between one man's plan and another man's
plan. Without property rights to separate one man's
plan from another man's plan, only one plan can be
permitted, and any pursuit of alternate goals, or
pursuit of the same goals through alternate methods is
"wrecking", and must be crushed.
Without property rights in the means of production there
can only be one plan, and one set of planners, to which
all must submit.
The noble ideal that makes socialists particularly
effectual at murdering people is material equality.
Material equality is an impossible ideal, for if people
are free to do what they want, each will act to get what
he wants, and some will succeed much better than others.
Thus the only way to attain substantial material
equality is to have an apparatus that decides what
people shall do, and makes them do it, and decides what
they shall have, and gives it to them. This of course
requires a class of people do the deciding, and this
class is going to be superior to those it commands
Very commonly this apparatus kills an enormous number of
people.
Because of diseconomies of scale in decision making,
this class, the nomenklatura, is subject to perverse
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
o2l7q1CUjQoFnyzmXB2B6OPNbBqtmDVHWc8xggqa
4DAO6KDf+sjbBfxIkJAtuVYMo0ue1rbfanyj+7P9D
G*rd*n
> > all possible political arrangements in the best of all
> > possible worlds. Otherwise we might observe war, crime,
> > poverty, ignorance, despair, disease, disorder, ugliness,
> > decay, superstition, corruption, violence, oppression and
> > so forth. But as it is everything is wonderful, except
> > for a few pockets of misery caused by Welfare payments
> > or leftover environmental regulations."
MDFranklin wrote:
> > You can explain this, back it up by
> > telling us whose ideas they were in the first place, or
> > keep on dancing around and making yourself look silly.
Paul Ilechko <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net>:
> Since when is it expected that you *explain* sarcasm?
You're observing a little echolalia. See
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.noam-chomsky/msg/9ebb6bde0cb078b9
and the followups if you're having a really slow day.
Paul Ilechko
> Reinserting the argument you are failing to reply to:
Nothing there that I would give the name "argument" to, I'm afraid. A
lot of opinion, and a marvellous collection of logical fallacies. Some
particularly lovely strawmen for you to set fire to - Guy Fawkes would
have been proud. And the way in which you manage to create universal
laws from individual examples - a true work of art! But argument? No,
I'm sorry, that it was not.
It was also completely unnecessary to reproduce it again. You really
ought to stop disturbing so many electrons.
Paul Ilechko
Umm, no thanks. I realize that a parallel universe has accidentally
collided with mine, and these curious emanations are a temporary
phenomenon, soon to pass.
brique
James can't help it, he firmly beleives that if he says the same thing
repeatedly, eventually it will become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it
to be.
It is also pointless to point out the errors in his prattling, as only a
'commie' could disagree with his 'truth' and thus anything disagreement with
his 'truth' just goes to prove that you are, indeed, a 'commie' and can thus
be disregarded.
MDFranklin
They're in tandem with no neurons firing.
"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:413qkeF...@individual.net...
MDFranklin
Oh? Run out of little smartie cutsey nothings? Go ahead, take your time,
think of some more and enlighten us again.
MDFranklin
Wrong again, comrade. ;)
Paul Ilechko
this morass. It is kind of amusing, though. So why are these dimwitted
goons x-posting on all these leftist groups, anyway? Are they trying to
make converts to the church of righteous stupidity?
Paul Ilechko
> "Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
> news:413qprF...@individual.net...
>>
>>Umm, no thanks. I realize that a parallel universe has accidentally
>>collided with mine, and these curious emanations are a temporary
>>phenomenon, soon to pass.
>
>
> Wrong again, comrade. ;)
I'm no comrade of yours, bub.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:06:56 -0000, "brique"
<briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> James can't help it, he firmly beleives that if he
> says the same thing repeatedly, eventually it will
> become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it to be.
If you guys had an argument, you would make it. If you
could explain how to make socialism work without slavery
and murder, you would explain.
What you want requires totalitarianism, and
totalitarianism requires terror, and you know it full
well.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
qvRg31f97n3UUs7VtxvjWxuGjMzbmCaufe6ONBQc
4xstUVWcbmNWl4cn7anLR9+IapebS+UMW/K25cyju
Paul Ilechko
>
> If you guys had an argument, you would make it. If you
> could explain how to make socialism work without slavery
> and murder, you would explain.
Thankfully, all capitalist societies are free from murder, so we can
live in peace. LOL. Don't you even see the holes that you fall into
while you are digging them?
>
> What you want requires totalitarianism, and
> totalitarianism requires terror, and you know it full
> well.
Where does 'want' come into it? Can't someone have a dispassionate
intellectual argument in your world? What a sad little world it must be.
Merry Christmas, Jimbo, hope you get a new thinking cap, and maybe some
bottled curiosity.
john smith
"James A. Donald" wrote:
>
> --
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:06:56 -0000, "brique"
> <briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > James can't help it, he firmly beleives that if he
> > says the same thing repeatedly, eventually it will
> > become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it to be.
>
> If you guys had an argument, you would make it. If you
> could explain how to make socialism work without slavery
> and murder, you would explain.
I can and I will.
you'll listen ???????
>
> What you want requires totalitarianism, and
> totalitarianism requires terror, and you know it full
> well.
uhmm... seems like you didnt read 1984 too thoroughly now, but hey
noone ever did...
kinda like adam smith
cheers.
try for hope
Alex Russell
>
> "James A. Donald" wrote:
>
>> --
>>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:06:56 -0000, "brique"
>><briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>
>>>James can't help it, he firmly beleives that if he
>>>says the same thing repeatedly, eventually it will
>>>become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it to be.
>>
>>If you guys had an argument, you would make it. If you
>>could explain how to make socialism work without slavery
>>and murder, you would explain.
>
>
> I can and I will.
>
> you'll listen ???????
>
>
I'll listen.
While JAD does seem to ignore any facts about his beloved right, I
generally agree with him that imposing an economic system, especially a
socialist one with central control, generally turns out disasterously.
If you have some good ideas on how to make this work, I'm all ears.
Alex Russell
the slighlty less loony right winger.
brique
Alex Russell <alexande...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:liCrf.12575$OU5.6665@clgrps13...
> john smith wrote:
> >
> > "James A. Donald" wrote:
> >
> >> --
> >>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:06:56 -0000, "brique"
> >><briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> >>
> >>>James can't help it, he firmly beleives that if he
> >>>says the same thing repeatedly, eventually it will
> >>>become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it to be.
> >>
> >>If you guys had an argument, you would make it. If you
> >>could explain how to make socialism work without slavery
> >>and murder, you would explain.
> >
> >
> > I can and I will.
> >
> > you'll listen ???????
> >
> >
>
> I'll listen.
>
> While JAD does seem to ignore any facts about his beloved right, I
> generally agree with him that imposing an economic system, especially a
> socialist one with central control, generally turns out disasterously.
>
> If you have some good ideas on how to make this work, I'm all ears.
Okay, so you listen to James, perhaps you should extend the same willingness
to those he so often accuses of wishing to impose such a central control. To
wit, none of us have expressed any such desire. The only proponent of such
socialistic central control that I know of in this group is James himself,
well, 'was' James himself, when he was a Stalinist.
As explained above, if you don't agree with James, then as far as he is
concerned, you must be guilty of wanting all the things he himself once
desired but has now disowned.
In the bipolar world of James, not desiring the untrammeled free market
solution must therefore indicate a desire for the brutal jackboot of
centralised totalitarianism, he cannot see any other point of view.
So, each argument is continually shifted onto spurious grounds created by
James own bipolar view. Therefore, by disagreeing with him on the wonders of
capitalism, I must perforce be defending centralised control.
One might as well argue that proponents of non-capitalist societies prefer
cats to dogs, it's about as relevant.
Paul Ilechko
> Okay, so you listen to James, perhaps you should extend the same willingness
> to those he so often accuses of wishing to impose such a central control. To
> wit, none of us have expressed any such desire. The only proponent of such
> socialistic central control that I know of in this group is James himself,
> well, 'was' James himself, when he was a Stalinist.
> As explained above, if you don't agree with James, then as far as he is
> concerned, you must be guilty of wanting all the things he himself once
> desired but has now disowned.
> In the bipolar world of James, not desiring the untrammeled free market
> solution must therefore indicate a desire for the brutal jackboot of
> centralised totalitarianism, he cannot see any other point of view.
> So, each argument is continually shifted onto spurious grounds created by
> James own bipolar view. Therefore, by disagreeing with him on the wonders of
> capitalism, I must perforce be defending centralised control.
> One might as well argue that proponents of non-capitalist societies prefer
> cats to dogs, it's about as relevant.
That's why it's so much more fun to ridicule people like that, rather
than argue with them. More effective, too - they don't know how to fight
back without frothing at the mouth and looking like total idiots.
vlad
without totalitarian control?
All attempts to build socialism in XX century caused -
1) totalitarian state,
2) human suffering, imprisonments, murders, etc.
3) echonomical machine that was not able to provide for its citizens
even basic needs. Only ruling elite was provided sufficiently.
It looks to me that instead of arguing his point of view supported by
facts you (and other people here of your kind) insult him personally.
Is it because you have no arguments of your own, just religious belief
that 'humane' socialism can be built?
vlad
brique wrote:
> Alex Russell <alexande...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:liCrf.12575$OU5.6665@clgrps13...
> > john smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "James A. Donald" wrote:
> > >
> > >> --
> > >>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:06:56 -0000, "brique"
> > >><briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>James can't help it, he firmly beleives that if he
> > >>>says the same thing repeatedly, eventually it will
> > >>>become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it to be.
> > >>
> > >>If you guys had an argument, you would make it. If you
> > >>could explain how to make socialism work without slavery
> > >>and murder, you would explain.
> > >
> > >
> > > I can and I will.
> > >
> > > you'll listen ???????
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'll listen.
> >
> > While JAD does seem to ignore any facts about his beloved right, I
> > generally agree with him that imposing an economic system, especially a
> > socialist one with central control, generally turns out disasterously.
> >
> > If you have some good ideas on how to make this work, I'm all ears.
>
> Okay, so you listen to James, perhaps you should extend the same willingness
> to those he so often accuses of wishing to impose such a central control. To
> wit, none of us have expressed any such desire.
So ,insted of answering Alex, you started new stream of insults
toward James.
Explain, please, how are you going to organize socialism without
strict central control. Keep in mund that central planning is part of
central control and cannot exist without it.
>The only proponent of such
> socialistic central control that I know of in this group is James himself,
> well, 'was' James himself, when he was a Stalinist.
> As explained above, if you don't agree with James, then as far as he is
> concerned, you must be guilty of wanting all the things he himself once
> desired but has now disowned.
Just tell us what you think, enlighten us.
> In the bipolar world of James, not desiring the untrammeled free market
> solution must therefore indicate a desire for the brutal jackboot of
> centralised totalitarianism, he cannot see any other point of view.
So, let's assume we outlawed free markets, what are you going to do
next? How will it all work.
> So, each argument is continually shifted onto spurious grounds created by
> James own bipolar view. Therefore, by disagreeing with him on the wonders of
> capitalism, I must perforce be defending centralised control.
> One might as well argue that proponents of non-capitalist societies prefer
> cats to dogs, it's about as relevant.
>
> >
> > Alex Russell
> > the slighlty less loony right winger.
> >
> > >
> > >>What you want requires totalitarianism, and
> > >>totalitarianism requires terror, and you know it full
> > >>well.
> > >
> > >
> > > uhmm... seems like you didnt read 1984 too thoroughly now, but hey
> > > noone ever did...
> > >
> > >
> > > kinda like adam smith
> > >
> > >
> > > cheers.
> > >
> > >
> > > try for hope
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> --digsig
> > >> James A. Donald
> > >> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> > >> qvRg31f97n3UUs7VtxvjWxuGjMzbmCaufe6ONBQc
> > >> 4xstUVWcbmNWl4cn7anLR9+IapebS+UMW/K25cyju
I think, that now I will become a target for insults. Just for your
knowledge, I cam from the USSR and experieced life in this socialist
paradize personally.
vlad
Paul Ilechko
> I think, that now I will become a target for insults. Just for your
> knowledge, I cam from the USSR and experieced life in this socialist
> paradize personally.
Where on earth did you get the misconception that the USSR was socialist?
G*rd*n
> > I think, that now I will become a target for insults. Just for your
> > knowledge, I cam from the USSR and experieced life in this socialist
> > paradize personally.
Paul Ilechko <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net>:
> Where on earth did you get the misconception that the USSR was socialist?
They told him so.
vlad
Exactly as I predicted, instead of answering question, G* spits on
the opponent.
vlad
G*rd*n
> > > > I think, that now I will become a target for insults. Just for your
> > > > knowledge, I cam from the USSR and experieced life in this socialist
> > > > paradize personally.
Paul Ilechko <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net>:
> > > Where on earth did you get the misconception that the USSR was socialist?
G*rd*n:
> > They told him so.
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> Exactly as I predicted, instead of answering question, G* spits on
> the opponent.
They didn't tell you so?
David
> G*rd*n wrote:
> > Paul Ilechko <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net>:
> > vlad wrote:
> > > > I think, that now I will become a target for insults. Just for your
> > > > knowledge, I cam from the USSR and experieced life in this socialist
> > > > paradize personally.
> >
> > > Where on earth did you get the misconception that the USSR was socialist?
> >
> > They told him so.
>
> Exactly as I predicted, instead of answering question, G* spits on
> the opponent.
Vlad, that *was* answering the question. Do you think you're the very
person who ever referred to the USSR as "socialist"? Or did someone tell
you "the USSR is socialist"?
Gee. No wonder the USSR fell apart, if you, Zeleny, Zhirinovsky and
Shambat are typical products of its educational system.
D.
P.S. I'm kidding about you, Lavartus. I don't think you're a typical
anything of anything's anything.
--
"You'd better understand that you're alone, a long way from home."
...................................................................
(C) 2005 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
vlad
David wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, vlad wrote:
> > G*rd*n wrote:
> > > Paul Ilechko <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net>:
> > > vlad wrote:
>
> > > > > I think, that now I will become a target for insults. Just for your
> > > > > knowledge, I cam from the USSR and experieced life in this socialist
> > > > > paradize personally.
> > >
> > > > Where on earth did you get the misconception that the USSR was socialist?
> > >
> > > They told him so.
> >
> > Exactly as I predicted, instead of answering question, G* spits on
> > the opponent.
>
> Vlad, that *was* answering the question. Do you think you're the very
> person who ever referred to the USSR as "socialist"? Or did someone tell
> you "the USSR is socialist"?
>
David, just for your benefit I will repeat what the problem is.
The G*r said:
>>> The central idea of socialism is the ownership of the
>>> means of production by those who use them. There are a
>>> lot of successful examples of this.
I asked if he can produce any example of "success" story for
socialism.
Still waiting for the answer.
May be I am asking for too mauch :-)
Of course, what G*r said was just a figure of speach, he does
not know any real examples of successful socialist echonomies.
vlad
brique
vlad <vova.ku...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135550456.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> So, can you explain your proposal for building socialist type echonomy
> without totalitarian control?
Duh? Can't you read either?
>
> All attempts to build socialism in XX century caused -
>
> 1) totalitarian state,
> 2) human suffering, imprisonments, murders, etc.
> 3) echonomical machine that was not able to provide for its citizens
> even basic needs. Only ruling elite was provided sufficiently.
And guess what, I have said just that before. The State, whatever political
philosophy is claimed as its guiding purpose, can be little other than
totalitarian by its very structure and role.
What marks out each form of State is the sectors in which it is more or less
totalitarian than another form of State, or how far along the road to a
complete totalitarianism it has progressed.
The State serves no other purpose than to keep the reins of power within the
ruling elites. Changing the ruling elite does not change the State, just who
benefits most from its existence.
>
> It looks to me that instead of arguing his point of view supported by
> facts you (and other people here of your kind) insult him personally.
> Is it because you have no arguments of your own, just religious belief
> that 'humane' socialism can be built?
But that is James purpose, to have us argeing with his point of view, that
we are all jackbooted mass murderers praying at the altar of tolitarian
terror. He will not argue any other point of view, just repeats the same old
copy/pasted nonsense we have all br laughing at for years now.
When, if he even can, James chooses to debate based upon a shared realty,
then I shall too, until then, the best thing is to either ignore him, or
laugh at him.
Paul Ilechko
What else did they tell him that he believed ?
It's pretty odd - you have a government, and you are convinced that
everything they tell you is a lie ... but you believe in how they define
themselves?
That would be like Americans believing that Bush is a conservative. Oh,
wait ...
vlad
brique wrote:
> vlad <vova.ku...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1135550456.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > So, can you explain your proposal for building socialist type echonomy
> > without totalitarian control?
>
> Duh? Can't you read either?
> >
> > All attempts to build socialism in XX century caused -
> >
> > 1) totalitarian state,
> > 2) human suffering, imprisonments, murders, etc.
> > 3) echonomical machine that was not able to provide for its citizens
> > even basic needs. Only ruling elite was provided sufficiently.
>
> And guess what, I have said just that before. The State, whatever political
> philosophy is claimed as its guiding purpose, can be little other than
> totalitarian by its very structure and role.
> What marks out each form of State is the sectors in which it is more or less
> totalitarian than another form of State, or how far along the road to a
> complete totalitarianism it has progressed.
> The State serves no other purpose than to keep the reins of power within the
> ruling elites. Changing the ruling elite does not change the State, just who
> benefits most from its existence.
So do you claim that state is inherently evil? Does not matter
if it is communist, socialist, capitalist, etc.?
Considering that you need some internal structure in a sociaety
for its functioning (running echonomy, maintaining laws, etc.) you
cannot do without the state. The question only is what type of the
state delivers more to its citizens. Historically socialist states were
a total falure - no human right, freedoms with very poor echonomy.
G*r contrary to his claim failed to provide any example of
successful socialist echonomy so far. How about you? Is it just a talk
or you know something that I don't?
> >
> > It looks to me that instead of arguing his point of view supported by
> > facts you (and other people here of your kind) insult him personally.
> > Is it because you have no arguments of your own, just religious belief
> > that 'humane' socialism can be built?
>
> But that is James purpose, to have us argeing with his point of view, that
> we are all jackbooted mass murderers praying at the altar of tolitarian
> terror. He will not argue any other point of view, just repeats the same old
> copy/pasted nonsense we have all br laughing at for years now.
> When, if he even can, James chooses to debate based upon a shared realty,
> then I shall too, until then, the best thing is to either ignore him, or
> laugh at him.
You just confurmed that you have no arguments to argue James's
point of view so you resort to spitting on the opponent :-)
Paul Ilechko
> Alex Russell
> the slighlty less loony right winger.
So, if that's the case, maybe you can explain why your other right wing
brethren display this curiously illogical attitude that "if it hasn't
been done before, then it can't possibly ever be done"? I thought that
right wingers were supposed to be for free enterprise and individual
creativity, not for snivelling defeatism? Good job the Wright brothers
didn't think the same way, never mind Christopher Columbus.
Makes me wonder if this anti-logic attitude is related to the same
profoundly disturbing mindset that has the American right sinking into a
putrid medieval morass of fear, hate and superstition?
G*rd*n
>>> without totalitarian control?
>>> All attempts to build socialism in XX century caused -
>>>
>>> 1) totalitarian state,
>>> 2) human suffering, imprisonments, murders, etc.
>>> 3) echonomical machine that was not able to provide for its citizens
>>> even basic needs. Only ruling elite was provided sufficiently.
brique:
> > And guess what, I have said just that before. The State, whatever political
> > philosophy is claimed as its guiding purpose, can be little other than
> > totalitarian by its very structure and role.
> > What marks out each form of State is the sectors in which it is more or less
> > totalitarian than another form of State, or how far along the road to a
> > complete totalitarianism it has progressed.
> > The State serves no other purpose than to keep the reins of power within the
> > ruling elites. Changing the ruling elite does not change the State, just who
> > benefits most from its existence.
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> So do you claim that state is inherently evil? Does not matter
> if it is communist, socialist, capitalist, etc.?
>
> Considering that you need some internal structure in a sociaety
> for its functioning (running echonomy, maintaining laws, etc.) you
> cannot do without the state. The question only is what type of the
> state delivers more to its citizens. Historically socialist states were
> a total falure - no human right, freedoms with very poor echonomy.
> ...
Some of us don't agree that a state -- a permanent institution
of social coercion -- is necessary. Notice that you're posting
to an anarchist newsgroup, among others. (Noam Chomsky is
supposed to be an anarchist, too, but not everyone agrees that
he's a _real_ anarchist.)
vlad
G*rd*n wrote:
. . .
>
>
> Some of us don't agree that a state -- a permanent institution
> of social coercion -- is necessary. Notice that you're posting
> to an anarchist newsgroup, among others. (Noam Chomsky is
> supposed to be an anarchist, too, but not everyone agrees that
> he's a _real_ anarchist.)
If you don't agree then you probably have some ideas how to
orginize human society without the state. Go ahead, put it on a table,
I am eager to learn from you.
Please, don't hide behind references to books and articles. I
want to hear it from you. I personally do not belive that society can
exist without some kind of organisational structure - and this is the
state.
Thx
vlad
Dan Clore
> john smith wrote:
>> "James A. Donald" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:06:56 -0000, "brique"
>>> <briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
>>>> James can't help it, he firmly beleives that if he
>>>> says the same thing repeatedly, eventually it will
>>>> become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it to be.
>>>
>>> If you guys had an argument, you would make it. If you
>>> could explain how to make socialism work without slavery
>>> and murder, you would explain.
>>
>> I can and I will.
>>
>> you'll listen ???????
>>
> I'll listen.
>
> While JAD does seem to ignore any facts about his beloved right, I
> generally agree with him that imposing an economic system, especially a
> socialist one with central control, generally turns out disasterously.
>
> If you have some good ideas on how to make this work, I'm all ears.
The problem here is that the socialists in question, such as
the one named in the title of this thread, oppose central
control rather than favoring it.
You can with his own works, if actually interested:
http://www.nestormakhno.info/
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/makhno/Makhno.html
How well Makhno's anarcho-communism wold work is another
question, but one should at least recognize what he actually
advocated and attempted to put into practice, rather than
repeat asinine lies about him.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
G*rd*n
G*rd*n:
> > Some of us don't agree that a state -- a permanent institution
> > of social coercion -- is necessary. Notice that you're posting
> > to an anarchist newsgroup, among others. (Noam Chomsky is
> > supposed to be an anarchist, too, but not everyone agrees that
> > he's a _real_ anarchist.)
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> If you don't agree then you probably have some ideas how to
> orginize human society without the state. Go ahead, put it on a table,
> I am eager to learn from you.
>
> Please, don't hide behind references to books and articles. I
> want to hear it from you. I personally do not belive that society can
> exist without some kind of organisational structure - and this is the
> state.
Actually, if you want an overview of anarchism, I recommend you take
a look at Bryan Caplan's FAQ:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
It contains answers (not necessarily satisfactory) to a good many
of the objections to anarchism. It's well-written and moves right
along. Needless to say, many anarchists object to it. Professor
Caplan has helpfully included many of the objections and links
to other sites, as well as an extensive bibliography.
I myself don't know how to organize human society without the
State, except on the local level where most organization is in
fact rather anarchic. I wrote up some thoughts about how to get
from here to there in http://www.1freeworld.org/anaprax1.htm
which I concede is pretty low-res, but not enough interest in
it has occurred to merit more elaboration. The same site
contains the full text of the original Food Not Bombs cookbook,
no longer in print, and thus this message is faintly relevant
to rec.arts.books after all -- just when you all thought the
case was hopeless.
brique
Naturally I would claim such, it is somewhat inherent in the political
philosophy I find closest to my own position, which is anarchism.
>
> Considering that you need some internal structure in a sociaety
> for its functioning (running echonomy, maintaining laws, etc.) you
> cannot do without the state. The question only is what type of the
> state delivers more to its citizens. Historically socialist states were
> a total falure - no human right, freedoms with very poor echonomy.
Historically, all states are a total failure. What benefits appear to exist
generally only exist for some, not all. This would count as success for the
some but doesn't obscure its failure for the rest. As each political form
of State usually posits its usefulness on the measure of providing benefits
for all, this failure counts, in my view, as 'total failure'.
As for the desirability or necessity for state functions, first one must
assess the desirability or necessity for the function itself. States are
rather succesful at carrying out warlike functions, so, if you desire a
society successful at the function of 'war', then a State is the way to go.
If, however, you feel that the function of war is not necessary or desirable
in a society, then the State, or whatever non-state replacement you may feel
woudl fulfil this role, is not required.
>
> G*r contrary to his claim failed to provide any example of
> successful socialist echonomy so far. How about you? Is it just a talk
> or you know something that I don't?
We woudl seem to differ as to what 'socialism' means. As far as I can tell,
to you it means an organisational form approximating to that carried out in
the Soviet Union after 1917. In which case, there are no success stories.
But, the organisational form carried out in the Soviet Union was not any
'socialism' I wouldrecognise as such. It was a rather plain and simple coup
d'etat carrie dout by men claiming to desire a socialist form of
organisation but, in reality, replacing the Tsars placemen with their own.
Same shit, new bottle.
>
>
> > >
> > > It looks to me that instead of arguing his point of view supported
by
> > > facts you (and other people here of your kind) insult him personally.
> > > Is it because you have no arguments of your own, just religious belief
> > > that 'humane' socialism can be built?
> >
> > But that is James purpose, to have us argeing with his point of view,
that
> > we are all jackbooted mass murderers praying at the altar of tolitarian
> > terror. He will not argue any other point of view, just repeats the same
old
> > copy/pasted nonsense we have all br laughing at for years now.
> > When, if he even can, James chooses to debate based upon a shared
realty,
> > then I shall too, until then, the best thing is to either ignore him, or
> > laugh at him.
>
> You just confurmed that you have no arguments to argue James's
> point of view so you resort to spitting on the opponent :-)
>
James point of view of my position is not my position, so I have nothing to
argue with him about. Unless you suggets I should defend a posiiton thta is
not mine so as not to upset him? I feel he would be better off having his
argument with some-one who holds the postion he objects to. Perhaps
alt.fan.stalin would be a place he might find a few old comrades to joust
with.
James A. Donald
> Okay, so you listen to James, perhaps you should extend the same willingness
> to those he so often accuses of wishing to impose such a central control. To
> wit, none of us have expressed any such desire.
You call it by other names - as did Stalin.
Stalin's explanation of the Soviet system was far more decentralized
than your account. In this sense, today's left radicals are far more
Stalinist than Stalin ever was.
> The only proponent of such
> socialistic central control that I know of in this group is James himself,
> well, 'was' James himself, when he was a Stalinist.
You define Stalinism as explicit support of Stalin - which officially
ceased in 1956. Therefore, by your definition I cannot ever have been
a Stalinist - and if I once was a Stalinist by a broader definition,
the you are a Stalinist today by that broader definition.
You promised us an explanation of how socialism could work without
terror and torture, and instead are changing the subject - a change of
subject that reveals a guilty conscience.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> James point of view of my position is not my position, so I have nothing to
> argue with him about.
I do not attribute any position to you.
I argue that (irrespective of what you wish was true) if anyone
extensively and successfully violates private property rights in the
means of production, those violating those rights must adopt something
very the Soviet model, complete with killing fields, or else very
little will get produced.
Your failure to respond to this argument suggest that you know it to
be true, but my argument does not concern what you know or believe.
Alex Russell
Wikipiedia has a good section on Anarchy also. Gives a pretty balanced
view of the socialist and capitalist branches of the anarchy movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Most people posting to alt.society.anarchy will have read at least a few
books or article on the subject. It helps to know what all the code
words mean.
I like the book: Anarchy, State, and Utopia. By Robert Nozick. Should
be in any medium sized or larger public library.
Alex Russell
James A. Donald
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:59:55 GMT, Alex Russell
> I like the book: Anarchy, State, and Utopia. By
> Robert Nozick. Should be in any medium sized or larger
> public library.
As I point out in my web page "Law in Anarchy"
http://www.jim.com/anarchy/law_in_anarchy.htm Nozick's
"Anarchy, State and Utopia" makes the argument that you
need law to be decreed from above, centrally planned
law, therefore anarchy cannot work. It is a silly
argument, no different from the argument that you need
the state to issue paper money, etc. The state does lots
of stuff today, that it has not always done in the past,
and one of the things it did not always do in the past
was legislate.
Today the state does X, therefore we cannot have
anarchy, for in anarchy no one would do X. Argument from
ignorance. Nozick suggests that in an anarchic society,
the only way we can have law, consistent rules, between
people protected by one defense agency, and people
protected by another is for one agency to impose its
rules on the other by fire and steel.
The creation of law from above, centrally planned law,
only became a major part of lawmaking in the english
speaking world in the nineteenth century.
In many places and times, law, for example the English
Common Law, started with crimes and punishment, and
then, from the efforts to ensure that one judge's
rulings are consistent with another, lawyers constructed
precedent, and then, from precedent, they discovered a
legal framework.
Well respected lawyers would examine the decisions of
well respected judges, and write books analysing those
decisions, formulating an account of those decisions in
terms of laws that explained their decisions and
rendered them consistent with each other. Then if some
judge deviated from this law, this law discovered and
expressed by a lawyer with no official capacity, the
lawyer pleading the case could complain, and did
complain, that the judge violated precedent.
If the common law of england was actually written down
anywhere as words on paper, it was written down in
Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" - but
the laws he was commenting on were for the most part not
documents issued by judges or legislators but
interpretations of the conduct of judges whose conduct
was widely accepted as right and just, much as Newton's
laws are interpretations of the behavior of moving
objects.
In an anarchic society, the nearest thing to legislation
would be when one bunch of people made a compromise with
another, to agree on rules covering conflicts between
them.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
1O1G0W8aVU7SQatgjXY6QzXkchQRxIvo78oRGwoL
46K6gV4hNAcVqrYxGWEkFic0VTqyMhG5IeO2vWahb
Paul Ilechko
> In an anarchic society, the nearest thing to legislation
> would be when one bunch of people made a compromise with
> another, to agree on rules covering conflicts between
> them.
I think we need to go back to blood feuds.
vlad
G*rd*n wrote:
> > . . .
>
> G*rd*n:
> > > Some of us don't agree that a state -- a permanent institution
> > > of social coercion -- is necessary. Notice that you're posting
> > > to an anarchist newsgroup, among others. (Noam Chomsky is
> > > supposed to be an anarchist, too, but not everyone agrees that
> > > he's a _real_ anarchist.)
>
> "vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> > If you don't agree then you probably have some ideas how to
> > orginize human society without the state. Go ahead, put it on a table,
> > I am eager to learn from you.
> >
> > Please, don't hide behind references to books and articles. I
> > want to hear it from you. I personally do not belive that society can
> > exist without some kind of organisational structure - and this is the
> > state.
>
>
> Actually, if you want an overview of anarchism, I recommend you take
> a look at Bryan Caplan's FAQ:
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
I asked specifically for your point of view, instead you are
sending me to somebody else to get an answer. I have a feeling that it
is a common case with people of your kind - you know the "TRVTH" but
you forgot (if you ever new) reasons behind it. So in any discussion
all you can do is to scream at the opponent or spit at him. Being
mathematician by traning I prefer logical reasoning.
BTW, I looked into this FAQ. No logical reasoning at all - just
mambling with refernces to other authors, who supposedly know the
"TRVTH".
> It contains answers (not necessarily satisfactory) to a good many
> of the objections to anarchism. It's well-written and moves right
> along.
No it is not well written, just mambling on the topic.
> Needless to say, many anarchists object to it. Professor
> Caplan has helpfully included many of the objections and links
> to other sites, as well as an extensive bibliography.
>
> I myself don't know how to organize human society without the
> State, except on the local level where most organization is in
> fact rather anarchic.
Does not it worry you that you belive in something that you
don't understand? It makes you an easy target for political charlatans
(politicans) who will exploit your naivette in acheiving their goals
that has nothing to do with your believes.
It is a shame that people like you are allowed to teach
students. With such attitude you have absolutely nothing to offer.
vlad
G*rd*n
> > > > Some of us don't agree that a state -- a permanent institution
> > > > of social coercion -- is necessary. Notice that you're posting
> > > > to an anarchist newsgroup, among others. (Noam Chomsky is
> > > > supposed to be an anarchist, too, but not everyone agrees that
> > > > he's a _real_ anarchist.)
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> > > If you don't agree then you probably have some ideas how to
> > > orginize human society without the state. Go ahead, put it on a table,
> > > I am eager to learn from you.
> > > Please, don't hide behind references to books and articles. I
> > > want to hear it from you. I personally do not belive that society can
> > > exist without some kind of organisational structure - and this is the
> > > state.
G*rd*n:
> > Actually, if you want an overview of anarchism, I recommend you take
> > a look at Bryan Caplan's FAQ:
> > http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> I asked specifically for your point of view, instead you are
> sending me to somebody else to get an answer. I have a feeling that it
> is a common case with people of your kind - you know the "TRVTH" but
> you forgot (if you ever new) reasons behind it. So in any discussion
> all you can do is to scream at the opponent or spit at him. Being
> mathematician by traning I prefer logical reasoning.
If we're talking about Usenet, I never "scream at an
opponent." I am always polite and rational. It is true
I sometimes can't help making fun of people who are making
fools of themselves, but "screaming" -- not I. It would be
too much work! In any case, Usenet-wise, I have no particular
opponents (or allies). There are people I disagree with on
certain issues, but I would probably agree with them on other
things. If you think otherwise, as to either the screaming
or the opponents, please point something out.
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> BTW, I looked into this FAQ. No logical reasoning at all - just
> mambling with refernces to other authors, who supposedly know the
> "TRVTH".
My impression of Caplan is that he is a libertarian or liberal
rather than an anarchist. His web site contains a long and
rather harsh critique of the Spanish anarchists of the 1930s.
I doubt if he believes that all the many (and very contradictory)
voices of anarchism are the capital-T Truth. He does have a
rather long passage on anarchist answers to various objections
which I thought might be useful. Some of the answers do not
require a lot of logic: for instance, many anarchists note
that the human race survived for many millennia without the
State. This is an empirical argument and not much logic is
required to go from "having survived without the State" to
"surviving without the State" as a first-level argument.
G*rd*n:
> > It contains answers (not necessarily satisfactory) to a good many
> > of the objections to anarchism. It's well-written and moves right
> > along.
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> No it is not well written, just mambling on the topic.
Well, I guess we have a difference of literary opinion. I
am pretty sure Caplan would welcome any suggestions you
might have for its improvement. I myself intend to write to
him about the Dukhobortsi and other religious anarchists,
which he omits (I think).
G*rd*n:
> > Needless to say, many anarchists object to it. Professor
> > Caplan has helpfully included many of the objections and links
> > to other sites, as well as an extensive bibliography.
> >
> > I myself don't know how to organize human society without the
> > State, except on the local level where most organization is in
> > fact rather anarchic.
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> Does not it worry you that you belive in something that you
> don't understand? It makes you an easy target for political charlatans
> (politicans) who will exploit your naivette in acheiving their goals
> that has nothing to do with your believes.
What is it I believe in that I don't understand? This is
not a rhetorical question -- I believe in many things that I
probably don't understand very well, like Quantum Mechanics.
I'm just trying to clarify your objection.
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> It is a shame that people like you are allowed to teach
> students. With such attitude you have absolutely nothing to offer.
I don't know where you get the idea that I teach students.
I have nothing to do with any academic institution and I
don't teach anything.
G*rd*n:
> > I wrote up some thoughts about how to get
> > from here to there in http://www.1freeworld.org/anaprax1.htm
> > which I concede is pretty low-res, but not enough interest in
> > it has occurred to merit more elaboration. The same site
> > contains the full text of the original Food Not Bombs cookbook,
> > no longer in print, and thus this message is faintly relevant
> > to rec.arts.books after all -- just when you all thought the
> > case was hopeless.
Did you read the essay at the link given? You could be the
first to actually critique it! It's only been around for
going on seven years. I think it's getting pretty lonely.
anarc...@yahoo.com
"vlad" <vova.ku...@gmail.com>:
> > I asked specifically for your point of view, instead you are
> > sending me to somebody else to get an answer. I have a feeling that it
> > is a common case with people of your kind - you know the "TRVTH" but
> > you forgot (if you ever new) reasons behind it. So in any discussion
> > all you can do is to scream at the opponent or spit at him. Being
> > mathematician by traning I prefer logical reasoning.
G*rd*n:
> If we're talking about Usenet, I never "scream at an
> opponent." I am always polite and rational. It is true
> I sometimes can't help making fun of people who are making
> fools of themselves, but "screaming" -- not I. It would be
> too much work! In any case, Usenet-wise, I have no particular
> opponents (or allies). There are people I disagree with on
> certain issues, but I would probably agree with them on other
> things. If you think otherwise, as to either the screaming
> or the opponents, please point something out.
I have found that on Usenet and in many other venues, the
people who are most abusive are also the most sensitive to
abuse, often seeing it when it isn't there. For instance, the
person complaining about screaming and spitting above says
(to the accusee) "It is a shame that people like you are
allowed to teach students. With such attitude you have
absolutely nothing to offer." It's far from the first insult
he's offered, too. And there doesn't seem to have been
anything to provoke it.
Odd, isn't it? Maybe people like that are talking to
projections of themselves.
brique
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dou3fa$mov$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I suspect that the joys of re-arranging the sock-drawer took precedence over
reading the essay. Damn shame really, but if you dont keep the socks in
line, they can end up rebelling and taking over all the other drawers,
declaring a sock-soviet and enslaving all the T-shirts in their gulags where
they will be made to make left-handed mittens for eternity (or until the
Central Sock-Soviet Planning Centre notice the lack of right-handed
mittens).
G*rd*n
> > > > I wrote up some thoughts about how to get
> > > > from here to there in http://www.1freeworld.org/anaprax1.htm
> > > > which I concede is pretty low-res, but not enough interest in
> > > > it has occurred to merit more elaboration. The same site
> > > > contains the full text of the original Food Not Bombs cookbook,
> > > > no longer in print, and thus this message is faintly relevant
> > > > to rec.arts.books after all -- just when you all thought the
> > > > case was hopeless.
> > Did you read the essay at the link given? You could be the
> > first to actually critique it! It's only been around for
> > going on seven years. I think it's getting pretty lonely.
The Other <ot...@other.invalid>:
> Awww...well, as long as you put it that way.... Look for critiques of
> Murray Bookchin's _Post-Scarcity Anarchism_; they'll implicitly be
> critiques of your essay too. (If I remember right, I think you once
> replied that you hadn't read that book.) I know John Hospers
> critiqued the post-scarcity idea in some book of his -- don't remember
> if he mentioned Bookchin by name.
>
> As I remember it, Hospers' critique was basically, Why don't stores
> just hand out free sandwiches to anyone coming in, in order to attract
> customers, if we're post-scarcity? That critique isn't as shallow as
> it first seems, though. Why don't the bakers hand out free bread to
> the sandwich shops? Why don't the millers hand out free flour to the
> bakers? Or if not free, why not a little bit cheaper? The point is,
> you can follow this chain to a place where -- thinking of Bookchin
> here -- we supposedly could be using machines to do all the work--
> then ask why some manager isn't doing that already to cut labor costs.
>
> The idea is, it seems impossible to "get from here to there" by
> incremental changes in business or consciousness; otherwise, absent
> some all-powerful conspiracy blocking the process, we'd already be
> "there" today, just as a result of businessmen cutting costs.
> (There's a term for getting stuck in that kind of local optimum which
> I can't remember, something related to Pareto optimality.) Even if
> you're talking about a quantity-into-quality transformation, the
> question remains, Why hasn't it happened yet, under capitalism? All
> this suggests that something more intensive is required than handing
> out free oatmeal cookies.
>
> Hospers was a libertarian (he ran for President once on the
> Libertarian Party ticket), so he'd have been more sympathetic to
> anarcho-capitalism than to Bookchin's (your) kind of anarchism. But
> there were probably lots of other critiques of Bookchin's book. You
> could probably find some from the Left as well.
>
> On your oatmeal cookie praxis experiment, what do you mean when you
> say that the scarcity of oatmeal cookies is fictitious? My guess is
> that you mean that the "authentic" demand -- we can still use the term
> "demand" in a post-scarcity economy, right? -- could be met by people
> willing to bake cookies as some Buddhist-like Right Livelihood,
> without being forced by economic necessity. If that's more or less
> what you mean, then why should one even expect that (authentic) supply
> and demand will balance out?
>
> Take another example of a ("fictitiously"?) scarce good: beautiful,
> sexually-available women. No doubt they're scarce in our economy,
> because many customers exchange the equivalent of hundreds of oatmeal
> cookies for sex with a beautiful woman. In your post-scarcity
> economy, will there be no scarcity of sex with beautiful women? If
> so, will that result from a change in the demand for the service or in
> the supply? How will this change happen?
>
> "Free love? as if love is anything but free." --Emma Goldman
I haven't been able to push myself through anything by Bookchin.
He seemed to spend a lot of time talking about how stupid and
wrong everyone else is, and I wasn't interested -- I already
know that everyone, including Murray, is stupid and wrong.
If we weren't stupid and wrong we wouldn't need to worry about
political problems. Maybe I happened to hit the wrong screeds?
In any case, I don't think I'm quite in the post-scarcity bag.
Although capitalism depends on the ever-increasing production
of artificial scarcity, there is still plenty of natural
scarcity to go around. While discussing this we should note
that _scarcity_ can be given a number of shades of meaning.
I'm using it to mean "less than people want, or think there
ought to be, of something" and the somethings in the case of
my imaginings are basic foodstuffs and clothing: _basic_
meaning that denial thereof would occasion serious suffering
and death, so that restricting their distribution is a way of
making people work, that is, of subjugating them, of taking
power over them. We are at a point where some kinds of
scarcities of basic goods could be voluntarily eliminated
without all that much trouble or expense for the volunteers,
_if_people_wanted_to_do_it_. If they don't, of course, it's
not going to happen.
Just going by what I see around me, it seems that the scarcity
of basic foodstuffs and clothing has already virtually
disappeared, because those who have wealth are willing to give
or throw away a sufficient quantity of these goods to offer
all comers a free supply. The Free Store regularly filled up
with unwanted clothing, some of it of very good quality. Food
was a bit trickier in practice because while a good deal of
it can be obtained free or bought cheaply by those interested
in projects like mine, it costs something -- labor, money,
time, attention -- to find, transport, preserve, store and
distribute, whereas clothes can just sit in heaps indefinitely.
Regardless, using industrial methods, one can probably feed
one person for a day for less than a dollar. A person with
a middle-class income could feed and clothe dozens of
people without significant discomfort. Conceded, food and
clothing are today minor issues compared to, say, real
estate, but one has to start somewhere.
Of course, all of this does presume some people want to live
in a world where scarcities of basic goods don't exist, so
that they would voluntarily labor and invest in order to
provide these goods. Why should they want to do this? One
reason would be because they like freedom, not only their
own but possibly other people's (which is a good idea
because keeping down other people requires one to get down
with them). Another reason is that I think it's pretty
obvious that continued competition for power will result in
the complete, or nearly complete, destruction of the human
race in the not-too-distant future. We started the 20th
century with the machine gun and barbed wire and barely got
through it without catastrophe. We are starting the 21st with
nuclear weapons, intercontinental missiles, nerve gas, anthrax,
lasers, radio, television, computers, genetic modification,
and many other toys too numerous to mention, all of which
have been used for war. Our treatment of our environment is
as bad as our treatment of one another and will have similarly
bad results. Business as usual, then, will mean an end of
all business. But this is a boring outcome (except for the
brief _Götterdämmerung_ just prior to flatlining) so I
prefer to focus on the possible even if rather fanciful long
shot.
The question of sexual scarcity is interesting; in fact, if
the quality of the sex is not an issue, most people can have
as much as they want. Usually they want something of higher
quality, but now we are entering into the realm of luxury
goods and services, problems which I count on the capitalist
superstructure to solve for the time being, although thorough-
going anarchocommunists might want to engage it in some
anarchocommunist setting, should they happen to evolve one
somewhere sometime. A lot of sexual behavior seems to be
based on the contest for power. In a society where the basis
for the contest for power was weakened or absent, sex might be
very different. So I think this sort of problem is best left
(anarchistically) for the people of those communities to work
on.
As for love -- what's love got to do with it?
Stan de SD
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:793pq1t5r2mdf19l0...@4ax.com...
> --
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:20:44 +0000 (UTC), g...@panix.com
> (G*rd*n) wrote:
> > That's too complicated for them. Do you believe in
> > the True Faith, or not? That is the only question
> > that matters.
>
> I provided an argument as to why one cannot be both an
> anarchist or a communist. Seems that argument is a bit
> too complicated for you to reply to.
G*r*n's just as bad as Clore - another poorly educated Utopianista who
thinks that anyone who doesn't waste their lives pursuing totally idealistic
crap political theories is inherently in favor of
war/poverty/racism/whatever... :O|
Stan de SD
> --
> Paul Ilechko
> > The problem is that both of you are viewing the
> > situation at that time through the lens of future
> > events.
>
> At the time, it was easy to believe simultaneously in
> socialism, communism, libertarianism, and even, like
> Jack Wolf and George Bernard Shaw, also fascism, all at
> the same time.
>
> However, it was not feasible to practice them
> simultaneously, and Makhno did not succeed in practicing
> them simultaneously.
>
> > does not in any way invalidate the belief of the
> > people _at that point in time_ that it was possible to
> > have social equality and pure freedom. Misguided,
> > maybe, but not in an of itself contradictory.
>
> They sincerely believed, but the internal contradictions
> in their beliefs manifested in self contradictory
> slogans, most infamously "property is theft". When
> these self contradictory slogans were put into practice,
> they resulted in self contradictory actions - which is
> to say, resulted in hypocrisy and betrayal.
True, but bong-hitting Utopianistas such as Clore and G*r*n are more
interested in stated intentions than in actual results. In their minds, they
can rationalize the abject failure of their various and sundry
sociopolitical schemes on the deliberate machinations of others - the idea
that their beloved fantasies failed due to their own inherent flaws and
inconsistencies is more than they can emotionally deal with...
Stan de SD
"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:413emqF...@individual.net...
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > --
> >
> >>>>>>>>>the Makhnovists were a libertarian
> >>>>>>>>>movement, deeply rooted in the
> >>>>>>>>>traditions of anarchist-communism
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>>Contradiction...
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Paul Ilechko
> >
> >>The problem is that both of you are viewing the
> >>situation at that time through the lens of future
> >>events.
> >
> >
> > At the time, it was easy to believe simultaneously in
> > socialism, communism, libertarianism, and even, like
> > Jack Wolf and George Bernard Shaw, also fascism, all at
> > the same time.
> >
> > However, it was not feasible to practice them
> > simultaneously, and Makhno did not succeed in practicing
> > them simultaneously.
>
Could it be that a system that does not account for and offer a corrective
mechanism for flaws in it's adherents and participants is flawed by its own
nature?
> Charismatic leadership tends to cause problems within small-scale,
> idealistic movements.
Has it worked any better with larger ones?
Stan de SD
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > --
> >
> >>>At the time, it was easy to believe simultaneously
> >>>in socialism, communism, libertarianism, and even,
> >>>like Jack Wolf and George Bernard Shaw, also
> >>>fascism, all at the same time.
> >>>
> >>>However, it was not feasible to practice them
> >>>simultaneously, and Makhno did not succeed in
> >>>practicing them simultaneously.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Could it be that the problem was Makhno, rather than
> >>the ideas?
> >
> >
> > practice any two of the above ideas simultaneously.
>
> > If you disagree with that argument, you might reply to
> > it.
>
> "...but the internal contradictions in their beliefs manifested in self
> contradictory slogans" is hardly an argument. You're basically saying
> "it's true because I say it is".
No he isn't - get a clue.
Stan de SD
> James A. Donald wrote:
>
> > Reinserting the argument you are failing to reply to:
>
> Nothing there that I would give the name "argument" to, I'm afraid. A
> lot of opinion, and a marvellous collection of logical fallacies.
So why did you not respond to them individually, and outline those flaws?
Maybe you have no idea what the hell you are talking about has something to
do with it.
> It was also completely unnecessary to reproduce it again.
Because it pissed you off in that you were incapable of responding in an
intelligent, articulate manner, right?
Figures...
Stan de SD
"brique" <briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote in message
news:113539403...@echo.uk.clara.net...
>
> Paul Ilechko <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
> news:413qkeF...@individual.net...
> > James A. Donald wrote:
> >
> > > Reinserting the argument you are failing to reply to:
> >
> > Nothing there that I would give the name "argument" to, I'm afraid. A
> > particularly lovely strawmen for you to set fire to - Guy Fawkes would
> > have been proud. And the way in which you manage to create universal
> > laws from individual examples - a true work of art! But argument? No,
> > I'm sorry, that it was not.
> >
> >
> > It was also completely unnecessary to reproduce it again. You really
> > ought to stop disturbing so many electrons.
>
> James can't help it, he firmly beleives that if he says the same thing
> repeatedly, eventually it will become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it
> to be.
JAD has done a far more thorough and diligent job in outlining his specific
argument than either of you Utopianist clowns.
Stan de SD
> --
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:06:56 -0000, "brique"
> <briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > says the same thing repeatedly, eventually it will
> > become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it to be.
>
> could explain how to make socialism work without slavery
> and murder, you would explain.
>
> totalitarianism requires terror, and you know it full
> well.
Actually, their rationalization for the failure of their assorted
anarcho-socialist crackpot theories is that the wrong people have been put
in charge - if only THEY were made Supreme Dictators for Life, they could
somehow make it work... :O|
Stan de SD
"john smith" <jo...@smith.no> wrote in message
news:43AE0F29...@smith.no...
>
>
> "James A. Donald" wrote:
> >
> > --
> > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:06:56 -0000, "brique"
> > <briqu...@freeuk.c0m> wrote:
> > > James can't help it, he firmly beleives that if he
> > > says the same thing repeatedly, eventually it will
> > > become accepted as the 'truth' he wishes it to be.
> >
> > If you guys had an argument, you would make it. If you
> > could explain how to make socialism work without slavery
> > and murder, you would explain.
>
>
> you'll listen ???????
Been a whole week so far - where's your explanation?
Figures...
Stan de SD
> >
> >> --
> >>
> >>>>>> > the Makhnovists were a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>libertarian movement, deeply rooted in the
> >>>>>>>traditions of anarchist-communism
> >>
> >>>>>>Contradiction...
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Yes.
> >>
> >>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:07:14 -0500, Paul Ilechko
> >>
> >>>Hate to tell you this, Stan, but it's on you to
> >>>explain why you think so.
>
> >>2. That is inherent in communism: Property rights in
> >>the means of production are the boundaries between one
> >>man's plan and another man's plan. Without property
> >>rights to separate one man's plan from another man's
> >>plan, only one plan can be permitted, and any pursuit of
> >>alternate goals, or pursuit of the same goals through
> >>alternate methods is "wrecking", and must be crushed.
> >>
> >>Without property rights in the means of production there
> >>can only be one plan, and one set of planners, to which
> >>all must submit.
> >
> >
> > Again, the ideal of the Left...
>
> <lots of other stuff snipped>
>
> The problem is that both of you are viewing the situation at that time
> not in any way invalidate the belief of the people _at that point in
> time_ that it was possible to have social equality and pure freedom.
> Misguided, maybe, but not in an of itself contradictory.
The fact that people believe that Elvis is still alive doesn't make it any
more rational...
Stan de SD
"MDFranklin" <mdfra...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:pMWqf.9887$Dd2...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...> news:doh4kc$9bc$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> You, however, are not being interesting. One hardly needs
> yet another case of the same-old same-old.
> So why don't you surprise us and come up with something
> new and not lifted from someone else? You must have had some original
idea.
> Try to remember.
>
> You wrote: "Anyway, it's nice to know that we live under the best of
> all possible political arrangements in the best of all
> possible worlds. Otherwise we might observe war, crime,
> poverty, ignorance, despair, disease, disorder, ugliness,
> decay, superstition, corruption, violence, oppression and
> so forth. But as it is everything is wonderful, except
> for a few pockets of misery caused by Welfare payments
> or leftover environmental regulations." You can explain this, back it up
by
> telling us whose ideas they were in the first place, or
> keep on dancing around and making yourself look silly.
G*r*n will most assuredly choose the path of least resistance, or in other
words your last choice...
Paul Ilechko
attack? No, wait, we've already had that.
Alex Russell
I agree with you, but Nozick's book is still a good read. He quite
clealy lays out why states are immoral.
Alex
G*rd*n
> > In any case, I don't think I'm quite in the post-scarcity bag.
> > Although capitalism depends on the ever-increasing production
> > of artificial scarcity, there is still plenty of natural
> > scarcity to go around. While discussing this we should note
> > that _scarcity_ can be given a number of shades of meaning.
> > I'm using it to mean "less than people want, or think there
> > ought to be, of something" and the somethings in the case of
> > my imaginings are basic foodstuffs and clothing: _basic_
> > meaning that denial thereof would occasion serious suffering
> > and death, so that restricting their distribution is a way of
> > making people work, that is, of subjugating them, of taking
> > power over them.
The Other <ot...@other.invalid>:
> Are your oatmeal cookies really that good, that the denial thereof
> would occasion serious suffering? If you meant what you said about
> scarcity here, shouldn't you have been handing out free sacks of oats,
> not oatmeal cookies?
The oatmeal cookies were only an advertising ploy. Earlier
I proposed handing out basic foodstuffs like oatmeal, rice,
etc., but no one was interested enough to actually do it.
Hence cookies. When I came across the Williamsburg Free Store
I did experiment with giving away such foods on my own. Part
of the story appears at
http://www.1freeworld.org/freestore3a.html
although the first sentence is inaccurate: a few months after
the article was written, the Free Store reopened and stayed
open for several months. (It has now gone out of existence,
probably for good, however, and at some point I hope to write
up and publish an article giving more of its history.)
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > We are at a point where some kinds of scarcities of basic goods
> > could be voluntarily eliminated without all that much trouble or
> > expense for the volunteers, _if_people_wanted_to_do_it_. If they
> > don't, of course, it's not going to happen.
The Other <ot...@other.invalid>:
> Sure, if everybody in the world agreed, and personally volunteered, we
> could turn Africa into one giant hunger-free Detroit -- a welfare
> office in every village! Then if everyone's children volunteered, we
> could maintain Africa as a giant welfare-slum for another generation.
> Then if everyone's grand-children volunteered.... Post-scarcity in
> action.
Many people claim to want to live in a different system of
social relations, a different social order, than the one they
find themselves in. I thought it would be interesting to
provide them with one opportunity to start creating one.
However, if you think I was offering Welfare or charity, you're
misunderstanding the proposal. Many do, although I tried to
clearly and explicitly differentiate it. I could have hammered
on the point more, but then the explanation would be even more
boring than it is now.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > Of course, all of this does presume some people want to live in a
> > world where scarcities of basic goods don't exist, so that
>
> (non sequitur)
>
> > they would voluntarily labor and invest in order to provide these
> > goods. ...
The Other <ot...@other.invalid>:
> All this, including the explanation I snipped, ignores the free rider
> problem. Why should I volunteer, when there are more than enough
> other volunteers to eliminate hunger?
Because you enjoy supporting freedom and peace.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > The question of sexual scarcity is interesting; in fact, if the
> > quality of the sex is not an issue, most people can have as much as
> > they want. Usually they want something of higher quality, but now
> > we are entering into the realm of luxury goods and services,
> > problems which I count on the capitalist superstructure to solve for
> > the time being, although thorough- going anarchocommunists might
> > want to engage it in some anarchocommunist setting, should they
> > happen to evolve one somewhere sometime. A lot of sexual behavior
> > seems to be based on the contest for power. In a society where the
> > basis for the contest for power was weakened or absent, sex might be
> > very different. So I think this sort of problem is best left
> > (anarchistically) for the people of those communities to work on.
The Other <ot...@other.invalid>:
> That's pretty much what I expected you to say. I just wanted to
> confirm that we were talking religion here, not politics.
Any kind of radical politics has a sort of religious coloration.
It bespeaks an unusual point of view, intuitions of the world
which have not been provided by tradition or elites. These are
bound to seem religious to those who don't share them. I have
gotten exactly the same criticism from Marxists, whose ideology
seem quite religious to me.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > As for love -- what's love got to do with it?
The Other <ot...@other.invalid>:
> Ask Emma. Her one-liner sounds cute at first, if you ignore the
> obvious fact that she was switching the meaning of the word "love".
> The term "free love" was a euphemism for "free sex", but she counted
> on the reader being stupid enough not to notice that. Correctly
> translated, she said this: "Free love [sex]? As if sex could be
> anything but free."
I guess the line is too dumb or too smart for me. Desire is often
enslaved.
john smith
"socialism = slavery".
childish rubbish.
if I'd gotten a real confirmation that he'd listen, bother read,
and listen as in not leap frog arguments that didnt suit him,
I might have bothered straight away.
anyhow, it seems mighty useless trying to explain to a grown
adult things he should have found out and understood for himself a long
time ago.
if you really wanted an "explanation": read the history of the
five Nordic countries. They've been democratic-socialist run
since the beginning of the 1900's
there's your facts, there's your explanations.
I suggest you try reading them.
now get on with your fine counter-"arguments" and
all the hair-splitting .
so long.
James A. Donald
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:17:41 +0100, john smith
<jo...@smith.no> wrote:
> "socialism = slavery".
>
> childish rubbish.
The theory was explained long ago by Bastiat, the
experiment was done over and over again, and the outcome
of each of these experiments was, as predicted, slavery,
terror, and mass murder.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
6DVMqNf7X67f9OzLAr7Yq72IC8yXrCLTlcwh7eTf
4t0OK3ShfjR6+b1BInZrSKujP59oF60DGaKinLV3m
Stan de SD
> --
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:17:41 +0100, john smith
> <jo...@smith.no> wrote:
> > "socialism = slavery".
> >
> > childish rubbish.
>
> The theory was explained long ago by Bastiat, the
> experiment was done over and over again, and the outcome
> of each of these experiments was, as predicted, slavery,
> terror, and mass murder.
Yet there's always some Utopianista nut-cake who thinks that HE could get it
right, if only we would make him Supreme Dictator of the Universe and put
him in charge. :O|
john smith - nom de guerre
"James A. Donald" wrote:
>
> --
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:17:41 +0100, john smith
> <jo...@smith.no> wrote:
> > "socialism = slavery".
> >
> > childish rubbish.
>
> The theory was explained long ago by Bastiat, the
> experiment was done over and over again, and the outcome
> of each of these experiments was, as predicted, slavery,
> terror, and mass murder.
yeah. like socialism in the five nordic countries created mass murder
like socialism in nicaragua
like socialism in Cuba
like all the social democracies of europe.
you're so far out it seems pointless responding to you anymore
why bother talking to people who ignore reality _and_ leap frog
every argument that describes the real world and real events???
Stan de SD
"john smith - nom de guerre" <jo...@smith.no> wrote in message
news:43B8905C...@smith.no...
>
>
> "James A. Donald" wrote:
> >
> > --
> > On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:17:41 +0100, john smith
> > <jo...@smith.no> wrote:
> > > "socialism = slavery".
> > >
> > > childish rubbish.
> >
> > The theory was explained long ago by Bastiat, the
> > experiment was done over and over again, and the outcome
> > of each of these experiments was, as predicted, slavery,
> > terror, and mass murder.
>
>
> yeah. like socialism in the five nordic countries created mass murder
Socialism leeching off of the wealth built by nominally capitalist societies
in the past.
> like socialism in nicaragua
> like socialism in Cuba
Both murdering regimes.
> like all the social democracies of europe.
With double digit unemployment and Muslims taking over...
john smith - nom de guerre
Stan de SD wrote:
>
> "john smith - nom de guerre" <jo...@smith.no> wrote in message
> news:43B8905C...@smith.no...
> >
> >
> > "James A. Donald" wrote:
> > >
> > > --
> > > On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:17:41 +0100, john smith
> > > <jo...@smith.no> wrote:
> > > > "socialism = slavery".
> > > >
> > > > childish rubbish.
> > >
> > > The theory was explained long ago by Bastiat, the
> > > experiment was done over and over again, and the outcome
> > > of each of these experiments was, as predicted, slavery,
> > > terror, and mass murder.
> >
> >
> > yeah. like socialism in the five nordic countries created mass murder
>
> Socialism leeching off of the wealth built by nominally capitalist societies
> in the past.
pure childish bull shit
what is it with you
did you never bother to open a book?
>
> > like socialism in nicaragua
> > like socialism in Cuba
>
> Both murdering regimes.
great. point me to the documentation in britannica.
> > like all the social democracies of europe.
>
> With double digit unemployment and Muslims taking over...
great.
you're a loonycase too boot
bye
Stan de SD
>
>
> Stan de SD wrote:
> >
> > "john smith - nom de guerre" <jo...@smith.no> wrote in message
> > news:43B8905C...@smith.no...
> > >
> > >
> > > "James A. Donald" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:17:41 +0100, john smith
> > > > <jo...@smith.no> wrote:
> > > > > "socialism = slavery".
> > > > >
> > > > > childish rubbish.
> > > >
> > > > The theory was explained long ago by Bastiat, the
> > > > experiment was done over and over again, and the outcome
> > > > of each of these experiments was, as predicted, slavery,
> > > > terror, and mass murder.
> > >
> > >
> > > yeah. like socialism in the five nordic countries created mass murder
> >
> > Socialism leeching off of the wealth built by nominally capitalist
societies
> > in the past.
>
> pure childish bull shit
Show me where one of your pseudo-socialist societies has succeeded on it's
own from a pre-industrial, pre-capitalistic society. All socialist entities
wind up destroying the economic machine that produced wealth, then start
consuming wealth accumulated in the past. EU nations have been able to get
away with it longer simply because there was more wealth to start with, and
because there were still enough vestiges of capitalism to keep things
running. Try it anywhere else (Cuba, Zimbabwe) and it goes downhill much
quicker...
> what is it with you
> did you never bother to open a book?
> >
> > > like socialism in nicaragua
> > > like socialism in Cuba
> >
> > Both murdering regimes.
>
> great. point me to the documentation in britannica.
You deny that Castro was a murdering dictator? Live your revolutionary
fantasy if you must...
john smith - nom de guerre
I deny? seems britannica denies it.
murdering dictators?
try the 36 us capitalist sponsored ones: marcos, pinochet, suharto
the suharto and CIA sponsored coup killed close to a million indonesians
now how many did you say the sandinistas and castro killed?
Stan de SD
No answer, Commie Boy? Figures...
> >
> > > what is it with you
> > > did you never bother to open a book?
> > > >
> > > > > like socialism in nicaragua
> > > > > like socialism in Cuba
> > > >
> > > > Both murdering regimes.
> > >
> > > great. point me to the documentation in britannica.
> >
> > You deny that Castro was a murdering dictator? Live your revolutionary
> > fantasy if you must...
>
>
> I deny? seems britannica denies it.
Show me the link in Brittanica that states that nobody was ever murdered by
Castro.
M J Carley
>The Other <ot...@other.invalid>:
>> All this, including the explanation I snipped, ignores the free
>> rider problem. Why should I volunteer, when there are more than
>> enough other volunteers to eliminate hunger?
>Because you enjoy supporting freedom and peace.
We probably shouldn't rule out the social side of taking part in a
radical movement or even a not very radical one like a trade
union. One of the reasons people take part, distinct from a commitment
to a certain kind of politics, is that they meet nicer people (for
your own idea of `nice') and, often, they have better relationships
with them. The relationship of a trade union official to a member with
a problem is not the same as that between an employer and an employee;
an argument or discussion between people who have handed out leaflets
together is very different to that between two people, one of whom has
power over the other.
--
Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario
rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle
nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici.
Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
G*rd*n
> >> All this, including the explanation I snipped, ignores the free
> >> rider problem. Why should I volunteer, when there are more than
> >> enough other volunteers to eliminate hunger?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> >Because you enjoy supporting freedom and peace.
ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley):
> We probably shouldn't rule out the social side of taking part in a
> radical movement or even a not very radical one like a trade
> union. One of the reasons people take part, distinct from a commitment
> to a certain kind of politics, is that they meet nicer people (for
> your own idea of `nice') and, often, they have better relationships
> with them. The relationship of a trade union official to a member with
> a problem is not the same as that between an employer and an employee;
> an argument or discussion between people who have handed out leaflets
> together is very different to that between two people, one of whom has
> power over the other.
It is true that many people find radical political activism
enjoyable in itself, but others (possibly including The Other,
and certainly myself, most of the time) do not. It is a good
way to meet kindred spirits, it is true, but most of the
activities themselves seem fairly dreary to me when they are
not actually frightening.
francis muir
> The relationship of a trade union official to a member with
> a problem is not the same as that between an employer and an
> employee;
Unless the shop steward turns his coat inside out in which case:
"The working class can kiss my arse,
I've got the foreman's job at last."
ff
M J Carley
>ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley):
>> We probably shouldn't rule out the social side of taking part in a
>> radical movement or even a not very radical one like a trade
>> union. One of the reasons people take part, distinct from a commitment
>> to a certain kind of politics, is that they meet nicer people (for
>> your own idea of `nice') and, often, they have better relationships
>> with them. The relationship of a trade union official to a member with
>> a problem is not the same as that between an employer and an employee;
>> an argument or discussion between people who have handed out leaflets
>> together is very different to that between two people, one of whom has
>> power over the other.
>It is true that many people find radical political activism
>enjoyable in itself, but others (possibly including The Other,
>and certainly myself, most of the time) do not. It is a good
>way to meet kindred spirits, it is true, but most of the
>activities themselves seem fairly dreary to me when they are
>not actually frightening.
A lot of things aren't so dreary if you're not doing them for money.
G*rd*n
>>> We probably shouldn't rule out the social side of taking part in a
>>> radical movement or even a not very radical one like a trade
>>> union. One of the reasons people take part, distinct from a commitment
>>> to a certain kind of politics, is that they meet nicer people (for
>>> your own idea of `nice') and, often, they have better relationships
>>> with them. The relationship of a trade union official to a member with
>>> a problem is not the same as that between an employer and an employee;
>>> an argument or discussion between people who have handed out leaflets
>>> together is very different to that between two people, one of whom has
>>> power over the other.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> >It is true that many people find radical political activism
> >enjoyable in itself, but others (possibly including The Other,
> >and certainly myself, most of the time) do not. It is a good
> >way to meet kindred spirits, it is true, but most of the
> >activities themselves seem fairly dreary to me when they are
> >not actually frightening.
ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley):
> A lot of things aren't so dreary if you're not doing them for money.
You may be reversing cause and effect there.
brique
francis muir <franc...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:43b9408c$1...@newspeer2.tds.net...
Dissident elements have long been either crushed by oppression or crushed to
the bosom of the establishment. There is also a long dishonorable tradition
of a steady right-ward progression from youth to old age. Student militants
becoming rabid right-wingers, foaming at the mouth about the 'red menace'
when all they have to do is look in the mirror and consider their own life
to realise the 'red menace' is more myth than reality.
I did once work in a factory in which the entire union branch had been
effectively taken over by management. All the shop stewards were foremen,
the branch secretary was the factory manager and union meetings were held on
a Sunday in a rather remote location and rather early in the morning. I was
told that the union officials were paid overtime to attend these meetings.
Needless to say, activism was the last thing on the stewards minds.
Another example was in a brewery where I worked as a young man. In that
case, a section of the workforce, the draymen, were better paid, had better
conditions and generally kept the place 'in-line'. They formed a majority on
the shop stewards committee and, surprise, surprise, were more than happy to
accept any wage settlement which kept their superior status and never seemed
to mind much about the rest of us.They were also not averse to physical
persuasion should the happy ship start to rock, as when the section I worked
in started to agitate about unsafe work practices which contravened the
companies own internal rules, never mind any health and safety regulations.
I recall being told by a group of them that if the un-guarded chain-conveyor
should happen to rip some-ones arm off, then the union would make sure they
got compensation, meanwhile, keep working. The 'tonnage' bonus they
received, alone amongst the workforce, based on how much beer was produced
and delivered had no part in their considerations, I'm sure.
James A. Donald
> Nordic countries. They've been democratic-socialist run since the
> beginning of the 1900's
The nordic countries have private ownership of the means of production
- and a rather privileged owning class. When Sweden started to become
rather close to actual socialism, it also showed symptoms of becoming
rather close to existent communism, which was a major factor in the
decision to back off.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
vlqhkOdo75+NL9qRqAh4wisZW9f7of36684QdNM3
4gHgBJCHe/DZgy8ppea84v8AnerVlrYDYf1pKHNP9
john smith - nom de guerre
> > > > >
> > > > > > like socialism in nicaragua
> > > > > > like socialism in Cuba
> > > > >
> > > > > Both murdering regimes.
> > > >
> > > > great. point me to the documentation in britannica.
> > >
> > > You deny that Castro was a murdering dictator? Live your revolutionary
> > > fantasy if you must...
> >
> >
> > I deny? seems britannica denies it.
>
> Show me the link in Brittanica that states that nobody was ever murdered by
> Castro.
No, YOU tell show ME documentation to support YOUR FIRST claim.
idiot.
you wont even open Brittannica to support your own claim
you want to talk about murdering dictators?
try the 36 us capitalist sponsored ones: marcos, pinochet, suharto
the suharto and CIA sponsored coup killed close to a million indonesians
now how many did you say the sandinistas and castro killed?
idiot AND a loony case to boot.
bye "Nazi-boy"