Mallard, Tuesday October 9th
J.D. Baldwin
Huh. Hadn't thought of that angle.
And what's remarkable about this strip is that it's on the same
general topic as yesterday's, but *takes a whole different tack on
it*, rather than being a mere re-wording of the same "joke":
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20071009&name=Mallard_Fillmore
Two particularly shameful incidents at Columbia itself are detailed at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/29/cstillwell.DTL
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Renee
wrote:
> Huh. Hadn't thought of that angle.
>
> And what's remarkable about this strip is that it's on the same
> general topic as yesterday's, but *takes a whole different tack on
> it*, rather than being a mere re-wording of the same "joke":
>
>
> Two particularly shameful incidents at Columbia itself are detailed at:
>
> --
> _+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
> _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
> ***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't he heckled, though?
Renee
Pat O'Neill
Absolutely. And laughed at. And introduced in a diatribe by Columbia's
president in which Ahmadinejad was called a dictator and more. As for
the reactions to conservative speakers--if you can't take the heat....
Fester Bestertester
>
> Huh. Hadn't thought of that angle.
Yeah, but don't ever count on that particular piece of wishful thinking
ever coming true. After all, Ann Coulter is much more offensive and a
much greater threat to world peace.
Mike Beede
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
> And what's remarkable about this strip is that it's on the same
> general topic as yesterday's, but *takes a whole different tack on
> it*, rather than being a mere re-wording of the same "joke":
>
> http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20071009&name=Mallard_Fillmore
Today's didn't qualify as a joke, even with sneer quotes. Yesterday's
was a quoted joke. I don't know what I'd call today's, exactly.
Mike Beede
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Wasn't he heckled, though?
> >
> > Renee
>
> Absolutely. And laughed at. And introduced in a diatribe by Columbia's
> president in which Ahmadinejad was called a dictator and more.
The "heckl[ing]" was comparatively mild, and consisted of things like
shouted catcalls and open laughter when he said absurd things. All
fair game.
> As for the reactions to conservative speakers--if you can't take the
> heat....
Follow the URL I provided. That stuff *isn't* "fair game."
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dann
news:beede-509E9B....@news.visi.com.
Astute observation.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Mike Beede
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 09 Oct 2007, Mike Beede said the following in
> news:beede-509E9B....@news.visi.com.
>
> > In article <feg5qv$9m4$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
> >
> >> And what's remarkable about this strip is that it's on the same
> >> general topic as yesterday's, but *takes a whole different tack on
> >> it*, rather than being a mere re-wording of the same "joke":
> >>
> >> http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20071009&name
> >> =Mallard_Fillmore
> >
> > Today's didn't qualify as a joke, even with sneer quotes. Yesterday's
> > was a quoted joke. I don't know what I'd call today's, exactly.
>
> Astute observation.
Why thanks, Dann.
Mike Beede
Pat O'Neill
wrote:
> In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Wasn't he heckled, though?
>
> > > Renee
>
> > Absolutely. And laughed at. And introduced in a diatribe by Columbia's
> > president in which Ahmadinejad was called a dictator and more.
>
> The "heckl[ing]" was comparatively mild, and consisted of things like
> shouted catcalls and open laughter when he said absurd things. All
> fair game.
>
> > As for the reactions to conservative speakers--if you can't take the
> > heat....
>
> Follow the URL I provided. That stuff *isn't* "fair game."
> --
> _+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
> _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
> ***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which stuff? Shouting down the speaker? Why not? He's got a
microphone, presumably--the shouters don't.
vfw8...@gmail.com
> In article <Xns99C4CC3787EF7detox665hotmail...@64.209.0.81>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 09 Oct 2007, Mike Beede said the following in
> >news:beede-509E9B....@news.visi.com.
>
> > > INVALID_SEE_...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
> > >> And what's remarkable about this strip is that it's on the same
> > >> general topic as yesterday's, but *takes a whole different tack on
> > >> it*, rather than being a mere re-wording of the same "joke":
>
> > >> http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20071009&name
> > >> =Mallard_Fillmore
>
> > > Today's didn't qualify as a joke, even with sneer quotes. Yesterday's
> > > was a quoted joke. I don't know what I'd call today's, exactly.
>
> > Astute observation.
>
> Why thanks, Dann.
Now I need to develop a sarcasm predictor so I'll know when I'm in
danger of tossing one of those soft pitches....
For people like me, I was attempting to suggest that the strip in
question represented an astute observation.
Regards,
Dann
vfw8...@gmail.com
> On Oct 9, 5:40 pm, INVALID_SEE_...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Wasn't he heckled, though?
>
> > > > Renee
>
> > > Absolutely. And laughed at. And introduced in a diatribe by Columbia's
> > > president in which Ahmadinejad was called a dictator and more.
>
> > The "heckl[ing]" was comparatively mild, and consisted of things like
> > shouted catcalls and open laughter when he said absurd things. All
> > fair game.
>
> > > As for the reactions to conservative speakers--if you can't take the
> > > heat....
>
> > Follow the URL I provided. That stuff *isn't* "fair game."
>
>From the article:
"Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such illiberal
treatment. The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of
the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia
University in October is a recent example. Gilchrist had been invited
to speak by the Columbia University College Republicans, but was
prevented from doing so by an unruly mob of students. What could have
been mere heckling descended into yelling, screaming, kicking and
punching, culminating in the rushing of the stage and Gilchrist being
shuttled off by security."
The Brownshirts of Columbia resort to violence to silence dissenting
opinions and it gets minimized to "shouting down the speaker".
Nice.
People told me that if Bush was elected that there would be a violent
suppression of free speech. And they were right!!
Regards,
Dann
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, <vfw8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Astute observation.
> >
> > Why thanks, Dann.
>
> Now I need to develop a sarcasm predictor so I'll know when I'm in
> danger of tossing one of those soft pitches....
>
> For people like me, I was attempting to suggest that the strip in
> question represented an astute observation.
I praised it (faintly), but "astute" is a little strong for me.
There is, though, something about a university that proclaims that
ABSOLUTELY ALL SPEECH is fair game, and you deserve a platform even if
you want to stand up and say that the Holocaust story is a lie spread
by filthy Jews ... but if you want to try to make a case that the
United States might want to keep a bit of an eye on just exactly who
comes into the country, well, shit, man, don't you know there are
*limits*?
ronniecat
on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:15:04 -0500, Mike Beede <be...@visi.com>
wrote:
LOL!
--
"The very deaf, as I am, hear the most astounding things all
round them, which have not, in fact, been said." - Henry Green
* remove mycollar to reply *
* http://www.hearingloss.blogspot.com *
Jym Dyer
> People told me that if Bush was elected that there would be
> a violent suppression of free speech. And they were right!!
=v= As a target of some of that violence, I find your sneering
attempt at humor to be more pathetic than usual.
<_Jym_>
Steven
On Oct 10, 9:03 am, vfw82...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such illiberal
> treatment. The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of
> the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia
> University in October is a recent example. "
so Dann do you personally believe both Jim Gilchrist and the Minuteman
Project are conservative speakers?
Are they part of your personal understanding of what " real
conservatives" believes?
(and by the way- the Minuteman Project fired Gilchrist last year - so
the actions of the MP over the past 8 months arent those of JG -
therefore one can accept one but not the other)
Dann
news:1192069435.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com.
The Brownshirts of Columbia wouldn't let you speak either??
Dann
news:1192097154.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.
> On Oct 10, 9:03 am, vfw82...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> "Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such illiberal
>> treatment. The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of
>> the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia
>> University in October is a recent example. "
>
> so Dann do you personally believe both Jim Gilchrist and the Minuteman
> Project are conservative speakers?
> Are they part of your personal understanding of what " real
> conservatives" believes?
Advocates of securing the border vary by region and ideology. Although
it does get identified with conservatism because on a national basis, it
appears to fall in that corner of the pool; politically speaking.
> (and by the way- the Minuteman Project fired Gilchrist last year - so
> the actions of the MP over the past 8 months arent those of JG -
> therefore one can accept one but not the other)
The point is not that Mr. Gilchrist's views represent the MP or
"conservatism".
The point is that his appearance at Columbia was cut short, and he has
not been invited to return, precisely because of the violence and further
threats of violence by people that disagree with his point of view.
Detox
In retrospect, I can understand how one might be offended by my
obvious flippancy. The victims of government oppression in 1930s
Germany, Soviet Russia, East Germany, communist China, Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, Cuba, the rest of the Iron Curtain countries, etc. were
subjected to treatment that makes the behavior of the ruffians at
Columbia University pale in comparison. If the preceding describes
Jym, then I apologize.
If there are serious examples of the current administration using
violence against American citizens to silence dissent, then it would
be interesting to read a minimally biased account of such actions.
In any case, surely we can agree that using violence to drive speakers
from the podium at an American college or university is behavior that
should not be tolerated by that institution's administration.
I would hope that we could also agree that if a head of state
responsible for murdering rape victims and homosexuals, threatening
violence against neighboring states, and sponsoring violence against
neighboring states can speak at a major American university without
being subjected to the sort of violence documented upthread, then it
should surely be acceptable for someone representing an organization
with stated objectives that are within the law [specifically, to
notify border officials of the location and size any contingent of
individuals seeking to enter the US illegally] to also speak at the
same institution of higher learning without being subjected to such
violence. Regardless of differences of opinion regarding policy
preferences.
Or should hypocrisy and double standards rule the day?
Regards,
Dann
Steven
>
> The point is not that Mr. Gilchrist's views represent the MP or
> "conservatism".
hmm your post certainly stated that the (quoted by you) "conservative"
speakers such as Mr. Gilchrist of the MP
were treated unfairly. How can this not be one of your points?
I assume you know now of some of the recent MP video flap. Is this
OK conservative humor? or would real conservatives be offended?
I originally missed your implication - in this comparison to the
respect shown to the spokesman of Iran -
or I would have asked a different question, such as:
"Do you consider Barry Goldwater a conservative, a moderate, or a
liberal?"
Pat O'Neill
>
> If there are serious examples of the current administration using
> violence against American citizens to silence dissent, then it would
> be interesting to read a minimally biased account of such actions.
>
Not violence, per se, but certainly the threat of violence and/or
arrest. Bush admin operatives work hard to intimidate anyone who might
show up at a Bush appearance to offer an opposing view to the
administration, right down to having the secret service arrest a
couple of people who showed up wearing anti-Bush t-shirts at a speech
earlier this year.
The arrests were subsequently thrown out by a judge, but I think the
threat of police action has a certain chilling effect on dissent,
don't you?
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The arrests were subsequently thrown out by a judge, [...]
Not only that, but they got a sizable settlement from the city
government (whose police actually executed the arrest).
But the sad thing here is that you probably think the Bush
Administration invented this practice.
racs...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > The arrests were subsequently thrown out by a judge, [...]
>
> Not only that, but they got a sizable settlement from the city
> government (whose police actually executed the arrest).
>
> But the sad thing here is that you probably think the Bush
> Administration invented this practice.
Clyde Barrow didn't invent bank robbery. But he was pretty good at it,
I hear. Not as good as the legend, no, but still good enough that a
lot of people held him responsible for his actions just the same.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Mark Jackson
"You started this, Tuck!" - Haldeman, or possibly Ehrlichman
"Yeah, but you guys ran it into the ground." - Dick Tuck
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Hanging out in bad bars waiting for sources to show up is a
time-honored tradition in journalism. - Douglas McCollam
Dann
news:1192135326.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.
I think fair is fair. Since I was critical of Mr. Clinton of such
tactics, then of course I will be critical of Mr. Bush when his
administration behaves the same way. As illustrated above.
I don't much like the current habit of politicians only speaking before
friendly crowds.
At the same time, I don't like the way some protesters take their
protesting from the level of making a statement to the level purposefully
disrupting an event. Please note that the preceding sentence doesn't
reference the political bent of the "protesters".
Dann
> On Oct 11, 7:34 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The point is not that Mr. Gilchrist's views represent the MP or
>> "conservatism".
>
> hmm your post certainly stated that the (quoted by you) "conservative"
> speakers such as Mr. Gilchrist of the MP
> were treated unfairly. How can this not be one of your points?
Because I didn't write the quote.
> I assume you know now of some of the recent MP video flap. Is this
> OK conservative humor? or would real conservatives be offended?
What's your point? Listen to Air America long enough [which I have] and
you'll get exposed to questionable attempts at "humor" as well. Does
that mean that all of liberalism/progressivism is populated by a bunch of
buffoons?
> I originally missed your implication - in this comparison to the
> respect shown to the spokesman of Iran -
> or I would have asked a different question, such as:
>
> "Do you consider Barry Goldwater a conservative, a moderate, or a
> liberal?"
Again, what is your point? How would any answer to that question relate
to the issue presented by the strip in question?
Steven
dont have anything else to ask.
Steven Rowe
Oct 12, 7:04 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2007, Steven said the following innews:1192131364.3...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com.
> blogging athttp://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Dann
news:1192238796....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com.
> Ok, if you dont believe what you quote; then you're right, I
> dont have anything else to ask.
Try this on for size. The quote states that "conservative speakers" are
subjected to such treatment. It also suggests that Mr. Gilchrist is just
such a speaker.
That doesn't make the anti-illegal immigration movement a core conservative
value.
The suggestion that conservative...and even somewhat libertarian...speakers
have been poorly treated as speakers on American college campuses is based
on recent history.
The suggestion that the anti-illegal immigration movement is a conservative
one is mildly misleading in my opinion. There have been legal immigrants
as well as other minority groups that oppose illegal immigration.
Opposition to illegal immigration is not a strictly conservative idea.
Although I readily concede that many conservatives are engaged on that
side of the issue.
IMO, Mr. Gilchrist falls within the definition of a conservative speaker.
Not that he speaks for all conservatism. Just that he is in that corner of
the political pool
So....try it again. What was your point?
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Steven
> So....try it again. What was your point?
As I said earlier: you have certainly gone ahead and made my point
for me, so there's not much more to say.
but let me try again anyway, since you so s asked me about my point.
I know you dont like answering specific questions (because you never
answer them straight),
But It seems to me that you have an interesting definition of
"conservative".
Do you really consider the MinuteMan Project a conservative
organization (the original one, not the recent split off)?
If you really havent looked into any of this (and since you havent
answered those questions, maybe you havent).
- the MP showed a video in which THEY stated showed them killing
people attempting to cross the border illegally. Later, they stated
it was a joke. Is this acceptable "conservative" behavior, or is this
over the line for anybody- so-called conservatives as well as
liberals? Notice this is about one group, one group only. Not about
the anti-immigrant groups in general. As the MP was the group that
you mentioned.
To repeat, It seems to me that you have an interesting definition of
"consevative".
So I'd like us to know what you mean when you use that word. Thus my
serious question of was Barry Goldwater "conservative"? I would at
least like to know some markers. I assume you considered Richard
Nixon liberal. Reagan Conservative. Is South Carolina a conservative
state? Any area between conservative and liberal? Is the Klu Klux
Klan "conservative" or well beyond? How is the "Mother Earth News" a
leftest magazine? (I should mention that an old friend of mine, an
Alaskan hunting guide, used to freelance for them). etc etc.
i realize that you probably will just answer with another snarky
comment, so I'm not sure why I even bother to try.
Steven Rowe (who shook Goldwater's hand - back in 1964)
Dann
news:1192371359.5...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com.
> On Oct 13, 11:43 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So....try it again. What was your point?
>
> As I said earlier: you have certainly gone ahead and made my point
> for me, so there's not much more to say.
>
> but let me try again anyway, since you so s asked me about my point.
>
> I know you dont like answering specific questions (because you never
> answer them straight),
>
> But It seems to me that you have an interesting definition of
> "conservative".
>
> Do you really consider the MinuteMan Project a conservative
> organization (the original one, not the recent split off)?
> If you really havent looked into any of this (and since you havent
> answered those questions, maybe you havent).
> - the MP showed a video in which THEY stated showed them killing
> people attempting to cross the border illegally. Later, they stated
> it was a joke. Is this acceptable "conservative" behavior, or is this
> over the line for anybody- so-called conservatives as well as
> liberals? Notice this is about one group, one group only. Not about
> the anti-immigrant groups in general. As the MP was the group that
> you mentioned.
Answered upthread. Read what I post.
> To repeat, It seems to me that you have an interesting definition of
> "consevative".
> So I'd like us to know what you mean when you use that word. Thus my
> serious question of was Barry Goldwater "conservative"? I would at
> least like to know some markers. I assume you considered Richard
> Nixon liberal. Reagan Conservative. Is South Carolina a conservative
> state? Any area between conservative and liberal? Is the Klu Klux
> Klan "conservative" or well beyond? How is the "Mother Earth News" a
> leftest magazine? (I should mention that an old friend of mine, an
> Alaskan hunting guide, used to freelance for them). etc etc.
Not sure why _my_ "markers" are all that important.
Goldwater - "conservative with occasional libertarian tendencies"
Nixon - "liberal to moderate", wage and price controls pretty well gave
that away.
Reagan - "quintessential conservative"...at least he mouthed the words
even if his actions fell short.
South Carolina - conservative...at least that's the way they vote.
Klan - borderline socialist, something no rational person would have
anything to do with
Mother Earth News - at the least, a left of center publication....at
least the times when I read a copy they seemed that way.
> i realize that you probably will just answer with another snarky
> comment, so I'm not sure why I even bother to try.
I get less snarky when people that read what I post the first time.
ronniecat
>Klan - borderline socialist
Dann, whatever you're taking, it's time to either halve or double the
dose. Your doctor can help you figure out which.
ronnie
Mike Beede
ronniecat <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote:
> Using a combination of the written word, ASL and interpretative dance,
> on 15 Oct 2007 11:09:10 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Klan - borderline socialist
>
> Dann, whatever you're taking, it's time to either halve or double the
> dose. Your doctor can help you figure out which.
I'm not a very policially savvy guy, but that doesn't really
fit my idea of the Klan either. I suspect that Dann was either
a) joking or b) using "socialist" to mean "bad," which seems to
be fairly commonplace amongst a certain crowd.
Mike Beede
Detox
> In article <mpm6h3tnl0ougrbjq92lja5n231mjqa...@4ax.com>,
>
> ronniecat <ronnie...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote:
> > Using a combination of the written word, ASL and interpretative dance,
>
> > >Klan - borderline socialist
>
> > Dann, whatever you're taking, it's time to either halve or double the
> > dose. Your doctor can help you figure out which.
>
> I'm not a very policially savvy guy, but that doesn't really
> fit my idea of the Klan either. I suspect that Dann was either
> a) joking or b) using "socialist" to mean "bad," which seems to
> be fairly commonplace amongst a certain crowd.
>
Nope. I was being quite serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Smallest_Political_Quiz
Using the above political model, socialists and communists reside
towards the bottom end of the chart. Opinions vary, so use a semi-
circle with a radius of two and a center at 0,0 to represent the
general area that such people inhabit...philosophically speaking.
The Klan is headed towards that end of the world. You cannot hope to
effectively oppress anyone unless you are willing to use the
government to force your vision on the rest of the country. Or put
another way, it is impossible to limit one group's freedom without
affecting the freedom of every other group.
Most socialists come at that destination from the "left". The Klan
comes at it from the "right".
Regards,
Dann
ronniecat
wrote:
>In article <mpm6h3tnl0ougrbjq...@4ax.com>,
I expect you're right, as I can see nothing about the KKK that would
in the slightest reflect their support for "a socio-economic system in
which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control
by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic
equality and cooperation." Rather the opposite.
Dann thinks that socialist = communist and communist = stalinism.
There are no shades of grey to be discussed.
ronniecat
wrote:
>Nope. I was being quite serious.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Smallest_Political_Quiz
>
>Using the above political model, socialists and communists reside
>towards the bottom end of the chart. Opinions vary, so use a semi-
>circle with a radius of two and a center at 0,0 to represent the
>general area that such people inhabit...philosophically speaking.
>
>The Klan is headed towards that end of the world. You cannot hope to
>effectively oppress anyone unless you are willing to use the
>government to force your vision on the rest of the country. Or put
>another way, it is impossible to limit one group's freedom without
>affecting the freedom of every other group.
So in your opinion, _any_ group which would use government to suppress
its people is by definition "socialist". As are the resulting
governments.
Including strict theocracies, fascist regimes, military juntas, or the
racist oppressive regime the KKK leaders would dream of.
I knew your understanding of socialism in theory or practice was weak;
I just didn't understand you were using a term which describes a very
specific socio-economic theory/system as shorthand for "any repressive
government regime".
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, ronniecat <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com>
wrote:
> I expect you're right, as I can see nothing about the KKK that would
> in the slightest reflect their support for "a socio-economic system
> in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to
> control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and
> economic equality and cooperation." Rather the opposite.
Try thinking of black people as being included in the definition of
"property," and it will all become clear.
> Dann thinks that socialist = communist and communist = stalinism.
> There are no shades of grey to be discussed.
Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!" How
come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
James Nicoll
J.D. Baldwin <ne...@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
>Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
>put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!" How
>come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
There is always Kerala, which first elected a communist government
in 1957. The Reds have been re-elected on a number of occasions since
then and have not to the best of my knowledge indulged in genocide.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
ronniecat
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>In the previous article, ronniecat <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com>
>wrote:
>> I expect you're right, as I can see nothing about the KKK that would
>> in the slightest reflect their support for "a socio-economic system
>> in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to
>> control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and
>> economic equality and cooperation." Rather the opposite.
>
>Try thinking of black people as being included in the definition of
>"property," and it will all become clear.
Ah.
>> Dann thinks that socialist = communist and communist = stalinism.
>> There are no shades of grey to be discussed.
>
>Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
>put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!" How
>come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
That's why I separate socialism from communism, a system you are not
likely to hear this socialist defend. One, I believe to be workable,
indeed, when combined with democracy and protection of civil
liberties, the ideal. The other, not so much.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's
> >been put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!"
> >How come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
>
> There is always Kerala, which first elected a communist
> government in 1957. The Reds have been re-elected on a number of
> occasions since then and have not to the best of my knowledge
> indulged in genocide.
Having a nominally Communist party leading a coalition of one small
political subdivision of a large country within a liberal democratic
framework doesn't count in my book as "put [Communism] into practice."
I'm thinking more of the Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat"
implementations in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Korea,
etc., etc.
George W Harris
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
:
:Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
:put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!" How
:come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
"Religion *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!""
--
Never give a loaded gun to a woman in labor.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Detox
wrote:
> Using a combination of the written word, ASL and interpretative dance,
> wrote:
>
> >Nope. I was being quite serious.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Smallest_Political_Quiz
>
> >Using the above political model, socialists and communists reside
> >towards the bottom end of the chart. Opinions vary, so use a semi-
> >circle with a radius of two and a center at 0,0 to represent the
> >general area that such people inhabit...philosophically speaking.
>
> >The Klan is headed towards that end of the world. You cannot hope to
> >effectively oppress anyone unless you are willing to use the
> >government to force your vision on the rest of the country. Or put
> >another way, it is impossible to limit one group's freedom without
> >affecting the freedom of every other group.
>
> So in your opinion, _any_ group which would use government to suppress
> its people is by definition "socialist". As are the resulting
> governments.
>
> Including strict theocracies, fascist regimes, military juntas, or the
> racist oppressive regime the KKK leaders would dream of.
You are confusing "cause" with "effect". The effect of any of the
above is the same; increase poverty, suppression of human rights, etc.
> I knew your understanding of socialism in theory or practice was weak;
> I just didn't understand you were using a term which describes a very
> specific socio-economic theory/system as shorthand for "any repressive
> government regime".
The historical results of "practicing" socialism are also the logical
results of the "theory"; increased poverty, suppression of human
rights, reduced opportunities for individual solutions, increased
dependence on government action for survival, etc.
Of course, all your better socialist propaganda talks about being "a
socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth
are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing
social and economic equality and cooperation." But that's just
advertising hype.
Oppressive governments...in which communism and socialism are
subsets...have many different objectives, but very little real
dissimilarity in results. At the least, when discussing shades of
grey, the Klan is beyond the pale.
Regards,
Dann
Detox
> In article <ff0c2k$3u...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
> J.D. Baldwin <n...@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
> >Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
> >put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!" How
> >come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
>
> There is always Kerala, which first elected a communist government
> in 1957. The Reds have been re-elected on a number of occasions since
> then and have not to the best of my knowledge indulged in genocide.
Briefly....
1) Kerala is a state within the nation of India. While I readily
admit that I lack an in-depth appreciation of Indian politics, I find
it hard to believe that the communists of Kerala could implement full
blown communism and be in harmony with the national laws of India.
2) Kerala has a functioning liberal democracy. Such governments
generally prevent the worst of ideas...such as communism...from being
fully implemented.
3) 20% of Kerala's annual income comes from citizens working outside
of Kerala and sending a portion of their wages home. Not exactly the
sign of a thriving economy.
4) Kerala has recently liberalized their economy. Embracing a more
"free market" approach that has resulted in better economic growth.
Regards,
Dann
James Nicoll
J.D. Baldwin <ne...@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
>In the previous article, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's
>> >been put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!"
>> >How come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
>>
>> There is always Kerala, which first elected a communist
>> government in 1957. The Reds have been re-elected on a number of
>> occasions since then and have not to the best of my knowledge
>> indulged in genocide.
>
>Having a nominally Communist party leading a coalition of one small
>political subdivision of a large country within a liberal democratic
>framework doesn't count in my book as "put [Communism] into practice."
>I'm thinking more of the Marxist "dictatorship of the proletariat"
>implementations in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Korea,
>etc., etc.
To my way of thinking, I think the critical reasons why the
communists in Kerala never went dingo is 1: they had to be sane enough
to get elected in the first place, and 2: not being in a position to
cancel elections, they had either had to produce results or face
losing power.
What's the track record for governments of any flavor
that got in through non-democratic means and never had to face
an election [1]? My current set of political models inclines me
to expect most low feedback national governments to be pretty
lousy.
1: It's interesting how many republics established by popular
revolutions end up as oligrachies or (effectively) monarchies.
Americans should be very grateful to Washington.
James Nicoll
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:38:12 +0000 (UTC),
>INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>:
>:Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
>:put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!" How
>:come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
>
> "Religion *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
>put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!""
Christopher Hitchens does not appear to require the crutch
of genocide to justify mass slaughter:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php
Pat O'Neill
> The historical results of "practicing" socialism are also the logical
> results of the "theory"; increased poverty, suppression of human
> rights, reduced opportunities for individual solutions, increased
> dependence on government action for survival, etc.
I am unaware that the peoples of Sweden or Norway or the Netherlands
are experiencing increased poverty or suppression of human
rights...and those are three of the most heavily socialist societies
in the world. As for "reduced opportunities...etc." I suspect that is
very much in the eye of the beholder.
racs...@gmail.com
They're not REALLY socialist. Socialists are evil and repress people
and shoot them and kill them.
It's all in the definitions. If you start with the assumption that
socialism is inherently evil, it's much easier to explain who is
socialist and who isn't. When you try to do it with economic models,
you just confuse people.
Mike Peterson
Sarcasm Falls, ME
Detox
It wasn't too many years ago that Sweden was reducing welfare benefits
in order to persuade more people to actually work instead of just
living off of their government subsidies.
In reality those countries are modestly socialist...at least on the
broader scale of socialism in history. Being liberal democracies
generally prevents the worst socialist policies from being implemented
and permits for a rational and peaceful correction when
things...predictably...go awry.
Talk to me after the oil runs out.
Regards,
Dann
Heather Fieldhouse
Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You are confusing "cause" with "effect". The effect of any of the
> above is the same; increase poverty, suppression of human rights, etc.
No, you're confusing "effect" with "definition." Saying the Klan is a
socialist group because (in your eyes) the result of a Klan-run
government would be similar to the result of a socialist government --
is like saying that a tornado is the same as an earthquake because they
both can level a building.
Heather
Mike Beede
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
> In the previous article, ronniecat <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com>
> wrote:
> > I expect you're right, as I can see nothing about the KKK that would
> > in the slightest reflect their support for "a socio-economic system
> > in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to
> > control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and
> > economic equality and cooperation." Rather the opposite.
>
> Try thinking of black people as being included in the definition of
> "property," and it will all become clear.
I don't think the KKK's position was slaves should be held in
common, but that's an interesting way to look at it. I think that
it was what I suggested: read "bad" for "socialist" and it makes
perfect sense.
> > Dann thinks that socialist = communist and communist = stalinism.
> > There are no shades of grey to be discussed.
>
> Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
> put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!" How
> come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
I think that you're assuming that a desire to avoid throwing away
the meaning of a word is the same as endorsing whatever it means.
I didn't really get that endorsement of Stalinism from the text you
quoted.
Mike Beede
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Mike Beede <be...@visi.com> wrote:
> I think that you're assuming that a desire to avoid throwing away
> the meaning of a word is the same as endorsing whatever it means. I
> didn't really get that endorsement of Stalinism from the text you
> quoted.
I was objecting to the notion that it is possible to be a Communist
without being, at bottom, at Stalinist[1]. Anyone who thinks that is
just fooling himself. It's no more possible than to be a Nazi without
being a follower of Hitler.
[1] Where by "Stalinist," I mean the same thing Ronnie presumably
did: someone who basically believes in a system that would
lead to more or less the same results as Stalin's. I am aware
that there are distinctions (the kind that are, as they say,
without a difference) between Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyites,
etc.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> :Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
> :put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!" How
> :come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
>
> "Religion *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
> put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!""
I find that amusing mainly because Bertrand Russell considered
Communism a religion, and I've always found that a useful mental
model, though I wouldn't classify it that way formally.
It is worth noting that religion hasn't really perpetrated mass
killings (though there is still the "repression" thing) except in
cases where church and state were the same entity, either de jure or
de facto. *Government* is the most dangerous invention of man, not
religion. And even if you want to charge the sins of the Crusades and
the Inquisition against religion itself, it's still not even a patch
on what Marxism achieved in one mere century.
Pat O'Neill
> On Oct 15, 5:05 pm, Pat O'Neill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 15, 4:40 pm, Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The historical results of "practicing" socialism are also the logical
> > > results of the "theory"; increased poverty, suppression of human
> > > rights, reduced opportunities for individual solutions, increased
> > > dependence on government action for survival, etc.
>
> > I am unaware that the peoples of Sweden or Norway or the Netherlands
> > are experiencing increased poverty or suppression of human
> > rights...and those are three of the most heavily socialist societies
> > in the world. As for "reduced opportunities...etc." I suspect that is
> > very much in the eye of the beholder.
>
> It wasn't too many years ago that Sweden was reducing welfare benefits
> in order to persuade more people to actually work instead of just
> living off of their government subsidies.
>
And how exactly does that translate to "increased poverty" or
"suppression of human rights"?
> In reality those countries are modestly socialist...at least on the
> broader scale of socialism in history. Being liberal democracies
> generally prevents the worst socialist policies from being implemented
> and permits for a rational and peaceful correction when
> things...predictably...go awry.
Other than the nations that called themselves communist, please point
to any government in history more socialist than Sweden. The ones that
call themselves "socialist" but are really totalitarian oligarchies
don't count. I think that was the original point of those of us who
have challenged you on this, Dann. Successful socialist societies are
also liberal democracies. Unsuccessful ones are totalitarian. It's the
level of democracy that counts, not the level of socialism.
racs...@gmail.com
Baldwin) wrote:
> In the previous article, George W Harris <ghar...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>
> > :Sure, sure, "Communism *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
> > :put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!" How
> > :come no one ever accepts that defense from neo-Nazis?
>
> > "Religion *could* be okay, it's only every time it's been
> > put into practice that it results in genocide and repression!""
>
> I find that amusing mainly because Bertrand Russell considered
> Communism a religion, and I've always found that a useful mental
> model, though I wouldn't classify it that way formally.
>
> It is worth noting that religion hasn't really perpetrated mass
> killings (though there is still the "repression" thing) except in
> cases where church and state were the same entity, either de jure or
> de facto. *Government* is the most dangerous invention of man, not
> religion. And even if you want to charge the sins of the Crusades and
> the Inquisition against religion itself, it's still not even a patch
> on what Marxism achieved in one mere century.
The same could be said of Marxism -- as long as it's confined to
economic theory, in nations that have checks-and-balances to keep it
in line, it's fine. When the adherents gain too much political
strength and believe in it to the extent of forcing it on others, it
becomes dangerous.
Hard to find an ideology of which that isn't true, except democracy --
and democracy can be perverted by manipulating the will of the people.
(As Jefferson noted, if they are given access to information, they
will eventually correct the errors of their government, but he meant
that as a warning, not as a comforting assurance that the system
couldn't be rigged against justice.)
Incidentally, I find it instructive that people seem to have a problem
distinguishing between socialism and communism -- just as the anti-
religion crowd can't seem to understand that Christianity does not
require you to trample on the rights of others. Well, there are some
pretty religious people who haven't made that distinction either, now
that I think of it ...
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Rob Wynne
> The historical results of "practicing" socialism are also the logical
> results of the "theory"; increased poverty, suppression of human
> rights, reduced opportunities for individual solutions, increased
> dependence on government action for survival, etc.
>
Substitute "the church" for "goverment", and you've pretty accurately
described Medieval Catholicism.
Of course, Jesus was a socialist.
> Of course, all your better socialist propaganda talks about being "a
> socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth
> are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing
> social and economic equality and cooperation." But that's just
> advertising hype.
>
So, what you're saying is that the real problem with a socialist
government is that none of them have ever actually *tried* socialism?
> Oppressive governments...in which communism and socialism are
> subsets...have many different objectives, but very little real
> dissimilarity in results.
The problem is that socialism is not the opposing diametric to freedom,
or democracy, or liberty. It's the opposing diametric to capitalism.
> At the least, when discussing shades of
> grey, the Klan is beyond the pale.
>
I second this motion. All in favour?
Motion carried.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2008: Jan 11-13, 2008 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Dann
news:1192526776.2...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com.
The harm is still there. Just a lower level. It's just easier to talk
people into accepting such harm if they perceive a personal benefit.
> Incidentally, I find it instructive that people seem to have a problem
> distinguishing between socialism and communism -- just as the anti-
> religion crowd can't seem to understand that Christianity does not
> require you to trample on the rights of others. Well, there are some
> pretty religious people who haven't made that distinction either, now
> that I think of it ...
Socialists and communists, too. IMO.
Pat O'Neill
>
> The harm is still there. Just a lower level. It's just easier to talk
> people into accepting such harm if they perceive a personal benefit.
>
I'm still having trouble finding the "harm" in a liberal democratic
government with a socialist economic program. Here's the Wikipedia
entry on Sweden: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden.
Please point me to the "harm" being done to the Swedish people.
J.D. Baldwin
I have been working pretty closely with Swedes for around ten years,
though I have only visited them at home one time. Our various
corporate activities there have made it very clear to me that the
Swedish state does not own the means of production in any meaningful
sense, at least as far as our (substantial) activities there. They do
have some industries nationalized, but I see (also from Wikipedia,
with some corroboration from other online sources) that they have
plans to privatize quite a lot of them. I assume they have a good
reason for doing so.
The *engine* of the Swedish economy is capitalism. They've been
successful enough at it that they can afford a certain amount of
socialism, and there are cultural factors in operation in Sweden that
make their variety of welfare statism far less of a disaster than it
has been in other instances. Good for them, I guess. That doesn't
make them a success story of "socialism" as Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels conceived it.
Pat O'Neill
wrote:
> The *engine* of the Swedish economy is capitalism. They've been
> successful enough at it that they can afford a certain amount of
> socialism, and there are cultural factors in operation in Sweden that
> make their variety of welfare statism far less of a disaster than it
> has been in other instances. Good for them, I guess. That doesn't
> make them a success story of "socialism" as Karl Marx and Friedrich
> Engels conceived it.
Well, see, there's your problem. Marx and Engels didn't conceive
socialism, they conceived communism. Two different things. Yes, the
governments that pretended to found themselves on Marx and Engels
theories called themselves "socialist republics"--and sometimes even
democratic--but they were none of those things. Socialism doesn't
require government ownership of industry, only strong government
regulation and even stronger governmental support for those things it
perceives as being unsuited to private control--health care,
education, transportation, etc.
aemeijers
there that would make Hagar's recurring tax man character blush.
TANSTAAFL, etc. Is the womb-to-tomb safety net worth the reductions in
available resources to individuals who want to start their own
commercial or personal empires? I guess everyone has to make that choice
for themselves, and vote with their feet if they find their local
prevailing customs unacceptable, and can't succeed in changing them.
Personally, if I was rich, I'd be real pissed off at the state taking
<MY> money, in excess of what I willingly gave to charity, to improve
the life of someone who didn't have their act together.
Don't get me wrong- I don't think any modern society should let people
starve, or deprive them of basic medical care, or a warm place to sleep.
That is a matter of simple human decency and mercy, especially if the
people are out in the cold through no fault of their own. But I damn
sure don't think society has any obligation (or right) to define a
minimum standard of living higher than that, and steal from the well-off
in order to provide it. A Hand Up is great, if it meets long-term
cost-benefits standards. A handout, once the handout is gone, benefits
nobody.
aem sends...
Pat O'Neill
> Pat O'Neill wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 12:58 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The harm is still there. Just a lower level. It's just easier to talk
> >> people into accepting such harm if they perceive a personal benefit.
>
> > I'm still having trouble finding the "harm" in a liberal democratic
> > government with a socialist economic program. Here's the Wikipedia
> > entry on Sweden:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden.
>
> > Please point me to the "harm" being done to the Swedish people.
>
> I don't care enough to look it up, but IIRC they have tax rates over
> there that would make Hagar's recurring tax man character blush.
> TANSTAAFL, etc. Is the womb-to-tomb safety net worth the reductions in
> available resources to individuals who want to start their own
> commercial or personal empires? I guess everyone has to make that choice
> for themselves, and vote with their feet if they find their local
> prevailing customs unacceptable, and can't succeed in changing them.
>
Wikipedia says tax rate is above 50%, yes, but look at what Wikipedia
(link above) has to say about the economy as whole. It seems that the
Swedes are happy with the trade-off...and so are the many people who
keep immigrating to Sweden.
racs...@gmail.com
> > Please point me to the "harm" being done to the Swedish people.
>
> I don't care enough to look it up, but IIRC they have tax rates over
> there that would make Hagar's recurring tax man character blush.
> TANSTAAFL, etc. Is the womb-to-tomb safety net worth the reductions in
> available resources to individuals who want to start their own
> commercial or personal empires? I guess everyone has to make that choice
> for themselves, and vote with their feet if they find their local
> prevailing customs unacceptable, and can't succeed in changing them.
This entire post is probably as cogent a presentation as I've seen of
the clash between laissez-faire and socialist thinking (which I would
note is NOT the same as capitalist vs. communist).
When I was a business writer on the US/Canadian border, I often
thought about doing a story comparing paycheck deductions, taxes and
benefits, and I even talked to some accountants (and a chartered
accountant) who worked with cross-border companies. It was too
complex ... things just don't line up neatly enough to allow you to
write a simple Sunday story with charts that would show the average
reader how they compared.
That said, the basics are (for instance) that most Americans with
insurance coverage are paying something through payroll deductions,
and then they pay something additional for actual treatment -- and it
all varies a lot. They also pay for prescriptions, again varying
depending on their fringe benefits. If you add up EVERYTHING they
spend that would be covered for a Canadian, the difference in taxes
would look quite different.
But it's not that simple ... for instance, Canadians get more generous
vacations (at least, Quebecers do), and yet they are productive. It's
not something that can be dismissed as it often is with some European
cultures that are perceived as indolent -- Canadians dig in and get
stuff done, but they take time for their families, as well. If that's
socialism, give me a big ol' scoop of it -- but how do you monetize
the difference between a country where people get X-days off and those
who get Y-days off?
What I'm saying is that a lot of the difference between one country
and the other is hard to put into financial terms. If a company didn't
have to pay into employee health care, could they pay larger wages? Or
is the difference made up for in the larger taxes? It's hard to play
what-if scenarios in the real world (as compared to on Usenet, Air
America or Fox News, of course, where it's simple!)
> Personally, if I was rich, I'd be real pissed off at the state taking
> <MY> money, in excess of what I willingly gave to charity, to improve
> the life of someone who didn't have their act together.
Again, it's an issue of total cultural setting, not simple finances.
If you were rich in a society in a laissez-faire society, of course
you'd be pissed if someone took it away. But if you were living in a
society in which it was assumed that people had a different level of
society to each other, you would likely see it differently ... though
some megastars have chosen to change their residence to countries
where it pays better to be "rich"!
I guess what I'm trying to say is this is like saying, "If I were a
woman in Afghanistan, I'd ... " when what you are really saying is,
"If I were raised as an American woman and then suddenly forced to
live in Afghanistan ... "
If you made a great deal of money in a socialist country, you would
have made it with the understanding that a certain amount of it was
going to go back into the pot. Now, a particular person might resent
that -- especially one who could look at an American counterpart and
see that he got to keep so much more of his. But I suspect most would
shrug and accept it as part of the culture in which they were
immersed.
>
> Don't get me wrong- I don't think any modern society should let people
> starve, or deprive them of basic medical care, or a warm place to sleep.
> That is a matter of simple human decency and mercy, especially if the
> people are out in the cold through no fault of their own. But I damn
> sure don't think society has any obligation (or right) to define a
> minimum standard of living higher than that, and steal from the well-off
> in order to provide it. A Hand Up is great, if it meets long-term
> cost-benefits standards. A handout, once the handout is gone, benefits
> nobody.
Part of this comes down, again, to culture -- to what the society has
agreed is an acceptable minimal standard. Canada seems to be working
through some conflicts on this right now, with some conservatives
questioning what had been a fairly well-accepted standard. But that's
part of life in a democracy -- even a socialist democracy.
Most reformers believe that "if you give a man a fish .. " and so
forth. But they also see the complications between theory and
reality ... for instance, that people can work a 9-to-5 day and still
not be able to afford housing, food and health care, particularly if
they have children.
There are dabblers on both sides -- the well-intentioned soft-touches
who think everyone should get everything, but also the well-
intentioned hard-hearts who prefer to think anyone on relief is
ripping off the system. The truth is complex and damning and doesn't
lend itself to "dabbler" solutions on either side.
But even at the most thoughtful level, it all starts with a society
expectation of how everything works, and, again, that's something I
could never get down to the simplicity of even a fairly in-depth
newspaper story.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
There was a lot of back and forth a few years ago about Sweden in the
blogosphere. I think it turned out that they had a standard of living
about par with Alabama and a crime rate higher than the US. But I think
there were fewer outliers in the standard of living average, and
the medical safety net etc.
Ted
Dann
news:1192489125.5...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com.
> On Oct 15, 6:00 pm, Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 5:05 pm, Pat O'Neill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 15, 4:40 pm, Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
I'd like to ask that the following be read while keeping in mind that I
have posted in the past [in brief moments of ecumenicalism] that there
are survivable levels of socialism and that countries employing a liberal
democratic style government have every right to go down that path if they
so choose.
>> It wasn't too many years ago that Sweden was reducing welfare
>> benefits in order to persuade more people to actually work instead of
>> just living off of their government subsidies.
>>
>
> And how exactly does that translate to "increased poverty" or
> "suppression of human rights"?
At the very least, a lower standard of living. Which generally...and I
will admit may not always....means more people living in poverty.
I would include the right to keep the wealth produced by one's labor as a
"human right". Labor being anything from sweeping streets to managing
hedge funds.
Additionally, there are degradations in the human condition that result
from lost opportunities. For example, a disproportionate number of drug
companies are now located in the US. Without our free market to act as
an incubator for these companies, countries like Sweden would not enjoy
the same array of modern medicines as they do today.
>> In reality those countries are modestly socialist...at least on the
>> broader scale of socialism in history. Being liberal democracies
>> generally prevents the worst socialist policies from being
>> implemented and permits for a rational and peaceful correction when
>> things...predictably...go awry.
>
> Other than the nations that called themselves communist, please point
> to any government in history more socialist than Sweden. The ones that
> call themselves "socialist" but are really totalitarian oligarchies
> don't count. I think that was the original point of those of us who
> have challenged you on this, Dann. Successful socialist societies are
> also liberal democracies. Unsuccessful ones are totalitarian. It's the
> level of democracy that counts, not the level of socialism.
I believe I understood the point at the beginning. And I think it is
flawed, at best.
The most "successful" [I would phrase it "least damaging"] socialist
countries have one common feature; a pile of wealth in the form of
natural resources that can be consumed to fund their socialism. The most
dominant such resource being oil.
Socialism...and communism...consume wealth. They do a lousy job of
producing new wealth. Without a pile of wealth to consume, the options
are to either start invading countries that have piles of wealth to be
consumed, watch the standard of living do a death spiral, or vote to get
rid of the more expensive socialist policies.
I fully accept that in an academic setting, that there are interesting
differences between socialism and communism. From a real world
perspective, those differences are minimal, IMO, and not worth
differentiation. Because here in the real world socialism just doesn't
work unless you are sitting on a huge reserve [per capita] of oil,
diamonds, gold, or some other valuable commodity. Or willing to invade
Czechoslovakia. One or the other.
Pat O'Neill
> The most "successful" [I would phrase it "least damaging"] socialist
> countries have one common feature; a pile of wealth in the form of
> natural resources that can be consumed to fund their socialism. The most
> dominant such resource being oil.
>
Once again, explain Sweden. No oil--here's the Wikipedia info on its
resources and industry:
"Sweden is an export oriented market economy featuring a modern
distribution system, excellent internal and external communications,
and a skilled labour force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore
constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward
foreign trade. Sweden's engineering sector accounts for 50% of output
and exports. Telecommunications, the automotive industry and the
pharmaceutical industries are also of great importance. Agriculture
accounts for 2% of GDP and employment."
Oh--and to answer Ted's comment...all the sources I can find put
Sweden in the top ten nations for standard of living, by any data you
want to use--per capita income, per capita GDP, etc. And, apparently,
the lowest crime rate in Europe.
ronniecat
<tednolan>) wrote:
>There was a lot of back and forth a few years ago about Sweden in the
>blogosphere. I think it turned out that they had a standard of living
>about par with Alabama and a crime rate higher than the US.
I would really, *really* like to see some citation for this, or how
what on earth was factored in to make the comparison, because on its
face, I just don't believe it.
ronnie
Rob Wynne
I believe that the blogosphere was going and forth on it. And I have no
doubt that the debate produced all manner of conclusions which may or
may not have had any grounding in the reality-based community in which
we all live.
"Sometimes I think the "blogosphere" functions as a machine for
reassuring righties that all left types are as crazy as the ditziest
college lesbo-vegan, and reassuring lefties that all right-wingers
are barely suppressed maniacs who live on ammunition and raw meat."
--Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Detox
> Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The historical results of "practicing" socialism are also the logical
> > results of the "theory"; increased poverty, suppression of human
> > rights, reduced opportunities for individual solutions, increased
> > dependence on government action for survival, etc.
>
> Substitute "the church" for "goverment", and you've pretty accurately
> described Medieval Catholicism.
>
> Of course, Jesus was a socialist.
Geez...you're supposed to spread the chum with a ladle...not the whole
doggone bucket!!!
> > Of course, all your better socialist propaganda talks about being "a
> > socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth
> > are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing
> > social and economic equality and cooperation." But that's just
> > advertising hype.
>
> So, what you're saying is that the real problem with a socialist
> government is that none of them have ever actually *tried* socialism?
Oh, no. Not at all.
They try it all right. Typically because they believe the marketing
about socialism being "better" or "new and improved" or "powered by
zap" or some such thing.
But the results are predictable and look nothing like those promised
in the marketing brochures.
> > Oppressive governments...in which communism and socialism are
> > subsets...have many different objectives, but very little real
> > dissimilarity in results.
>
> The problem is that socialism is not the opposing diametric to freedom,
> or democracy, or liberty. It's the opposing diametric to capitalism.
I disagree.
Capitalism is the economic subset/expression of liberty. It is the
free exchange of goods and services at mutually agreeable rates of
exchange. I'll add that it is what happens when government gets out
of the way, thus capitalism is a natural phenomenon compared with the
contrived socialist system.
Socialism vs. capitalism is a false dichotomy created by the
socialists and communists.
Failing to defend capitalism is failing to defend the full set of
actions and inactions that describe freedom, democracy, and liberty.
I'll add that there is more than enough historical precedent for
government regulation of economic activities to prevent fraud and
other forms of theft; either of the investor or customer variety. And
of course there are the regulatory difficulties that arise when
collective rights collide with individual rights*. However, there is
a difference between that level of regulation and socialist attempts
to manage the economy.
*I'd also like to add that many European countries do a far better job
of preserving individual rights that are encroached by corporate/
collective rights than we do here in the States.
--
Regards,
Dann Todd
Atlantis, The Rockies, USA
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
The survey I was thinking of has an expired link, but here's a story
from the UK Telegraph on the survey:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F02%2F23%2Fncrim123.xml
(http://tinyurl.com/3f0n)
Sweden is low for Europe, but below the US only in Burglary.
Interestingly, the US isn't even on the chart for some other
categories.
A lot of the economic stuff has expired, here's a summary of the debate
by one libertarian/right site http://instapundit.com/archives/003612.php
and comments from a reader in Sweden:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/003594.php#003594
Ted
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I just put some links on another post, but here they are again:
The summary of the crime survey (the actual survey link has expired):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F02%2F23%2Fncrim123.xml
(http://tinyurl.com/3f0n)
The income thing was very contentious, and I remember a lot of posts
that I can't find quickly to the effect that in general, Swedes
have worse living quarters and are able to eat out less often.
Here's part of the income back and forth:
http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/002486.php#002486
Here are a Swede's comments on the debate as it was playing out in Sweden:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/003594.php#003594
and a summary of the debate from a libertarian/right perspective (you would
certainly get a different summary from a left perspective):
http://instapundit.com/archives/003612.php
Ted
J.D. Baldwin
C.S. Lewis says that Heaven is downright Leftist (and he used that
word). So I don't have a problem with that interpretation of
scripture. Of course, Jesus was also a Second Amendment redneck ...
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > The *engine* of the Swedish economy is capitalism. They've been
> > successful enough at it that they can afford a certain amount of
> > socialism, and there are cultural factors in operation in Sweden
> > that make their variety of welfare statism far less of a disaster
> > than it has been in other instances. Good for them, I guess. That
> > doesn't make them a success story of "socialism" as Karl Marx and
> > Friedrich Engels conceived it.
>
> Well, see, there's your problem. Marx and Engels didn't conceive
> socialism, they conceived communism.
A major focus of the intellectual efforts of both Marx and Engels was
the description and study of socialism. If you don't like using what
*they* described as "socialism" as the definition, then we're probably
stuck in that "socialism is whatever I want it to be at the moment"
trap.
> Socialism doesn't require government ownership of industry,
It does in fact require exactly that. Someone upthread quoted the
Wikipedia definition, which seemed pretty fair. It meshes -- as far
as I am concerned -- closely enough with Ludwig von Mises' short
definition that I think it's about as good a consensus definition as
you will ever find. I will repeat it a little more fully here, with
added emphasis on the important bit.
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political
movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which
property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control
by the community for the purposes of increasing social and
economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either
direct--exercised through popular collectives such as workers'
councils--or indirect--exercised on behalf of the people by the
state. AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM, SOCIALISM IS OFTEN CHARACTERIZED
BY SOCIALIZED (STATE OR COMMUNITY) OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF
PRODUCTION.
> only strong government regulation and even stronger governmental
> support for those things it perceives as being unsuited to private
> control--health care, education, transportation, etc.
What you're talking about is a capitalist economic engine with
socialist policies overlaid. It's still the capitalist engine that's
driving (paying for) all the other stuff, as it does in Sweden,
France, etc. ... even in the U.S.A. The only way to afford socialism
in any real measure without ending up like North Korea is to permit
capitalism to flourish, then tax that wealth to pay for all those
"common goods." Most modern industrial societies do this to some
degree, and only the most radical libertarians want to see it *all*
dismantled. I'm not one of them.
James Nicoll
J.D. Baldwin <ne...@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
>In the previous article, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>> Of course, Jesus was a socialist.
>
>C.S. Lewis says that Heaven is downright Leftist (and he used that
>word). So I don't have a problem with that interpretation of
>scripture. Of course, Jesus was also a Second Amendment redneck ...
So was Orwell. Not in those terms but he favoured easy
access to inexpensive weapons by the masses.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
ronniecat
<tednolan>) wrote:
First, I really appreciate you researching and posting some links on
this stuff. Now:
>In article <tr5ch3t39etp93gk9...@4ax.com>,
>ronniecat <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:40:20 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>>There was a lot of back and forth a few years ago about Sweden in the
>>>blogosphere. I think it turned out that they had a standard of living
>>>about par with Alabama and a crime rate higher than the US.
>>
>>I would really, *really* like to see some citation for this, or how
>>what on earth was factored in to make the comparison, because on its
>>face, I just don't believe it.
>>
>>ronnie
>
>I just put some links on another post, but here they are again:
>
>The summary of the crime survey (the actual survey link has expired):
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F02%2F23%2Fncrim123.xml
>(http://tinyurl.com/3f0n)
This would seem to back you up on all crime (at least in 2001),
including car theft and burglary. I stand corrected.
"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of
crime was in Holland (25 per cent), Sweden (25 per cent) and Canada
(24 per cent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was
among the middle ranking countries with a 21 per cent victimisation
rate."
Perhaps Americans are all too busy out being entreprenurial to commit
crime ;)
>The income thing was very contentious, and I remember a lot of posts
>that I can't find quickly to the effect that in general, Swedes
>have worse living quarters and are able to eat out less often.
Which are not data. I mean, define "worse" and for what percentage of
the population.
>Here's part of the income back and forth:
>
>http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/002486.php#002486
I regret I'm about to leave and didn't have time to read right to the
end, but the initial analysis is obviously flawed because he puts
"Sweden's purchasing power parity ... at about $22,200 per person.
That same year, Alabama's was estimated at $23,471" (he initially
posted an incorrect number for Alabama but added an update) without
taking into account a single one of the services Swedes pay through
their taxes and access through their government, the most notable
being health care. I find it extremely hard to believe that health
insurance alone isn't going to lower that Alabaman's purchasing power
by 1300 (not knowing much about how much health insurance costs in the
US). That doesn't account for subsidized daycare and all other
government services.
>Here are a Swede's comments on the debate as it was playing out in Sweden:
>
>http://www.instapundit.com/archives/003594.php#003594
I will check this out when I have time.
>and a summary of the debate from a libertarian/right perspective (you would
>certainly get a different summary from a left perspective):
>
>http://instapundit.com/archives/003612.php
Heh. Biased information from either side full of spin on such a
complex issue I can do without.
Thanks again for the research.
ronnie
Rob Wynne
>
> In the previous article, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>> Of course, Jesus was a socialist.
>
> C.S. Lewis says that Heaven is downright Leftist (and he used that
> word). So I don't have a problem with that interpretation of
> scripture. Of course, Jesus was also a Second Amendment redneck ...
It's probably worth noting at this point that I don't consider my
statement remotely controversial. :)
Pat O'Neill
wrote:
> In article <tr5ch3t39etp93gk9b8l77ofdje5irq...@4ax.com>,
>
> ronniecat <ronnie...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:40:20 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> ><tednolan>) wrote:
>
> >>There was a lot of back and forth a few years ago about Sweden in the
> >>blogosphere. I think it turned out that they had a standard of living
> >>about par with Alabama and a crime rate higher than the US.
>
> >I would really, *really* like to see some citation for this, or how
> >what on earth was factored in to make the comparison, because on its
> >face, I just don't believe it.
>
> >ronnie
>
> I just put some links on another post, but here they are again:
>
> The summary of the crime survey (the actual survey link has expired):
>
> (http://tinyurl.com/3f0n)
>
> The income thing was very contentious, and I remember a lot of posts
> that I can't find quickly to the effect that in general, Swedes
> have worse living quarters and are able to eat out less often.
>
> Here's part of the income back and forth:
>
> http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/002486.php#002486
>
> Here are a Swede's comments on the debate as it was playing out in Sweden:
>
> http://www.instapundit.com/archives/003594.php#003594
>
> and a summary of the debate from a libertarian/right perspective (you would
> certainly get a different summary from a left perspective):
>
> http://instapundit.com/archives/003612.php
>
> Ted
So, we're dealing with nearly 10-year-old data on crime? Not to
mention we're dealing with a phone survey, not the actual crime stats
as reported by police agencies.
As one of the commenters notes, the economic figures comparing Sweden
with the southern USA are for median income, not poverty rate. Given
that cost of living--thank to socialized medicine among other things--
in Sweden is much lower, that median income is not poverty level. And
taking government help/subsidies out of the mix, so that Sweden looks
worse, is to ignore the whole point of the argument...it's the
government help/subsidies that make Sweden better over all.
Mark Jackson
> In the previous article, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>> Of course, Jesus was a socialist.
>
> C.S. Lewis says that Heaven is downright Leftist (and he used that
> word). So I don't have a problem with that interpretation of
> scripture. Of course, Jesus was also a Second Amendment redneck ...
That tale is entirely based on a mistranslation of ". . .the right to
keep and bear alms."
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Hanging out in bad bars waiting for sources to show up is a
time-honored tradition in journalism. - Douglas McCollam
Dann
$4c36...@roadrunner.com.
> J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>> In the previous article, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>>> Of course, Jesus was a socialist.
>>
>> C.S. Lewis says that Heaven is downright Leftist (and he used that
>> word). So I don't have a problem with that interpretation of
>> scripture. Of course, Jesus was also a Second Amendment redneck ...
>
> That tale is entirely based on a mistranslation of ". . .the right to
> keep and bear alms."
>
Being a Second Amendment redneck makes you a Leftist?
Who knew?
Jym Dyer
>>> People told me that if Bush was elected that there would be
>>> a violent suppression of free speech. And they were right!!
>> =v= As a target of some of that violence, I find your
>> sneering attempt at humor to be more pathetic than usual.
> The Brownshirts of Columbia wouldn't let you speak either??
=v= You really are utterly clueless, aren't you? Well, let me
make a futile attempt to clue you in.
(1) "Brownshirts" work on behalf of a (by definition, fascist)
state. This does not apply to the events mentioned.
(2) "Of Columbia" is an especially idiotic way to spin this.
The instigators were not aligned with that institution.
=v= I took the time to track down references to the events under
discussion. A few students and a small group of local activists
(self-described as "socialist") were disruptive. At one point
they used intimidation and rushed the stage. Nobody was hurt,
but I'll say from the outset that I don't approve of any tactics
that would limit free speech.
=v= There has been commentary from two major stakeholders. As
we've seen parroted by Dann, the right-wing punditry has used
it to insinuate that anyone to the left of Dick Cheney is an
anti-free-speech thug. The "socialists," on the other hand,
have attempted to glorify the action. For widely disparate
reasons, both stakeholders have attempted to exaggerate the
events. Problem is, what happened isn't much, so even their
exaggerations are kind of lame.
=v= Dann thinks it's hilarious to compare this to a violent
suppression of free speech at a time when there is an upsurge in
real live actual genuine violent suppression of free speech, by
the state, and overwhelmingly against free speech that takes a
dissenting view from Dann's.
=v= I think that's pathetic.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
=v= That idiotic grid (not a "quiz") was posted for years as
the "Libertarian FAQ," and never mind that nobody ever asked
(frequently or otherwise) a question for which that was an
answer. Simple patterns for simple minds, I guess.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=JYM.90Nov14100309%40remarque.berkeley.edu
<_Jym_>
racs...@gmail.com
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Smallest_Political_Quiz
>
> =v= That idiotic grid (not a "quiz") was posted for years as
> the "Libertarian FAQ," and never mind that nobody ever asked
> (frequently or otherwise) a question for which that was an
> answer. Simple patterns for simple minds, I guess.
>
Odd coincidence. I was just jerking the chain of our conservative
columnist the other day -- started inadvertantly because he's speaking
at a college forum on Islamo-Fascism, at the invitation of the Young
Republicans. I commented about how kids at that age still believe in
magic, whether they see the perfect solution coming from the far right
or the far left -- that nuance comes with age and experience.
Or it doesn't.
This "quiz" is nonsensical because it is phrased from a Libertarian
point of view -- there's no sense that regulation of anything can have
shades, steps and limitations. Either you have a total ban or you have
no rules at all. For instance, it assumes Social Security is the only
retirement plan anyone has and that the money you put in sits in a
pile with your name on it, like money in Scrooge McDuck's vault.
That's how I thought things worked -- when I was about 11 years old.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org> point of view [...]
Even back when I was an actual, card-carrying LP member, going to
meetings, having dinner with Ron Paul, etc. ... I thought that
"quiz" was dumb.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
"Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
news:1192849754....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> People told me that if Bush was elected that there would be
>>>> a violent suppression of free speech. And they were right!!
>>> =v= As a target of some of that violence, I find your
>>> sneering attempt at humor to be more pathetic than usual.
>> The Brownshirts of Columbia wouldn't let you speak either??
>
> =v= You really are utterly clueless, aren't you? Well, let me
> make a futile attempt to clue you in.
>
> (1) "Brownshirts" work on behalf of a (by definition, fascist)
> state. This does not apply to the events mentioned.
Well, actually no. The Strumabteilung (SA) were a paramilitary section of
the Nazi Party, not the German State. They earned the nickname "Brownshirts"
from their uniform color. The SA used intimidation,strong arm tactics, and
violence to silence opponents of the party. Curiously, Mussolini's
paramilitary force was called "blackshirts" and anteceded Hitler's private
army, but "brownshirt" seems to have become the generic term for political
thugs.
Dann
news:1192849754....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com.
> =v= Dann thinks it's hilarious to compare this to a violent
> suppression of free speech at a time when there is an upsurge in
> real live actual genuine violent suppression of free speech, by
> the state, and overwhelmingly against free speech that takes a
> dissenting view from Dann's.
Cites?
Dann
news:1192884238.2...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com.
> This "quiz" is nonsensical because it is phrased from a Libertarian
> point of view -- there's no sense that regulation of anything can have
> shades, steps and limitations.
The "quiz" is certainly slanted towards the Libertarian end of things.
The graph, IMO, is a more accurate depiction of the available political
spectrum. At least when compared to the left-right model.
And my original reference to the graph was based on where certain groups
fell within the political spectrum.
ronniecat
on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:43:58 -0000, "pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org"
<racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Odd coincidence. I was just jerking the chain of our conservative
>columnist the other day -- started inadvertantly because he's speaking
>at a college forum on Islamo-Fascism, at the invitation of the Young
>Republicans. I commented about how kids at that age still believe in
>magic, whether they see the perfect solution coming from the far right
>or the far left -- that nuance comes with age and experience.
Oh, how fun! Is he taking part in David Horowitz's "Islamo-Facism
Awareness Week", a real, not-at-all-made up week-long orgy of frothing
right-wing wide-brush-wielding xenophobic hysteria?
ronnie
--
"The very deaf, as I am, hear the most astounding things all
round them, which have not, in fact, been said." - Henry Green
* remove mycollar to reply *
* http://www.hearingloss.blogspot.com *
Jym Dyer
> political spectrum. At least when compared to the left-right
> model.
=v= Damning with faint praise. The 2D left/right model has been
useless for a very long time, generally used only to conflate
things that have nothing to do with each other. As you
routinely do.
> And my original reference to the graph was based on where
> certain groups fell within the political spectrum.
=v= The "quiz" has no actual spectrum. It is simply two points
of ideology expressed as binary conditions, arranged in a grid.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> Nazi Party, not the German State. They earned the nickname
> "Brownshirts" from their uniform color.
=v= You're right, I was being sloppy. While not a state-backed
power (at first), they were part of a fascist political force
that built on private-sector power to seize control of the
public sector.
> Curiously, Mussolini's paramilitary force was called
> "blackshirts" and anteceded Hitler's private army, but
> "brownshirt" seems to have become the generic term for
> political thugs.
=v= Same specific model, of course. To use "brownshirt" as
such a generic term is itself sloppy, IMHO. The ragtag band
of protesters at Columbia simply do not qualify. Nor should
they be misidentified as "brownshirts of Columbia."
<_Jym_>
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> > Curiously, Mussolini's paramilitary force was called
> > "blackshirts" and anteceded Hitler's private army, but
> > "brownshirt" seems to have become the generic term for
> > political thugs.
>
> =v= Same specific model, of course. To use "brownshirt" as
> such a generic term is itself sloppy, IMHO. The ragtag band
> of protesters at Columbia simply do not qualify. Nor should
> they be misidentified as "brownshirts of Columbia."
I don't know ... seems to me that it's the thoughtcrime that counts.
racs...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In the previous article, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
> > > Curiously, Mussolini's paramilitary force was called
> > > "blackshirts" and anteceded Hitler's private army, but
> > > "brownshirt" seems to have become the generic term for
> > > political thugs.
>
> > =v= Same specific model, of course. To use "brownshirt" as
> > such a generic term is itself sloppy, IMHO. The ragtag band
> > of protesters at Columbia simply do not qualify. Nor should
> > they be misidentified as "brownshirts of Columbia."
>
> I don't know ... seems to me that it's the thoughtcrime that counts.
*snrk*
But try to use "fascist" to describe those who demand All Loyalty to
Bush and see the squawks and screams, and long-winded definitions
based on historic sources proving that "fascist" only applies in a
narrow sense to some other people, coming out of the "waa -- everybody
picks on us" right.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
On 17 Oct 2007, Pat O'Neill said the following in
news:1192629387.0...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com.
> On Oct 17, 7:33 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The most "successful" [I would phrase it "least damaging"] socialist
>> countries have one common feature; a pile of wealth in the form of
>> natural resources that can be consumed to fund their socialism. The
>> most dominant such resource being oil.
>>
>
> Once again, explain Sweden. No oil--here's the Wikipedia info on its
> resources and industry:
Sorry for the delay. Life is otherwise busy.
I did do some further reading/research. You are correct about oil not
being a significant source of income for Sweden.
As this is mostly off topic...and much delayed....I'll simply point to
Mr. Peterson's and Mr. Baldwin's responses about socialism in general,
how much Sweden really has, and the influence of different cultures on
government social agendas.
Those comments dovetail nicely with my prior statements regarding how
much socialism they have in Sweden; not much in the grand scheme of
things.