Cultural Revolution and Democracy
mi...@mim.org
Jim Walsh <jimw...@transend.com.tw> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:09:42 GMT, coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <80sc6t$fa7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> >> China's life expectancy increased during the Cultural
> >> Revolution so say what you want about its violence.
> >
> >As if a statistical number is free as the air you breath, kindly
> >provide the source to back up you claim that life expectancy actually
> >rose between 1966 and 1976 in China. BTW, you are not going to be
able
> >to do it because you simply invented it or used statistics according
to
> >Mao, which was always inflated and doctored.
>
> Bingo.
>
> Love, Jim
mi...@mim.org replies: You and Coxinga
both argue for "free speech" most ardently
in this thread and now it occurs to me why.
To you, politics is all relative.
You think it's all opinion only,
a luxury of middle-class people like
yourselves. If an argument goes against
you it's only because there was a
conspiracy on the other side
to invent its facts.
The real question is not what facts and
references *I* provide, because years
have passed and you don't read them
in this NG. The real question is what
sources YOU can find (UN, US, AID, NATO,
WHO anybody) that back your case against
the Cultural Revolution and life expectancy.
The two of you both are providing
an excellent education on why your idea
of "free speech" is simply condoning
death from starvation in eight digit
figures every year, 60 million according
to the heir to the Baskin Robbins fortune
and Pulitzer Prize winner. To you, the
solution to the largest sources of violence
and death (and too bad for you it is NOT
repression or even war plus repression)
is endless talk and denial. You feel quite
free to disrupt people who know what they
are talking about and provide evidence.
You think it is a great freedom to talk
nonsense without evidence WHILE PEOPLE
ARE FREEZING, STARVING AND OTHERWISE
DYING FROM LACK OF SIMPLE MEDICAL CARE,
the fact of private property in farmland
and food being responsible for 8 digit
death tolls every year in children
alone.
I'm sure neither of you would ever
interrupt a pilot landing a plane to
offer your opinions on how to land it.
If by chance you came across
someone going postal killing random
people on the streets, I'm sure you would
use your speech responsibily to stop the
murderer and not mislead the cops on the
direction of the killer. You would not be
jostling with the brain surgeon as he was
doing his job, but when it comes to
politics--even in life-and-death matters
--you just shoot off your mouths at all times
and attempt to disrupt what progress there
has been in this world. It's wrong and that
is a separate question from why, but
I will answer the "why" as well. You
shoot off your mouths on "free speech,"
and feel free to misdirect people on
life-and-death questions, because those
questions do not affect you. They mostly
affect peasants, disproportionately
children.
I've posted my information on this
NG. It is available including
recently again in references
I provided in another thread in this NG.
I'll just wait for you to do the same,
or is "free speech" simply about spreading
ignorance, fear and relativism?
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Liberty 4All
<mi...@mim.org> wrote in message news:81aknp$anf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Whew...I was trying to sort through the issues you have, but I got lost in
the midst of all that rhetoric. I would disagree with you that the
starvation in China was solely a result of the privitization of farmland
(that is what you saying, right?..again, it's hard to separate the
profundities from the abstrusities). China's economy was in shambles well
before the Maoists took over and remained in shambles, until just recently,
when it was decided to adopt a "quasi" market based economy. The starvation
you cite was a result of feudalism and the fact that the Maoists were able
to reverse that, has little to do with the superiority of Maoism, rather
it's that anything would have been far better than what they had. The
problem is that under a purely collectivist economy (actually, it never
really was purely collectivist, sort of quasi), the human condition would
have begun to deteriorate rapidly, because collectivist economies are
rarely, ever, efficient.
As to your contention that "free speech" somehow should not tolerate the
possibility of spreading ignorance, fear and relativism, I'd totally
disagree. The fact is that ignorance, fear and relativism are good things to
tolerate. If you really believed in the dialectic, you'd understand that
history is a result of the synthesis of ideas and that, in the evolutionary
process (I hope I can say that and not offend any creationists that might be
reading this) the better will prevail.
Anyway, have fun in Ann Arbor, if fun is something you go in for.
Jorge Landivar
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> The two of you both are providing
> an excellent education on why your idea
> of "free speech" is simply condoning
> death from starvation in eight digit
> figures every year, 60 million according
> to the heir to the Baskin Robbins fortune
> and Pulitzer Prize winner. To you, the
> solution to the largest sources of violence
> and death (and too bad for you it is NOT
> repression or even war plus repression)
> is endless talk and denial. You feel quite
> free to disrupt people who know what they
> are talking about and provide evidence.
> You think it is a great freedom to talk
> nonsense without evidence WHILE PEOPLE
> ARE FREEZING, STARVING AND OTHERWISE
> DYING FROM LACK OF SIMPLE MEDICAL CARE,
> the fact of private property in farmland
> and food being responsible for 8 digit
> death tolls every year in children
> alone.
Actually most mass starvation is caused by governments not weather or
private property.
1) The US has an excess of food. Our government prevents us from
selling this foood to certain countries, so the food is destroyed.
2) Most starvations in the past century have been caused by political
reasons, not by economic, weather, or scientific reasons.
a) Stalin's starving of Ukrane (sp?)
b) Most of the starvations in africa
c) the famine in N. Korea
d) Great depression (was economic, but was caused by politics)
e) Famine in Iraq
f) Famine in cuba
--
echelon cycle waster
FBI CIA NSA IRS ATF BATF DOD WACO RUBY RIDGE OKC OKLAHOMA CITY MILITIA
GUN
HANDGUN MILGOV ASSAULT RIFLE TERRORISM BOMB DRUG
HORIUCHI KORESH DAVIDIAN KAHL POSSE COMITATUS RANDY WEAVER VICKIE
WEAVER SPECIAL FORCES LINDA THOMPSON SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP SOG
SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM PARK ON
METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER PROMIS
MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID AK47 M16 C4 MALCOLM X REVOLUTION CHEROKEE
HILLARY BILL CLINTON GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST TASK
FORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS 12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF EXPLOSIVE NAPALM MOLOTOV COCTAIL
REVOLUTION NRA GOA HEMP HILARY KILL GRAND GAT FLAMETHROWER CLUSTER BOMB UFO
AURORA NRO FCC FTC FAA HIJACK MILLION BILLION TRILLION ENCRYPT
OPEN SOURCE CAPITALISM LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM OSS OPERATION PAPERCLIP
HOT SPRINGS HOTEL CONSPIRACY CHINA JAPAN NORTH KOREA ATTACK SOUTH KOREA
THE CATCHER IN THE RYE VIETNAM M1 LITTLE GREEN MEN ASSASINATE PRISON
BREAK OUT
OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SECRETE PLANT Alterna
coxinga
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> In article <gR8yOHnFWQhM9D2J7wx3P=Sjo...@4ax.com>,
> Jim Walsh <jimw...@transend.com.tw> wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 02:09:42 GMT, coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
> > >> China's life expectancy increased during the Cultural
> > >> Revolution so say what you want about its violence.
> > >
> > >As if a statistical number is free as the air you breath, kindly
> > >provide the source to back up you claim that life expectancy
actually
> > >rose between 1966 and 1976 in China. BTW, you are not going to be
> able
> > >to do it because you simply invented it or used statistics
according
> to
> > >Mao, which was always inflated and doctored.
> >
> > Bingo.
> >
> > Love, Jim
>
> both argue for "free speech" most ardently
> in this thread and now it occurs to me why.
>
> To you, politics is all relative.
> You think it's all opinion only,
> a luxury of middle-class people like
> yourselves. If an argument goes against
> you it's only because there was a
> conspiracy on the other side
> to invent its facts.
>
Please. I am not political scientist, enlighten me on the profoundness
of politics beyond my current understanding.
> The real question is not what facts and
> references *I* provide, because years
> have passed and you don't read them
> in this NG. The real question is what
> sources YOU can find (UN, US, AID, NATO,
> WHO anybody) that back your case against
> the Cultural Revolution and life expectancy.
>
Either you have been living in self-denial or as you yourself mentioned
earlier, believing in the reported death tolls in the Cultural
Revolution as conspiracy. You have been living in the comfort of the
US. Perhaps discussions with some Chinese people who live through the
revolution is needed for you to understand the banality of its
destruction, and the human cost. A good place to start is Nien-Chien’s
“Life and Death in Shang-Hai” if you could not find anyone old enough
to share his CR experience with you. While it was almost unanimous
opinion outside of China which views the CR as a complete disaster, it
is arguably the case inside of it too, possibly with the exception of
the surviving members of the Gang of Four.
> The two of you both are providing
> an excellent education on why your idea
> of "free speech" is simply condoning
> death from starvation in eight digit
> figures every year, 60 million according
> to the heir to the Baskin Robbins fortune
> and Pulitzer Prize winner. To you, the
> solution to the largest sources of violence
> and death (and too bad for you it is NOT
> repression or even war plus repression)
> is endless talk and denial. You feel quite
> free to disrupt people who know what they
> are talking about and provide evidence.
> You think it is a great freedom to talk
> nonsense without evidence WHILE PEOPLE
> ARE FREEZING, STARVING AND OTHERWISE
> DYING FROM LACK OF SIMPLE MEDICAL CARE,
> the fact of private property in farmland
> and food being responsible for 8 digit
> death tolls every year in children
> alone.
>
You believe communization of property is the solution to death and
starvation. I believe just the opposite. Private ownership drives a
person to better his life and those of his family. Communization of
property has been proven a failure in the defunct Soviet Union, and
again in the People’s Republic of China in the 50's. While I question
your number that 60 million people suffer death and starvation every
year, abolishing private property ownership will simply increase that
number.
> I'm sure neither of you would ever
> interrupt a pilot landing a plane to
> offer your opinions on how to land it.
> If by chance you came across
> someone going postal killing random
> people on the streets, I'm sure you would
> use your speech responsibily to stop the
> murderer and not mislead the cops on the
> direction of the killer. You would not be
> jostling with the brain surgeon as he was
> doing his job, but when it comes to
> politics--even in life-and-death matters
> --you just shoot off your mouths at all times
> and attempt to disrupt what progress there
> has been in this world. It's wrong and that
> is a separate question from why, but
> I will answer the "why" as well. You
> shoot off your mouths on "free speech,"
> and feel free to misdirect people on
> life-and-death questions, because those
> questions do not affect you. They mostly
> affect peasants, disproportionately
> children.
>
Again I am guilty of shooting off my mouth on free speech. You think
the solution to starvation, death and lack of medical care is
communism. The reality is the big brother of Communism, the Soviet
union, has gone bankrupt for a decade. The little brother (China) has
long abandoned it and follows market economy. Of the remaining
communist regimes, N. Korea suffered the biggest famine in her recorded
history only a few years ago. Cuba is also near bankrupt. Is Albania
still a communist state. Well all know what a bad shape Albania is.
Don’t we?
> I've posted my information on this
> NG. It is available including
> recently again in references
> I provided in another thread in this NG.
> I'll just wait for you to do the same,
> or is "free speech" simply about spreading
> ignorance, fear and relativism?
>
You may have the best political ideology for discussions. In facing up
to facts and reality, Communism simply loses out disastrously. That is
the reason why MIM has no supporters on this NG, nor is there more than
a handful of them anywhere else.
coxinga
--
Coxinga/ The 17th century warlord, son of a pirate, who was bestowed
the last name of Ming emperors. He defeated the Dutch to capture
Formosa. A rare victory in the struggle against colonialism by the
East. It spelled the beginning of the end for the Dutch East India Co.
mi...@mim.org
"Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Whew...I was trying to sort through the issues you have, but I got
lost in
> the midst of all that rhetoric. I would disagree with you that the
> starvation in China was solely a result of the privitization of
farmland
> (that is what you saying, right?..again, it's hard to separate the
> profundities from the abstrusities).
mi...@mim.org replies: Starvation occurs
from a lack of successful class struggle
to destroy feudalism. Land reform can succeed
with a bourgeois content, especially for
a period before a new landlord class concentrates
the wealth again.
China's economy was in shambles
well
> before the Maoists took over and remained in shambles, until just
recently,
mi...@mim.org replies: Mao's economy did not
match US levels of production but it did quite
well enough to double the life expectancy of
its people. That is growth enough to justify
calling Mao the leader in violence reduction
this century and probably all of history.
We agree China was a shambles before Mao took
over. Coxinga and Walsh here are
anti-PRC Taiwan defenders,
historically associated with the people
ruling China when it was a shambles.
> when it was decided to adopt a "quasi" market based economy. The
starvation
> you cite was a result of feudalism and the fact that the Maoists were
able
> to reverse that, has little to do with the superiority of Maoism,
rather
> it's that anything would have been far better than what they had. The
> problem is that under a purely collectivist economy (actually, it
never
> really was purely collectivist, sort of quasi), the human condition
would
> have begun to deteriorate rapidly, because collectivist economies are
> rarely, ever, efficient.
mi...@mim.org replies: It's not true,
and we don't use the same definitions of
efficiency. However, I could concede your
point on efficiency and the fact would
still stand that the rest of the benefits
of Mao's revolution far outweighed its weaknesses.
> As to your contention that "free speech" somehow should not tolerate
the
> possibility of spreading ignorance, fear and relativism, I'd totally
> disagree. The fact is that ignorance, fear and relativism are good
things to
> tolerate. If you really believed in the dialectic, you'd understand
that
> history is a result of the synthesis of ideas and that, in the
evolutionary
> process (I hope I can say that and not offend any creationists that
might be
> reading this) the better will prevail.
mi...@mim.org replies: We agree there
is a dialectic of struggle. However,
things change and progress finally consolidates
itself. The end of slavery in the U$A
was achieved by war and dictatorship.
Now we can move along. Most people don't feel
the urgent need to have slaves anymore!
We can thank our ancestors for sacrificing
blood for that and for having the decency
to impose dictatorship until the idea
of slavery went away. It has become second
nature, like not bothering pilots while
landing planes.
mi...@mim.org
land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> > The two of you both are providing
> > an excellent education on why your idea
> > of "free speech" is simply condoning
> > death from starvation in eight digit
> > figures every year, 60 million according
> > to the heir to the Baskin Robbins fortune
> > and Pulitzer Prize winner. To you, the
> > solution to the largest sources of violence
> > and death (and too bad for you it is NOT
> > repression or even war plus repression)
> > is endless talk and denial. You feel quite
> > free to disrupt people who know what they
> > are talking about and provide evidence.
> > You think it is a great freedom to talk
> > nonsense without evidence WHILE PEOPLE
> > ARE FREEZING, STARVING AND OTHERWISE
> > DYING FROM LACK OF SIMPLE MEDICAL CARE,
> > the fact of private property in farmland
> > and food being responsible for 8 digit
> > death tolls every year in children
> > alone.
>
> private property.
> 1) The US has an excess of food. Our government prevents us from
> selling this foood to certain countries, so the food is destroyed.
mi...@mim.org replies: this is factually
untrue and also irrelevant, because
they could give away the food
instead of trying to sell it
to poor people. The United $tates
has the means--and in more than one way--
to feed the world. It does not and that
reflects the politics of private property.
We could also give the land back to the starving,
land owned in Third World countries, and more
importantly, we could cut military aid to
landlord regimes.
I could concede all your points below and
they would not make up for the fact that the
foods exists to feed the world and
it does not happen.
> 2) Most starvations in the past century have been caused by political
> reasons, not by economic, weather, or scientific reasons.
mi...@mim.org: politics and economics cannot
be separated. The politics causing starvation
is capitalist politics.
> a) Stalin's starving of Ukrane (sp?)
mi...@mim.org replies: this has been shown
to be a propaganda trick of Nazis and Nazi-
collaborators from the Ukraine.
See,
http://www.shss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html
> b) Most of the starvations in africa
mi...@mim.org replies: Private property is
upheld in Africa.
> c) the famine in N. Korea
mi...@mim.org replies: Although we regard
northern Korea as capitalist (and see
how it got along with Deng Xiaoping),
we don't believe any propaganda about it.
The same media told us that 100,000 died
in Kosovo at the hands of
marauding Serbs. Now they
say less than 2200.
> d) Great depression (was economic, but was caused by politics)
> e) Famine in Iraq
> f) Famine in cuba
mi...@mim.org replies: State capitalist Cuba
is much better off health-wise than
the rest of the Caribbean, which it left
in the dust through its revolution against
feudalism and colonialism. Many people would
be better off living there.
Anyway, the real overall deal is told in the
life expectancy figures we have been discussing.
If you take all these things and average
them out, I'm not saying people never starved
in socialist countries, but I am saying
socialism saving hundreds of millions of lives
in China and millions elsewhere as well.
Liberty 4All
mi...@mim.org wrote in message <>mi...@mim.org replies: Starvation occurs
>from a lack of successful class struggle
>to destroy feudalism. Land reform can succeed
>with a bourgeois content, especially for
>a period before a new landlord class concentrates
>the wealth again.
>
>match US levels of production but it did quite
>well enough to double the life expectancy of
>its people. That is growth enough to justify
>calling Mao the leader in violence reduction
>this century and probably all of history.
>and we don't use the same definitions of
>efficiency. However, I could concede your
>point on efficiency and the fact would
>still stand that the rest of the benefits
>of Mao's revolution far outweighed its weaknesses.
>
>
>is a dialectic of struggle. However,
>things change and progress finally consolidates
>itself. The end of slavery in the U$A
>was achieved by war and dictatorship.
>Now we can move along. Most people don't feel
>the urgent need to have slaves anymore!
>We can thank our ancestors for sacrificing
>blood for that and for having the decency
>to impose dictatorship until the idea
>of slavery went away. It has become second
>nature, like not bothering pilots while
>landing planes.
>
>
>## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
># # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
># # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
># # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Well, I clearly don't share your views on Maoism ( it really is tough trying
to thread your argument through all that rhetoric) and its being responsible
for such a huge decline in violence. Like efficiency, we probably don't have
the same definition of violence reduction. Having said all of that, do you
think the move from collectivism by both China and Russia is a significant
refutation of Maoism and Marxism, or do you just see it as part of the
ongoing historical dialectic?
Jorge Landivar
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> mi...@mim.org replies: this is factually
> untrue and also irrelevant, because
> they could give away the food
> instead of trying to sell it
> to poor people. The United $tates
> has the means--and in more than one way--
> to feed the world. It does not and that
> reflects the politics of private property.
The fact is that it is illegal for companies to give it away , and it is
even more illegal for them to give it away t6o countries that the US is
embargoing. It isn't private property that is the problem, its the
stupid government.
Jurgen Chiang
> mi...@mim.org replies: this is factually
> untrue and also irrelevant, because
> they could give away the food
> instead of trying to sell it
> to poor people. The United $tates
> has the means--and in more than one way--
> to feed the world. It does not and that
> reflects the politics of private property.
Just for the sake of interest, a capitalist argument:
Being from Canada, likely the largest destroyer of unused crops and dairy
products (at least per capita) on earth, I think Canada has experimented
with and disproven the wisdom of providing poor countries with direct mass
food aid (Note: "Mass" to the extent that it significantly augments local
markets). Where this has been attempted on larger scales in Africa, it has
posed an enormous obstacle for the resident independent agriculturalists
who have seen their revenue, already meagre due to comparatively
inefficient production methods, (I am assuming a capitalist recipient
country) squelched by almost worthless foreign grain. An equilibrium has
to be reached between the level at which rich countries save lives through
aid and the level at which large-scale aid prevents economic development in
the third world and causes stagnation. How do you believe this
relationship is best approached? Should rich countries provide aid towards
development (technology, expertise), direct dumps of food aid on the market
or abstain from these approaches?
_______
snaphod
MICHAEL VOGLER
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <81bjq1$ikq$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > Whew...I was trying to sort through the issues you have, but I got
> lost in
> > the midst of all that rhetoric. I would disagree with you that the
> > starvation in China was solely a result of the privitization of
> farmland
> > (that is what you saying, right?..again, it's hard to separate the
> > profundities from the abstrusities).
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Starvation occurs
> from a lack of successful class struggle
> to destroy feudalism. Land reform can succeed
> with a bourgeois content, especially for
> a period before a new landlord class concentrates
> the wealth again.
No, starvation occurs because there is not enough food. It has less to
do with "class struggle" and more to do with problems in producing food.
> China's economy was in shambles
> well
> > before the Maoists took over and remained in shambles, until just
> recently,
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Mao's economy did not
> match US levels of production but it did quite
> well enough to double the life expectancy of
> its people. That is growth enough to justify
> calling Mao the leader in violence reduction
> this century and probably all of history.
>
> We agree China was a shambles before Mao took
> over. Coxinga and Walsh here are
> anti-PRC Taiwan defenders,
> historically associated with the people
> ruling China when it was a shambles.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: that is a problematic assessment.
> > when it was decided to adopt a "quasi" market based economy. The
> starvation
> > you cite was a result of feudalism and the fact that the Maoists were
> able
> > to reverse that, has little to do with the superiority of Maoism,
> rather
> > it's that anything would have been far better than what they had. The
> > problem is that under a purely collectivist economy (actually, it
> never
> > really was purely collectivist, sort of quasi), the human condition
> would
> > have begun to deteriorate rapidly, because collectivist economies are
> > rarely, ever, efficient.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: It's not true,
> and we don't use the same definitions of
> efficiency. However, I could concede your
> point on efficiency and the fact would
> still stand that the rest of the benefits
> of Mao's revolution far outweighed its weaknesses.
What's not true and why? Mao's "improvements" to the Chinese economy
have fallen flat on their face. If they had succeeded, then China would
have more advanced submarines, aircraft, missiles, etc. Instead, they
have crap. Their cars are crap, their streets are crap, their currency
is crap, shall I go on...
>
> > As to your contention that "free speech" somehow should not tolerate
> the
> > possibility of spreading ignorance, fear and relativism, I'd totally
> > disagree. The fact is that ignorance, fear and relativism are good
> things to
> > tolerate. If you really believed in the dialectic, you'd understand
> that
> > history is a result of the synthesis of ideas and that, in the
> evolutionary
> > process (I hope I can say that and not offend any creationists that
> might be
> > reading this) the better will prevail.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: We agree there
> is a dialectic of struggle. \
Sure there is: good and evil. Not Marx.
However,
> things change and progress finally consolidates
> itself. The end of slavery in the U$A
> was achieved by war and dictatorship.
Huh? Actually, a more plausible argument is that it was the final
throws of a movement to end slavery that was begun in Europe during the
latter portions of the 18th Century.
> Now we can move along. Most people don't feel
> the urgent need to have slaves anymore!
Really?!?! Why do people have domestic servants? Why is it legal in
China to have labourers in prisons who aren't paid? Come on, times
haven't changed, be realistic.
> We can thank our ancestors for sacrificing
> blood for that and for having the decency
> to impose dictatorship until the idea
> of slavery went away. It has become second
> nature, like not bothering pilots while
> landing planes.
>
MICHAEL VOGLER
Not necessarily. In point of fact, farmers will destroy (not give away)
wheat to help drive up the price of wheat products. In addition, I
believe that the gentleman's point made right before yours is implying
what you are saying in ONE sense. However, the "politics of private
property" have little to do with food crises. More likely, it is
foreign relations that have more to do with it (besides, the US gives
food to Russia, and, during the period in question, Mao probably
wouldn't have accepted it).
>
> We could also give the land back to the starving,
> land owned in Third World countries, and more
> importantly, we could cut military aid to
> landlord regimes.
Huh? What sort of arcane language is this? Give land back to the
starving and poor countries? How? The US can't do that. That
infringes on sovereignty, a basic principle of Maoism. The UN could do
it? I don't think so. Mao would say the UN is a tool of capitalists.
Get real man.
> I could concede all your points below and
> they would not make up for the fact that the
> foods exists to feed the world and
> it does not happen.
True, no disagreement here. So what is your point?
> > 2) Most starvations in the past century have been caused by political
> > reasons, not by economic, weather, or scientific reasons.
>
> mi...@mim.org: politics and economics cannot
> be separated. The politics causing starvation
> is capitalist politics.
Ahem...Ummm...Maoist policies. Stalinist-Marxist ideals. Weimar
Germany. Shall I go on. None of these are examples of capitalist
politics. Or do you conveniently ignore them?
>
> > a) Stalin's starving of Ukrane (sp?)
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: this has been shown
> to be a propaganda trick of Nazis and Nazi-
> collaborators from the Ukraine.
SURPRISE!! Websites aren't really that accurate!! Every historian I
have ever met would say that Stalin starved the Ukraine, and Leningrad,
and the peasants, and... Sorry, you dont' have a leg to stand on here.
>
> See,
>
> http://www.shss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html
>
> > b) Most of the starvations in africa
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Private property is
> upheld in Africa.
Not in rural Africa. Rather, starvation is caused because of the
salinization of the deserts and inefficient technology. Neither of
which has anything to do with "private property."
>
> > c) the famine in N. Korea
> mi...@mim.org replies: Although we regard
> northern Korea as capitalist (and see
> how it got along with Deng Xiaoping)
And we regard China as have a really skewed perspective of things (I
mean, they are becoming capitalist pigs too)...
,
> we don't believe any propaganda about it.
Of course. Because it would violate your precious beliefs...
> The same media told us that 100,000 died
> in Kosovo at the hands of
> marauding Serbs.
Which media were you using? The Chinese one?
Now they
> say less than 2200.
Again, what is your source?
>
> > d) Great depression (was economic, but was caused by politics)
> > e) Famine in Iraq
> > f) Famine in cuba
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: State capitalist Cuba
> is much better off health-wise than
> the rest of the Caribbean,
Dictatorial Cuba is much better off. They are hardly capitalist.
which it left
> in the dust through its revolution against
> feudalism and colonialism.
Sure, make it sound all nice. It was a bunch of kids overthrowing a
regime. Nothing more.
Many people would
> be better off living there.
>
> Anyway, the real overall deal is told in the
> life expectancy figures we have been discussing.
> If you take all these things and average
> them out, I'm not saying people never starved
> in socialist countries, but I am saying
> socialism saving hundreds of millions of lives
> in China and millions elsewhere as well.
Ummm...That is a lot because of China's population. Proportionally, it
killed more than it saved.
mi...@mim.org
"Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Well, I clearly don't share your views on Maoism ( it really is tough
trying
> to thread your argument through all that rhetoric) and its being
responsible
> for such a huge decline in violence. Like efficiency, we probably
don't have
> the same definition of violence reduction. Having said all of that, do
you
> think the move from collectivism by both China and Russia is a
significant
> refutation of Maoism and Marxism, or do you just see it as part of the
> ongoing historical dialectic?
>
>
mi...@mim.org replies: Considering how many
slave revolts occurred over thousands
of years and failed, the appearance of
Marxism has been hugely successful. Do
I consider the crushing of initial
slave revolts to be the failure of
abolitionism? Do I consider the fact
that some people in Mauritania for example
still literally want to be slaves in an Islamic
order to be a refutation? No I do not.
Now answer my question about violence:
what is the difference between starving
to death and getting a bullet in the head
if they are both preventable? Starvation,
death by freezing etc.--they are violence
and they are maintained by violent
defense of private property.
mi...@mim.org
mi...@mim.org replies: Finally,
we have an informed argument.
The way food aid works under capitalism,
you are precisely right. It is inherently
impossible under capitalism to give food
aid without it becoming part of capitalist
competition--a way of destroying the
Third World farmers. That is what is sick
about capitalist competition. It is not
logical from the standpoint of humyn needs.
Hence, the question is what if the United $tates
went socialist? What if the Third World were
released from all the military regimes backed
by U.$. military aid? 1) The Third World would
take care of itself if the U$ and other imperialists
just took their military boots off their necks.
2) If we did go socialist, and most of the world
went socialist (which is what would happen if
the bastion of imperialism U$A went socialist),
farmers would not be destroyed through economic
competition. Production would be planned for
need.
So my first answer is reformist: if we could
cut off U$ imperialist military aid to Third World regimes,
the peasants would carry out class struggle for
land reform and hunger would be solved that way.
If the U$A won't stop aiding the death squad regimes
backing landlords and 50 cent an hour wages, then
the people of the Third World have every right
to overthrow the U$ government.
mi...@mim.org
In article <81f2lp$iot$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
key...@indy.net wrote:
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> > I did not say anything about how the
> > pilot was chosen. I said that if you
> > go and shout at the pilot or even persistently
> > try to talk to him you will be arrested.
>
> Scenario A:
> A man interrupts the pilot. He is arrested.
>
> Scenario B:
> A man interrupts the pilot. He is arrested, and then is either
executed
> or becomes a slave through forced labor.
mi...@mim.org replies: We are making some
progress here. Now keylime realizes the
issue.
First of all, this scenario does not
differ with me in quality, only degree.
I'm afraid I no longer see a disagreement
in principle.
Scenario A:
Passenger speaks to pilot incessantly.
Pilot cannot hear co-pilot or landing
tower. Passenger has already been told
that lives are more important
than free speech. Pilot shoots passenger.
Scenario B:
Passenger speaks to pilot incessantly.
Airline attendants ask him to sit down
and he does not.
Airline attendants give him some
brandy. Passenger gets distracted.
Disturbance ends.
Passenger goes to re-education camp.
He stays there a year.
Scenario C:
Passenger speaks to pilot incessantly.
Airline attendants tell him to go away
or sit down. He does.
Passenger ends up in re-education camp.
People check on his political "sanity."
He is released after a month.
>
> > If you are saying the majority can take
> > away the "free speech" of the minority,
> > then certainly you must back what Mao did.
> > I don't think Walsh would agree with you.
> > The Westerners tend to delude themselves
> > into thinking that "free and fair" elections
> > mean the minority has the right to voice
> > its opinions--without the modifications
> > or restraints that the majority might
> > place on it.
>
> I challenge anyone reading this to consider the number of political
> parties in Mao's China versus the number of political parties in any
> modern democracy.
>
> A comparison of the numbers should lead to an easy conclusion
regarding
> the "delusion" mentioned above.
mi...@mim.org replies: The number of
parties is yet again another issue.
If you concede me the above like you
have, I'm afraid I don't see the practical
difference. Can we settle one thing at
a time?
Liberty 4All
mi...@mim.org wrote in message <81etfb$ep3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <81ck2n$aa$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I clearly don't share your views on Maoism ( it really is tough
>trying
>> to thread your argument through all that rhetoric) and its being
>responsible
>> for such a huge decline in violence.
>>
>>
>
>
>Now answer my question about violence:
>what is the difference between starving
>to death and getting a bullet in the head
>if they are both preventable? Starvation,
>death by freezing etc.--they are violence
>and they are maintained by violent
>defense of private property.
>
>## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
># # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
># # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
># # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
It seems we agree here. My point was that Maoism (Mao's army specifically)
while having had an effect on reducing starvation also contributed their
fair share of bullets to the head, unless those are all lies.
Jorge Landivar
MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
> > In article <81bjq1$ikq$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Whew...I was trying to sort through the issues you have, but I got
> > lost in
> > > the midst of all that rhetoric. I would disagree with you that the
> > > starvation in China was solely a result of the privitization of
> > farmland
> > > (that is what you saying, right?..again, it's hard to separate the
> > > profundities from the abstrusities).
> >
> > mi...@mim.org replies: Starvation occurs
> > from a lack of successful class struggle
> > to destroy feudalism. Land reform can succeed
> > with a bourgeois content, especially for
> > a period before a new landlord class concentrates
> > the wealth again.
>
> No, starvation occurs because there is not enough food. It has less to
> do with "class struggle" and more to do with problems in producing food.
This is less of a case than one might think.
Most famines are in fact political in nature.
--
echelon cycle waster v1.1
FBI CIA NSA IRS ATF BATF DOD WACO RUBY RIDGE OKC OKLAHOMA CITY, MILITIA
GUN
MILGOV ASSAULT RIFLE TERRORISM BOMB DRUG
HORIUCHI KORESH DAVIDIAN KAHL POSSE COMITATUS RANDY WEAVER VICKIE
WEAVER SPECIAL FORCES LINDA THOMPSON SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP SOG
SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM PARK ON
METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER PROMIS
MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID C4 MALCOLM X REVOLUTION CHEROKEE
HILLARY BILL CLINTON GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST TASK
FORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS 12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF EXPLOSIVE MOLOTOV COCKTAIL
REVOLUTION NRA GOA HEMP UFO AURORA NRO FCC FTC FAA
HIJACK MILLION BILLION TRILLION ENCRYPT OPEN SOURCE CAPITALISM
LIBERTARIAN
SOCIALISM OSS OPERATION PAPERCLIP HOT SPRINGS HOTEL CONSPIRACY CHINA
JAPAN
NORTH KOREA ATTACK SOUTH KOREA THE CATCHER IN THE RYE VIETNAM
LITTLE GREEN MEN ASSASSINATE PRISON BREAK OUT
OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA
AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA SAVIN GAMMA
MICHAEL VOGLER
Jorge Landivar wrote:
>
> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> >
> > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <81bjq1$ikq$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > > "Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Whew...I was trying to sort through the issues you have, but I got
> > > lost in
> > > > the midst of all that rhetoric. I would disagree with you that the
> > > > starvation in China was solely a result of the privitization of
> > > farmland
> > > > (that is what you saying, right?..again, it's hard to separate the
> > > > profundities from the abstrusities).
> > >
> > > mi...@mim.org replies: Starvation occurs
> > > from a lack of successful class struggle
> > > to destroy feudalism. Land reform can succeed
> > > with a bourgeois content, especially for
> > > a period before a new landlord class concentrates
> > > the wealth again.
> >
> > No, starvation occurs because there is not enough food. It has less to
> > do with "class struggle" and more to do with problems in producing food.
>
> This is less of a case than one might think.
> Most famines are in fact political in nature.
Yes and no. You cannot deny that people starve to death because there
isn't enough food :) Seriously though, while there is enough food
produced to feed the world, it is not any group of countries'
responsibility to distribute it. As such, politics can hardly be blamed
for individual country's policies regarding the issue of food
distribution except in the case of such incidents as the great leap
forward (or "one step forward, two steps back") or Stalin's forced
collectivization.
Jorge Landivar
MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
>
> Jorge Landivar wrote:
> > This is less of a case than one might think.
> > Most famines are in fact political in nature.
>
> Yes and no. You cannot deny that people starve to death because there
> isn't enough food :) Seriously though, while there is enough food
> produced to feed the world, it is not any group of countries'
> responsibility to distribute it.
Agreed, but they shouldn't hinder its distribution (through embargos and
the like) either.
> As such, politics can hardly be blamed
> for individual country's policies regarding the issue of food
> distribution except in the case of such incidents as the great leap
> forward (or "one step forward, two steps back") or Stalin's forced
> collectivization.
Or the blocades of austria after WWI, or the embargo of cuba, or the
embargo of Iraq,
or famines caused because of war.
ray hartman
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> In article <383B2FDF...@geocities.com>,
> land...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> > >
> > > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <81bjq1$ikq$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > > > "Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Whew...I was trying to sort through the issues you have, but I
> got
> > > > lost in
> > > > > the midst of all that rhetoric. I would disagree with you that
> the
> > > > > starvation in China was solely a result of the privitization of
> > > > farmland
> > > > > (that is what you saying, right?..again, it's hard to separate
> the
> > > > > profundities from the abstrusities).
> > > >
> > > > mi...@mim.org replies: Starvation occurs
> > > > from a lack of successful class struggle
> > > > to destroy feudalism. Land reform can succeed
> > > > with a bourgeois content, especially for
> > > > a period before a new landlord class concentrates
> > > > the wealth again.
> > >
> > > No, starvation occurs because there is not enough food. It has less
> to
> > > do with "class struggle" and more to do with problems in producing
> food.
> >
> > This is less of a case than one might think.
> > Most famines are in fact political in nature.
> >
>
> mi...@mim.org replies:
>
> Right now, the world grows enough food to give every person five pounds
> of food every day. In fact, 10% of the grain fed to livestock in rich
> countries (about 2% of world grain production) would solve the world
> hunger problem.
>
> William W. Murdoch, The Poverty of Nations: The Political Economy of
> Hunger and Population (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1980),
> p. 98.
>
> This would be an excellent example of
> how "free speech" in the relativist
> middle- and upper- class sense causes
> death. People actually believe there is no
> food as the reason for starvation. It's
> legal to believe that and say that. Ignorance
> is widespread. People who COULD do something
> about it don't. It is NO DIFFERENT than
> verbally misleading a cop about the direction
> that a postal mass murderer went
> as he was shooting people down on the
> streets. No, I take that back, because
> there is a difference: the postal
> mass murderer will kill many fewer people
> than the people withholding property
> from starving people.
>
> In contrast, anything from flying planes to
> driving trains or cars to brain surgery
> requires some expertise. The middle-
> and upper- classes are threatened by
> the possibilities otherwise and don't
> tolerate for a second any infractions
> in these areas. Yet become a communist
> and lead a communist government and these
> middle- and upper- class people howl
> about how they should be able to say
> there is no food. "Free speech" they
> scream. Others say politics is just "opinion."
> That's how they justify turning the other
> way as children too young to exercise their
> free speech die of hunger.
>
Yeah, Jookko, you got that right ... too damned many kids in poor countries
... easy solution to that ... fewer kids ...
Now about those bullets to the head ... way I see it, too many Mauser 98s
about & Winchesters to let that happen easy, eh Jookko ? Tends to keep the
number of Maoists small ...
ray hartman
coxinga
your pilot landing the aircraft scene is exactly the problem people see
with all totalitarian regimes, Maoist or otherwise. Whenever the
regime wants to shut people up, it is always "the pilot is landing the
aircraft". Is it any wonder that your Maoist fantasy is always in the
air trying to land? But it could never land because it would simply
disintegrate on solid ground.
coxinga
--
Coxinga/ The 17th century warlord, son of a pirate, who was bestowed
the last name of Ming emperors. He defeated the Dutch to capture
Formosa. A rare victory in the struggle against colonialism by the
East. It spelled the beginning of the end for the Dutch East India Co.
coxinga
different post elsewhere? Are you already torn apart by the buzards
which surround you?
mi...@mim.org
"Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote in message <81etfb$ep3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > "Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I clearly don't share your views on Maoism ( it really is
tough
> >trying
> >> to thread your argument through all that rhetoric) and its being
> >responsible
> >> for such a huge decline in violence.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >mi...@mim.org replies: .
> >
> >Now answer my question about violence:
> >what is the difference between starving
> >to death and getting a bullet in the head
> >if they are both preventable? Starvation,
> >death by freezing etc.--they are violence
> >and they are maintained by violent
> >defense of private property.
> >
> >## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
> ># # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
> ># # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
> ># # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
specifically)
> while having had an effect on reducing starvation also contributed
their
> fair share of bullets to the head, unless those are all lies.
>
>
mi...@mim.org replies: You are right about
that. We communists do not deny that.
We would rather be responsible for those
bullets to the head than the much larger
numbers of death under capitalism.
Now unless you are denying that one has
responsibility for either the status quo
or change, we agree. We take responsibility
for the deaths in China under Mao. What
deaths will you take responsibility for?
coxinga
The way a capitalist society produces food may not be logical for human
need. Have you ever wonder why it is so? This goes back to argument
seen again and again between you and the hordes of buzards around you.
Profit, or the incentive to better oneself. Why is it that there are
famines and starvations in the Soviet Union and China before 1970's?
So much so that it bakrupt the Soviet Union and China became a
capitalist roader. While the communists could not produce enough
grains to feed its people, the capitalist "regimes" always enjoy grain
surplus and have to destroy it or limit production. Incentives.
> Hence, the question is what if the United $tates
> went socialist? What if the Third World were
> released from all the military regimes backed
> by U.$. military aid? 1) The Third World would
> take care of itself if the U$ and other imperialists
> just took their military boots off their necks.
> 2) If we did go socialist, and most of the world
> went socialist (which is what would happen if
> the bastion of imperialism U$A went socialist),
> farmers would not be destroyed through economic
> competition. Production would be planned for
> need.
>
Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former Soviet
Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
Again, you can only tax people to a degree before they lose all
interest to produce more, or work more. Incentives.
> So my first answer is reformist: if we could
> cut off U$ imperialist military aid to Third World regimes,
> the peasants would carry out class struggle for
> land reform and hunger would be solved that way.
>
Cold war nostalgia again? It sure feels good when there are plenty of
confrontations. Isn't it so?
> If the U$A won't stop aiding the death squad regimes
> backing landlords and 50 cent an hour wages, then
> the people of the Third World have every right
> to overthrow the U$ government.
>
Does it occur to you that the present day China fits that description?
The death squad part may not be true to the exact extent, especially
after 1989. The 50 cents an hour part fits pretty well.
coxinga
--
Coxinga/ The 17th century warlord, son of a pirate, who was bestowed
the last name of Ming emperors. He defeated the Dutch to capture
Formosa. A rare victory in the struggle against colonialism by the
East. It spelled the beginning of the end for the Dutch East India Co.
mi...@mim.org
> > > "Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Whew...I was trying to sort through the issues you have, but I
got
> > > lost in
> > > > the midst of all that rhetoric. I would disagree with you that
the
> > > > starvation in China was solely a result of the privitization of
> > > farmland
> > > > (that is what you saying, right?..again, it's hard to separate
the
> > > > profundities from the abstrusities).
> > >
mi...@mim.org replies:
--
mi...@mim.org
coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> What a load of crap! Are we rehearsing for movie takes? In any case,
> your pilot landing the aircraft scene is exactly the problem people
see
> with all totalitarian regimes,
mi...@mim.org replies: "Totalitarian" theory
was proved a load of crap. According to it
the communist regime could not change except
by outside invasion. Today we see they
went capitalist without invasion. In contrast,
our literature distributed in the mid-1980s predicted
cyclical crises just like in other
capitalist societies. We were right. All the bourgeois
academic crud you read was proved wrong.
Maoist or otherwise. Whenever the
> regime wants to shut people up, it is always "the pilot is landing the
> aircraft". Is it any wonder that your Maoist fantasy is always in the
> air trying to land? But it could never land because it would simply
> disintegrate on solid ground.
>
> coxinga
mi...@mim.org replies: OK, then how about a rowboat.
Instead of complaining, why don't you help us
communists row the boat to land? Instead you RESIST
and you clamor impatiently for "free speech."
As I have already said on this NG before, remove the
threats to people's lives (Mao called "antagonistic
contradictions) and no communist will oppose free speech,
because it will be second nature to society not to allow
starvation, freezing etc. in the name of private property.
Majority rule may also be a fine way of resolving non-antagonistic
contradictions. Likely under advanced stages of communism
called anarchism, majority rule
will also lose its passionate attraction and there will
be other cooperative ways of living found.
I sympathize with the impatience of the middle-class.
It wants free speech now. It thinks life is good enough
already. And for the middle-class of the world seen most
extensively in North Amerika--there is some reason for that.
We expect that North Amerikan middle classes still have
to row the boat for the environment and an end to war.
As the contemporary realities of advances
in weapons and the possibilities for pollution sink in, the
farsighted amongst the North Amerikan middle-classes will
get in the boat with us communists and start rowing.
What I don't sympathize with in the middle-class is that
it thinks it has put in enough effort to settle this
question, when if it would just side decisively with the
proletariat, we would all get to a world with "free speech"
and even "free trade" a lot faster. In fact middle-class
people are RESISTING the OBVIOUS truth that when
there is a preventable threat to someone's life, there
can be no peace. When there is no justice and no peace,
there can be no true "free speech" either. There will
always be coercion of one form or another until the
antagonistic contradictions are resolved.
mi...@mim.org
debates and writing big-character posters are new forms
of carrying on socialist revolution created by the
masses of the people. The state shall ensure to the
masses the right to use these forms to create a political
situation in which there are both centralism and democracy,
both discipline and freedom, both unity of will
and personal ease of mind and liveliness,
and so help consolidate the leadership of the
Communist Party of China over the state and
consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat."
Constitution of the People's Republic of China, 1975, Article 13.
The above was in the Cultural Revolution Constitution
of China. It was taken out by the same capitalist-
roaders the West so adored relative to Mao.
As I argue in this thread, yes, there are some
responsibilities of speech under the dicatorship
of the proletariat that do not exist in middle-
class North Amerika. We agree with those restrictions
and believe they should be as second-nature as
not interrupting a pilot flying a plane. Only
sick people argue for private property being
legally protected against the rights to eat,
have clothes, obtain medicine, live without war etc.
The situation in China during the Cultural Revolution
on the whole had more freedoms for the people
than would be apparent in U$-dominated Third World
countries and even the U$A itself in some regards.
For example, in the U$A, most property is private
and a minority is public property. Yet even on that
public property in most cities it is illegal
to put up a poster. Enlightened
cities such as in Vermont have put up relatively
frequent bulletin boards. No city has very many
and none can come close to matching what happened
in China with the big-character posters during
the Cultural Revolution.
Rather than Ross Perot spending his money on TV ads
as is done in the U$A, the Chinese government handed
out paper for both politics and art
to everyone. (The modern day equivalent in the U$A might be giving
everyone an Internet account.)
When the mass media went bad, people organized
their comrades to take over newspapers. They
received sound-trucks from the party to carry out
their work. The masses argued with each other on
the relative merits of possible leaders for the
newspaper.
In contrast, in the capitalist countries, people
frequently get fired for disagreeing with their
bosses. They risk unemployment and subsequent
death from poverty.
Also in the capitalist countries, there is no
majority rule of the workers in the work place.
In the U$A, for example, majority rule extends
only to deciding which party leader will be in
charge of the global police force and imposing
U$ will on the whole world.
Jorge Landivar
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> mi...@mim.org replies: You are right about
> that. We communists do not deny that.
> We would rather be responsible for those
> bullets to the head than the much larger
> numbers of death under capitalism.
Can you provide numbers.
> Now unless you are denying that one has
> responsibility for either the status quo
> or change, we agree. We take responsibility
> for the deaths in China under Mao. What
> deaths will you take responsibility for?
--
Liberty 4All
mi...@mim.org wrote in message <81fog8$2aq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>mi...@mim.org replies: You are right about
>that. We communists do not deny that.
>We would rather be responsible for those
>bullets to the head than the much larger
>numbers of death under capitalism.
>
>Now unless you are denying that one has
>responsibility for either the status quo
>or change, we agree. We take responsibility
>for the deaths in China under Mao. What
>deaths will you take responsibility for?
>
>--
>## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
># # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
># # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
># # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
It would be pointless to argue that there have not been Capitalist regimes
responsible for many deaths. The difficulty in answering your question is
that, while Collectivism encourages a single-minded purposefulness,
Capitalism does just the opposite. Therefore, you will find just as many
Capitalists opposed to murder in the name of Capitalism, as you will find
those who defend it. My answer would therefore be that I am responsible,
even indirectly, for those deaths as a result of any government that I
support.
MICHAEL VOGLER
Jorge Landivar wrote:
>
> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> >
> > Jorge Landivar wrote:
>
> > > This is less of a case than one might think.
> > > Most famines are in fact political in nature.
> >
> > Yes and no. You cannot deny that people starve to death because there
> > isn't enough food :) Seriously though, while there is enough food
> > produced to feed the world, it is not any group of countries'
> > responsibility to distribute it.
>
> Agreed, but they shouldn't hinder its distribution (through embargos and
> the like) either.
Possibly: that is a normative judgement.
> > As such, politics can hardly be blamed
> > for individual country's policies regarding the issue of food
> > distribution except in the case of such incidents as the great leap
> > forward (or "one step forward, two steps back") or Stalin's forced
> > collectivization.
>
> Or the blocades of austria after WWI, or the embargo of cuba, or the
> embargo of Iraq,
> or famines caused because of war.
However, these are extra-territorial circumstances wherein another
country had no responsibility to supply food.
MICHAEL VOGLER
> > This is less of a case than one might think.
> > Most famines are in fact political in nature.
> >
>
> mi...@mim.org replies:
>
> Right now, the world grows enough food to give every person five pounds
> of food every day. In fact, 10% of the grain fed to livestock in rich
> countries (about 2% of world grain production) would solve the world
> hunger problem.
>
> William W. Murdoch, The Poverty of Nations: The Political Economy of
> Hunger and Population (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1980),
> p. 98.
Ummm...Yes. You appear to miss my point. I am saying that in
international relations, it is every country's responsibility to take
care of itself under the Westphalian system. You seem to believe that
all countries should take care of each other. Who is right? I know
that there is enough "food" to feed everyone in the world, but it is
distribution that causes hunger. What I am getting at is twofold:
1) No one has any responsibility to help anyone but themselves. Those
who do help either have a self-interest or are being 'kind'
and
2) Mao wouldn't have accepted help in the Great Leap to Nowheresville
even if it had been offered.
mim, I understand your point. However, you suffer from something
classic only to "socialists" ont he international scale, and that is
belief that everyone should help everyone else out. It is easy to look
at events and say, "you know this could have been prevented if countries
_________ and ___________ and this international organization
___________________________ had been here" forgetting the fact that the
event happened one way, history went the other way, and there is no
point in pointing fingers because it was everyone's fault. The should
have beens of history are innumerable. However, using your logic Mr.
mim, perhaps Hitler should have sent some Panzer divisions to China to
defend them against the Japanese. Of course, the Great Leap Backward
would never have occurred, but hey, millions would have been saved,
right? (I am being sarcastic).
>
> This would be an excellent example of
> how "free speech" in the relativist
> middle- and upper- class sense causes
> death.
Sarcasm, I was being sarcastic.
MICHAEL VOGLER
responses to me to tackle. Could it be that what I have to say has no
rebuttal?? We'll find out, here on "Let's Make a Hero out of Mao!!"
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> "Speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great
> debates and writing big-character posters are new forms
> of carrying on socialist revolution created by the
> masses of the people. The state shall ensure to the
> masses the right to use these forms to create a political
> situation in which there are both centralism and democracy,
> both discipline and freedom, both unity of will
> and personal ease of mind and liveliness,
> and so help consolidate the leadership of the
> Communist Party of China over the state and
> consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat."
>
> Constitution of the People's Republic of China, 1975, Article 13.
Ever read the Soviet Constitution? One of the most liberal and freedom
giving Consitutions in the world. This doesn't mean anything.
> The above was in the Cultural Revolution Constitution
> of China. It was taken out by the same capitalist-
> roaders the West so adored relative to Mao.
>
> As I argue in this thread, yes, there are some
> responsibilities of speech under the dicatorship
> of the proletariat that do not exist in middle-
> class North Amerika. We agree with those restrictions
> and believe they should be as second-nature as
> not interrupting a pilot flying a plane. Only
> sick people argue for private property being
> legally protected against the rights to eat,
> have clothes, obtain medicine, live without war etc.
Like ordering in a restaurant. Seriously though, I understand that not
talking back is very ingrained in Chinese culture, however, you seem to
ignore the fact that because of a freedom of the press, every Chinese
person is forcefed the Communist party line through their newspaper
(which is so biased it is not reprinted in English). Sounds like a real
debate-o-rama over there.
> The situation in China during the Cultural Revolution
> on the whole had more freedoms for the people
> than would be apparent in U$-dominated Third World
> countries and even the U$A itself in some regards.
Freedom, of course being relative. The Asian concept of freedom has
more to do with food, education, and housing than it does with being
able to say what one wants, elect whom one wants, etc.
> For example, in the U$A, most property is private
> and a minority is public property. Yet even on that
> public property in most cities it is illegal
> to put up a poster.
Get your facts straight: there is more American public land than private
(US Forest Service)
Enlightened
> cities such as in Vermont have put up relatively
> frequent bulletin boards. No city has very many
> and none can come close to matching what happened
> in China with the big-character posters during
> the Cultural Revolution.
Wow, some freedom. They could put up posters of Mao wherever they
wanted? What about opposition leaders? Chiang Kai-Shek maybe?
>
> Rather than Ross Perot spending his money on TV ads
> as is done in the U$A, the Chinese government handed
> out paper for both politics and art
> to everyone. (The modern day equivalent in the U$A might be giving
> everyone an Internet account.)
Wow, instead of food, paper!! I'll bet some of that mixed with some
salt and pepper would be really good over nothing! You have a really
skewed view of freedom dude...
>
> When the mass media went bad, people organized
> their comrades to take over newspapers.
Now called the People's Daily, run by Communist functionaries who lie,
cheat, and steal to obtain false information (okay, okay, maybe not lie
cheat and steal, but it ought to be taken with a grain of salt).
They
> received sound-trucks from the party to carry out
> their work.
As long as it supported uncle Mao, what did the government care?
The masses argued with each other on
> the relative merits of possible leaders for the
> newspaper.
The COmmunists won the argument.
> In contrast, in the capitalist countries, people
> frequently get fired for disagreeing with their
> bosses. They risk unemployment and subsequent
> death from poverty.
Really? Where have you worked? I think that is a broad
generalization. However, let us compare that to China, where one can
get shot for disagreeing with the boss (aka the party).
> Also in the capitalist countries, there is no
> majority rule of the workers in the work place.
Yes, there is. It is called a Union. Oh, I'm sorry. Mao didn't
believe in Unions. Did he believe in Santa Claus?
> In the U$A, for example, majority rule extends
> only to deciding which party leader will be in
> charge of the global police force and imposing
> U$ will on the whole world.
Who imposed US on the world? No one. The world following WWII asked
for it, and we gave it to them through NATO, the UN, WB, IMF, etc.
Check up on your IR and come back later.
>
> --
mi...@mim.org
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 06:32:43 GMT, mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> >In article <81fkgc$vfp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> What a load of crap! Are we rehearsing for movie takes? In any
case,
> >> your pilot landing the aircraft scene is exactly the problem people
> >see
> >> with all totalitarian regimes,
> >
> >mi...@mim.org replies: "Totalitarian" theory was proved a load of
crap. According to it
> >the communist regime could not change except by outside invasion.
>
> wasn't a "totalitarian" system? Of course it was. If it turns out that
> Maoism can evolve into a democracy without bloodshed, no one will be
> happier than me.
>
> >mi...@mim.org replies: OK, then how about a rowboat.
> >Instead of complaining, why don't you help us
> >communists row the boat to land? Instead you RESIST
> >and you clamor impatiently for "free speech."
>
>
> Freedom for food. Ask the North Korean about that lovely bargain.
mi...@mim.org replies: here is another
case of an half-assed argument that is
allowed under "free speech" defending
private property.
Is there any reference on n. Koreans? No.
Is there any attempt to put starvation
in Korea in historical perspective? No.
Is there any attempt to determine
what in fact is the property system
in agriculture in n. Korea today? No.
Is there any attempt to come to
a statistical average proving socialism
to be inferior to capitalism on this
question? No.
Is there frequent avoiding of the
evidence presented by the WHO,
NATO, World Bank, Nobel Prize
winner Amartya Sen, bourgeois
economists working on AID contracts,
subcommittees of Congress etc. on
this question? Yes.
Is this ignorance-spreading by Walsh
"free speech" as the way
Amerikans conceived it? Yes.
Is this the same as misdirecting
a cop away from the source of a random mass
murdering spree? No, it's worse.
mi...@mim.org
MICHAEL VOGLER <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
> I think it is interesting that mim picks specific issues in his
> responses to me to tackle. Could it be that what I have to say has no
> rebuttal?? We'll find out, here on "Let's Make a Hero out of Mao!!"
mi...@mim.org replies: If you look
at the Deja message structure of this
thread, you will see I have not
responded to your messages. I responded
once to a response to you.
The post you just made included
material from me that was not a
response to you, but to the original
talk.politics.china message.
I am behind in responding to the items
in this thread. You would probably
find answers to most of what you
posted in our FAQ on our web page.
Jurgen Chiang
> ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former Soviet
> Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
However, I seem to recall the issue of US military aid to Indonesia, as it
massacred and occupied East Timor. You can understand the predicament that
the US faced when it was required to confront the bearers of the very arms
it had funded. Of course, the US media gave surprisingly (or not
surprisingly) little coverage of the massacre that was occurring in East
Timor until long after it began. It was only as it had slowed and
negotiations were underway with East Timor, this year, that they began
coverage. When the democratic process broke down, after coverage had began,
and the issue was in the public eye, only then was action taken. A fact to
which 99% of America is oblivious is that more East Timorese deaths occurred
previous to the referendum and public awareness at the hands of
American-aided Indonesian troops than afterward.
>
> Again, you can only tax people to a degree before they lose all
> interest to produce more, or work more. Incentives.
>
> > So my first answer is reformist: if we could
> > cut off U$ imperialist military aid to Third World regimes,
> > the peasants would carry out class struggle for
> > land reform and hunger would be solved that way.
> >
>
> Cold war nostalgia again? It sure feels good when there are plenty of
> confrontations. Isn't it so?
>
> > If the U$A won't stop aiding the death squad regimes
> > backing landlords and 50 cent an hour wages, then
> > the people of the Third World have every right
> > to overthrow the U$ government.
> >
>
> Does it occur to you that the present day China fits that description?
> The death squad part may not be true to the exact extent, especially
> after 1989. The 50 cents an hour part fits pretty well.
_______
snaphod
Jorge Landivar
MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> > Or the blocades of austria after WWI, or the embargo of cuba, or the
> > embargo of Iraq,
> > or famines caused because of war.
>
> However, these are extra-territorial circumstances wherein another
> country had no responsibility to supply food.
Agreed, but do you agree that it was wrong of the countries to forcibly
hinder the supply?
MICHAEL VOGLER
Jorge Landivar wrote:
>
> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
>
> > > Or the blocades of austria after WWI, or the embargo of cuba, or the
> > > embargo of Iraq,
> > > or famines caused because of war.
> >
> > However, these are extra-territorial circumstances wherein another
> > country had no responsibility to supply food.
>
> Agreed, but do you agree that it was wrong of the countries to forcibly
> hinder the supply?
No, because under the Westphalian system it is every country for
itself. Even the founders of the UN recognized this during its
establishment (note the voting makeup of the Security Council, also note
that the UN Charter recognizes sovereignty as an inalienable right for
countries). To try and blame another country for not assisting when
help was necessary is inane.
MICHAEL VOGLER
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <383A3117...@hotmail.com>,
> Jurgen Chiang <sna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
How do you get that from what the guy just said? Show me where it is
inherently impossible under capitalism to always become competitive when
giving away food. And, most economists would disagree with you on
capitalism not being logical from a human needs standpoint. The entire
idea is based upon the distribution of scarce resources to those who
need it based on a price level. Food has consistently throughout time
been an inexpensive commodity in most Western countries, and now you are
trying to tell me that it doesn't meet human needs? Sure, in China it
didn't and still doesn't because of their inefficient production. Come
on, be realistic.
> Hence, the question is what if the United $tates
> went socialist? What if the Third World were
> released from all the military regimes backed
> by U.$. military aid? 1) The Third World would
> take care of itself if the U$ and other imperialists
> just took their military boots off their necks.
Show us proof. Most African states cannot produce enough because they
spend all of their money on making war, not food. IF THAT was reversed,
then there would be improvement.
> 2) If we did go socialist, and most of the world
> went socialist (which is what would happen if
> the bastion of imperialism U$A went socialist),
> farmers would not be destroyed through economic
> competition. Production would be planned for
> need.
Here we go again, planned economy. However, first, what do you mean by
socialism? What kind of socialism? There are many different kinds all
that would have a variety of effects.
Next: how do you plan production? The Soviet Union failed, China is
failing (as evidenced by their switch to a market economy), and Cuba is
struggling. YOu can hardly expect this to solve the world's hunger
problems.
> So my first answer is reformist: if we could
> cut off U$ imperialist military aid to Third World regimes,
> the peasants would carry out class struggle for
> land reform and hunger would be solved that way.
HA HA...That's a joke right?!? RIGHT?!?!? You are totally misinformed
of the political situation in the third world. No class struggle, no
land reform. Why? They are too busy trying to make food to feed
themselves. It has nothing to do with "imperialist" aide and more to do
with stupidity in government planning in those countries. Do you
suggest they engage in revolt similar to Mao and Stalin? Sure, fine,
have a revolution that is lead by the upper echelons of one class shoot
and kill all of the others in the name of "revolution." You would have
them kill millions...
>
> If the U$A won't stop aiding the death squad regimes
> backing landlords and 50 cent an hour wages, then
> the people of the Third World have every right
> to overthrow the U$ government.
Okay, all of you who support this guy, you are all smoking crack or
something. 1) The 3rd world's problems are caused more by internal
strife resulting from the colonialism of the great powers,
desertification of their land, and inefficient use of their resources
because they can't access Western technology. 2) Mao killed millions,
he knew what he was doing, he knew what the results of the Great Leap
Forward would be, he did it anyway. He knew that they did not have the
capacity to feed the Chinese and he was unwilling to look for help. If
you want to call him a hero, fine, but don't try to portray him in any
other light unless you can face the facts. 3) Socialism IS what most of
the world is. Most of the world has a market-socialist economy
(otherwise called the "welfare state") that provides basic
infrastructure at the least and offers medical care at the most. This
has changed nothing. 4) What makes any of you think that 2 thousand
plus years of history with a core-periphery international system can be
overthrown by a basically Marxist philosophy? It can't be, times have
not changed. 5) CHINA WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME THINGS IF IT WAS IN
AMERICA'S SHOES RIGHT NOW: there is NO evidence to support the contrary.
MICHAEL VOGLER
Jurgen Chiang wrote:
>
> > Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
> > ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former Soviet
> > Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
>
> However, I seem to recall the issue of US military aid to Indonesia, as it
> massacred and occupied East Timor. You can understand the predicament that
> the US faced when it was required to confront the bearers of the very arms
> it had funded. Of course, the US media gave surprisingly (or not
> surprisingly) little coverage of the massacre that was occurring in East
> Timor until long after it began. It was only as it had slowed and
> negotiations were underway with East Timor, this year, that they began
> coverage. When the democratic process broke down, after coverage had began,
> and the issue was in the public eye, only then was action taken. A fact to
> which 99% of America is oblivious is that more East Timorese deaths occurred
> previous to the referendum and public awareness at the hands of
> American-aided Indonesian troops than afterward.
What about the fact that the US was indirectly responsible for the end
of the Cold War and Russia's current economic problems??
> >
> > Again, you can only tax people to a degree before they lose all
> > interest to produce more, or work more. Incentives.
> >
> > > So my first answer is reformist: if we could
> > > cut off U$ imperialist military aid to Third World regimes,
> > > the peasants would carry out class struggle for
> > > land reform and hunger would be solved that way.
> > >
> >
> > Cold war nostalgia again? It sure feels good when there are plenty of
> > confrontations. Isn't it so?
> >
> > > If the U$A won't stop aiding the death squad regimes
> > > backing landlords and 50 cent an hour wages, then
> > > the people of the Third World have every right
> > > to overthrow the U$ government.
> > >
> >
> > Does it occur to you that the present day China fits that description?
> > The death squad part may not be true to the exact extent, especially
> > after 1989. The 50 cents an hour part fits pretty well.
>
> _______
> snaphod
MICHAEL VOGLER
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <383C0B84...@dana.ucc.nau.edu>,
> MICHAEL VOGLER <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
> > I think it is interesting that mim picks specific issues in his
> > responses to me to tackle. Could it be that what I have to say has no
> > rebuttal?? We'll find out, here on "Let's Make a Hero out of Mao!!"
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: If you look
> at the Deja message structure of this
> thread, you will see I have not
> responded to your messages. I responded
> once to a response to you.
>
> The post you just made included
> material from me that was not a
> response to you, but to the original
> talk.politics.china message.
>
> I am behind in responding to the items
> in this thread. You would probably
> find answers to most of what you
> posted in our FAQ on our web page.
Actually, I think your failures to respond have more to do with the fact
that I know what I am talking about and it scares you because you have
no responses to any of the inconsistensies of problems that I have
pointed out. So, to refresh your memory, here is my attack again:
MICHAEL VOGLER
There needn't be. We have conflicting sources regarding the situation
there. You have sources that say one thing (that are biased) and I have
another. However, more of my sources say the exact same things whereas
your sources are more limited and differ.
> Is there any attempt to put starvation
> in Korea in historical perspective? No.
So now who is trying to justify starvation?? I thought starvation was
starvation.
> Is there any attempt to determine
> what in fact is the property system
> in agriculture in n. Korea today? No.
Because it has more to do with a North Korean unwillingness to stand
down than with property.
> Is there any attempt to come to
> a statistical average proving socialism
> to be inferior to capitalism on this
> question? No.
Why? Because, as any statistician will tell you, you can't...And if you
do, you must be biased...
> Is there frequent avoiding of the
> evidence presented by the WHO,
> NATO, World Bank, Nobel Prize
> winner Amartya Sen, bourgeois
> economists working on AID contracts,
> subcommittees of Congress etc. on
> this question? Yes.
Why? Because it isn't the US's problem, it is theirs.
> Is this ignorance-spreading by Walsh
> "free speech" as the way
> Amerikans conceived it? Yes.
Yes, as is our right under the 1st Amendment. I may think that most
libertarians are crazy and/or stupid, but I don't try to tell them to
keep their mouths shut.
> Is this the same as misdirecting
> a cop away from the source of a random mass
> murdering spree? No, it's worse.
This example, on a scholarly evaluation, is the most inane thing I have
ever read...
Jorge Landivar
MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
>
> Jorge Landivar wrote:
> >
> > MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> >
> > > > Or the blocades of austria after WWI, or the embargo of cuba, or the
> > > > embargo of Iraq,
> > > > or famines caused because of war.
> > >
> > > However, these are extra-territorial circumstances wherein another
> > > country had no responsibility to supply food.
> >
> > Agreed, but do you agree that it was wrong of the countries to forcibly
> > hinder the supply?
>
> No, because under the Westphalian system it is every country for
> itself. Even the founders of the UN recognized this during its
> establishment (note the voting makeup of the Security Council, also note
> that the UN Charter recognizes sovereignty as an inalienable right for
> countries). To try and blame another country for not assisting when
> help was necessary is inane.
DANGIT!
I am not saying that countries (read: governments) should provide asistance!
I am saying that it is immoral for them to blocade or prevent
individulas from
conducting buisness in a country, during peace time.
Jorge Landivar
Jurgen Chiang wrote:
>
> > Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
> > ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former Soviet
> > Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
>
> However, I seem to recall the issue of US military aid to Indonesia, as it
> massacred and occupied East Timor. You can understand the predicament that
> the US faced when it was required to confront the bearers of the very arms
> it had funded. Of course, the US media gave surprisingly (or not
> surprisingly) little coverage of the massacre that was occurring in East
> Timor until long after it began. It was only as it had slowed and
> negotiations were underway with East Timor, this year, that they began
> coverage. When the democratic process broke down, after coverage had began,
> and the issue was in the public eye, only then was action taken. A fact to
> which 99% of America is oblivious is that more East Timorese deaths occurred
> previous to the referendum and public awareness at the hands of
> American-aided Indonesian troops than afterward.
Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US.
Jorge Landivar
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <81fkgc$vfp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > What a load of crap! Are we rehearsing for movie takes? In any case,
> > your pilot landing the aircraft scene is exactly the problem people
> see
> > with all totalitarian regimes,
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: "Totalitarian" theory
> was proved a load of crap. According to it
> the communist regime could not change except
> by outside invasion.
Sorry to break it to you, but we (capitalists) have invated China.
Not with arms, but with ideas and capital.
MICHAEL VOGLER
Jorge Landivar wrote:
>
> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> >
> > Jorge Landivar wrote:
> > >
> > > MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Or the blocades of austria after WWI, or the embargo of cuba, or the
> > > > > embargo of Iraq,
> > > > > or famines caused because of war.
> > > >
> > > > However, these are extra-territorial circumstances wherein another
> > > > country had no responsibility to supply food.
> > >
> > > Agreed, but do you agree that it was wrong of the countries to forcibly
> > > hinder the supply?
> >
> > No, because under the Westphalian system it is every country for
> > itself. Even the founders of the UN recognized this during its
> > establishment (note the voting makeup of the Security Council, also note
> > that the UN Charter recognizes sovereignty as an inalienable right for
> > countries). To try and blame another country for not assisting when
> > help was necessary is inane.
>
> DANGIT!
> I am not saying that countries (read: governments) should provide asistance!
> I am saying that it is immoral for them to blocade or prevent
> individulas from
> conducting buisness in a country, during peace time.
And I am saying that as a matter of realist policy that the country can
do whatever it wants within its own borders. You forget that foreign
trade is equivalent to foreign policy, and foreign policy is a matter
for the government to decide.
Indeed, I wonder at your inclusion of the phrase "during peace time."
What, may I ask, consitutes the difference between peacetime and war
time? I think that there is a very slight, negligible difference.
Peacetime is merely a time to prepare for another war, a time to advance
technology and build the population. War time brings the peacetime
preparations into play.
What I am getting at is that just as it may be unacceptable for country
A to ship rice to country B during a war, it ought to be so during
peacetime for the same reasons. Why? Because open trade creates a
national security risk. By offering to feed people, give them bombs, or
whatever, threatens our national security. Food can be stockpiled for
troops, or used to feed the population so that, in the future, they
might provide a better threat to national sovereignty. Those here who
support this free exchange see it in the short run. I agree that in the
short run, it is a "nice thing to do." However, concern for long term
issues is being ignored, just as food shipments could one day turn into
national security threats the next (I base my argument on the fact that
countries are inherently desirous of the position of dominance in the
world, including China and the Soviet Union, all countries want to be a
hegemon. Since we are the hegemon now, any and all assistance rendered
to others can eventually come back and be seen as a threat to our
position, and as the theory goes, our existence).
In addition, mim speaks of imperial dominance. I agree that imperial
dominance exists. However, I believe that it takes to form of Western
international organizations and the US working through them rather than
just US policy itself (in fact, I disagree with most of his analyses
because they appear to be highly uninformed). What one must understand
that, in the long run, giving food to countries, even if done by private
organizations, facilitates further dominance by these regimes. We
create an atmosphere wherein people may come to rely on these goods
(just like they rely on trade, the same trade that keeps third world
countries below par because they are being exploited by the first world:
classical marxian core-periphery) in a cycle that never stops. The IMF
claims that free trade makes everyone more equal in the long run. And
while it does deliver technology and a measure of the Western lifestyle,
free trade frequently turns into exploitation and benefits only a few in
these third world countries. Then, we send food to them in an attempt
to ameliorate the circumstances. No, sending food is just a short run
solution, the long run solution is way more structural and ought to be
dealt with before we allow people to give away our food.
MICHAEL VOGLER
Jorge Landivar wrote:
>
> Jurgen Chiang wrote:
> >
> > > Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
> > > ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former Soviet
> > > Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
> >
> > However, I seem to recall the issue of US military aid to Indonesia, as it
> > massacred and occupied East Timor. You can understand the predicament that
> > the US faced when it was required to confront the bearers of the very arms
> > it had funded. Of course, the US media gave surprisingly (or not
> > surprisingly) little coverage of the massacre that was occurring in East
> > Timor until long after it began. It was only as it had slowed and
> > negotiations were underway with East Timor, this year, that they began
> > coverage. When the democratic process broke down, after coverage had began,
> > and the issue was in the public eye, only then was action taken. A fact to
> > which 99% of America is oblivious is that more East Timorese deaths occurred
> > previous to the referendum and public awareness at the hands of
> > American-aided Indonesian troops than afterward.
>
> Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US.
Yes it does, because we are a republic.
Jorge Landivar
MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
>
> Jorge Landivar wrote:
> >
> > Jurgen Chiang wrote:
> > >
> > > > Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
> > > > ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former Soviet
> > > > Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
> > >
> > > However, I seem to recall the issue of US military aid to Indonesia, as it
> > > massacred and occupied East Timor. You can understand the predicament that
> > > the US faced when it was required to confront the bearers of the very arms
> > > it had funded. Of course, the US media gave surprisingly (or not
> > > surprisingly) little coverage of the massacre that was occurring in East
> > > Timor until long after it began. It was only as it had slowed and
> > > negotiations were underway with East Timor, this year, that they began
> > > coverage. When the democratic process broke down, after coverage had began,
> > > and the issue was in the public eye, only then was action taken. A fact to
> > > which 99% of America is oblivious is that more East Timorese deaths occurred
> > > previous to the referendum and public awareness at the hands of
> > > American-aided Indonesian troops than afterward.
> >
> > Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US.
>
> Yes it does, because we are a republic.
1) so was the soviet union
2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
government still does it
"Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
3) Our president was voted in by about 13% of the population
4) have you not supported anything that our government has ever done?
--
echelon cycle waster v2
ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT
OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA
AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA SAVIN GAMMA
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
qANQR1DDDQQDAwJkjWpWKPCgrmDJJwK/qwk30O/3fKw2jhjfJGghpfyLUlgjGtY4
LKEpIHJegoEqSGyy0g==
=AIzj
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Jorge Landivar
MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
There seems to be a very different philosophy between us.
I hold more to individual sovereignty, and you hold more to national sovereignty.
--
Jorge Landivar
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> As I argue in this thread, yes, there are some
> responsibilities of speech under the dicatorship
> of the proletariat that do not exist in middle-
> class North Amerika. We agree with those restrictions
> and believe they should be as second-nature as
> not interrupting a pilot flying a plane. Only
> sick people argue for private property being
> legally protected against the rights to eat,
> have clothes, obtain medicine, live without war etc.
1) What's the point of having free speach if you can't speak say
politically incorrect or unpopular things
2) Your airplane analogy is flawed if you use it to support making it
illegal to complain/say bad things about the government unless you are
actually disrupting the government by dooing something akin to
continually
disrupting the legislative assemblies.
coxinga
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> In article <81fkgc$vfp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > What a load of crap! Are we rehearsing for movie takes? In any
case,
> > your pilot landing the aircraft scene is exactly the problem people
> see
> > with all totalitarian regimes,
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: "Totalitarian" theory
> was proved a load of crap. According to it
> the communist regime could not change except
> went capitalist without invasion. In contrast,
> our literature distributed in the mid-1980s predicted
> cyclical crises just like in other
> capitalist societies. We were right. All the bourgeois
> academic crud you read was proved wrong.
>
Please spare me the theoretical part. I am not going to continue any
discussions on that basis. So what you are saying the capitalists have
more company. What's does your crystal ball tell you next?
> Maoist or otherwise. Whenever the
> > regime wants to shut people up, it is always "the pilot is landing
the
> > aircraft". Is it any wonder that your Maoist fantasy is always in
the
> > air trying to land? But it could never land because it would simply
> > disintegrate on solid ground.
> >
> > coxinga
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: OK, then how about a rowboat.
> Instead of complaining, why don't you help us
> communists row the boat to land? Instead you RESIST
> and you clamor impatiently for "free speech."
>
Well, it depends on who is at the helm. How do I know if we are
heading anywhere worthwhile?
> As I have already said on this NG before, remove the
> threats to people's lives (Mao called "antagonistic
> contradictions) and no communist will oppose free speech,
> because it will be second nature to society not to allow
> starvation, freezing etc. in the name of private property.
If I understand correctly, the "antagonistic contradictions" you
advocate means elimination of the bourgeoisie, which is the majority in
the US. No wonder you are not able to recruit any crews to row your
boat. You could easily get someone to sink your boat though.
> Majority rule may also be a fine way of resolving non-antagonistic
> contradictions. Likely under advanced stages of communism
> called anarchism, majority rule
> will also lose its passionate attraction and there will
> be other cooperative ways of living found.
>
It's not going to happen. I mean the non-antagonistic contradictions
part. According to your Messiah, the contradictions between a
proletariat and the bourgeoisie is antogonistic. You have to make me,
and more than 80% of the population prletariat before we can resolved
our non-antagonistic contradictions. Why would I do that?
> I sympathize with the impatience of the middle-class.
> It wants free speech now. It thinks life is good enough
> already. And for the middle-class of the world seen most
> extensively in North Amerika--there is some reason for that.
> We expect that North Amerikan middle classes still have
> to row the boat for the environment and an end to war.
> As the contemporary realities of advances
> in weapons and the possibilities for pollution sink in, the
> farsighted amongst the North Amerikan middle-classes will
> get in the boat with us communists and start rowing.
>
And with Maoist like you at the helm? Dream on.
> What I don't sympathize with in the middle-class is that
> it thinks it has put in enough effort to settle this
> question, when if it would just side decisively with the
> proletariat, we would all get to a world with "free speech"
> and even "free trade" a lot faster.
Yeah, sure. And every proletariat would line up at the bread shop
every morning looking at the empty shelves in the store like the former
USSR. Being a bourgeoisie, I already got my free speech and enjoy free
trade.
> In fact middle-class
> people are RESISTING the OBVIOUS truth that when
> there is a preventable threat to someone's life, there
> can be no peace. When there is no justice and no peace,
> there can be no true "free speech" either. There will
> always be coercion of one form or another until the
> antagonistic contradictions are resolved.
>
What Mao failed to realize was, when almost everyone of us is a
bourgeoisie, we can resolve our contradictions in a non-antogonistic
way. Does that mean we're having our cake and eat it too?
coxinga
--
Coxinga/ The 17th century warlord, son of a pirate, who was bestowed
the last name of Ming emperors. He defeated the Dutch to capture
Formosa. A rare victory in the struggle against colonialism by the
East. It spelled the beginning of the end for the Dutch East India Co.
mi...@mim.org
ray...@spkn.uswest.net wrote:
> > mi...@mim.org replies:
> >
> > Right now, the world grows enough food to give every person five
pounds
> > of food every day. In fact, 10% of the grain fed to livestock in
rich
> > countries (about 2% of world grain production) would solve the world
> > hunger problem.
> >
> > William W. Murdoch, The Poverty of Nations: The Political Economy of
> > Hunger and Population (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press,
1980),
> > p. 98.
> >
> > This would be an excellent example of
> > how "free speech" in the relativist
> > middle- and upper- class sense causes
> > death. People actually believe there is no
> > food as the reason for starvation. It's
> > legal to believe that and say that. Ignorance
> > is widespread. People who COULD do something
> > about it don't. It is NO DIFFERENT than
> > verbally misleading a cop about the direction
> > that a postal mass murderer went
> > as he was shooting people down on the
> > streets. No, I take that back, because
> > there is a difference: the postal
> > mass murderer will kill many fewer people
> > than the people withholding property
> > from starving people.
> >
> > In contrast, anything from flying planes to
> > driving trains or cars to brain surgery
> > requires some expertise. The middle-
> > and upper- classes are threatened by
> > the possibilities otherwise and don't
> > tolerate for a second any infractions
> > in these areas. Yet become a communist
> > and lead a communist government and these
> > middle- and upper- class people howl
> > about how they should be able to say
> > there is no food. "Free speech" they
> > scream. Others say politics is just "opinion."
> > That's how they justify turning the other
> > way as children too young to exercise their
> > free speech die of hunger.
> >
>
> Yeah, Jookko, you got that right ... too damned many kids in poor
countries
> ... easy solution to that ... fewer kids ...
mi...@mim.org replies: Peasants have children
in poor countries to provide for social security
that they don't have. Take away the kids
and you just see more elderly people
dying.
AFTER a country becomes wealthier, its
people start to have less kids. A higher
percentage survive, so you don't have
to have as many and you don't need them
for labor/social security.
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
mi...@mim.org
MICHAEL VOGLER <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
> > In article <383B2FDF...@geocities.com>,
> > land...@geocities.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Right now, the world grows enough food to give every person five
pounds
> > of food every day. In fact, 10% of the grain fed to livestock in
rich
> > countries (about 2% of world grain production) would solve the world
> > hunger problem.
> >
> > William W. Murdoch, The Poverty of Nations: The Political Economy of
> > Hunger and Population (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press,
1980),
> > p. 98.
>
> international relations, it is every country's responsibility to take
> care of itself under the Westphalian system. You seem to believe that
> all countries should take care of each other. Who is right? I know
> that there is enough "food" to feed everyone in the world, but it is
> distribution that causes hunger. What I am getting at is twofold:
>
> 1) No one has any responsibility to help anyone but themselves. Those
> who do help either have a self-interest or are being 'kind'
> and
mi...@mim.org replies: This is the bottom line.
It's an out-of-date bottom line, because the individual,
especially the individual capitalist can now do the
world tremendous harm, by his or herself.
Obviously there's the arms trade, drug trade and nuclear
proliferation for profit possible. The mere invention
of the aerosol can the way it was originally conceived
could have killed the whole species. We Marxists call
it the anarchy of capitalist production.
The Amerikan or Anglo-Saxon illusion of individualism
is very dangerous and needs to die a speedy death.
Whether someone "owes" something or not to other people,
the fact is that there WILL BE violence as long as people
have their basic needs ignored. People will not willingly
starve or watch others starve to death. Hence, an ideology
which spoke of social obligations and "owing" is more
in line with the requirements of the species than
individualism.
> 2) Mao wouldn't have accepted help in the Great Leap to Nowheresville
> even if it had been offered.
mi...@mim.org replies: As a matter of fact, Mao borrowed
grain from his new enemy Khruschev, during the Great Leap.
When we achieve a socialist U$A, such relations will
be smoothed over much more quickly, without the suspicions
and power-struggles, as we see in the case of U$ food
aid to northern Koreans now where the whole thing is
used for politics and limited by that fact.
>
> mim, I understand your point. However, you suffer from something
> classic only to "socialists" ont he international scale, and that is
> belief that everyone should help everyone else out. It is easy to
look
> at events and say, "you know this could have been prevented if
countries
> _________ and ___________ and this international organization
> ___________________________ had been here" forgetting the fact that
the
> event happened one way, history went the other way, and there is no
> point in pointing fingers because it was everyone's fault. The should
> have beens of history are innumerable.
mi...@mim.org replies: Well then welcome to relativism.
I take it you don't think there is such a thing
as an accessory to crime.
mi...@mim.org
coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Hence, the question is what if the United $tates
> > went socialist? What if the Third World were
> > released from all the military regimes backed
> > by U.$. military aid? 1) The Third World would
> > take care of itself if the U$ and other imperialists
> > just took their military boots off their necks.
> > 2) If we did go socialist, and most of the world
> > went socialist (which is what would happen if
> > the bastion of imperialism U$A went socialist),
> > farmers would not be destroyed through economic
> > competition. Production would be planned for
> > need.
> >
>
> Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
> ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former
Soviet
> Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
mi...@mim.org replies: Oh? Uncle Sam intervened
around the globe before the Bolsheviks took
power and after the USSR fell apart as well.
Little has changed, contrary to the totalitarian
theorists and other apologists of imperialism
who said they were only doing what they were
doing to oppose the Soviet Union. In fact,
the totalitarian theory more fits the U$A
given how little of anything has changed.
Perhaps you should consider Iraq and Somalia
in addition to military aid and the
new buzzwords such as "war on drugs"
and "security arrangement." Here are some links.
Let me know what has changed, maybe after you
have done a little research on just the Internet?
http://fhrg.org/milt.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/asm022898.html
http://www.us.net/cip/981209co.htm
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/cat/foraid/append4a.html
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/cat/foraid/append4b.html
[snip]
> > So my first answer is reformist: if we could
> > cut off U$ imperialist military aid to Third World regimes,
> > the peasants would carry out class struggle for
> > land reform and hunger would be solved that way.
> >
>
> Cold war nostalgia again? It sure feels good when there are plenty of
> confrontations. Isn't it so?
mi...@mim.org replies: The Hot War lives on--
against the Third World.
>
> > If the U$A won't stop aiding the death squad regimes
> > backing landlords and 50 cent an hour wages, then
> > the people of the Third World have every right
> > to overthrow the U$ government.
> >
>
> Does it occur to you that the present day China fits that description?
> The death squad part may not be true to the exact extent, especially
> after 1989. The 50 cents an hour part fits pretty well.
mi...@mim.org replies: It occurs to us and we
have written about it. Does it occur to you
that it is not the Marxists saying there is
"free trade" and a "free market" in this world?
Does it occur to you that we say there is
coercion of labor out of labor-power and
it is the bourgeois economists who say that
capitalism is a series of consensual agreements?
Does it occur to you that any country competing
with 50 cents an hour wages is thereby influenced
by the coercion in the worst humyn-rights abusing
country, whichever one that it is? Does it occur
to you that profits increase the more humyn-rights
are abused? Does it occur to you that maybe then
the profit system is not the way to go?
mi...@mim.org
land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> > As I argue in this thread, yes, there are some
> > responsibilities of speech under the dicatorship
> > of the proletariat that do not exist in middle-
> > class North Amerika. We agree with those restrictions
> > and believe they should be as second-nature as
> > not interrupting a pilot flying a plane. Only
> > sick people argue for private property being
> > legally protected against the rights to eat,
> > have clothes, obtain medicine, live without war etc.
>
> 1) What's the point of having free speach if you can't speak say
> politically incorrect or unpopular things
> 2) Your airplane analogy is flawed if you use it to support making it
> illegal to complain/say bad things about the government unless you are
> actually disrupting the government by dooing something akin to
> continually
> disrupting the legislative assemblies.
mi...@mim.org replies:
That's all you think government does is
talk in legislative assemblies? You
are trying to avoid the fact that
things threatening the upper- and
middle- classes are closely regulated
with no room for "free speech."
I'd like to see a Driver's Ed course
given when half the teachers say
"red means go" and half say "green means
go." Yet, when it comes to world hunger,
the media is allowed to come up with
the idiocies we have seen on this NG
like "not enough food is produced."
When it comes to life-and-death matters,
implementation does matter. It's not
OK to be wrong.
mi...@mim.org
jimw...@transend.com.tw wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:21:45 GMT, mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> >In article <383C89B9...@geocities.com>,
> > land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> >> 1) What's the point of having free speach if you can't speak say
> >> politically incorrect or unpopular things
>
> >> 2) Your airplane analogy is flawed if you use it to support making
it
> >> illegal to complain/say bad things about the government unless you
are
> >> actually disrupting the government by dooing something akin to
> >> continually disrupting the legislative assemblies.
> >
> >mi...@mim.org replies:
> >That's all you think government does is talk in legislative
assemblies?
>
> than that. First of all, it has secret meetings from which the public
> is excluded, where the real decisions are made. Second of all, it
> persecutes, imprisons and kills Chinese who speak or write freely.
>
> >You are trying to avoid the fact that things threatening the upper-
and
> >middle- classes are closely regulated with no room for "free speech."
>
> threatened by speech, that speech is forbidden and the people who said
> that are persecuted.
>
> The idea that all poor people would have plenty to eat if they would
> only give up free speech is a really bizarre idea, not supported by
> logic or history.
>
> In recent years, the largest (in percentage terms) famine has occurred
> in No. Korea, a country in which there is no freedom of speech.
>
> Love, Jim
mi...@mim.org replies: Look, Walsh,
you can keep trying to dodge the
issue and repeat the same
trite statements over and over, but
people are going to notice.
You have offered no source for your
assertions about northern Koreans
despite this being my third request
in a week. You also have failed to
provide any definitive answer on whether
farming in northern Korea is actually
capitalist or not.
As for logic, yours is to deny
statistical facts by calling them
conspiracies. It's not possible
to argue logic with such. So why
not skip the subjects you
have such paranoid fears about?
Hence, for yourself, I suggest
you start by arguing the logic
of things you trust(and don't
have inordinate fears of), like the way
airplanes are run, driver education
classes etc. Of course, you are also
free to argue that the crime of
accessory to murder should be abolished.
You could consistently
argue that there is nothing
wrong with misdirecting people to
their deaths. In actual fact, you
need to do that, because your particular
relativism and conspiracy theory
makes it irrelevant whether or not
capitalism or socialism is better
for the people's survival. You are
claiming that there is no connection
of free speech to survival of the
people. If capitalism is better
for survival, you would be for "free
speech" and if socialism is better
you would be for "free speech"
in the same irresponsible way. To
you, the substance of the issue does
not matter, so you must argue that
misdirecting people to their deaths
or into causing other people's deaths
is OK. There is no alternative for you.
mi...@mim.org
> > >
> > > >In article <81fkgc$vfp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >> What a load of crap! Are we rehearsing for movie takes? In
any
> > case,
> > > >> your pilot landing the aircraft scene is exactly the problem
people
> > > >see
> > > >> with all totalitarian regimes,
> > > >
> > > >mi...@mim.org replies: "Totalitarian" theory was proved a load of
> > crap. According to it
> > > >the communist regime could not change except by outside invasion.
> > >
Maoism
> > > wasn't a "totalitarian" system? Of course it was. If it turns out
that
> > > Maoism can evolve into a democracy without bloodshed, no one will
be
> > > happier than me.
> > >
> > > >Instead of complaining, why don't you help us
> > > >communists row the boat to land? Instead you RESIST
> > > >and you clamor impatiently for "free speech."
> > >
> > >
> > > Freedom for food. Ask the North Korean about that lovely bargain.
> >
> > mi...@mim.org replies: here is another
> > case of an half-assed argument that is
> > allowed under "free speech" defending
> > private property.
> >
> > Is there any reference on n. Koreans? No.
>
> There needn't be. We have conflicting sources regarding the situation
> there. You have sources that say one thing (that are biased) and I
have
> another. However, more of my sources say the exact same things
whereas
> your sources are more limited and differ.
mi...@mim.org replies: In other words, you
aren't going to present any hard facts either,
but you are going to continue to deny and evade
factual historical generalizations agreed upon by countless
sources. You are going to
go into denial--all based on northern Korea--a region that would be
less than a province in India, a country with
majority rule and bourgeois style "free speech."
>
> > Is there any attempt to put starvation
> > in Korea in historical perspective? No.
>
> So now who is trying to justify starvation?? I thought starvation was
> starvation.
mi...@mim.org replies: I never claimed socialism could
abolish all starvation or other sources
of violence. I only said communist-led socialism is
better than the alternative. Keylime on the
other hand seems to be criticizing with reference
to the next life. How about you? If you are
going to say something like "the end doesn't
justify the means," and act like you have
no real world responsibility, then I can't
argue with you.
>
> > Is there any attempt to determine
> > what in fact is the property system
> > in agriculture in n. Korea today? No.
>
> Because it has more to do with a North Korean unwillingness to stand
> down than with property.
>
> > Is there any attempt to come to
> > a statistical average proving socialism
> > to be inferior to capitalism on this
> > question? No.
>
> Why? Because, as any statistician will tell you, you can't...And if
you
> do, you must be biased...
mi...@mim.org replies: Oh sure, don't attempt
any analysis. It's not possible. Why don't you
libertarians just get consistent about it?
Don't do any statistics on the drugs you take,
the meat you eat, the best way to cross the street,
the proper way to train airplane pilots: after you
libertarians live this relativist life of free
speech and no statistics, you will all be dead
in a few decades, and we will move on to socialism.
> > Is there frequent avoiding of the
> > evidence presented by the WHO,
> > NATO, World Bank, Nobel Prize
> > winner Amartya Sen, bourgeois
> > economists working on AID contracts,
> > subcommittees of Congress etc. on
> > this question? Yes.
>
> Why? Because it isn't the US's problem, it is theirs.
mi...@mim.org replies: Not if US people are lying
about it.
>
> > Is this ignorance-spreading by Walsh
> > "free speech" as the way
> > Amerikans conceived it? Yes.
>
> Yes, as is our right under the 1st Amendment. I may think that most
> libertarians are crazy and/or stupid, but I don't try to tell them to
> keep their mouths shut.
mi...@mim.org replies: You ought to start
telling them to keep their mouths shut
when it comes to certain life-and-death
questions they don't know anything about.
>
> > Is this the same as misdirecting
> > a cop away from the source of a random mass
> > murdering spree? No, it's worse.
>
> This example, on a scholarly evaluation, is the most inane thing I
have
> ever read...
mi...@mim.org replies: I guess you aren't
used to much substance in your scholarship
then, but that doesn't surprise me, because
the same type of society where the
majority of Louisiana whites gave David
Duke their vote for governor is the type
of society that accepts the type of post
you made above. An organization has
put together a list of illogical arguments
used by Nazi Holocaust revisionists.
You have just echoed one perfectly.
"
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is
substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has
the following form:
1.X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed
at the claim).
2.Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not
show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following
example: "1+1=2! That's the most
ridiculous thing I have ever heard!" "
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
The problem is the argument has no substance connected
with it. The critic did not attempt to say how
the analogy or similar situation offered was flawed.
Jorge Landivar
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> mi...@mim.org replies:
> That's all you think government does is
> talk in legislative assemblies? You
> are trying to avoid the fact that
> things threatening the upper- and
> middle- classes are closely regulated
> with no room for "free speech."
> I'd like to see a Driver's Ed course
> given when half the teachers say
> "red means go" and half say "green means
> go." Yet, when it comes to world hunger,
> the media is allowed to come up with
> the idiocies we have seen on this NG
> like "not enough food is produced."
Sorry, but I have never heard that said.
>
> When it comes to life-and-death matters,
> implementation does matter. It's not
> OK to be wrong.
1) Fraud is illegal and should be IMHO illegal.
2) Complaining and criticising isn't and IMHO shouldn't be.
3) ever wondered why capitalist countried have more food?
mi...@mim.org
land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
> > In article <81fkgc$vfp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > What a load of crap! Are we rehearsing for movie takes? In any
case,
> > > your pilot landing the aircraft scene is exactly the problem
people
> > see
> > > with all totalitarian regimes,
> >
> > mi...@mim.org replies: "Totalitarian" theory
> > was proved a load of crap. According to it
> > the communist regime could not change except
> > by outside invasion.
>
> Not with arms, but with ideas and capital.
mi...@mim.org replies: Sorry to break it
to you, but according to "totalitarian" theory,
that should not have been possible. Those
of us with Mao's theories on the other hand,
predicted the invasion of capital. We also knew,
prostitution, drug trade, McDonald's etc.
was coming.
Of course, like your pal Walsh, being right
or wrong is not the point. Just talking as if
everything is relative is the point for you.
mi...@mim.org
"Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote in message <81fog8$2aq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> >
> >mi...@mim.org replies: You are right about
> >that. We communists do not deny that.
> >We would rather be responsible for those
> >bullets to the head than the much larger
> >numbers of death under capitalism.
> >
> >Now unless you are denying that one has
> >responsibility for either the status quo
> >or change, we agree. We take responsibility
> >for the deaths in China under Mao. What
> >deaths will you take responsibility for?
> >
> >--
> >## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
> ># # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
> ># # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
> ># # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
regimes
> responsible for many deaths. The difficulty in answering your question
is
> that, while Collectivism encourages a single-minded purposefulness,
> Capitalism does just the opposite. Therefore, you will find just as
many
> Capitalists opposed to murder in the name of Capitalism, as you will
find
> those who defend it. My answer would therefore be that I am
responsible,
> even indirectly, for those deaths as a result of any government that I
> support.
>
>
mi...@mim.org replies: If I understand you
correctly, I agree with you. If however, you believe
that because you verbally oppose government, you
have no responsibility for any government, then
I disagree--unless you are a back-to-nature anarchist
talking about joining up with some pre-industrial tribe.
As it stands, there is no choice but one kind of
government or another. So in an argument between
capitalism and socialism to stand to one side
and say "governments of neither" is no different
than reciting the Bible on the afterlife. Such people
are responsible for the status quo whether they
know it or not.
mi...@mim.org
land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> > mi...@mim.org replies:
> > That's all you think government does is
> > talk in legislative assemblies? You
> > are trying to avoid the fact that
> > things threatening the upper- and
> > middle- classes are closely regulated
> > with no room for "free speech."
> > I'd like to see a Driver's Ed course
> > given when half the teachers say
> > "red means go" and half say "green means
> > go." Yet, when it comes to world hunger,
> > the media is allowed to come up with
> > the idiocies we have seen on this NG
> > like "not enough food is produced."
>
> Sorry, but I have never heard that said.
mi...@mim.org replies: Apparently you have
already forgotten the following message
on this thread:
From: MICHAEL VOGLER <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Subject: Re: Cultural Revolution and Democracy
Date: 23 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <383AB550...@dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <Tl8xOA9UdCo05ooVV7CibIAJqXJ=@4ax.com>
<80s0kt$5so$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <80sc6t$fa7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<80t2p4$d8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <gR8yOHnFWQhM9D2J7wx3P=Sjo...@4ax.com>
<81aknp$anf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <81bjq1$ikq$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>
<81ci2a$nlt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
X-Sender: "MICHAEL VOGLER" <@mailgate.nau.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Northern Arizona University
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.china,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <81bjq1$ikq$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > Whew...I was trying to sort through the issues you have, but I got
> lost in
> > the midst of all that rhetoric. I would disagree with you that the
> > starvation in China was solely a result of the privitization of
> farmland
> > (that is what you saying, right?..again, it's hard to separate the
> > profundities from the abstrusities).
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Starvation occurs
> from a lack of successful class struggle
> to destroy feudalism. Land reform can succeed
> with a bourgeois content, especially for
> a period before a new landlord class concentrates
> the wealth again.
No, starvation occurs because there is not enough food. It has less to
do with "class struggle" and more to do with problems in producing food.
mi...@mim.org
> > When it comes to life-and-death matters,
> > implementation does matter. It's not
> > OK to be wrong.
>
> 1) Fraud is illegal and should be IMHO illegal.
mi...@mim.org replies: The relevant question
is more like "accessory to murder." Do you
believe such a crime exists? Do you believe
one could play a strictly verbal role
and be an accessory to murder?
> 2) Complaining and criticising isn't and IMHO shouldn't be.
> 3) ever wondered why capitalist countried have more food?
mi...@mim.org replies: There are 200 capitalist
countries. Only a few are well-off and
produce abundant food like the U$A. On average, capitalist
countries of the same per capita income
fair poorly compared with Mao's China
in every category of humyn needs. See the
following links:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/success.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/infant.html
mi...@mim.org
land...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> > mi...@mim.org replies: You are right about
> > that. We communists do not deny that.
> > We would rather be responsible for those
> > bullets to the head than the much larger
> > numbers of death under capitalism.
>
mi...@mim.org replies:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/mythsofmao.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/philviolence.html
MICHAEL VOGLER
libertarianism.
MICHAEL VOGLER
Which is what a social contract establishes, far from a "socialist"
doctrine.
> > 2) Mao wouldn't have accepted help in the Great Leap to Nowheresville
> > even if it had been offered.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: As a matter of fact, Mao borrowed
> grain from his new enemy Khruschev, during the Great Leap.
> When we achieve a socialist U$A, such relations will
> be smoothed over much more quickly, without the suspicions
> and power-struggles, as we see in the case of U$ food
> aid to northern Koreans now where the whole thing is
> used for politics and limited by that fact.
Sure, he BORROWED. Different from accepting freely given aid. The
point is that he was too proud to admit that he was wrong. By the way,
it is more of an "if" you achieve anything.
> >
> > mim, I understand your point. However, you suffer from something
> > classic only to "socialists" ont he international scale, and that is
> > belief that everyone should help everyone else out. It is easy to
> look
> > at events and say, "you know this could have been prevented if
> countries
> > _________ and ___________ and this international organization
> > ___________________________ had been here" forgetting the fact that
> the
> > event happened one way, history went the other way, and there is no
> > point in pointing fingers because it was everyone's fault. The should
> > have beens of history are innumerable.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Well then welcome to relativism.
> I take it you don't think there is such a thing
> as an accessory to crime.
That's nice, bring in one of your analogies. 1) Your analogies are
unlikely to actually occur; 2) Your analogies cannot be applied to the
broader scale (as we saw with your airliner one). Now, relativism,
while it has benefits, is actually opening up moot points that we do not
need to discuss. My point is that you have lots of what ifs and few
this is how it is's.
MICHAEL VOGLER
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <383B8167...@spkn.uswest.net>,
> ray...@spkn.uswest.net wrote:
>
> > > mi...@mim.org replies:
> > >
> > > Right now, the world grows enough food to give every person five
> pounds
> > > of food every day. In fact, 10% of the grain fed to livestock in
> rich
> > > countries (about 2% of world grain production) would solve the world
> > > hunger problem.
> > >
> > > William W. Murdoch, The Poverty of Nations: The Political Economy of
> > > Hunger and Population (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press,
> 1980),
> > > p. 98.
> > >
Actually, leave the kids and the elderly die anyway.
> AFTER a country becomes wealthier, its
> people start to have less kids.
Not technically accurate. It is when the country moves into the
post-industrial segment of expansion that the number of kids tapers.
A higher
> percentage survive, so you don't have
> to have as many and you don't need them
> for labor/social security.
>
MICHAEL VOGLER
Jorge Landivar wrote:
>
> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> >
> > Jorge Landivar wrote:
> > >
> > > Jurgen Chiang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
> > > > > ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former Soviet
> > > > > Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
> > > >
> > > > However, I seem to recall the issue of US military aid to Indonesia, as it
> > > > massacred and occupied East Timor. You can understand the predicament that
> > > > the US faced when it was required to confront the bearers of the very arms
> > > > it had funded. Of course, the US media gave surprisingly (or not
> > > > surprisingly) little coverage of the massacre that was occurring in East
> > > > Timor until long after it began. It was only as it had slowed and
> > > > negotiations were underway with East Timor, this year, that they began
> > > > coverage. When the democratic process broke down, after coverage had began,
> > > > and the issue was in the public eye, only then was action taken. A fact to
> > > > which 99% of America is oblivious is that more East Timorese deaths occurred
> > > > previous to the referendum and public awareness at the hands of
> > > > American-aided Indonesian troops than afterward.
> > >
> > > Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US.
> >
> > Yes it does, because we are a republic.
>
> 1) so was the soviet union
Not technically: it was more of an oligarchy. Voting was a facade.
> 2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
> government still does it
> "Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
Statistic from where?? Actually, the US government has the approval of
the US citizens provided that they do not try to overthrow the existing
order. We are talking in general, not individual cases.
> 3) Our president was voted in by about 13% of the population
Original point still stands. As long as the Constitutional order is
accepted by a majority of americans, then the government has their
support.
> 4) have you not supported anything that our government has ever done?
I have no choice, I pay taxes and am a US citizen. By most political
definitions I am a supporter of the government's actions.
MICHAEL VOGLER
Ummm...Sure. Most of your sources are Chinese anyway...
I'm not libertarian. My point is that you can't show that socialism is
superior to capitalism because the study would have problems in defining
socialism and capitalism. Thus, it would be a biased study.
> > > Is there frequent avoiding of the
> > > evidence presented by the WHO,
> > > NATO, World Bank, Nobel Prize
> > > winner Amartya Sen, bourgeois
> > > economists working on AID contracts,
> > > subcommittees of Congress etc. on
> > > this question? Yes.
> >
> > Why? Because it isn't the US's problem, it is theirs.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Not if US people are lying
> about it.
It is irrelevant whether or not we lie, under the Westphalian system, it
still isn't our problem.
> >
> > > Is this ignorance-spreading by Walsh
> > > "free speech" as the way
> > > Amerikans conceived it? Yes.
> >
> > Yes, as is our right under the 1st Amendment. I may think that most
> > libertarians are crazy and/or stupid, but I don't try to tell them to
> > keep their mouths shut.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: You ought to start
> telling them to keep their mouths shut
> when it comes to certain life-and-death
> questions they don't know anything about.
Once again, freedom of speech. It doesn't matter whether or not they
have their facts straight, they can still have an opinion. That is how
democracy works. Our forefathers recognized that, Plato recognized
that, now perhaps you should recognize that.
> >
> > > Is this the same as misdirecting
> > > a cop away from the source of a random mass
> > > murdering spree? No, it's worse.
> >
> > This example, on a scholarly evaluation, is the most inane thing I
> have
> > ever read...
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: I guess you aren't
> used to much substance in your scholarship
> then, but that doesn't surprise me, because
> the same type of society where the
> majority of Louisiana whites gave David
> Duke their vote for governor is the type
> of society that accepts the type of post
> you made above. An organization has
> put together a list of illogical arguments
> used by Nazi Holocaust revisionists.
> You have just echoed one perfectly.
Actually, it is more like I refuse to recognize the validity of your
analogies because they are easily misdirected and can have multiple
uses. Thus I refuse to accept them as valid in the argument.
Jorge Landivar
MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> > 1) so was the soviet union
>
> Not technically: it was more of an oligarchy. Voting was a facade.
Point taken.
> > 2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
> > government still does it
> > "Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
>
> Statistic from where?? Actually, the US government has the approval of
> the US citizens provided that they do not try to overthrow the existing
> order. We are talking in general, not individual cases.
Actually most people I have talkid to seem to fear the government.
> > 3) Our president was voted in by about 13% of the population
>
> Original point still stands. As long as the Constitutional order is
> accepted by a majority of americans, then the government has their
> support.
Tell me, is selective service constitutional, the IRS, FCC, EPA, FEMA?
>
> > 4) have you not supported anything that our government has ever done?
>
> I have no choice, I pay taxes and am a US citizen. By most political
> definitions I am a supporter of the government's actions.
You de have a choice.
You can fight it within the system.
--
echelon cycle waster v2.1
SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM PARK ON
METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER PROMIS
MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID C4 MALCOLM X REVOLUTION CHEROKEE
HILLARY BILL CLINTON GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST TASK
FORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS 12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF EXPLOSIVE MOLOTOV COCKTAIL
REVOLUTION NRA GOA HEMP UFO AURORA NRO FCC FTC FAA
HIJACK MILLION BILLION TRILLION ENCRYPT OPEN SOURCE CAPITALISM
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM OSS OPERATION PAPERCLIP HOT SPRINGS HOTEL
CONSPIRACY
CHINA JAPAN NORTH KOREA ATTACK SOUTH KOREA THE CATCHER IN THE RYE VIETNAM
ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT
OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA
AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA SAVIN GAMMA
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
qANQR1DDDQQDAwIRDH+OkNjJ2GDJHMeKtV7oKlOAtYMoWn0YsqhglUGawupXgoPg
k2k=
=CZWE
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Jorge Landivar
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <383C75D3...@geocities.com>,
> land...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <81fkgc$vfp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > What a load of crap! Are we rehearsing for movie takes? In any
> case,
> > > > your pilot landing the aircraft scene is exactly the problem
> people
> > > see
> > > > with all totalitarian regimes,
> > >
> > > mi...@mim.org replies: "Totalitarian" theory
> > > was proved a load of crap. According to it
> > > the communist regime could not change except
> > > by outside invasion.
> >
> > Sorry to break it to you, but we (capitalists) have invated China.
> > Not with arms, but with ideas and capital.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Sorry to break it
> to you, but according to "totalitarian" theory,
> that should not have been possible. Those
> of us with Mao's theories on the other hand,
> predicted the invasion of capital. We also knew,
> prostitution, drug trade, McDonald's etc.
> was coming.
Tell me more about "totalitarian" theory.
> Of course, like your pal Walsh, being right
> or wrong is not the point. Just talking as if
> everything is relative is the point for you.
Being wrong or right is the point.
I just believe that I am right.
Jorge Landivar
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <383F9FBB...@geocities.com>,
> land...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
> > > mi...@mim.org replies:
> > > That's all you think government does is
> > > talk in legislative assemblies? You
> > > are trying to avoid the fact that
> > > things threatening the upper- and
> > > middle- classes are closely regulated
> > > with no room for "free speech."
> > > I'd like to see a Driver's Ed course
> > > given when half the teachers say
> > > "red means go" and half say "green means
> > > go." Yet, when it comes to world hunger,
> > > the media is allowed to come up with
> > > the idiocies we have seen on this NG
> > > like "not enough food is produced."
> >
> > Sorry, but I have never heard that said.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Apparently you have
> already forgotten the following message
> on this thread:
Point taken.
Jorge Landivar
MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
>
> Because the international system is based on the Westphalian system, not
> libertarianism.
And?
do...@stone-soup.com
<m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Jorge Landivar wrote:
>>
>> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
>> >
>> > Jorge Landivar wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Jurgen Chiang wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
>> > > > > ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former Soviet
>> > > > > Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
>> > > >
>> > > > However, I seem to recall the issue of US military aid to Indonesia, as it
>> > > > massacred and occupied East Timor. You can understand the predicament that
>> > > > the US faced when it was required to confront the bearers of the very arms
>> > > > it had funded. Of course, the US media gave surprisingly (or not
>> > > > surprisingly) little coverage of the massacre that was occurring in East
>> > > > Timor until long after it began. It was only as it had slowed and
>> > > > negotiations were underway with East Timor, this year, that they began
>> > > > coverage. When the democratic process broke down, after coverage had began,
>> > > > and the issue was in the public eye, only then was action taken. A fact to
>> > > > which 99% of America is oblivious is that more East Timorese deaths occurred
>> > > > previous to the referendum and public awareness at the hands of
>> > > > American-aided Indonesian troops than afterward.
>> > >
>> > > Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US.
>> >
>> > Yes it does, because we are a republic.
>>
>> 1) so was the soviet union
>
>Not technically: it was more of an oligarchy. Voting was a facade.
No more so than in the US where the government is run against the
wishes of the people.
>
>> 2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
>> government still does it
>> "Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
>
>Statistic from where?? Actually, the US government has the approval of
>the US citizens provided that they do not try to overthrow the existing
>order. We are talking in general, not individual cases.
To have even a democratic approval of the US citizens then it would
have to show about 140 million people voted for it.
>
>> 3) Our president was voted in by about 13% of the population
>
>Original point still stands. As long as the Constitutional order is
>accepted by a majority of americans, then the government has their
>support.
>
It is more like 7% and that means that 93% don't support the
government.
>> 4) have you not supported anything that our government has ever done?
>
>I have no choice, I pay taxes and am a US citizen. By most political
>definitions I am a supporter of the government's actions.
>
>>
>> --
>> echelon cycle waster v2
>> ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT
>> OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA
>> AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA SAVIN GAMMA
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
>> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>>
>> qANQR1DDDQQDAwJkjWpWKPCgrmDJJwK/qwk30O/3fKw2jhjfJGghpfyLUlgjGtY4
>> LKEpIHJegoEqSGyy0g==
>> =AIzj
>> -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
MICHAEL VOGLER
politics, there is no higher power than the state. Granted, this is
fundamentally political and not necessarily my personal opinion, it is
the basis that I use for my analysis.
Jorge Landivar wrote:
>
> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> >
> > Because the international system is based on the Westphalian system, not
> > libertarianism.
>
> And?
>
> --
> echelon cycle waster v2.1
>
> SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM PARK ON
> METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER PROMIS
> MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID C4 MALCOLM X REVOLUTION CHEROKEE
> HILLARY BILL CLINTON GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST TASK
> FORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS 12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF EXPLOSIVE MOLOTOV COCKTAIL
> REVOLUTION NRA GOA HEMP UFO AURORA NRO FCC FTC FAA
> HIJACK MILLION BILLION TRILLION ENCRYPT OPEN SOURCE CAPITALISM
> LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM OSS OPERATION PAPERCLIP HOT SPRINGS HOTEL
> CONSPIRACY
> CHINA JAPAN NORTH KOREA ATTACK SOUTH KOREA THE CATCHER IN THE RYE VIETNAM
> ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT
> OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA
> AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA SAVIN GAMMA
>
> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
MICHAEL VOGLER
Jorge Landivar wrote:
>
> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
>
> > > 1) so was the soviet union
> >
> > Not technically: it was more of an oligarchy. Voting was a facade.
>
> Point taken.
>
> > > 2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
> > > government still does it
> > > "Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
> >
> > Statistic from where?? Actually, the US government has the approval of
> > the US citizens provided that they do not try to overthrow the existing
> > order. We are talking in general, not individual cases.
>
> Actually most people I have talkid to seem to fear the government.
May be true, however it is not statistically significant. If people pay
taxes and obey laws, then most analysts see a government as being
supported by its constituents.
> > > 3) Our president was voted in by about 13% of the population
> >
> > Original point still stands. As long as the Constitutional order is
> > accepted by a majority of americans, then the government has their
> > support.
>
> Tell me, is selective service constitutional, the IRS, FCC, EPA, FEMA?
Once again, one pays taxes and follows laws (mos a menos), then they
support their government.
> >
> > > 4) have you not supported anything that our government has ever done?
> >
> > I have no choice, I pay taxes and am a US citizen. By most political
> > definitions I am a supporter of the government's actions.
>
> You de have a choice.
> You can fight it within the system.
Yes, but by saying that I can fight it within the system means that you
support the Consitutional order, which is the government.
MICHAEL VOGLER
do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:29:17 -0700, MICHAEL VOGLER
> <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jorge Landivar wrote:
> >>
> >> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Jorge Landivar wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Jurgen Chiang wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
> >> > > > > ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former Soviet
> >> > > > > Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > However, I seem to recall the issue of US military aid to Indonesia, as it
> >> > > > massacred and occupied East Timor. You can understand the predicament that
> >> > > > the US faced when it was required to confront the bearers of the very arms
> >> > > > it had funded. Of course, the US media gave surprisingly (or not
> >> > > > surprisingly) little coverage of the massacre that was occurring in East
> >> > > > Timor until long after it began. It was only as it had slowed and
> >> > > > negotiations were underway with East Timor, this year, that they began
> >> > > > coverage. When the democratic process broke down, after coverage had began,
> >> > > > and the issue was in the public eye, only then was action taken. A fact to
> >> > > > which 99% of America is oblivious is that more East Timorese deaths occurred
> >> > > > previous to the referendum and public awareness at the hands of
> >> > > > American-aided Indonesian troops than afterward.
> >> > >
> >> > > Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US.
> >> >
> >> > Yes it does, because we are a republic.
> >>
> >> 1) so was the soviet union
> >
> >Not technically: it was more of an oligarchy. Voting was a facade.
>
> No more so than in the US where the government is run against the
> wishes of the people.
If you can give proof (not speculation, but hard proof with valid
statistics) then you would be right.
> >
> >> 2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
> >> government still does it
> >> "Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
> >
> >Statistic from where?? Actually, the US government has the approval of
> >the US citizens provided that they do not try to overthrow the existing
> >order. We are talking in general, not individual cases.
>
> To have even a democratic approval of the US citizens then it would
> have to show about 140 million people voted for it.
Not really. Skewed view of democracy. Actually, only about 50 or so
million people vote in elections, but we are still considered a
democracy. Why? Because people have the option of not voting. By not
voting, people either register that 1) they do not support the system ;
or 2) they do support the system. I would tend to say that the fact
that people vote and that we do not have high emigration rates, that
people pay taxes and follow basic laws essentially shows that their is
democratic approval in actions, if not words.
> >
> >> 3) Our president was voted in by about 13% of the population
> >
> >Original point still stands. As long as the Constitutional order is
> >accepted by a majority of americans, then the government has their
> >support.
> >
>
> It is more like 7% and that means that 93% don't support the
> government.
Biased statement. You automatically assume that the other 93% do not
support the government when you have nothing to back that point up.
> >> 4) have you not supported anything that our government has ever done?
> >
> >I have no choice, I pay taxes and am a US citizen. By most political
> >definitions I am a supporter of the government's actions.
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> echelon cycle waster v2
> >> ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT
> >> OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA
> >> AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA SAVIN GAMMA
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
> >> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
> >>
MICHAEL VOGLER
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <383F9FBB...@geocities.com>,
> land...@geocities.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
> > > mi...@mim.org replies:
> > > That's all you think government does is
> > > talk in legislative assemblies? You
> > > are trying to avoid the fact that
> > > things threatening the upper- and
> > > middle- classes are closely regulated
> > > with no room for "free speech."
> > > I'd like to see a Driver's Ed course
> > > given when half the teachers say
> > > "red means go" and half say "green means
> > > go." Yet, when it comes to world hunger,
> > > the media is allowed to come up with
> > > the idiocies we have seen on this NG
> > > like "not enough food is produced."
> >
> > Sorry, but I have never heard that said.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Apparently you have
> already forgotten the following message
> on this thread:
>
> From: MICHAEL VOGLER <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu>
> Subject: Re: Cultural Revolution and Democracy
> Date: 23 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
> Message-ID: <383AB550...@dana.ucc.nau.edu>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> References: <Tl8xOA9UdCo05ooVV7CibIAJqXJ=@4ax.com>
> <80s0kt$5so$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <80sc6t$fa7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> <80t2p4$d8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <gR8yOHnFWQhM9D2J7wx3P=Sjo...@4ax.com>
> <81aknp$anf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <81bjq1$ikq$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>
> <81ci2a$nlt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Sender: "MICHAEL VOGLER" <@mailgate.nau.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Organization: Northern Arizona University
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups:
> talk.politics.china,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
>
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >
> > In article <81bjq1$ikq$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Whew...I was trying to sort through the issues you have, but I got
> > lost in
> > > the midst of all that rhetoric. I would disagree with you that the
> > > starvation in China was solely a result of the privitization of
> > farmland
> > > (that is what you saying, right?..again, it's hard to separate the
> > > profundities from the abstrusities).
> >
> > mi...@mim.org replies: Starvation occurs
> > from a lack of successful class struggle
> > to destroy feudalism. Land reform can succeed
> > with a bourgeois content, especially for
> > a period before a new landlord class concentrates
> > the wealth again.
>
> No, starvation occurs because there is not enough food. It has less to
> do with "class struggle" and more to do with problems in producing food.
It's great to see that Maoists learn how to quote out of context. The
point that I was making was that your "ideological struggle" idea is
bunk because you can't give me a case where someone died of starvation
from ideology, but you can give many for where people cannot produce
enough food. I don't see why this is so far fetched, so here I go
again:
1) Most countries lack the technology to produce enough food to feed
their populaces. Instead of giving away food, why not give them the
technology to produce it and make them selves self sufficient.
2) While politics plays a role in starvation, it has never directly
resulted in anyone's death from starvation. Rather, a lack of food
generally results in starvation.
3) To propose simply the more adequate distribution of food is also to
propose a system wherein the West maintains dominance in the
international system through extortion.
4) To encourage real investment in countries is a more logical solution*
* By real I mean investment in infrastructure, education, industry, and
food production methods.
5) Starvation in China during the Maoist period came about more because
Mao forced the Chinese to stop producing food than the West did in
politiking.
MICHAEL VOGLER
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <383C6902...@dana.ucc.nau.edu>,
> MICHAEL VOGLER <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
>
> > > For example, in the U$A, most property is private
> > > and a minority is public property. Yet even on that
> > > public property in most cities it is illegal
> > > to put up a poster.
> >
> > Get your facts straight: there is more American public land than
> private
> > (US Forest Service)
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: I was hoping there
> would be a single fact --no matter how
> unconnected to the argument -- that my
> critics in this thread could get right.
> Oh well.
>
> Even taking my words literally and counting
> land as the only "property," it just ain't so.
>
> "Nonfederal lands comprise 71 percent
> of the acreage in the United States. Private
> landowners and state and local governments
> are responsible for the natural resources
> on nearly 1.6 billion acres of land.
> The majority of these nonfederal lands,
> almost 1.4 billion acres, are privately
> owned. Thus, the commitment Americans have
> to conserving the natural heritage for
> future generations will depend upon
> the stewardship of their own lands."
> (President's Council on Sustainable Development,
> Sustainable America: America's Environment,
> Economy and Society in the 21st Century,
> Daniel Sitarz ed., Al Gore preface
> (Carbondale, IL: Earthpress, 1998), p.
> 118.)
>
> Of course, the anti-MIM side posts no
> relevant ideas to begin with--as if
> I were talking about putting up posters
> on trees in Yellowstone Park. The point
> remains that postering's basically illegal
> in this country, both on public and private
> property and much more postering critical of
> bosses and others appeared in Cultural Revolution
> China.
Fair enough. However, your evidence does not contradict my point.
However, I think it is irrelevant about how many posters can be put up
in any one place or even if it is illegal. Why? Because most modern
American advertising is done in newspapers, on the internet, or on TV.
Even during your cultural revolution the newspaper was a popular
medium. I question the significance of your information on one more
basis: I doubt that most peasants could read the posters that were being
put up...
> >
> > Enlightened
> > > cities such as in Vermont have put up relatively
> > > frequent bulletin boards. No city has very many
> > > and none can come close to matching what happened
> > > in China with the big-character posters during
> > > the Cultural Revolution.
mi...@mim.org
>
do...@stone-soup.com
<m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
Less than 10% support the government with a vote.
>> >
>> >> 2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
>> >> government still does it
>> >> "Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
>> >
>> >Statistic from where?? Actually, the US government has the approval of
>> >the US citizens provided that they do not try to overthrow the existing
>> >order. We are talking in general, not individual cases.
>>
>> To have even a democratic approval of the US citizens then it would
>> have to show about 140 million people voted for it.
>
>Not really. Skewed view of democracy. Actually, only about 50 or so
>million people vote in elections, but we are still considered a
>democracy. Why? Because people have the option of not voting. By not
>voting, people either register that 1) they do not support the system ;
>or 2) they do support the system. I would tend to say that the fact
>that people vote and that we do not have high emigration rates, that
>people pay taxes and follow basic laws essentially shows that their is
>democratic approval in actions, if not words.
>
50% of the population is prevented from voting for one reason or
another. All of those people are against the government or the
government wouldn't be preventing them from voting.
The option of not voting is the option of not supporting the
government. Support is an active action. If I support you I come to
your house and give you money. If I don't steal your money that is
not the same thing as supporting you. Support is active.
>> >
>> >> 3) Our president was voted in by about 13% of the population
>> >
>> >Original point still stands. As long as the Constitutional order is
>> >accepted by a majority of americans, then the government has their
>> >support.
>> >
>>
>> It is more like 7% and that means that 93% don't support the
>> government.
>
>Biased statement. You automatically assume that the other 93% do not
>support the government when you have nothing to back that point up.
>
Support by definition is active. So if I don't vote for you then I
don't support you. Example:
You have a group of 10. Your rules require a majority of the 10 to do
something. Two vote for doing it. One votes against doing it. 7
refuse to vote. You don't have support.
MICHAEL VOGLER
Speculation...No references.
>
> >> >
> >> >> 2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
> >> >> government still does it
> >> >> "Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
> >> >
> >> >Statistic from where?? Actually, the US government has the approval of
> >> >the US citizens provided that they do not try to overthrow the existing
> >> >order. We are talking in general, not individual cases.
> >>
> >> To have even a democratic approval of the US citizens then it would
> >> have to show about 140 million people voted for it.
> >
> >Not really. Skewed view of democracy. Actually, only about 50 or so
> >million people vote in elections, but we are still considered a
> >democracy. Why? Because people have the option of not voting. By not
> >voting, people either register that 1) they do not support the system ;
> >or 2) they do support the system. I would tend to say that the fact
> >that people vote and that we do not have high emigration rates, that
> >people pay taxes and follow basic laws essentially shows that their is
> >democratic approval in actions, if not words.
> >
>
> 50% of the population is prevented from voting for one reason or
> another. All of those people are against the government or the
> government wouldn't be preventing them from voting.
Speculation. Who are these 50%? How are they prevented from voting?
> The option of not voting is the option of not supporting the
> government.
Not per se. Not voting can mean contentment with the system too. Most
political analysts attribute low voter turn-out in the US to this.
Support is an active action.
Not necessarily. There are many forms of support that are passive (like
not voicing opposition to things, for one).
If I support you I come to
> your house and give you money.
Very few cases of support have to do with money. If you support me, you
might come by and talk to me, or not say anything at all. All of which
can be construed as support. If you did not support me, in fact, you
are far more likely to make it known through some sort of action.
If I don't steal your money that is
> not the same thing as supporting you. Support is active.
And your analogy is hardly relevant. Stealing money can be an act of
opposition. Not stealing money does not mean support, yes, but that is
hardly a logical turn to your case.
>
> >> >
> >> >> 3) Our president was voted in by about 13% of the population
> >> >
> >> >Original point still stands. As long as the Constitutional order is
> >> >accepted by a majority of americans, then the government has their
> >> >support.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It is more like 7% and that means that 93% don't support the
> >> government.
> >
> >Biased statement. You automatically assume that the other 93% do not
> >support the government when you have nothing to back that point up.
> >
> Support by definition is active. So if I don't vote for you then I
> don't support you. Example:
> You have a group of 10. Your rules require a majority of the 10 to do
> something. Two vote for doing it. One votes against doing it. 7
> refuse to vote. You don't have support.
Ah, I see. You are taking about abstentions. Okay, fair enough: 1) To
truly abstain by definition means that one does not support nor oppose a
certain measure; 2) in the case you provide and the one we are talking
about, it isn't really relevant. Why? Abstentions do not denote
apathy, but rather neutrality; 3) lack of voting in this country has
more to do with apathy (doesn't care about anything) than a feeling of
neutrality (refuses to take a side); 4) a refusal to vote does not
necessarily mean that a person does not support an issue, but rather
doesn't care.
do...@stone-soup.com
<m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
Next part.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >> 2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
>> >> >> government still does it
>> >> >> "Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
>> >> >
>> >> >Statistic from where?? Actually, the US government has the approval of
>> >> >the US citizens provided that they do not try to overthrow the existing
>> >> >order. We are talking in general, not individual cases.
>> >>
>> >> To have even a democratic approval of the US citizens then it would
>> >> have to show about 140 million people voted for it.
>> >
>> >Not really. Skewed view of democracy. Actually, only about 50 or so
>> >million people vote in elections, but we are still considered a
>> >democracy. Why? Because people have the option of not voting. By not
>> >voting, people either register that 1) they do not support the system ;
>> >or 2) they do support the system. I would tend to say that the fact
>> >that people vote and that we do not have high emigration rates, that
>> >people pay taxes and follow basic laws essentially shows that their is
>> >democratic approval in actions, if not words.
>> >
>>
>> 50% of the population is prevented from voting for one reason or
>> another. All of those people are against the government or the
>> government wouldn't be preventing them from voting.
>
>Speculation. Who are these 50%? How are they prevented from voting?
>
DOJ 60+% of black males are felons, white felons, and all under 18.
All of these people are citizens. that are a lot of others but those
are the big blocks.
>> The option of not voting is the option of not supporting the
>> government.
>
>Not per se. Not voting can mean contentment with the system too. Most
>political analysts attribute low voter turn-out in the US to this.
>
Political analysts? LOL
>Support is an active action.
>
>Not necessarily. There are many forms of support that are passive (like
>not voicing opposition to things, for one).
>
No that is opposition, or at the best nutrality(sp?).
If not voting is neutrality then that is not support, and that is the
best you can say. "Doesn't care about anything" is not support it is
at best neutrality. Not careing is the same as not supporting. It
may not be the same as opposing but it is not supporting. So at best
the government is "supported" by about 10% of the population.
MICHAEL VOGLER
So you concede that you have support for this statistic?
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> 2) When >60 percent of the people are against a war in anywhere, and the
> >> >> >> government still does it
> >> >> >> "Not everything the US gov. does has the approval of the US."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Statistic from where?? Actually, the US government has the approval of
> >> >> >the US citizens provided that they do not try to overthrow the existing
> >> >> >order. We are talking in general, not individual cases.
> >> >>
> >> >> To have even a democratic approval of the US citizens then it would
> >> >> have to show about 140 million people voted for it.
> >> >
> >> >Not really. Skewed view of democracy. Actually, only about 50 or so
> >> >million people vote in elections, but we are still considered a
> >> >democracy. Why? Because people have the option of not voting. By not
> >> >voting, people either register that 1) they do not support the system ;
> >> >or 2) they do support the system. I would tend to say that the fact
> >> >that people vote and that we do not have high emigration rates, that
> >> >people pay taxes and follow basic laws essentially shows that their is
> >> >democratic approval in actions, if not words.
> >> >
> >>
> >> 50% of the population is prevented from voting for one reason or
> >> another. All of those people are against the government or the
> >> government wouldn't be preventing them from voting.
> >
> >Speculation. Who are these 50%? How are they prevented from voting?
> >
>
> DOJ 60+% of black males are felons, white felons, and all under 18.
> All of these people are citizens. that are a lot of others but those
> are the big blocks.
No Constitutional proviso against voting rights for felons (while mos a
menos they did the time, they ought to be forgiven),if they are in
prison they ought not to vote for obvious reasons. Also, voting is a
PRIVILEGE, not necessarily a right for all. Those who are under 18 are
not full citizens, and as such have restricted rights. In addition,
those who are under 18 are not necessarily against the government (and I
am willing to bet that you can't prove that they are).
This aside, would you say that less than a majority of qualified
electors could constitute support for a government?
>
> >> The option of not voting is the option of not supporting the
> >> government.
> >
> >Not per se. Not voting can mean contentment with the system too. Most
> >political analysts attribute low voter turn-out in the US to this.
> >
> Political analysts? LOL
What is your qualification? You clearly don't study this very much.
>
> >Support is an active action.
> >
> >Not necessarily. There are many forms of support that are passive (like
> >not voicing opposition to things, for one).
> >
> No that is opposition, or at the best nutrality(sp?).
>
Perhaps a bad example. A better one has to do with being apathetic.
You miss the point. Neutrality in the sense that a person does not have
an opinion on the candidates offered, they may care, but they don't have
an opinion.
and that is the
> best you can say. "Doesn't care about anything" is not support it is
> at best neutrality.
No, I already defined that as apathy.
Not careing is the same as not supporting.
No, it is apathy, which, in the final analysis, means contentment.
It
> may not be the same as opposing but it is not supporting.
if one doesn't support then one must either be neutral or in
opposition. In parliament, both mean opposition.
So at best
> the government is "supported" by about 10% of the population.
Which, as I have already shown, is a made up statistic.
do...@stone-soup.com
<m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
NO I ment for you to look in the next part rather than type it twice.
If you claim a democracy then voting is a right. Where does it say in
the constitution that someone under 18 isn't a citizen or where does
it show different levels of citizenship.
>This aside, would you say that less than a majority of qualified
>electors could constitute support for a government?
>
NO, a majority of all effected by government would constitute support.
You have shown that more than 10% of the POPULATION support the
government. Not hardly. You have shown that only a small percent of
the POPULATION supports the government. That is the definition of
tyranny, where a small part of the POPULATION dictates to the
majority.
Robert N. Newshutz
>
> do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:40:21 -0700, MICHAEL VOGLER
> > <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:29:17 -0700, MICHAEL VOGLER
> > >> <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > The option of not voting is the option of not supporting the
> > government.
>
> Not per se. Not voting can mean contentment with the system too. Most
> political analysts attribute low voter turn-out in the US to this.
>
They believe this without any supporting data.
The only study I have seen, that actually surveyed why eligible voters
don't vote, found that population divided into 5 roughly equal
categories.
1. Apathetic people
2. People who believed one vote made no difference.
3. People who felt that the choices offered were no choice at all.
4. People who felt the influence of their vote did not justify the cost
of their time.
5. People who abhorred politics and wanted nothing to do with it.
--
Robert N. Newshutz
"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted
security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to
society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they
wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased
to be free."
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
MICHAEL VOGLER
That isn't what the next part says. The next part tells me that 60% of
blacks and some white people and some kids under 18. It does not say
anything about a 10% margin for US voting or anything else. If you are
going to use statistics, you need to cite and show stuff specifically
and how, if you did any math, you arrived at your conclusion.
Otherwise, your statements are merely speculation.
1) We live in a FEDERAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy (a term that is
bastardized). Says so in the Constitution. 2) The fact that the
Constitution does say someone under 18 is/isn't a citizen or different
levels of citizenship isn't the point. However, to answer, legal
precedent shows that citizens under the age of 18 are not allowed to
make decisions on their own unless an adult agrees with them (that is
why one must ask one's parents to sign documentation sent to colleges
and stuff). Thus, since we don't allow them to sign for themselves, why
should we let them vote? The point is that voting is a privelege that
the forefathers recognized as such and wrote the Constitution
accordingly. Why do you think we could only elect members to the House,
and that every other department was appointed? Doesn't sound very
democratic to me, sounds more like a Republic. In addition, the
Declaration of Independence did not cite voting as one of man's
inalienable rights, nor did the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
>
> >This aside, would you say that less than a majority of qualified
> >electors could constitute support for a government?
> >
>
> NO, a majority of all effected by government would constitute support.
Fair enough. Since you can't prove that a majority of those affected by
government do not support the government in any meaningful way, then I
think this is now a moot point. I can show that a majority of people do
support their government because they pay taxes and obey laws, you can't
show anything that would say otherwise.
>
> >>
> >> >> The option of not voting is the option of not supporting the
> >> >> government.
> >> >
> >> >Not per se. Not voting can mean contentment with the system too. Most
> >> >political analysts attribute low voter turn-out in the US to this.
> >> >
> >> Political analysts? LOL
> >
> >What is your qualification? You clearly don't study this very much.
Not willing to address this huh? So much for credibility.
I will say this once again: you have no valid statistical reference or
body of references from which you made statistical analysis to say
anything about a population in the terms that you describe. I have,
however, shown through reasoning, commonly accepted tools for analysis,
and statistics that are commonly known (but not exact) that a majority
of the population does support their government. However, I offer one
final turn to you, and that is a case wherein people did not support
their government. Look at Russia, where people refuse to pay taxes and
obey laws. It is far more likely that, if polled, a majority of
Russians would say that they preferred to either live somewhere else or
that that they were disillusioned with their government. And while many
Americans may be disillusioned, they do continue to pay taxes which
hurts their credibility. One could say that they are coerced into doing
so by force, but given the slight incidence of audits and actual trials
that result in convictions, it seems less likely. It is apparent that
more americans regard paying taxes as a social responsibility than
anything else.
Next, rule by the few is oligarchy, not tyranny. And, as I have argued
before, the US is technically an oligarchy. However, given the fact
that by being US citizens we have a social responsibility to our
society, then it is our responsibility as voters to hold the government
accountable. As such, since most people are apathetic to the cause,
then our government is the way it is. It is our fault, in any event.
MICHAEL VOGLER
"Robert N. Newshutz" wrote:
>
> MICHAEL VOGLER wrote:
> >
> > do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:40:21 -0700, MICHAEL VOGLER
> > > <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >do...@stone-soup.com wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:29:17 -0700, MICHAEL VOGLER
> > > >> <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
> > > >>
>
> > > The option of not voting is the option of not supporting the
> > > government.
> >
> > Not per se. Not voting can mean contentment with the system too. Most
> > political analysts attribute low voter turn-out in the US to this.
> >
> They believe this without any supporting data.
Actually, there is quite a large body of data to support this
conclusion. In fact, contentment is usually equated with being
apathetic.
> The only study I have seen, that actually surveyed why eligible voters
> don't vote, found that population divided into 5 roughly equal
> categories.
>
> 1. Apathetic people
> 2. People who believed one vote made no difference.
> 3. People who felt that the choices offered were no choice at all.
> 4. People who felt the influence of their vote did not justify the cost
> of their time.
> 5. People who abhorred politics and wanted nothing to do with it.
The turn to this, of course, is the study done in NH wherein voter
turn-out increased dramatically when people encouraged others to vote.
coxinga
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> In article <81fpk0$32n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hence, the question is what if the United $tates
> > > went socialist? What if the Third World were
> > > released from all the military regimes backed
> > > by U.$. military aid? 1) The Third World would
> > > take care of itself if the U$ and other imperialists
> > > just took their military boots off their necks.
> > > 2) If we did go socialist, and most of the world
> > > went socialist (which is what would happen if
> > > the bastion of imperialism U$A went socialist),
> > > farmers would not be destroyed through economic
> > > competition. Production would be planned for
> > > need.
> > >
> >
> > Your rhetoric of US military aid refers to the Cold War period. It
> > ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall, and later the former
> Soviet
> > Union. So goes the bulk of the military aid.
>
> around the globe before the Bolsheviks took
> power and after the USSR fell apart as well.
> Little has changed, contrary to the totalitarian
> theorists and other apologists of imperialism
> who said they were only doing what they were
> doing to oppose the Soviet Union. In fact,
> the totalitarian theory more fits the U$A
> given how little of anything has changed.
>
> Perhaps you should consider Iraq and Somalia
> in addition to military aid and the
> new buzzwords such as "war on drugs"
> and "security arrangement." Here are some links.
> Let me know what has changed, maybe after you
> have done a little research on just the Internet?
>
> http://fhrg.org/milt.htm
> http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/asm022898.html
> http://www.us.net/cip/981209co.htm
> http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/cat/foraid/append4a.html
> http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/cat/foraid/append4b.html
>
SO Uncle Sam is still meddling in other's business. But you can't
categorize all of them as landlord regimes. Let's see. We have the
US, USSR, China, Japan, Western European industrial nations. Are you
going to call the rest of the world land lord regimes? Certainly, your
idea doesn’t stand a chance in any Muslim nation because of Atheism.
That eliminates about one third of the nations from the list. Do you
think Maoism will take root in Africa? I don’t think anyone cares.
You guys are certainly welcome in Africa to preach to them the virtues
of your philosophy. The remainder, is but a handful of third world
countries. Plus not all of them are landlord regimes.
Take Cambodia and Vietnam for example. The Vietnamese kicked American
butt in the 70s’. Look how miserable they are now. Same is Cambodia.
A lot of people would argue with you if these two countries are
landlord regimes before. But becoming Communists only brought misery.
> [snip]
> > > So my first answer is reformist: if we could
> > > cut off U$ imperialist military aid to Third World regimes,
> > > the peasants would carry out class struggle for
> > > land reform and hunger would be solved that way.
> > >
> >
> > Cold war nostalgia again? It sure feels good when there are plenty
of
> > confrontations. Isn't it so?
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: The Hot War lives on--
> against the Third World.
>
What hot wars? Where?
> >
> > > If the U$A won't stop aiding the death squad regimes
> > > backing landlords and 50 cent an hour wages, then
> > > the people of the Third World have every right
> > > to overthrow the U$ government.
> > >
> >
> > Does it occur to you that the present day China fits that
description?
> > The death squad part may not be true to the exact extent, especially
> > after 1989. The 50 cents an hour part fits pretty well.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: It occurs to us and we
> have written about it. Does it occur to you
> that it is not the Marxists saying there is
> "free trade" and a "free market" in this world?
> Does it occur to you that we say there is
> coercion of labor out of labor-power and
> it is the bourgeois economists who say that
> capitalism is a series of consensual agreements?
> Does it occur to you that any country competing
> with 50 cents an hour wages is thereby influenced
> by the coercion in the worst humyn-rights abusing
> country, whichever one that it is? Does it occur
> to you that profits increase the more humyn-rights
> are abused? Does it occur to you that maybe then
> the profit system is not the way to go?
>
50 cents an hour wages in China, Indonesia, or Honduras is an
exploitation to you. It is not to those earn those wages. Compared to
the prospect of sitting in their mud hut, idly, 50 cents an hour could
be the life saver. Plus If you look at the local consumer price
index. 50 cents an hour is likely the prevailing wage.
It goes back to the very basic idea. You want to eliminate the profit
system. In other words, you have an ideal that greed is bad and should
be abandoned. I say greed, or selfishness is human nature. You are
advocating something that goes against human nature which won’t work,
in my opinion. And it has been proven again and again that it does not
work. I accept the human frailty and prefer a system which accepts it
and seeks to improve the injustices that the deficiency has wrought.
You are looking for something which is flawless IMO. But you won’t
find it because there is none. I prefer to work with reality and to
try to improve it in the process
coxinga
--
Coxinga/ The 17th century warlord, son of a pirate, who was bestowed
the last name of Ming emperors. He defeated the Dutch to capture
Formosa. A rare victory in the struggle against colonialism by the
East. It spelled the beginning of the end for the Dutch East India Co.
mi...@mim.org
coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Take Cambodia and Vietnam for example. The Vietnamese kicked American
> butt in the 70s’. Look how miserable they are now. Same is Cambodia.
> A lot of people would argue with you if these two countries are
> landlord regimes before. But becoming Communists only brought misery.
mi...@mim.org replies: So Kampuchea suffered
600,000+ dead from U.$. bombing--10%+
of their population and Indochina receives
more bombs combined than all of World War II
and they're supposed to be happy? You seem
to miss in this thread that capitalist
countries went to all-out war before there
was any communism, before there was any
1917. It is not I who must defend a record
of world war. It is you.
>
> > [snip]
> > > > So my first answer is reformist: if we could
> > > > cut off U$ imperialist military aid to Third World regimes,
> > > > the peasants would carry out class struggle for
> > > > land reform and hunger would be solved that way.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Cold war nostalgia again? It sure feels good when there are
plenty
> of
> > > confrontations. Isn't it so?
> >
> > mi...@mim.org replies: The Hot War lives on--
> > against the Third World.
> >
>
> What hot wars? Where?
mi...@mim.org replies:
If you weren't asleep you'd know Iraq
is still being bombed. What was Somalia?
Plus in another 30 years they will
release a videotape of all the mercenaries
working for Yankee regime right now.
mi...@mim.org replies: If you read the
"Communist Manifesto," you will see that
Marx gave adequate credit to capitalism
compared with previous agrarian modes of
production. However, if 50 cents is a life-saver,
$2.50 would move things right along. Thanks
to Yankee military aid, counterinsurgency
and covert operations, there is a difficult
class struggle to get there.
>
> It goes back to the very basic idea. You want to eliminate the profit
> system. In other words, you have an ideal that greed is bad and
should
> be abandoned. I say greed, or selfishness is human nature. You are
> advocating something that goes against human nature which won’t work,
> in my opinion. And it has been proven again and again that it does
not
> work. I accept the human frailty and prefer a system which accepts it
> and seeks to improve the injustices that the deficiency has wrought.
mi...@mim.org replies: This is an inconsistent
argument. If humyn nature is so frail, why
place people in a system DESIGNED FOR PROFIT?
How is that going to make people better?
Do they not sell addicting drugs, distribute
porn, buy off the Italian government to
sell weapons (new newstory) and attempt
to carry out nuclear
proliferation for money? Which of us really has
the unrealistic ideology? Yours speaks of a
"free trade" as if people will get along without
tariffs and war and borders! Then they are
supposed to happen to work together economically
in a way that just so happens to be in the
species's interest.
Also historically, you are simply
wrong about people. They have not
mostly lived under capitalism
in more than 1 million years of
existence. They have also proved
capable of improvement.
See the following on tribes and
property:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/hnature.html
>
> You are looking for something which is flawless IMO. But you won’t
> find it because there is none. I prefer to work with reality and to
> try to improve it in the process
>
> coxinga
mi...@mim.org replies:
Your statement above is what Marxist materialism is. We often
say the above to the Trotskyists, anarchists,
post-modernists and others with a heavy
streak of nihilism.
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
coxinga
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> In article <829g1j$rbv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Take Cambodia and Vietnam for example. The Vietnamese kicked
American
> > butt in the 70s’. Look how miserable they are now. Same is
Cambodia.
> > A lot of people would argue with you if these two countries are
> > landlord regimes before. But becoming Communists only brought
misery.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: So Kampuchea suffered
> 600,000+ dead from U.$. bombing--10%+
> of their population and Indochina receives
> more bombs combined than all of World War II
> and they're supposed to be happy? You seem
> to miss in this thread that capitalist
> countries went to all-out war before there
> was any communism, before there was any
> 1917. It is not I who must defend a record
> of world war. It is you.
>
I guess the 600k+ dead is from the MIM archive again? Kindly provide
the source, please. US bombed Cambodia only in the latter stage of the
war when the VC used it to lauch their attacks into Vietnam. It is
true the bombs used in Vietnam exceed those used in WW2 in tonnage.
Still US could not win the war. What does that tell you? It simply
means most of the bombs were dropped in no man's land. When one side
fought as if his survival is dependent on it, while the other side
fought with one hand tied behind his back, at the same time domestic
opinions are torn with respect to whether to continue and most of rest
of the world is condemning it, the outcome of the war is already sealed.
I don't see why I have to defend both world wars, are they related to
class struggle?
> >
> > > [snip]
> > > > > So my first answer is reformist: if we could
> > > > > cut off U$ imperialist military aid to Third World regimes,
> > > > > the peasants would carry out class struggle for
> > > > > land reform and hunger would be solved that way.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cold war nostalgia again? It sure feels good when there are
> plenty
> > of
> > > > confrontations. Isn't it so?
> > >
> > > mi...@mim.org replies: The Hot War lives on--
> > > against the Third World.
> > >
> >
> > What hot wars? Where?
>
> mi...@mim.org replies:
> If you weren't asleep you'd know Iraq
> is still being bombed. What was Somalia?
> Plus in another 30 years they will
> release a videotape of all the mercenaries
> working for Yankee regime right now.
>
Iraq is still being bombed? Hello? Bush is long gone. Clinton is in
his second term. Iraq is being sanctioned for its refusal to stop
making weapons of mass destruction. You have to enlighten me on the US
mercenaries.
If 50 cents is the prevailing wage, $2.50 will make them to lose their
job. If someone can find monkeys somewhere in the rainforest of Borneo
who are willing to work for a couple of bananas a day, people will
start using them. If you don't, someone else will.
I can hardly make sense of your babbling. What is your solution to
root out drug addiction. I'd like to know. Same thing with regard to
prostitution too. Tell me what's wrong with free trade. I'd like to
know too.
> Also historically, you are simply
> wrong about people. They have not
> mostly lived under capitalism
> in more than 1 million years of
> existence. They have also proved
> capable of improvement.
>
You obviously know more about civilization which I don't. Please
enlighten me on the 1 million years of human civilization and
improvements which I missed.
> See the following on tribes and
> property:
> http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/hnature.html
>
So what else is new about the bushman sharing their food. When people
see someone starves, they share their food. That is basic human
decency.
> >
> > You are looking for something which is flawless IMO. But you won’t
> > find it because there is none. I prefer to work with reality and to
> > try to improve it in the process
> >
> > coxinga
>
> mi...@mim.org replies:
> Your statement above is what Marxist materialism is. We often
> say the above to the Trotskyists, anarchists,
> post-modernists and others with a heavy
> streak of nihilism.
>
Please spare me your dogma. Speak in English, or Chinese.
coxinga
--
Coxinga/ The 17th century warlord, son of a pirate, who was bestowed
the last name of Ming emperors. He defeated the Dutch to capture
Formosa. A rare victory in the struggle against colonialism by the
East. It spelled the beginning of the end for the Dutch East India Co.
mi...@mim.org
coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <82a4qe$8ua$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> mi...@mim.org wrote:
> > In article <829g1j$rbv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Take Cambodia and Vietnam for example. The Vietnamese kicked
> American
> > > butt in the 70s’. Look how miserable they are now. Same is
> Cambodia.
> > > A lot of people would argue with you if these two countries are
> > > landlord regimes before. But becoming Communists only brought
> misery.
> >
> > mi...@mim.org replies: So Kampuchea suffered
> > 600,000+ dead from U.$. bombing--10%+
> > of their population and Indochina receives
> > more bombs combined than all of World War II
> > and they're supposed to be happy? You seem
> > to miss in this thread that capitalist
> > countries went to all-out war before there
> > was any communism, before there was any
> > 1917. It is not I who must defend a record
> > of world war. It is you.
> >
>
> I guess the 600k+ dead is from the MIM archive again? Kindly provide
> the source, please. US bombed Cambodia only in the latter stage of
mi...@mim.org replies: I can provide a source,
but first I'd like to ask about your reasoning or logic.
You admit that the U$A bombed Kampuchea, so why
are you not obliged to provide a number when arguing
how wonderful capitalism is?
the
> war when the VC used it to lauch their attacks into Vietnam. It is
> true the bombs used in Vietnam exceed those used in WW2 in tonnage.
mi...@mim.org replies: Again, I fail to see why
I should be on the defensive here--unless we
assume war is a good thing. Why don't you
provide us a number dead from air attacks during
World War II?
> Still US could not win the war. What does that tell you? It simply
> means most of the bombs were dropped in no man's land. When one side
mi...@mim.org replies: Peasants are "no man": once
again we see freedom for the upper- and middle- classes
means death for the lower classes.
Read Samuel P. Huntington on "forced draft
urbanization." This was also known as the
"bomb the countryside" strategy.
> fought as if his survival is dependent on it, while the other side
> fought with one hand tied behind his back, at the same time domestic
> opinions are torn with respect to whether to continue and most of rest
> of the world is condemning it, the outcome of the war is already
sealed.
mi...@mim.org replies: Where did this come in?
>
> I don't see why I have to defend both world wars, are they related to
> class struggle?
mi...@mim.org replies: I understand that in many
situations that socialism is the challenger.
When it comes to war, unless you believe it's a good
thing, the burden of proof is on the status quo.
World War I was produced by capitalism. World War II
came as a result of World War I. That says a lot
about capitalism and this whole century.
If you want to tally up death tolls for socialism
and capitalism, you have to include those.
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
coxinga
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> In article <82cf1o$nv2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> but first I'd like to ask about your reasoning or logic.
> You admit that the U$A bombed Kampuchea, so why
> are you not obliged to provide a number when arguing
> how wonderful capitalism is?
>
25 years after the end of Vietnam War, people in this country are still
debating how we could have avoided getting that deep before extricating
ourselves from the mess. No one will argue with you that the War was a
big mess, a big mistake.
Nixon bombed the heck out of Cambodia, killed untold number of
Cambodians. It has nothing to do with how wonderful or miserable
capitalism is. You want to link anything and everything US does and
stands for with evil and capitalism. That's your business.
The Vietnam War is a limited hot war in the Cold War period. It goes
back to the expansionism of the Soviet Union after WW2 and the
containment policy of the west.
> the
> > war when the VC used it to lauch their attacks into Vietnam. It is
> > true the bombs used in Vietnam exceed those used in WW2 in tonnage.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Again, I fail to see why
> I should be on the defensive here--unless we
> assume war is a good thing. Why don't you
> provide us a number dead from air attacks during
> World War II?
>
The dead from bombing in WW2 numbered far, far more than those in
Vietnam, despite the higher tonnage used in the latter. War is of
course not a good thing. I don't get your point.
> > Still US could not win the war. What does that tell you? It simply
> > means most of the bombs were dropped in no man's land. When one
side
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Peasants are "no man": once
> again we see freedom for the upper- and middle- classes
> means death for the lower classes.
>
> Read Samuel P. Huntington on "forced draft
> urbanization." This was also known as the
> "bomb the countryside" strategy.
>
Do I sense that you are blaming the current misery of the Vietnamese on
the bombing policy more than 25 years ago?
> > fought as if his survival is dependent on it, while the other side
> > fought with one hand tied behind his back, at the same time domestic
> > opinions are torn with respect to whether to continue and most of
rest
> > of the world is condemning it, the outcome of the war is already
> sealed.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Where did this come in?
>
Sorry for the digression.
> >
> > I don't see why I have to defend both world wars, are they related
to
> > class struggle?
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: I understand that in many
> situations that socialism is the challenger.
> When it comes to war, unless you believe it's a good
> thing, the burden of proof is on the status quo.
> World War I was produced by capitalism. World War II
> came as a result of World War I. That says a lot
> about capitalism and this whole century.
> If you want to tally up death tolls for socialism
> and capitalism, you have to include those.
>
Even if we do that, and I am not conceding to your point. Even if we
chalk up the death tolls during the two world wars on the Capitalists
side, I am afraid Communism is still responsible for far more deaths
than Capitalism. You have the two most notorious scourge of mankind on
your side, Mao and Stalin.
Don Thompson
--
Don Thompson
Zoomie
KILL the ghost to reply
Pull the chocks, lets get this kite in the air.
coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82eoeo$6rr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
BobS
mi...@mim.org wrote:
> >>>tm...@mim.org replies: Peasants are "no man": once
> >>>again we see freedom for the upper- and middle- classes
> >>>means death for the lower classes.
mim
Socialism doesn't work no matter how you dress it up.
It goes against human nature i.e.: self interest . Now I may wish
that weren't so. Life would probably be better if humans just
shared naturally with all,worked equally hard , had the same
values etc: In other words if we were all saints. Wishing it weren't
true will not make it so. Kinda like turning a lion into a vegetarian
Communism on the other hand is just another name for a Two
Class system ,one for those in charge , and one for everyone else.
So mim which are you , a frustrated leader or a peasant
standing in the bread line ?
>
> > fought as if his survival is dependent on it, while the other side
> > fought with one hand tied behind his back, at the same time domestic
> > opinions are torn with respect to whether to continue and most of rest
> > of the world is condemning it, the outcome of the war is already
> sealed.
>
> >>>mi...@mim.org replies: Where did this come in?
> Probably because it's the truth !!!
> >>>>mi...@mim.org replies: I understand that in many
> >>>>situations that socialism is the challenger.
> >>>>When it comes to war, unless you believe it's a good
> >>>>thing, the burden of proof is on the status quo.
> >>>>World War I was produced by capitalism. World War II
> >>>>came as a result of World War I. That says a lot
> >>>>about capitalism and this whole century.
> >>>>If you want to tally up death tolls for socialism
> >>>>and capitalism, you have to include those.
>
> See this is your problem mim, your argument is skewered.
You want to equate Nazi Germany,Facist Italy and Imperial
Japan with capitalism.
mim What your motives ?
Or do you really believe this crap ?
Well anyway I will no longer respond to your posts as i'm
sure it is an exercise in futility!
bOb
MICHAEL VOGLER
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <82cf1o$nv2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <82a4qe$8ua$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > mi...@mim.org wrote:
> > > In article <829g1j$rbv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > coxinga <cox...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Take Cambodia and Vietnam for example. The Vietnamese kicked
> > American
> > > > butt in the 70s’. Look how miserable they are now. Same is
> > Cambodia.
> > > > A lot of people would argue with you if these two countries are
> > > > landlord regimes before. But becoming Communists only brought
> > misery.
> > >
> > > mi...@mim.org replies: So Kampuchea suffered
> > > 600,000+ dead from U.$. bombing--10%+
> > > of their population and Indochina receives
> > > more bombs combined than all of World War II
> > > and they're supposed to be happy? You seem
> > > to miss in this thread that capitalist
> > > countries went to all-out war before there
> > > was any communism, before there was any
> > > 1917. It is not I who must defend a record
> > > of world war. It is you.
> > >
> >
> > I guess the 600k+ dead is from the MIM archive again? Kindly provide
> > the source, please. US bombed Cambodia only in the latter stage of
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: I can provide a source,
> but first I'd like to ask about your reasoning or logic.
> You admit that the U$A bombed Kampuchea, so why
> are you not obliged to provide a number when arguing
> how wonderful capitalism is?
Because one has nothing to do with the other. Machiavelli will tell you
that all countries make war. As such, ideology would not be a good
indicator of wonderfullness now would it?
>
> the
> > war when the VC used it to lauch their attacks into Vietnam. It is
> > true the bombs used in Vietnam exceed those used in WW2 in tonnage.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Again, I fail to see why
> I should be on the defensive here--unless we
> assume war is a good thing. Why don't you
> provide us a number dead from air attacks during
> World War II?
Why don't you tell us why war is bad? I see growth in GDP. That is
good, right? Wouldn't China go to war over Taiwan if they knew it would
help their economy? I think so.
>
> > Still US could not win the war. What does that tell you? It simply
> > means most of the bombs were dropped in no man's land. When one side
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Peasants are "no man": once
> again we see freedom for the upper- and middle- classes
> means death for the lower classes.
>
> Read Samuel P. Huntington on "forced draft
> urbanization." This was also known as the
> "bomb the countryside" strategy.
I apologize, but what I have seen of Huntington I have also seen to be
proven wrong years later. Besides, he's a theorist, nothing more,
nothing less.
>
> > fought as if his survival is dependent on it, while the other side
> > fought with one hand tied behind his back, at the same time domestic
> > opinions are torn with respect to whether to continue and most of rest
> > of the world is condemning it, the outcome of the war is already
> sealed.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Where did this come in?
>
It is called reality...That is what happened in the US during Vietnam.
Read a history book.
> >
> > I don't see why I have to defend both world wars, are they related to
> > class struggle?
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: I understand that in many
> situations that socialism is the challenger.
> When it comes to war, unless you believe it's a good
> thing, the burden of proof is on the status quo.
> World War I was produced by capitalism. World War II
> came as a result of World War I. That says a lot
> about capitalism and this whole century.
> If you want to tally up death tolls for socialism
> and capitalism, you have to include those.
>
Who says that the burden of proof is on the status quo?
Besides, your ignorance of history is showing: most historians would
agree that WWI started because of NATIONALISM, not capitalism (until
then, a very foreign concept). What WWII coming from WWI tells me is
that there has been a lot of pride in nationalism that spilled over into
an ideological conflict between the US and the USSR with countries like
China caught in the middle. China didn't believe in socialism, and they
used their ideology to play off the two Cold War players against each
other. Get out of your Socialist pseudo-Marxist arguing genre and be a
little more objective.
mi...@mim.org
mi...@mim.org replies: Even I forgot about
Haiti. Imperialism is affecting things
everywhere. It's much easier to remember
its interventions that way than to keep track
of each one.
MIM Notes No. 200 December 15, 1999
U$ army leaves Haiti, but imperialist control continues
by MC53
Five years after the most recent armed u.$. invasion of Haiti,
Amerika is decreasing its troop presence. Rhetoric behind the 1994
invasion portrayed the u.$. actions as a heroic action to promote
democracy, yet the material conditions of Haitians continue to
worsen.
The relationship between Haiti and the United Snakes of
Imperialism demonstrates how imperialists combine military,
economic and political coercion to exploit the oppressed. Military
violence backed by or directly perpetrated by the u.$ can
temporarily recede, but the violence wreaked by imperialism
continues regardless.
Following nearly a century of imperialist control, stifling
national economic growth, Haiti's per capita income is one-tenth
of the Latin American average,(1) approximately $250.(2) As of
1996, the per capita portion of Haitian debt "owed" to imperialist
lenders was $122.(3) Haitian life expectancy is only 57 years
compared to a 69 year average in Latin America(1) and the U.$.
life expectancy of 73 for men and close to 80 years old for
wimmin.(4)
Imperialism steals from the Haitian people to swell the
imperialist nation standard of living. Amerikan corporations
extract surplus value as they exploit labor and export capital
with low tariffs. And increasingly, Haitians are expected to pay
for World Bank projects that allegedly rebuild the country but in
fact just make it an easier target for international imperialists
while the Haitian people face on-going poverty.
The u.$. owes reparations to the Haitian people for nearly a
century of surplus value and natural resource extraction,
enslavement of the people and destruction of the national economy.
Yet imperialist piranhas continue refusal to cancel debt
accumulated by Haiti, the poorest country in the 'western'
hemisphere, despite the fact that Amerika made Haiti poor.
Dependency causes poverty
Seventy-five percent of Haitians live in abject poverty, according
to the CIA.(4) Conditions are most severe for the 80% of the
population which lives in the rural areas. The World Bank claims
that 20% of the country's resources go to the rural areas. In
reality it is much less when we account for the imperialist
corporations that are sucking the nation's resources dry.
Unemployment in Haiti is between 60 and 70% and illiteracy
surpasses 70%.(2) Only about 20% of secondary-school age children
are able to attend school.(1)
Epidemics of measles, meningitis, rabies, anthrax and tuberculosis
are not surprising considering the dearth of adequate medical
care. About 25% of children have access to basic vaccination.(1)
Per capita Haitian health care expenditure is about $21, compared
to $38 in Sub-Saharan Africa and $202 in Latin America.(1) About
25% of the entire population has access to safe water.(1)
In 1997, exports from Haiti totaled $110 million, but
imperialists, primarily the u.$., dumped $486 million worth of
imports.(4) Haiti primarily exports light manufacturing products
and imports are mostly heavy industry products.(4) This was
formally adopted as a so-called development strategy in the early
1980s when USAID and the World Bank imposed structural adjustment
programs that turned Haiti into primarily a cash crop economy.
China demonstrated that self-sufficiency of a country formerly
bombarded and occupied by imperialists was possible. Socialist
China emphasized proletarian control to meet the needs of the
people. China emphasized the development of agriculture to feed
the people -- as opposed to cash crops. Within the industrial
sector, China emphasized heavy industry as the leading factor,
though not to the point of ignoring light and medium industry. As
long as the imperialists control the development direction of the
Haitian nation, its people will never be free from poverty and
exploitation.
Debt perpetuates poverty
Amerika would like the world to think that the invasion of Haiti
in 1994 was a good thing. But the military invasion paved the way
for imperialist corporations to further profit from the poor
conditions rather than helping the people of Haiti. External
"debt" of the government of the Republic of Haiti reached US$1.1
billion as of 1997, whereas it was US$302 million in 1980.(3)
The World Bank says: "External support remains crucial to Haitian
economic recovery and efforts at poverty reduction, accounting for
about 15 percent of GDP in 1997."(1) This 'external support' comes
in the form of loans bankrolling so-called humanitarian projects.
World Bank projects, like the Power V Project, the Water Supply
Project, and the Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project, are
manufactured not for the interests of the people, but for
imperialist corporations. Imperialist corporations are contracted
for these projects and the Haitian people must take out loans to
pay the imperialists and their banks. Haiti is receiving about
US$2 billion in loans and grants from what the imperialists call
"the international donor community."(1) But considering that Haiti
must pay 17 cents for debt service on every dollar in loans and
grants, this is not a donation.(3)
At the same time that Haiti must pay for loans that line Amerikan
pockets, the u.$. and the government of Haiti have made an
"Investment Incentive Agreement" which exempts corporations from
taxes and from Haitian laws regarding insurance or financial
organizations.(5) Between the loans and the economic policies the
U.$. has effectively established a very profitable and
exploitative relationship with Haiti.
Military means toward exploitation ends
Haiti was the first colony in the West to go down to a slave
rebellion. It has suffered at the hands of imperialism ever since.
The u.$. occupied and ruled Haiti from 1915 to 1934, then backed a
series of dictators, including the Duvaliers, until 1990, when
Aristide won a presidential election. In 1991, Aristide was
overthrown in a military coup likely led by, and definitely
supported by, the CIA. The u.$ continued to train military
officers in Haiti after the coup.
In 1994 Amerika invaded and formally set up the process of
training the Haitian military in the art of "democratic"
repression. This process led to the current imperialist-puppet
"civilian" rule, headed by President Preval. As elections approach
in March and April of 2000, violence continues and is expected to
rise.(2)
Of the original 1994 23,000-troop invasion force, only 500
Amerikan troops are officially stationed in Haiti. Most remaining
will return to Amerika soon leaving a small force called the U.S.
Support Group Haiti under the guise of working on healthcare and
construction projects.(2) Having established a strong puppet
government and military within Haiti, the u.s. no longer needs its
own troops on the ground. This is the goal of neo-colonialism
around the world.
Liberal Amerikan opposition to the u.$. domination of Haiti died
soon after imperialist forces took control and declared Haiti to
be an emerging democracy. As communists, we recognize that
military control is only a portion of imperialism's machinations
to exploit and expand capitalism. Advocacy to end military
intervention or any other single aspect of imperialist hegemony
must firmly be placed within the context of ending imperialism
entire.
Root cause of poverty: imperialism; Solution: anti-imperialism
The current government has prioritized kowtowing to the IMF's
structural adjustment programs, including privitization, low
tariffs for foreign corporations, dismissal of social needs and
even putting up for sale Haiti's seaports.(2) The imperialist
solution is to keep the comprador bourgeoisie doing imperialist
dirty work through promises to modernize Haiti's national banking
system. The imperialists also push for a stronger Haitian police
force and penal system.(1)
The imperialists are still treating Haiti as they did in the 19th
century: as a savage nation to be controlled and ran-sacked.
Imperialists blame corruption and political instability for
poverty in Haiti but dishonestly absolve the u.$. of its role.
They will continue to justify whatever action is necessary to best
exploit the people. For as long as the imperialists say that "the
basic problems of governance remain and are at the core of the
country's poverty problems"(1) the imperialists can claim that
intervention is necessary to save the Haitian people.
Haiti is but one example that Third World nations are not 'better
off' with IMF/WB/USAID or other imperialist intervention. These
agencies merely pave the way for smoother exploitation of the
people. We call on those who think that such material conditions
should be eradicated in the 21st century to work with MIM in
opposing imperialism entire whether it takes the form of military,
economic, political or social control.
Notes:
1. http://www.worldbank.org/html/
2. The Haitian Times at: http://www.haitiantimes.com/news.html
3. http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/
4. http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ha.html
5. http://www.usia.gov/abtusia/posts/HA1/wwwhk00e.html
6. http://www.peacec0..
article edited by MC17
--
## ## ### ## ## MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
# # # # # # # P.O. BOX 3576 ANN ARBOR MI 48106
# # # # # --------- m...@mim.org ----------
# # ### # # www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
mi...@mim.org
CuchiD...@webtv.net wrote:
> [mi...@mim.org replies: So Kampuchea suffered 600,000+ dead from U.$.
> bombing--10%+
> of their population and Indochina receives more bombs combined than
all
>
> I doubt that figure,but after we left ,your good buddy Pol Pot managed
> to kill several million without any bombs at all. He started with the
> educated professionals(like you) then just the literate,then those who
> wore glasses,then those who knew a skill,and by this time he had
already
> gotten rid of all artists,musicians,etc.Ahh,the proletariats paradise
of
> cunning communism.Yep,'ol Pol was a merry 'ol soul,if he didn't like
> you,he'd put you on a pole through your hole !!! He sure took care of
> the working class,didn't he ? He showed the world what communism was
all
> about ,just like your hero Mao.
mi...@mim.org replies: This myth from
Hollywood sure dies hard:
Pol Pot called our movement "counterrevolutionary" and Mao never called
Pot Pot Maoist while Mao was alive.
In contrast, Democrats and Republicans of the U.S. Government did
give military aid to Pol Pot.
A general discussion of Maoist ideology was lifted wholesale from
out-of-context academic sources and published as journalism. "Killing
Fields" is just a movie. See,
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5973/kampu1.htm
M.Simon
China's current course sure doesn't indicate the inevitability of
communism.
Simon - http://www.spacetimepro.com Free CNC machine tool software
MICHAEL VOGLER
Kind of. Western containment policy came about because of the
perception of Soviet expansion after WWII. In addition, as Vietnam
dragged on, it became more of a way to boost industry and the economy
than simply to "contain" a non-existent Soviet threat. That was the
by-line, hardly the total truth.
MICHAEL VOGLER
while ignoring all others. Hey, mim, if you just let these all go by,
then you are making are cases STRONGER not WEAKER.
mi...@mim.org wrote:
>
> In article <26238-38...@storefull-244.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> CuchiD...@webtv.net wrote:
> > [mi...@mim.org replies: So Kampuchea suffered 600,000+ dead from U.$.
> > bombing--10%+
> > of their population and Indochina receives more bombs combined than
> all
MICHAEL VOGLER
Actually, for once, mim is right. We still do occasionally bomb Iraq
today.
> > Iraq is still being bombed? Hello? Bush is long gone. Clinton is in
> > his second term. Iraq is being sanctioned for its refusal to stop
> > making weapons of mass destruction. You have to enlighten me on the
> US
> > mercenaries.
>
> mi...@mim.org replies: Even I forgot about
> Haiti. Imperialism is affecting things
> everywhere. It's much easier to remember
> its interventions that way than to keep track
> of each one.
Alrighty then!! Let the credibility attack begin!
Problems/reasons why this paper need not be read:
1) There are no legitimate sources. The only one is the World Bank, but
all of the rest of the sources are internet based.
2) When things like imperialism are talked about, the author has no
references. As such, it is just opinion.
3) It is from MIM notes, need I say more??
coxinga
MICHAEL VOGLER <m...@dana.ucc.nau.edu> wrote:
>
> > 25 years after the end of Vietnam War, people in this country are
still
> > debating how we could have avoided getting that deep before
extricating
> > ourselves from the mess. No one will argue with you that the War
was a
> > big mess, a big mistake.
> >
> > Nixon bombed the heck out of Cambodia, killed untold number of
> > Cambodians. It has nothing to do with how wonderful or miserable
> > capitalism is. You want to link anything and everything US does and
> > stands for with evil and capitalism. That's your business.
> >
> > The Vietnam War is a limited hot war in the Cold War period. It
goes
> > back to the expansionism of the Soviet Union after WW2 and the
> > containment policy of the west.
>
> Kind of. Western containment policy came about because of the
> perception of Soviet expansion after WWII. In addition, as Vietnam
> dragged on, it became more of a way to boost industry and the economy
> than simply to "contain" a non-existent Soviet threat. That was the
> by-line, hardly the total truth.
>
I have never heard of this argument before, refering to the US
involvement in Vietnam as a way of boosting the domestic industry and
economy. I believe the US was quite arrogant in the beginning of the
conflict. They under estimated the resolve of the North Vietnamese.
They simply believed enough weapons and bombs would do the job, even if
in a limited war with one hand tied behind their back. As it dragged
on, LBJ committed one division of troops after another into Vietnam
until they finally realized they could not extricate themselves in an
honorable way with one hand tied behind their back, by which time more
than 500,000 GI's were already in Vietnam. With the three major
networks bringing the war and body bags daily into the dining room.
LBJ was still asking Congress for more troops to be sent to Vietnam in
1968. The American general public simply became fed-up.
The prevailing theory at the time for continuing and intensifying the
conflict was the Domino theory. It postulated that if one country
falls to the Communists hand, her next door neighbor would soon
follow. And in no time the whole South-East Asia will be Red. With
the Soviet Union, China and SE Asia all in Communists hands, it's quite
a scary thought. So in Vietnam the US was resolved to stop the
Communist expansionism, to contain the Red tide.