Marxist Adulation Group Established at Pennsylvania State University
Doc Tavish
[Link active April 26, 2000]
(Notice the link originates from the university server!)
Marxist Reading Group
This is the homepage of the Marxist Reading Group at the University of
Pennsylvania. Founded in 1998, the MRG exists to study and discuss the
works of Marx and Engels, their historical and intellectual forbears, and
contemporary critics and advocates of Marxism. Recent conversations
have focussed on the labour theory of value, Marx's Hegelianism, and the
identity of the historical subject in Young Hegelianism. New sessions are
planned on the idea and economics of the "Young Marx." While our reading
program is roughly chronological -- tracing a path from classical political
economy, through Marx and Engels, and onto current trends and debates --
all MRG members are encouraged to suggest alternative areas of
discussion. Participants come from throughout the disciplines and from
the faculty, graduate and undergraduate communities.
See the Current Schedule for the next meeting
Read Matt Hart and Bernie Rhie's First Announcement
Contact the MRG
Consult the marx@english archive (currently unavailable)
A Selection of Marxist Links
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Information:
Email the Curators: Matt Hart and Bernie Rhie for information or to
join the listserv
Email the MRG listserv: ma...@english.upenn.edu
Ground Mail:
Department of English, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Schedule:
Fall 1999
October 12 1999: 4:30pm Grad Lounge, 4th floor, Bennett Hall
Linked titles lead to online versions of the scheduled texts
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, selections from The German Ideology
(for selections email matthart@english or consult the announcements
on marx@english)
February 2 1999: 5:00pm Grad Lounge, 4th floor, Bennett Hall
Karl Marx, "Critique of Hegel's System and Dialectic" from The 1844
Manuscripts
Karl Marx, "On the Jewish Question"
Karl Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach"
December 2 1998 5:00pm Bennett Hall
Bruno Bauer, "On the Jewish Question"
Ludwig Feuerbach, from The Essence of Christianity
Ludwig Feuerbach, from Aphorisms on the Philosophy of the Future
October 21 1998 5:00pm Bennett Hall
G. W. F. Hegel, from The Phenomenology of Spriit
G. W. F. Hegel, from The Philosophy of Right
September 15 1998 5:00pm Bennett Hall
Adam Smith, from The Wealth of Nations
David Ricardo, from Political Economy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marxist Links:
An Online Library at the Marx and Engels Internet Archive
http://csf.colorado.edu/mirrors/marxists.org/archive/marx/works/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page maintained by Matt Hart
Last updated January 21 1999
--------END--------
More university servers aiding in the adulation of Marx and communism!
http://english-www.hss.cmu.edu/marx/default.html
http://history.hanover.edu/modern/marx.htm
http://www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/soc2r3/marx/2r3_05.htm
Some Marxist adulation as recorded at the M.I.T. server:
http://x2.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=311322335&fmt=text
Subject: January class seties at MIT
From: f...@psfc.mit.edu (Felix Kreisel)
Date: 1997/12/30
Message-ID: <mt2.0-1291...@vera.kvalito.no>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,mit.bboard,soc.politics.marxism
The New World Disorder: a Marxist Perspective
[...]
At the end of 20th century the insoluble contradictions of
capitalism are reasserting themselves: firstly, the contradiction
between the globalization of the world economy and the system
of individual nation-states; secondly, the conflict between, on the
one hand, the need for a democratic plan to manage the natural
resources of Earth and to develop the social resources of humanity,
and, on the other hand, the system of private property with its cruel,
market driven laws.
These contradictions are now pushing mankind into a convulsive
era of wars and revolutions. We shall provide a Marxist analysis
of the factors shaping our world and see how to resolve the crisis of
revolutionary leadership in the working class.
Jan. 7: World economy in crisis: prelude to a new world war.
Jan. 14: Economic and social crisis in America.
Jan. 21: Russia: from Stalinism to capitalist barbarism.
Jan. 28: Socialism: what it is and what it isn't.
Wednesdays, 6 PM, room 8-105, on the Infinite Corridor
MIT - IAP Classes sponsored by F. Kreisel, 253-8625
--
==========================================================
Felix Kreisel, Systems Engineer Internet: f...@psfc.mit.edu
Plasma Science & Fusion Center, MIT Phone: 617-253-8625
190 Albany St. Cambridge, MA 02139 Fax: 617-252-1808
===========================================================
~~~~~~~END~~~~~~~
http://x1.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=206915925&fmt=text
Subject: IAP classes: Restoration of capitalism in ex-USSR
From: f...@mit.edu (Felix Kreisel)
Date: 1996/12/30
Message-ID: <fjk-ya023580003...@news.mit.edu>
Restoration of capitalism in
the former Soviet Union
It has been over a decade since the accession to power of Mikhail
Gorbachev and the turn of the Soviet bureaucracy to the policy of
dismantling the so called "socialist" economy. Five years ago the
collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the remnants of the
non-capitalist regime which was established by the October Revolution
in 1917. We shall examine the economic, political and social
developments currently taking place in the republics of the former
Soviet Union, trace the historical roots and draw the lessons of
mankind's first attempt to build a socialist society.
Wed, Jan. 8th, 6 -- 7 pm; conditions in Russia today.
Collapse and destruction characterize the former Soviet economy
subjected to the full weight of international capitalist competition.
The bourgeois social regime is taking the countries of the former
Soviet Union back to asiatic barbarism and fascism.
Wed, Jan. 15th, 6 -- 7 pm; 1917 in its historical context.
The Russian Revolution -- the first step of the world socialist
revolution.
Wed, Jan. 22nd, 6 -- 7 pm; the revolution betrayed.
The Soviet Union -- neither capitalist nor socialist, but a
contradictory society in transition.
Wed, Jan. 29th, 6 -- 7 pm; Marxism versus Stalinism.
Was there an alternative to Stalinism? Leon Trotsky's legacy and
Marxism today.
Recommended reading: Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed;
and http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/fjk/iskra.html#ARTICLES
Classes held on Wednesday evenings, 6 7 pm, room 8-105
Please contact Felix Kreisel f...@mit.edu or at 253-8625 for further
questions.
--
- - - - - - - - -
Iskra Research -- Historical research and publication of Marxist
classics in the Russian language. 3 books by L. Trotsky published so
far: Predannaia revolutsiia; Permanentnaia revolutsiia; V zaschitu
marksizma.
*** NEW item: Electronic "Russian Marxist Glossary" is on-line. ***
Address: PO Box 397142, Cambridge, MA 02139-7142;
e-mail: f...@mit.edu
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/fjk/iskra.html
~~~~ End of Archival Post at DejaNews~~~~
Now let us look at the link Marxist MIT Felix Kreisel gave just above:
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/fjk/iskra.html
[...]
Politics of Iskra Research
We stand in political support of the International Committee of the
Fourth International and its American representative, the Socialist
Equality Party. Iskra Research is very proud to publish the on-line
version of the quarterly journal of the Cheliabinsk (Russia) Buro of
the ICFI (in Russian).
For miscellaneous articles by F. Kreisel on various political,
economic and historical subjects, please click here: Political essays
To promote our politics the director of Iskra Research, Felix Kreisel,
teaches classes on Marxism at his place of work at MIT during the
January Independent Activities Period.
[...]
~~~~~ End of Link ~~~~~
Now let us examine one of Felix Kreisel's "letters":
(Notice again that the letter is on the official MIT server!)
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/fjk/spartacist.html
Spartacist League versus Trotskyism
Copyright: Iskra Research; By: F. Kreisel; Oct. 27, 1994
Dear comrade,
Thank you for your evaluation of my post about CoC. I fully appreciate
the fact that you are searching for a true Marxist revolutionary
movement. Based on my experience, the Spartacist League is,
unfortunately, not such a movement.
The workers' movement is today suffering from the deadly and false
identification of Marxism with Stalinism. Concepts like "revolutionary
violence", "soviets", "democratic centralism", etc. were thoroughly
compromised and undermined by the betrayals of Stalinism.
A Marxist movement must develop an international revolutionary program
based on the history of past struggles of the working class and on its
own history in the class struggle. It is certainly not enough to shout
RRRRRRevolutionary slogans, swear on a stack of Transitional Programs
or carry icons of Marx and Lenin.
Such a program must be developed as part of the patient education in
the working class; it must be reflected in the propaganda of the party
press. It is through the party newspaper that the movement is talking
to workers in their everyday struggles.
But when one looks through the Workers Vanguard one is immediately
struck by its insanely distorted view of the world. The political
campaigns of SL are a caricature of Trotskyism: e.g. their defence of
the "socialist" porno movie starlet, their applause for the Stalinist
suppression of Polish Solidarity or of the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, their continuous reference to the Stalinist army as
"Red", etc.
Whenever they refer to strike or labor struggle in the US they
celebrate union militancy as if it were the magical panacea for the
working class. At the same time they neglect to mention the betrayal
conducted daily by the trade union bureaucracy or to discuss the
bankruptcy of a national union militancy in the period of the world
crisis of capitalism and of the multinational corporation. Right now
the SL is conducting a campaign to defend a jailed Black nationalist.
But a few years ago they applauded the middle class subway rider in
New York who became terrified of some black hooligans, pulled out a
gun and shot four of them right on the train.
The Spartacist League is a very subjective middle class outfit. Their
zigzags and wild publicity stunts (dressing in Civil War outfits or
organizing the Yuri Andropov brigade) prevent the workers from
learning anything.
On the theoretical level it must be classed with the Pabloites who
diverged from Trotskyism in the direction of Stalinism. SL does not
distinguish between the revolutionary progressive violence of Trotsky
and Lenin and the counterrevolutionary violence of
Stalin-Brezhnev-Gorbachev. In Russia today, the supporters of SL flirt
with the various nationalist "bolshevik" groups and despite their loud
shouting about fascism are themselves drawn in that direction.
You ought to investigate the history of LaRouche and the National
Caucus of Labor Committees. The Spartacist League resembles them to an
astonishing degree.
I am a supporter of the International Committee of the Fourth
International and its co-thinker in the USA, the Workers League. You
might want to check out the newspaper of the WL, the International
Workers Bulletin and also read David North's book The Heritage We
Defend which is a history of Trotskyism since Trotsky's death.
I wish you success in your Marxist education.
........end............................................................
All of the above excerpted from:
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=514443077&fmt=text
Subject: To a Marxist Almost Everyone is a Nazi.... (MUST READ!)
Date: 08/19/1999
All links were active on the date shown above. Links come
and go and I can't guarantee that the links are still active.
Doc Tavish
April 26, 2000
ThomJeff
If we allow this, next they'll want to have an Ayn Rand Reading Group!
You've never been to college, have you?
Thom
Orac
wrote:
>How dare they!!! These books should be BANNED!
>
>If we allow this, next they'll want to have an Ayn Rand Reading Group!
>
>You've never been to college, have you?
I mean, really, the nerve of them! Next they'll want to form a Young Republicans
chapter. :-)
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Allan Matthews
> How dare they!!! These books should be BANNED!
>
> If we allow this, next they'll want to have an Ayn Rand Reading Group!
>
> You've never been to college, have you?
College? Hell, by his own admission "Sieg Heil" Scottie Bradbury, aka
"Doc Tavish," never made it through the 6th grade.
> Doc Tavish wrote:
["Sieg Heil" Scottie's usual paranoid ravings snipped]
a.j.
--
allan_m...@bigfoot.com
===========================================
"Eat shit, choke on it and die"
-"Sieg Heil" Scottie Bradbury showing what
passes for rational debate in his "mind"
===========================================
www2.shore.net/~matthews/
William H. Bowen
>http://www.english.upenn.edu/~matthart/Mrg/mrg.html
>[Link active April 26, 2000]
>
>(Notice the link originates from the university server!)
>
>Marxist Reading Group
>This is the homepage of the Marxist Reading Group at the University of
>Pennsylvania. Founded in 1998, the MRG exists to study and discuss the
>works of Marx and Engels, their historical and intellectual forbears, and
>contemporary critics and advocates of Marxism. Recent conversations
>have focussed on the labour theory of value, Marx's Hegelianism, and the
>identity of the historical subject in Young Hegelianism. New sessions are
>planned on the idea and economics of the "Young Marx." While our reading
>program is roughly chronological -- tracing a path from classical political
>economy, through Marx and Engels, and onto current trends and debates --
>all MRG members are encouraged to suggest alternative areas of
>discussion. Participants come from throughout the disciplines and from
>the faculty, graduate and undergraduate communities.
Doc,
I'm not surprised: the university is the last real outpost of
Marxism in this country and in most of the world.
Out here in California we have some actual declared Communists
teaching in the UC system, most notable of which is Angela Davis (UC
Santa Cruz).
My love for the 1st Amendment says I have to tolerate this, but I
don't have to like it.
Regards,
Bill Bowen
bow...@best.com
Daly City, CA
Warren's All-Stars
ThomJeff wrote:
How dare they!!! These books should be BANNED!If we allow this, next they'll want to have an Ayn Rand Reading Group!
You've never been to college, have you?
Thom
Been to college? When Tavish gets within a mile of a school
of higher learning, the idiot-detector alarms go off.
Steve
Doc Tavish
On 26-Apr-2000, bow...@best.com (William H. Bowen) wrote:
> "Doc Tavish" <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.english.upenn.edu/~matthart/Mrg/mrg.html
> >[Link active April 26, 2000]
> >
> >(Notice the link originates from the university server!)
> >
> >Marxist Reading Group
> >This is the homepage of the Marxist Reading Group at the University of
> >Pennsylvania. Founded in 1998, the MRG exists to study and discuss the
> >works of Marx and Engels, their historical and intellectual forbears, and
> >contemporary critics and advocates of Marxism. Recent conversations
> >have focussed on the labour theory of value, Marx's Hegelianism, and the
> >identity of the historical subject in Young Hegelianism. New sessions are
> >planned on the idea and economics of the "Young Marx." While our reading
> >program is roughly chronological -- tracing a path from classical political
> >economy, through Marx and Engels, and onto current trends and debates --
> >all MRG members are encouraged to suggest alternative areas of
> >discussion. Participants come from throughout the disciplines and from
> >the faculty, graduate and undergraduate communities.
> Doc,
> I'm not surprised: the university is the last real outpost of
> Marxism in this country and in most of the world.
>
> Out here in California we have some actual declared Communists
> teaching in the UC system, most notable of which is Angela Davis (UC
> Santa Cruz).
>
> My love for the 1st Amendment says I have to tolerate this, but I
> don't have to like it.
I appreciate your sincerity but I wish to call you task on your thinking observing
the 1st Amendment compels you to tolerate communism. Not all speech is
protected is it? You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater as all may know but
what about the ideal of protecting the constitution against all enemies both foreign
and domestic? Communists are enemies of our freedoms and to allow them to
misuse our freedoms to ultimately undermine all of our freedoms is not at all
acceptable to me. If communists are allowed to flourish and poison the minds
of our youths then what future is there for our forefather's dreams?
You should also be offended that state sponsored institutions which rely on
tax payers money should allow anti-constitutional activities to take place. The
university system worldwide has been the historic hotbeds of radicalism/socialism/communism. If you truly value the health of our cherished
American freedoms and its body politic then you should not be repulsed
by a malignant tumour being excised-- communists must be driven from
our academic institutions.
Doc Tavish
p@u.c
In article <Q1YN4.603$wb7....@news.flash.net>,
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
[. . .]
>I appreciate your sincerity but I wish to call you task on your thinking
>observing
>the 1st Amendment compels you to tolerate communism. Not all speech is
>protected is it? You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater as all may know but
>what about the ideal of protecting the constitution against all enemies
>both foreign
>and domestic?
If you deny people the right to advocate their political views, no matter
how extreme and anti-American you may find them, then neither the
Constitution nor the country will be worth defending.
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
antipos...@my-deja.com
doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com wrote:
> communists must be driven from our academic institutions.
So I take it that academic freedom means nothing to you?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
antipos...@my-deja.com
bow...@best.com wrote:
> I'm not surprised: the university is the last real outpost of
> Marxism in this country and in most of the world.
>
> Out here in California we have some actual declared Communists
> teaching in the UC system, most notable of which is Angela Davis (UC
> Santa Cruz).
>
> My love for the 1st Amendment says I have to tolerate this, but I
> don't have to like it.
>
How big of you. But have you ever read any Marx or any of the Marxists
who make you so unhappy, or are you just giving a knee jerk reaction?
david.e.michael
antipos...@my-deja.com wrote:
Ooooooooh! I've read Marx. And Lenin. Here's some things that Lenin and
his fellow travellers wrote:
<begin quote>
In principle we have never rejected, and cannot reject, terror.
<end quote>
Lenin, 'Where to Begin', in V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English
Edition, Foreign Languages
Publishing House, Moscow, 1961.
<begin quote>
Propaganda or agitation in an organization or co-operation with
organizations having the effect... of
helping in the slightest way that part of the international bourgeoisie
which does not recognize the
equal rights of the Communist system coming to take the place of
capitalism, and which is endeavoring to overthrow it by force, whether by
intervention or blockade or by espionage or by financing of the press or
by any other means - is
punishable by death or imprisonment.'
<end quote>
<begin quote>
Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which
proceeds from supernatural ideas or
ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is
entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is
moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order
and for uniting the proletariat.
Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare
against the exploiters.
<end quote>
(cited in *Lenin: Collected Works*)
<begin quote>
The party of the proletariat (the Bolsheviks) stands for the immediate
seizure of the land by the
peasants in the local areas and recommends the greatest possible degree
of organisation. We see no
"anarchy" in this, for it is this decision, and this decision alone, that
happens to be a majority decision
of the local population.'
<end quote>
Lenin, 3 May, 1917, First Published: Pravda No., May 4 (17), 1917.
<begin quote>
Comrades! ... Hang (hang without fail, so that people will see) no fewer
than one hundred known
kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers ... Do it in such a way that ... for
hundreds of versts around, the
people will see, tremble, know, shout: 'They are strangling and will
strangle to death the sucker
kulaks"'
<end quote>
Lenin, cited in 'Vladimir Ilyich Lenin' by David Remnick.
Here is the comment of a newspaper in Lenin's Russia:
<begin quote>
Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of
hundreds, let them
be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood... let there
be floods of blood
of the bourgeois.'
<end quote>
Red Army Newspaper proclamation, September of 1918, cited in George
Leggett, 'The Cheka: Lenin's
Political Police'.
Are those the sort of views that we are supposed to 'like', comrade?
David
david.e.michael
antipos...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <Q1YN4.603$wb7....@news.flash.net>,
> doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com wrote:
>
> > communists must be driven from our academic institutions.
>
> So I take it that academic freedom means nothing to you?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
It means a lot to me.
Which is why it needs to be protected from communists and their fellow
travellers, who have done more than any force on earth to limit and
destroy it.
David
ThomJeff
or discourage others from becoming as informed as you believe yourself to be?
Thom
"david.e.michael" wrote:
> antipos...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <390743c2...@206.184.139.132>,
> > bow...@best.com wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not surprised: the university is the last real outpost of
> > > Marxism in this country and in most of the world.
> > >
> > > Out here in California we have some actual declared Communists
> > > teaching in the UC system, most notable of which is Angela Davis (UC
> > > Santa Cruz).
> > >
> > > My love for the 1st Amendment says I have to tolerate this, but I
> > > don't have to like it.
> > >
> >
> > How big of you. But have you ever read any Marx or any of the Marxists
> > who make you so unhappy, or are you just giving a knee jerk reaction?
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
antipos...@my-deja.com
out that very few academic Marxists are Marxist-Leninists; more follow
people like Adorno, Gramsci, or work in areas which are closer to
post-structuralism than explicit Marxism (those who follow Michel
Foucault come to mind).
To put it another way, to say that Lenin is all there is to Marxism is
like saying that the Ayatollah Khomeni was/is the sole representative
of Islam - an inaccurate and distorting oversimplification.
In article <3908D615...@variousisps.co.uk>,
david.e.michael
antipos...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Well since the thread was on Marx in academia, it needs to be pointed
> out that very few academic Marxists are Marxist-Leninists; more follow
> people like Adorno, Gramsci, or work in areas which are closer to
> post-structuralism than explicit Marxism (those who follow Michel
> Foucault come to mind).
>
Wasn't it Marx himself who said at one point 'I'm not a Marxist'?
>
> To put it another way, to say that Lenin is all there is to Marxism is
> like saying that the Ayatollah Khomeni was/is the sole representative
> of Islam - an inaccurate and distorting oversimplification.
>
Agreed. But since Marxism has led to the murder of around 200 million
people last century, I think we should perhaps regard it with the same
degree of reverence as the average anti-nazi regards Nazism.
David
antipos...@my-deja.com
caused? a million? ten million? a billion?
In article <3909A14B...@variousisps.co.uk>,
david.e.michael
antipos...@my-deja.com wrote:
I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
David
Andrew Northbrook
>I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
>Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written On
USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a
singularly darker form of white... :)
--
think about it,
Andrew Northbrook
If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
Andrew Northbrook
>argument.
I *did*, David... see, right here:
"It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a singularly
darker form of white."
It's called a "contradiction in terms".
Grunion
david.e.michael wrote in message <390A47FE...@variousisps.co.uk>...
>
>David
>
Exactly, and intelligence is just a singularly vicious form of stupidity.
At least David isn't a hypocrite.
-G
William Daffer
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > In <390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Sat,
> > 29 Apr 2000 02:32:44 +0100, "david.e.michael"
> > <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >
> > >> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> >
> > >> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and
> > >> >communism. Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of
> > >> >capitalism.
> >
> > >> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > >> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen
> > >> Written On USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that
> > >> black is merely a singularly darker form of white... :)
> >
> > >I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a
> > >counter argument.
> >
> > But that would necessitate that there were an argument presented in
> > the first place.
> >
> > - --
> > John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> > at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
> >
> > iQA/AwUBOQpVCJQgvG272fn9EQKLGgCghlIfXIvJjsoFLdkMaMlHRhJWrjUAoLcx
> > R5TGE9+PqREo58r3faTq0QRp
> > =RUM0
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> Don't worry. I'm sure you'll find something to misrepresent in another
> thread, Morris. You usually do.
>
>
> David
>
This from the man who shamelessly quotes out of context, then argues
that 'words shouldn't have consequences.' Clearly he means that
*his* words shouldn't have consequences but everyone else's should.
And we won't even mention his scurrilous attempt to censor the free
speech of others on this newsgroup.
William
--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx.
Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
david.e.michael
Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
>
> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written On
> USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a
> singularly darker form of white... :)
>
> --
> think about it,
> Andrew Northbrook
> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a counter
argument.
David
david.e.michael
Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> david.e.michael wrote in message <390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk>..
> >
> I *did*, David... see, right here:
>
> "It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a singularly
> darker form of white."
>
> It's called a "contradiction in terms".
>
> --
> think about it,
> Andrew Northbrook
> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
I think I'd call it 'wishful thinking'.
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Sat,
29 Apr 2000 02:32:44 +0100, "david.e.michael"
<david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>Andrew Northbrook wrote:
>> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
>> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and
>> >communism. Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of
>> >capitalism.
>> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen
>> Written On USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that
>> black is merely a singularly darker form of white... :)
>I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a
>counter argument.
But that would necessitate that there were an argument presented in
david.e.michael
Grunion wrote:
> david.e.michael wrote in message <390A47FE...@variousisps.co.uk>...
> >
> >
> >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >
> >> david.e.michael wrote in message <390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk>..
> >> >
> >> >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> >> >> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> >> >> >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> >> >>
> >> >> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written
> On
> >> >> USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely
> a
> >> >> singularly darker form of white... :)
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> think about it,
> >> >> Andrew Northbrook
> >> >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to
> disarm
> >> the
> >> >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> >> >
> >> >I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a counter
> >> >argument.
> >>
> >> I *did*, David... see, right here:
> >>
> >> "It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a singularly
> >> darker form of white."
> >>
> >> It's called a "contradiction in terms".
> >>
> >> --
> >> think about it,
> >> Andrew Northbrook
> >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm
> the
> >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> >
> >I think I'd call it 'wishful thinking'.
> >
> >David
> >
>
> Exactly, and intelligence is just a singularly vicious form of stupidity.
> At least David isn't a hypocrite.
>
> -G
Do you have a point or have you merely been eating too many beans?
David
david.e.michael
John Morris wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Sat,
> 29 Apr 2000 02:32:44 +0100, "david.e.michael"
> <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
>
> >> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
>
> >> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and
> >> >communism. Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of
> >> >capitalism.
>
> >> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen
> >> Written On USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that
> >> black is merely a singularly darker form of white... :)
>
> >I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a
> >counter argument.
>
> But that would necessitate that there were an argument presented in
> the first place.
>
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOQpVCJQgvG272fn9EQKLGgCghlIfXIvJjsoFLdkMaMlHRhJWrjUAoLcx
> R5TGE9+PqREo58r3faTq0QRp
> =RUM0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Don't worry. I'm sure you'll find something to misrepresent in another
Steve
> I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
>
> David
This is almost as good as 'Forget all the corpses......'. Bwahahahaha.
Steve
Steve
"david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> Andrew Northbrook wrote:
>
> > david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> > >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> > >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> >
> > ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written On
> > USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a
> > singularly darker form of white... :)
> >
> > --
> > think about it,
> > Andrew Northbrook
> > If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> > rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
>
> I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a counter
> argument.
>
> David
Maybe. If he is ever able to stop laughing hysterically. Me too.
Steve
david.e.michael
Steve wrote:
> > I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> > Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> >
> > David
>
> This is almost as good as 'Forget all the corpses......'. Bwahahahaha.
>
> Steve
Then please produce a distinction between communism as it is practised and
capitalism as it is practised.
David
david.e.michael
Steve wrote:
> "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >
> > > david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> > > >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> > > >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> > >
> > > ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written On
> > > USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a
> > > singularly darker form of white... :)
> > >
> > > --
> > > think about it,
> > > Andrew Northbrook
> > > If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> > > rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> >
> > I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a counter
> > argument.
> >
> > David
>
> Maybe. If he is ever able to stop laughing hysterically. Me too.
>
> Steve
Try reducing your blood alcohol level.
David
Steve
"david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> Grunion wrote:
>
> > david.e.michael wrote in message <390A47FE...@variousisps.co.uk>...
> > >
> > >
> > >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > >
> > >> david.e.michael wrote in message <390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk>..
> > >> >
> > >> >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> > >> >> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> > >> >> >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written
> > On
> > >> >> USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely
> > a
> > >> >> singularly darker form of white... :)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> think about it,
> > >> >> Andrew Northbrook
> > >> >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to
> > disarm
> > >> the
> > >> >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> > >> >
> > >> >I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a counter
> > >> >argument.
> > >>
> > >> I *did*, David... see, right here:
> > >>
> > >> "It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a singularly
> > >> darker form of white."
> > >>
> > >> It's called a "contradiction in terms".
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> think about it,
> > >> Andrew Northbrook
> > >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm
> > the
> > >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> > >
> > >I think I'd call it 'wishful thinking'.
> > >
> > >David
> > >
> >
> > Exactly, and intelligence is just a singularly vicious form of stupidity.
> > At least David isn't a hypocrite.
> >
> > -G
>
> Do you have a point or have you merely been eating too many beans?
>
> David
The point he made was that you have committed a stupendous gaffe. And
made yourself the butt of another joke - again.
Steve
david.e.michael
Steve wrote:
How strange, then, that you are unable to state what this 'gaffe' is!
David
david.e.michael
William Daffer wrote:
> "david.e.michael" <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> writes:
>
> > John Morris wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > In <390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk> in alt.revisionism, on Sat,
> > > 29 Apr 2000 02:32:44 +0100, "david.e.michael"
> > > <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > >
> > > >> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> > >
> > > >> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and
> > > >> >communism. Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of
> > > >> >capitalism.
> > >
> > > >> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > >> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen
> > > >> Written On USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that
> > > >> black is merely a singularly darker form of white... :)
> > >
> > > >I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a
> > > >counter argument.
> > >
> > > But that would necessitate that there were an argument presented in
> > > the first place.
> > >
> > > - --
> > > John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> > > at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
> > >
> > > iQA/AwUBOQpVCJQgvG272fn9EQKLGgCghlIfXIvJjsoFLdkMaMlHRhJWrjUAoLcx
> > > R5TGE9+PqREo58r3faTq0QRp
> > > =RUM0
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > Don't worry. I'm sure you'll find something to misrepresent in another
> > thread, Morris. You usually do.
> >
> >
> > David
> >
>
> This from the man who shamelessly quotes out of context, then argues
> that 'words shouldn't have consequences.' Clearly he means that
> *his* words shouldn't have consequences but everyone else's should.
>
Nope. I mean anyone should be able to post freely to Usenet without fear that
his employment or life will be placed in jeopardy, or that he will be subject
to mindless abuse and defamation, or lies and misrepresentation, or vexatious
litigation, or attacks on his Internet access, etc. etc.
But that's something that is quite unthinkable to your kind, eh?
>
> And we won't even mention his scurrilous attempt to censor the free
> speech of others on this newsgroup.
>
Quelle surprise.
>
> William
> --
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
> Groucho Marx.
> Public Key: http://home.earthlink.net/~whdaffer/#PGP-public-key
David
posandrew
>
> > "Doc Tavish" <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.english.upenn.edu/~matthart/Mrg/mrg.html
> > >[Link active April 26, 2000]
> > >
> > >(Notice the link originates from the university server!)
> > >
> > >Marxist Reading Group
> > >This is the homepage of the Marxist Reading Group at the
University of
> > >Pennsylvania. Founded in 1998, the MRG exists to study and discuss
the
> > >works of Marx and Engels, their historical and intellectual
forbears, and
> > >contemporary critics and advocates of Marxism. Recent
conversations
> > >have focussed on the labour theory of value, Marx's Hegelianism,
and the
> > >identity of the historical subject in Young Hegelianism. New
sessions are
> > >planned on the idea and economics of the "Young Marx." While our
reading
> > >program is roughly chronological -- tracing a path from classical
political
> > >economy, through Marx and Engels, and onto current trends and
debates --
> > >all MRG members are encouraged to suggest alternative areas of
> > >discussion. Participants come from throughout the disciplines and
from
> > >the faculty, graduate and undergraduate communities.
>
> > Doc,
> > I'm not surprised: the university is the last real outpost of
> > Marxism in this country and in most of the world.
> >
> > Out here in California we have some actual declared Communists
> > teaching in the UC system, most notable of which is Angela Davis (UC
> > Santa Cruz).
> >
> > My love for the 1st Amendment says I have to tolerate this, but I
> > don't have to like it.
>
thinking observing
> the 1st Amendment compels you to tolerate communism. Not all speech is
> protected is it? You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater as all
may know but
> what about the ideal of protecting the constitution against all
enemies both foreign
> and domestic? Communists are enemies of our freedoms and to allow
them to
> misuse our freedoms to ultimately undermine all of our freedoms is
not at all
> acceptable to me. If communists are allowed to flourish and poison
the minds
> of our youths then what future is there for our forefather's dreams?
>
> You should also be offended that state sponsored institutions which
rely on
> tax payers money should allow anti-constitutional activities to take
place. The
> university system worldwide has been the historic hotbeds of
radicalism/socialism/communism. If you truly value the health of our
cherished
> American freedoms and its body politic then you should not be repulsed
> by a malignant tumour being excised-- communists must be driven from
> our academic institutions.
>
> Doc Tavish
>
> > Regards,
> > Bill Bowen
> > bow...@best.com
> > Daly City, CA
Hey Doc Tavish,
The so-called Marxist reading group is merely an intellectual exercise
and those individuals have no intention of overthrowing the
constitution. As a force to be reckoned with, the far-left in the U.S.
don't amount to diddly squat. What communists are you talking about?
There is no viable left-wing left and there hasn't been for over half a
century. Marxists/"commies" can only be regarded as a mere
curiousity. The only ones that citizens have to be concerned about are
the far-right wingers in this country. Namely, the closet fascists
which come under the guise of a "patriotic American". You'd be far
closer to the truth if you just replaced the "communist" word
with "fascist" in your post.
It is the far-right in the U.S. which imported Nazis into this country
and Americanized their fascist ideals to further their goals. Fascism
uses capitalism as its economic vehicle and is able to come under the
guise of "Americanism". Hence, American fascists look "all-American".
Much of the rhetoric that is spouted on the Republican NG and on Rush
Limpdick is fascist propaganda designed to appeal to the masses of blue
collar workers. That is, an idea that is sold to them as "patriotic"
and "American" without any historical context to determine the validity
of the propaganda. So Rush Limpdick's propaganda ends up sounding real
good to the average working Joe because it appeals to their emotions
and the propaganda becomes the "truth".
Your old school McCarthyite "red-baiting" is a prime example of
American style fascism in action. The political moderates are defined
as "commies" as there are no more commies to kill. After the fascists
got rid of the commies, the pro-democracy folks which you
call "commies" are next. The funny thing is that most people who
blindly support the so-called "right-wing" in the U.S. are supporting a
system that will ultimately oppress themselves.
Book recommendation (as if anyone reads anymore):
The New Reich , by Michael Schmidt (Pantheon Books, 1993)
-Documents the neo-Nazi network in Europe with ties to U.S. fascist
organizations and it's antecedents.
POS-Andrew
William H. Bowen
>In article <390743c2...@206.184.139.132>,
> bow...@best.com wrote:
>
>> I'm not surprised: the university is the last real outpost of
>> Marxism in this country and in most of the world.
>>
>> Out here in California we have some actual declared Communists
>> teaching in the UC system, most notable of which is Angela Davis (UC
>> Santa Cruz).
>>
>> My love for the 1st Amendment says I have to tolerate this, but I
>> don't have to like it.
>>
>
>How big of you. But have you ever read any Marx or any of the Marxists
>who make you so unhappy, or are you just giving a knee jerk reaction?
Yes I have: while in college in the early 70s. Actually reading the
writing of Marx and Mao is what totally turned me AGAINST communism.
Bill
Andrew Northbrook
>
>
>Steve wrote:
>
>> "david.e.michael" wrote:
>> >
>> > Grunion wrote:
>> >
>> > > david.e.michael wrote in message
<390A47FE...@variousisps.co.uk>...
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> david.e.michael wrote in message
<390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk>..
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
>> > > >> >> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and
communism.
>> > > >> >> >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen
Written
>> > > On
>> > > >> >> USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is
merely
>> > > a
>> > > >> >> singularly darker form of white... :)
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> think about it,
>> > > >> >> Andrew Northbrook
>> > > >> >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try
to
>> > > disarm
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
>> > > >> >
counter
>> > > >> >argument.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
singularly
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It's called a "contradiction in terms".
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> think about it,
>> > > >> Andrew Northbrook
>> > > >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to
disarm
>> > > the
>> > > >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
>> > > >
>> > > >I think I'd call it 'wishful thinking'.
>> > > >
>> > > >David
>> > > >
>> > >
stupidity.
>> > > At least David isn't a hypocrite.
>> > >
>> > > -G
>> >
>> > Do you have a point or have you merely been eating too many beans?
>> >
>> > David
>>
>> The point he made was that you have committed a stupendous gaffe. And
>> made yourself the butt of another joke - again.
>>
>> Steve
>
David: do you understand what's meant by a "contradiction in terms"????????
Capitalism & Communism are as directly opposite each other as are Black &
White. The *only* thing they share in common is that each is a theory of
socio-politico-economics. As a result, they CANNOT be forms of each other, &
claiming otherwise is a monumental act of stupidity; it's like saying
"Anarchy is merely a singularly chaotic form of government".
Besides, WTF do you have against Communism, anyway? After all, you're a
Nazi-lover: you should be proud of the extent that the Communists have taken
"National Socialism" to. You should applaud their efforts, instead of
advocating hanging them by lamp-posts. But you don't, because you don't know
WTF you're talking about.
It really, REALLY pains me to with you on the firebombing of Dresden: but,
even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
David Lentz
"david.e.michael" wrote:
<snip>
> Then please produce a distinction between communism as it is practised and
> capitalism as it is practised.
>
> David
You use a faulty, albeit popular. label and have a misconception.
One, communism is not a economic system, but rather a political
system. Communist states implement socialism as an economic
system.
Two, capitalism is better described as a market based economy.
Don't think of socialism and a market economy has two competing
economic systems. Think of socialism and market economy as two
points on an economic continuum running from pure socialism to a
pure free market economy. That have been said, the UNited States
economy is more market based than any communist bloc economy.
Not as socialistic as some would like it and not a market based
as other would like it.
David
David Gehrig
>
> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
>
> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written On
> USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a
> singularly darker form of white... :)
Well, that's a Holocaust revisionist for you. When he find the facts
inconvenient, he just takes a blackjack to his dictionary until there's
no more trouble.
@%<
Steve
"david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > >
> > > > david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> > > > >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> > > > >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> > > >
> > > > ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written On
> > > > USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a
> > > > singularly darker form of white... :)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > think about it,
> > > > Andrew Northbrook
> > > > If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> > > > rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> > >
> > > I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a counter
> > > argument.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > Maybe. If he is ever able to stop laughing hysterically. Me too.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Try reducing your blood alcohol level.
>
> David
Sorry. I do not drink anything stronger than coffee, and damned little
of that. Perhaps you should try emulating me.
Steve
Steve
"david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > >
> > > Grunion wrote:
> > >
> > > > david.e.michael wrote in message <390A47FE...@variousisps.co.uk>...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> david.e.michael wrote in message <390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk>..
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> > > > >> >> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> > > > >> >> >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written
> > > > On
> > > > >> >> USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely
> > > > a
> > > > >> >> singularly darker form of white... :)
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> --
> > > > >> >> think about it,
> > > > >> >> Andrew Northbrook
> > > > >> >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to
> > > > disarm
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a counter
> > > > >> >argument.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I *did*, David... see, right here:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a singularly
> > > > >> darker form of white."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It's called a "contradiction in terms".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> think about it,
> > > > >> Andrew Northbrook
> > > > >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm
> > > > the
> > > > >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> > > > >
> > > > >I think I'd call it 'wishful thinking'.
> > > > >
> > > > >David
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Exactly, and intelligence is just a singularly vicious form of stupidity.
> > > > At least David isn't a hypocrite.
> > > >
> > > > -G
> > >
> > > Do you have a point or have you merely been eating too many beans?
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > The point he made was that you have committed a stupendous gaffe. And
> > made yourself the butt of another joke - again.
> >
> > Steve
>
> How strange, then, that you are unable to state what this 'gaffe' is!
>
> David
How strange that you are unable to understand what I, and several
others, have written. But you have always suffered from a lack of
reading comprehension. Too many roll-mops, perhaps. I suspect that
there will be more tomorrow who will - laughingly - point out your
silliness. By the way, do you still consider Ellis to be a thug?
Steve
David Gehrig
>
> "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >
> > > david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> > > >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> > > >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> > >
> > > ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written On
> > > USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a
> > > singularly darker form of white... :)
> > >
> > > --
> > > think about it,
> > > Andrew Northbrook
> > > If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> > > rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> >
> > I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a counter
> > argument.
> >
>
> Maybe. If he is ever able to stop laughing hysterically. Me too.
But remember, laughter is merely a singularly vicious form of crying.
@%<
Andrew Northbrook
>Then please produce a distinction between communism as it is practised and
>capitalism as it is practised.
Ever heard of the abolition of private property, David? Care to explain to
me *which* system abolishes private property, & which holds private property
as one of it's highest human rights -- if not THE highest?????
David Michael is either incompetent or a troll -- or, possibly, both.
David Gehrig
>
> david.e.michael wrote:
> >Then please produce a distinction between communism as it is practised and
> >capitalism as it is practised.
>
> Ever heard of the abolition of private property, David? Care to explain to
> me *which* system abolishes private property, & which holds private property
> as one of it's highest human rights -- if not THE highest?????
>
> David Michael is either incompetent or a troll -- or, possibly, both.
A little of both: he is a competent troll. In this case, caught in an
utter stupidity, he's just going to try to bluster it through -- which,
if he's true to form, will take the form of an aimless series of Socratic
questions that trail off into nowhere, and then a sudden declaration of
victory once everyone's fled from boredom.
@%<
p@u.c
david.e.michael <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>antipos...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <Q1YN4.603$wb7....@news.flash.net>,
>> doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > communists must be driven from our academic institutions.
>>
>
>Which is why it needs to be protected from communists and their fellow
>travellers, who have done more than any force on earth to limit and
>destroy it.
Sure. And if by "protected from" you mean that we should resist
attempts by communists to take over the academy and prevent the
expression of contrary viewpoints, then I am 100% in agreement
with you. If, on the other hand, you mean that we should prevent
communists from merely voicing their opinions (even if those
opinions are that no non-communist opinions should be
expressed), then you are advocating tyranny.
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
david.e.michael
Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> david.e.michael wrote in message <390A7325...@variousisps.co.uk>...
> >
> >
> >Steve wrote:
> >
> >> "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Grunion wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > david.e.michael wrote in message
> <390A47FE...@variousisps.co.uk>...
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> david.e.michael wrote in message
> <390A3BBC...@variousisps.co.uk>..
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >> david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> >> > > >> >> >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and
> communism.
> >> > > >> >> >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen
> Written
> >> > > On
> >> > > >> >> USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is
> merely
> >> > > a
> >> > > >> >> singularly darker form of white... :)
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> --
> >> > > >> >> think about it,
> >> > > >> >> Andrew Northbrook
> >> > > >> >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try
> to
> >> > > disarm
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a
> counter
> >> > > >> >argument.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I *did*, David... see, right here:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> "It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a
> singularly
> >> > > >> darker form of white."
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It's called a "contradiction in terms".
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --
> >> > > >> think about it,
> >> > > >> Andrew Northbrook
> >> > > >> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to
> disarm
> >> > > the
> >> > > >> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >I think I'd call it 'wishful thinking'.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >David
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Exactly, and intelligence is just a singularly vicious form of
> stupidity.
> >> > > At least David isn't a hypocrite.
> >> > >
> >> > > -G
> >> >
> >> > Do you have a point or have you merely been eating too many beans?
> >> >
> >> > David
> >>
> >> The point he made was that you have committed a stupendous gaffe. And
> >> made yourself the butt of another joke - again.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> >How strange, then, that you are unable to state what this 'gaffe' is.
>
> David: do you understand what's meant by a "contradiction in terms"????????
>
Yes. A 'multi-racial society' is an example.
>
> Capitalism & Communism are as directly opposite each other as are Black &
> White.
I disagree. There is a difference in rhetoric, I grant you, but the substance is
the same.
> The *only* thing they share in common is that each is a theory of
> socio-politico-economics.
I don't even think that 'capitalism' is a theory. There have been (differing)
attempts to produce capitalist economic theories with political implications,
notably by the Keynesians and the free marketeers, but basically what you have
is a free-for-all where power becomes concentrated in the hands of a super
elite.
> As a result, they CANNOT be forms of each other, &
> claiming otherwise is a monumental act of stupidity; it's like saying
> "Anarchy is merely a singularly chaotic form of government".
>
No, I am well aware of the various Marxist theories and I do not accept that
they provide anything other than a rationalization for what is essentially the
status quo.
>
> Besides, WTF do you have against Communism, anyway?
Try 200 million corpses for a start.
The theory doesn't make sense.
It purports to strive for an international world order. I view this as dangerous
because there would be an extremely unhealthy concentration of power, and I
would prefer a set-up based on free and independent nations.
> After all, you're a
> Nazi-lover:
Ho well, so much for rational discussion. Goodnight.
<rest snipped>
David
Andrew Northbrook
>Ho well, so much for rational discussion.
Actually, David, any semblance of rational discussion disappeared entirely
before it even began.
There's no reasoning with a man who claims that Communism & Capitalism are
different forms of each other.
david.e.michael
David Lentz wrote:
> "david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Then please produce a distinction between communism as it is practised and
> > capitalism as it is practised.
> >
> > David
>
> You use a faulty, albeit popular. label and have a misconception.
>
> One, communism is not a economic system, but rather a political
> system. Communist states implement socialism as an economic
> system.
>
Well, if we're going to split hairs about it, communism (as formulated by the
Marxists) is actually a society characterized by the principle 'from each
according to his ability; to each according to his needs'. It is an end-point to
which Marxists purport to be working. I agree with you that the label
'communism' has acquired usages other than that used by Marxist theoreticians
themselves, but then that has happened to many political labels -- 'fascism'
perhaps being an excellent example. Heck, the 'liberalism' espoused by Britain's
Liberal Democratic Party has very little to do with the liberalism of the
nineteenth century. And let us not forget that Vladimir Zhirinovsky calls
himself a 'liberal democrat'! I was referring more to
Marxism-as-it-has-been-practised rather than Marxist theory -- the rhetoric of
those politicians purporting to be capitalist and communist obviously varies.
>
> Two, capitalism is better described as a market based economy.
>
I'd say that you get market-based economies, which function with varying degrees
of precision, under both. You can get tremendous centralization of market power
under capitalist regimes (as Marxist theory teaches us (!) -- we can think of
actual examples, such as South Africa under Botha and the pre-Sandinista
Nicaraguan regime). Conversely, you can get supposedly communist regimes that
allow the market-based economy free reign or at least turn a blind eye to it (I
won't cheat and refer to Hong Kong, which is now part of communist China, but
instead I'll point out that the Soviet Union and its satellites would have
collapsed long before it did were it not for the fact that a thriving black
market existed alongside the 'official' reality).
>
> Don't think of socialism and a market economy has two competing
> economic systems.
I don't. That's my point. They're really the same thing. The difference is one
of rhetoric.
> Think of socialism and market economy as two
> points on an economic continuum running from pure socialism to a
> pure free market economy. That have been said, the UNited States
> economy is more market based than any communist bloc economy.
> Not as socialistic as some would like it and not a market based
> as other would like it.
>
> David
I think perhaps you're underestimating the role of the free market in supposedly
socialist economies and underestimating the role of economic elites in
supposedly capitalist economies.
David
david.e.michael
Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> david.e.michael wrote:
> >Then please produce a distinction between communism as it is practised and
> >capitalism as it is practised.
>
> Ever heard of the abolition of private property, David?
Yup.
Point number one -- communist regimes have, in fact, tolerated the ownership of
private property in the past. Some (such as those in Eastern Europe and
Yugoslavia) have been more tolerant than others.
Point number two -- 'capitalist' regimes do not hesitate to ignore private
property rights where it suits them. South Africa under the National Party was
one example. Brasil is another.
Point number three, what proportion of the working people of the world under
either communism or capitalism actually own their own property? The vast
majority of the ordinary working people are forced to either rent land from
super elites (either from the state or from private individuals), or are up to
their ears in debt (directly or indirectly) to super elites. Where private
ownership exists under both, it is generally subsistence-level or small-scale.
> Care to explain to
> me *which* system abolishes private property, & which holds private property
> as one of it's highest human rights -- if not THE highest?????
>
The answer is that private property is the privilege of the few under both
systems. The norm is that property and capital are rented from super elites --
from 'the men who own the world'.
>
> David Michael is either incompetent or a troll -- or, possibly, both.
>
More name calling and abuse.
>
> --
> think about it,
> Andrew Northbrook
> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
David
david.e.michael
David Gehrig wrote:
> Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >
> > david.e.michael wrote:
> > >Then please produce a distinction between communism as it is practised and
> > >capitalism as it is practised.
> >
> > Ever heard of the abolition of private property, David? Care to explain to
> > me *which* system abolishes private property, & which holds private property
> > as one of it's highest human rights -- if not THE highest?????
> >
> > David Michael is either incompetent or a troll -- or, possibly, both.
>
> A little of both: he is a competent troll. In this case, caught in an
> utter stupidity, he's just going to try to bluster it through -- which,
> if he's true to form, will take the form of an aimless series of Socratic
> questions that trail off into nowhere, and then a sudden declaration of
> victory once everyone's fled from boredom.
>
> @%<
Go and jump through the nearest window.
David
david.e.michael
p@u.c wrote:
> In article <3908D6B2...@variousisps.co.uk>,
> david.e.michael <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >antipos...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Q1YN4.603$wb7....@news.flash.net>,
> >> doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > communists must be driven from our academic institutions.
> >>
> >> So I take it that academic freedom means nothing to you?
> >>
> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> Before you buy.
> >
> >It means a lot to me.
> >
> >Which is why it needs to be protected from communists and their fellow
> >travellers, who have done more than any force on earth to limit and
> >destroy it.
>
> Sure. And if by "protected from" you mean that we should resist
> attempts by communists to take over the academy and prevent the
> expression of contrary viewpoints, then I am 100% in agreement
> with you.
OK.
> If, on the other hand, you mean that we should prevent
> communists from merely voicing their opinions (even if those
> opinions are that no non-communist opinions should be
> expressed), then you are advocating tyranny.
> --
> Patrick Crotty
> e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
> home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
When it comes to fighting communism, I think limited tyranny, exercised on
a pragmatic basis, is acceptable.
David
david.e.michael
William H. Bowen wrote:
Which is one reason why I'm all for allowing their theoretical writings (as
opposed to their agitprop) to be freely accessible in university libraries.
David
david.e.michael
Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> david.e.michael wrote:
> >Ho well, so much for rational discussion.
>
> Actually, David, any semblance of rational discussion disappeared entirely
> before it even began.
>
> There's no reasoning with a man who claims that Communism & Capitalism are
> different forms of each other.
>
> --
> think about it,
> Andrew Northbrook
> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
The problem with holy cows, Mr Northbrook, is that their holiness can only be
defended by proclamations of faith.
David
Steve
David Gehrig wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> >
> > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > >
> > > > david.e.michael babbled vacuously:
> > > > >I do not accept your distinction between capitalism and communism.
> > > > >Communism is merely a singularly vicious form of capitalism.
> > > >
> > > > ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Well, now, that's a keeper for the ol' *Looniest Things Seen Written On
> > > > USENET* file. It's kinda on the order of claiming that black is merely a
> > > > singularly darker form of white... :)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > think about it,
> > > > Andrew Northbrook
> > > > If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> > > > rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
> > >
> > > I take it that means that you are not going to present us with a counter
> > > argument.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > Maybe. If he is ever able to stop laughing hysterically. Me too.
>
> But remember, laughter is merely a singularly vicious form of crying.
>
> @%<
ROTFC(rying)MAO!
Steve
david.e.michael
Albrecht Kolthoff wrote:
> david.e.michael wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >p@u.c wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3908D6B2...@variousisps.co.uk>,
> >> david.e.michael <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >antipos...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >
> This tyranny Mr Michael is advocating would start with hanging communists
> from lampposts. Very pragmatic, indeed.
>
> On the limitations of such tyranny one Pastor Niemoeller wrote:
>
> They first came for the Communists
> and I didn't speak up -
> because I wasn't a Communist.
>
> Then they came for the Jews
> and I didn't speak up -
> because I wasn't a Jew.
>
> Then they came for the trade
> unionists and I didn't speak up -
> because I wasn't a trade unionist.
>
> Then they came for the Catholics
> and I didn't speak up -
> because I was a Protestant.
>
> Then they came for me -
> and by that time no one
> was left to speak up.
>
> --
> Albrecht Kolthoff
Tell that to the people of Cambodia, who saw at first hand where 'speaking up
for the communists' leads.
David
david.e.michael
Albrecht Kolthoff wrote:
> The Khmer Rouge regime actually did what Mr Michael is advocating: hanging
> their opponents from lampposts.
More lies from Comrade Kolthoff.
> (They used different methods of killing,
> as they weren't dependent on Mr Michael as their executive consultant.)
>
> But otherwise they were following the advice of Mr Michael, although their
> tyranny wasn't that much "limited".
>
> Pragmatically.
>
> Yeah, you're the legitimate "leader of revisionism", Mr Limited Tyranny.
>
And you're just another anti-revisionist lying troll.
>
> --
> Albrecht Kolthoff
David
William Daffer
> Steve wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > Maybe. If he is ever able to stop laughing hysterically. Me too.
>
> But remember, laughter is merely a singularly vicious form of crying.
>
> @%<
LOL! Good one!
patrick randolph crotty
p@u.c
In article <390B56A0...@variousisps.co.uk>,
david.e.michael <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>p@u.c wrote:
[. . .]
>> If, on the other hand, you mean that we should prevent
>> communists from merely voicing their opinions (even if those
>> opinions are that no non-communist opinions should be
>> expressed), then you are advocating tyranny.
>> --
>> Patrick Crotty
>> e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
>> home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
>
>When it comes to fighting communism, I think limited tyranny, exercised on
>a pragmatic basis, is acceptable.
Well, thanks at least for being honest about what you're advocating.
I can respect that, even if I strongly disagree with your proposal.
But I *do* strongly disagree, for several reasons. I do *not*
consider any sort of tyranny to be acceptable; indeed, I think that
when a society chooses to suppress certain viewpoints by force of
law, it loses any moral superiority it might have once had. Both
Britain and America like to think of themselves as being bastions
of liberty and free thought. But how much legitimacy does that claim have
if persons advocating a particular political system, communism, are
subject to arrest and imprisonment, as would be the logical outcome of
your "limited tyranny"? In the US, such a policy would clearly be
in violation of the First Amendment. This comes back to something
I said to another poster in this thread: is a society which
has effectively abolished free speech worth defending?
Another question is, why communism? You point to the many millions
of people who have been killed (deliberately or as a result of
misguided policies) by communist governments, a fact I do not
dispute. You seem to be suggesting that if communists are allowed
to organize and prostelytize their views, society is put at risk
of a similar genocidal outcome; and therefore, in the interests of
public safety, we should suppress them. But I don't buy this
argument.
The communist genocides of the twentieth century were primarily
due to the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's
Republic of China. Both of these regimes arose in underdeveloped
countries which had previously been absolute monarchies, which had
virtually no historical exposure to the Enlightenment, which had no
indigenous democratic traditions, and which had deeply impoverished
and largely illiterate populations. Moreover, they had both
experienced repeated invasion and official or de facto occupation within
the past thousand years, and the effect of this was IMHO to brutalize
their societies and make the tyranny of the communists more
acceptable, or at least more "normal," to the average person. China,
after all, had already undergone the worst genocide in recorded history:
the deliberate massacre of some 40 million northern Chinese in the
thirteenth century by the invading Mongols. And the horrendous Japanese
occupation, with its Rape of Nanjing, was personally witnessed
by many PRC leaders. Russia, too, was and is still deeply scarred by
the memory of violent invasions by Mongols and Tatars.
Given these conditions, it would have been surprising if any
centralized government -- no matter what its ideology -- had *not*
descended into tyranny, through historical inertia if nothing else. The
mass murder was, of course, on an entirely new scale made possible
by modern weapons and machinery, but the basic impulses of the
rulers, I believe, were the same as they had always been. And so what I
am claiming here is that the genocides perpetrated by communist regimes
were not due to communism per se, but rather to the cultural and
historical contexts in which these regimes took power. To not
take this into account and blame everything on the ideology is
IMO incorrect, just as it would be to look at the dysfunctional,
gangster-controlled mess that is Russia today and claim that it's all
because of intrinsic flaws in capitalism and democracy. Indeed,
President Putin seems to be moving back towards an authoritarian,
centralized system of government, and as a result we're already
seeing Russian civil liberties whittled away and new genocides
developing in places like Chechnya. Nothing has really changed;
the choice in these countries is, as always, between tyranny and chaos.
For these reasons, I believe that even if the United States and
other Western countries were to go communist (which is a bit
like believing that the Pope will convert to Buddhism), there
would be nothing like the tyranny and bloodshed that occurred
under Stalin. Democracy, the rule of law, and civil society
are very strongly rooted in the US, Canada, and Britain, and
also (though to a somewhat lesser degree) in the rest of
Western Europe. The cultures would be far more resistant
to the emergence of a Stalin figure. As such, communist groups
in these countries pose a negligible threat to public safety,
even if they were to gain power. So, banning them in order to
prevent tyranny is neither necessary nor justified.
Finally, even if you don't accept this argument, I would note that
mass murder has been perpetrated in the name of many ideologies
besides communism. We have recently seen in Yugoslavia and Central
Africa the results of nationalism taken to violent extremes.
If public safety is your overriding goal, then wouldn't it make
sense to ban the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Muslims, etc., too?
And what of neo-fascist groups? After all, fascism has killed
millions. Or even Christian groups -- think of the Inquisition.
Pretty soon, no one will be left. . .
Hilary Ostrov
<390CD05A...@variousisps.co.uk>, "david.e.michael"
<david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>p@u.c wrote:
>
>> [Sorry, my newsreader messed up the first time I tried to respond.]
>>
>> In article <390B56A0...@variousisps.co.uk>,
>> david.e.michael <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
>> >p@u.c wrote:
>> [. . .]
>> >> If, on the other hand, you mean that we should prevent
>> >> communists from merely voicing their opinions (even if those
>> >> opinions are that no non-communist opinions should be
>> >> expressed), then you are advocating tyranny.
>> >When it comes to fighting communism, I think limited tyranny, exercised on
>> >a pragmatic basis, is acceptable.
Ah, the fundamental guise of Dr. David E<ven when I'm wrong, I'm
right> Michael's ... uh ... political views: pragmatism. Such
"pragmatism" as can be found in his "wholehearted support" of the Nazi
treatment of communists when they decided to dispense with them - and
their political views - by hanging them from lamp-posts.
>>
>> Well, thanks at least for being honest about what you're advocating.
>> I can respect that, even if I strongly disagree with your proposal.
>>
>> But I *do* strongly disagree, for several reasons. I do *not*
>> consider any sort of tyranny to be acceptable; indeed, I think that
>> when a society chooses to suppress certain viewpoints by force of
>> law, it loses any moral superiority it might have once had.
>
>I'd like to respond to that one. Philosophers sometimes distinguish between two
>ways of looking at moral issues. There's the deontological view, which proposes
>that certain things are 'right' or 'wrong' in themselves regardless of
>consequences. Then there's the consequentialist view, which would evaluate an
>action in terms of its consequences.
>
>Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. [...]
Except of course when it comes to accepting that there are
consequences to his own words - words for which Dr. David E<ven when
I'm wrong, I'm right> Michael does not believe he should be held
accountable.
[rest deleted]
[Follow-ups set to alt.revisionism]
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@uniserve.com
WWW: http://users.uniserve.com/~hostrov/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Andrew Northbrook
[snip]
>Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
>oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression.
If
>a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or
indeed
>Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been
a
>good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a
danger
>that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into
greater
>oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act
so as
>to minimize the probably total repression.
The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that implementing
"a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
"greater oppression" later on.
I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely unacceptable,
regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by implementing a
police state.
[snip]
>I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
>writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
>fellow travellers.
Agreed.
>The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
>whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to
do
>all sorts of horrible things to other people.
But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're advocating.
[snip]
>I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
>communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
>anti-liberal agendas.
It's not just communists who oppose you in your advancement of radical
anti-liberal ideas. I'm an ardent capitalist, & I find your ideology
repellent. But I wouldn't argue for you to be oppressed: rather, IMO, the
more widely your views are disseminated, the more widely you'll be reviled
as the advocate for statist totalitarianism that you seem to be.
I see Communists the same way: let them blather all they want, as publically
as they want. The attention they get will only serve to show how broken-down
& corrupt they are.
david.e.michael
p@u.c wrote:
> [Sorry, my newsreader messed up the first time I tried to respond.]
>
> In article <390B56A0...@variousisps.co.uk>,
> david.e.michael <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
> >p@u.c wrote:
> [. . .]
> >> If, on the other hand, you mean that we should prevent
> >> communists from merely voicing their opinions (even if those
> >> opinions are that no non-communist opinions should be
> >> expressed), then you are advocating tyranny.
> >> --
> >> Patrick Crotty
> >> e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
> >> home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
> >
> >When it comes to fighting communism, I think limited tyranny, exercised on
> >a pragmatic basis, is acceptable.
>
> Well, thanks at least for being honest about what you're advocating.
> I can respect that, even if I strongly disagree with your proposal.
>
> But I *do* strongly disagree, for several reasons. I do *not*
> consider any sort of tyranny to be acceptable; indeed, I think that
> when a society chooses to suppress certain viewpoints by force of
> law, it loses any moral superiority it might have once had.
I'd like to respond to that one. Philosophers sometimes distinguish between two
ways of looking at moral issues. There's the deontological view, which proposes
that certain things are 'right' or 'wrong' in themselves regardless of
consequences. Then there's the consequentialist view, which would evaluate an
action in terms of its consequences.
Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression. If
a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or indeed
Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been a
good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a danger
that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into greater
oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act so as
to minimize the probably total repression.
> Both
> Britain and America like to think of themselves as being bastions
> of liberty and free thought.
Yet Britain is a country that has a Race Relations Act that enables a man to be
thrown into jail for six months for publishing the truth about racial crime if
it is 'likely' to incite 'racial hatred', and against which the argument that
what was published was true is 'no defence'.
Britain is a country where you can get a year in prison for distributing
leaflets merely because they are deemed to be 'offensive' to our immigrant
communities.
Britain is a country where a man got a nine month prison sentence for putting a
sign outside his house saying 'for sale to an English family'. When he went on
hunger strike, the judge commented that the man 'could die' for all he cared.
Maybe the people of America have it better than we Brits do. Here, freedom is
dead. It died with the 1936 Public Order Act. It was buried with the 1976 Race
Relations Act. The 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act dug up the corpse
and mutilated it.
> But how much legitimacy does that claim have
> if persons advocating a particular political system, communism, are
> subject to arrest and imprisonment, as would be the logical outcome of
> your "limited tyranny"?
The claim has limited legitimacy anyway in the case of Britain. In a sense what
you're asking is whether it is preferable to be able to make claims about
'freedom' while accepting a degree of communism or whether it is preferable to
skip the claims about 'freedom' and root out communism.
I go for the latter option.
> In the US, such a policy would clearly be
> in violation of the First Amendment.
I'm not familiar with American law so I can't comment.
> This comes back to something
> I said to another poster in this thread: is a society which
> has effectively abolished free speech worth defending?
>
It depends on the alternatives. To make the point more clearly, consider that
you're faced with two choices: a McCarthyite sort of society where communists
are given a hard time, or a Pol Pot type communist society. I'd say the former
is preferable. Obviously choices are rarely that stark, but the purpose of
giving a rather stark example is to illustrate the general principle.
>
> Another question is, why communism? You point to the many millions
> of people who have been killed (deliberately or as a result of
> misguided policies) by communist governments, a fact I do not
> dispute. You seem to be suggesting that if communists are allowed
> to organize and prostelytize their views, society is put at risk
> of a similar genocidal outcome; and therefore, in the interests of
> public safety, we should suppress them. But I don't buy this
> argument.
>
Nor did the people of Russia, China, or Cambodia until it was too late.
>
> The communist genocides of the twentieth century were primarily
> due to the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's
> Republic of China.
In fact most communist regimes were largely influenced by those two regimes.
Let us look at some of the exceptions.
Exception number 1: Hoxha's Albania. After Stalin's death there was a brief
flirtation with the Chinese. These were then dumped as 'revisionists' (!) and
Mr Hoxha 'did his own thing'. It is widely accepted that the result was the
most repressive regime in communist Eastern Europe.
Exception number 2: North Korea. This is no longer under Chinese or Soviet
influence and, again, is doing its own thing. It is widely regarded as the most
repressive regime on earth.
> Both of these regimes arose in underdeveloped
> countries which had previously been absolute monarchies, which had
> virtually no historical exposure to the Enlightenment, which had no
> indigenous democratic traditions, and which had deeply impoverished
> and largely illiterate populations. Moreover, they had both
> experienced repeated invasion and official or de facto occupation within
> the past thousand years, and the effect of this was IMHO to brutalize
> their societies and make the tyranny of the communists more
> acceptable, or at least more "normal," to the average person. China,
> after all, had already undergone the worst genocide in recorded history:
> the deliberate massacre of some 40 million northern Chinese in the
> thirteenth century by the invading Mongols. And the horrendous Japanese
> occupation, with its Rape of Nanjing, was personally witnessed
> by many PRC leaders. Russia, too, was and is still deeply scarred by
> the memory of violent invasions by Mongols and Tatars.
>
> Given these conditions, it would have been surprising if any
> centralized government -- no matter what its ideology -- had *not*
> descended into tyranny, through historical inertia if nothing else.
I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
fellow travellers. I've already given some examples from Lenin. I believe even
old Engels was quite into purple prose at times -- I can probably dig out some
examples. There was a definite murderous culture here, and I think that this is
one root of the problem.
The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to do
all sorts of horrible things to other people.
> The
> mass murder was, of course, on an entirely new scale made possible
> by modern weapons and machinery, but the basic impulses of the
> rulers, I believe, were the same as they had always been. And so what I
> am claiming here is that the genocides perpetrated by communist regimes
> were not due to communism per se, but rather to the cultural and
> historical contexts in which these regimes took power. To not
> take this into account and blame everything on the ideology is
> IMO incorrect, just as it would be to look at the dysfunctional,
> gangster-controlled mess that is Russia today and claim that it's all
> because of intrinsic flaws in capitalism and democracy.
I don't doubt that this is a fair point.l
> Indeed,
> President Putin seems to be moving back towards an authoritarian,
> centralized system of government, and as a result we're already
> seeing Russian civil liberties whittled away and new genocides
> developing in places like Chechnya. Nothing has really changed;
> the choice in these countries is, as always, between tyranny and chaos.
>
Yes, I think Russia has rather spun out of control.
>
> For these reasons, I believe that even if the United States and
> other Western countries were to go communist (which is a bit
> like believing that the Pope will convert to Buddhism),
Wasn't it Churchill who commented that a week is a long time in politics?
I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
anti-liberal agendas.
> there
> would be nothing like the tyranny and bloodshed that occurred
> under Stalin. Democracy, the rule of law, and civil society
> are very strongly rooted in the US, Canada, and Britain, and
> also (though to a somewhat lesser degree) in the rest of
> Western Europe. The cultures would be far more resistant
> to the emergence of a Stalin figure.
Well I'd differ with you on that. I'd say that the two-party system in Britain
would make it VERY easy for such a figure to gain power. It was not so long ago
that Anthony Wedgewood Benn was a contender for the leadership of the Labour
Party, let it not be forgotten.
> As such, communist groups
> in these countries pose a negligible threat to public safety,
> even if they were to gain power. So, banning them in order to
> prevent tyranny is neither necessary nor justified.
>
I wouldn't actually ban them. I'd just make life very, very difficult for them.
>
> Finally, even if you don't accept this argument, I would note that
> mass murder has been perpetrated in the name of many ideologies
> besides communism.
Absolutely.
> We have recently seen in Yugoslavia and Central
> Africa the results of nationalism taken to violent extremes.
> If public safety is your overriding goal, then wouldn't it make
> sense to ban the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Muslims, etc., too?
> And what of neo-fascist groups? After all, fascism has killed
> millions. Or even Christian groups -- think of the Inquisition.
> Pretty soon, no one will be left. . .
>
Well we'd need to look at each case on its own merits.
> --
> Patrick Crotty
> e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
> home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
David
david.e.michael
Albrecht Kolthoff wrote:
> david.e.michael wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Albrecht Kolthoff wrote:
> >
> >> david.e.michael wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Albrecht Kolthoff wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> david.e.michael wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >p@u.c wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article <3908D6B2...@variousisps.co.uk>,
> >> >> >> david.e.michael <david.e...@variousisps.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >antipos...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> In article <Q1YN4.603$wb7....@news.flash.net>,
> >> >> >> >> doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > communists must be driven from our academic institutions.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So I take it that academic freedom means nothing to you?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> >> >> >> Before you buy.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It means a lot to me.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Which is why it needs to be protected from communists and their fellow
> >> >> >> >travellers, who have done more than any force on earth to limit and
> >> >> >> >destroy it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sure. And if by "protected from" you mean that we should resist
> >> >> >> attempts by communists to take over the academy and prevent the
> >> >> >> expression of contrary viewpoints, then I am 100% in agreement
> >> >> >> with you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >OK.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> If, on the other hand, you mean that we should prevent
> >> >> >> communists from merely voicing their opinions (even if those
> >> >> >> opinions are that no non-communist opinions should be
> >> >> >> expressed), then you are advocating tyranny.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Patrick Crotty
> >> >> >> e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
> >> >> >> home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty
> >> >> >
> >> >> >When it comes to fighting communism, I think limited tyranny, exercised on
> >> >> >a pragmatic basis, is acceptable.
> >> >>
> It is quite obvious that the only Comrades you have are Coprophiles. I am
> not your Comrade.
>
> Unless it is not about the actual method of killing, I realize that Mr
> Michael seems to deny that the Khmer Rouge regime systematically was
> killing it's opponents.
>
As far as I am aware you could get murdered for such crimes as wearing glasses. But
don't let that stop you in your attempt to whitewash Pol Pot.
David
david.e.michael
Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> david.e.michael wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
> >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression.
> If
> >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or
> indeed
> >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been
> a
> >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a
> danger
> >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into
> greater
> >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act
> so as
> >to minimize the probably total repression.
>
> The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that implementing
> "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
> "greater oppression" later on.
>
Correct.
>
> I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely unacceptable,
> regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by implementing a
> police state.
>
So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just sit there and let
them slog it out, right?
>
> [snip]
>
> >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
> >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
> >fellow travellers.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
> >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to
> do
> >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
>
> But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're advocating.
>
Why are you telling lies?
>
> [snip]
>
> >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
> >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
> >anti-liberal agendas.
>
> It's not just communists who oppose you in your advancement of radical
> anti-liberal ideas. I'm an ardent capitalist, & I find your ideology
> repellent.
Interesting as I have never articulated any 'ideology'.
> But I wouldn't argue for you to be oppressed: rather, IMO, the
> more widely your views are disseminated, the more widely you'll be reviled
> as the advocate for statist totalitarianism that you seem to be.
>
Oh I've no doubt that liars and smearers like you will make me out to be all
kinds of things that I'm not. A lot of people will fall for it, but enough will
see through you.
>
> I see Communists the same way: let them blather all they want, as publically
> as they want. The attention they get will only serve to show how broken-down
> & corrupt they are.
>
Didn't work in Cambodia.
>
> --
> think about it,
> Andrew Northbrook
> If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
David
Steve
"david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> Andrew Northbrook wrote:
>
> > david.e.michael wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
> > >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression.
> > If
> > >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or
> > indeed
> > >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been
> > a
> > >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a
> > danger
> > >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into
> > greater
> > >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act
> > so as
> > >to minimize the probably total repression.
> >
> > The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that implementing
> > "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
> > "greater oppression" later on.
> >
>
> Correct.
>
> >
> > I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely unacceptable,
> > regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by implementing a
> > police state.
> >
>
> So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just sit there and let
> them slog it out, right?
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
> > >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
> > >fellow travellers.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
> > >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to
> > do
> > >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
> >
> > But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're advocating.
> >
>
> Why are you telling lies?
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
> > >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
> > >anti-liberal agendas.
> >
> > It's not just communists who oppose you in your advancement of radical
> > anti-liberal ideas. I'm an ardent capitalist, & I find your ideology
> > repellent.
>
> Interesting as I have never articulated any 'ideology'.
>
> > But I wouldn't argue for you to be oppressed: rather, IMO, the
> > more widely your views are disseminated, the more widely you'll be reviled
> > as the advocate for statist totalitarianism that you seem to be.
> >
>
> Oh I've no doubt that liars and smearers like you will make me out to be all
> kinds of things that I'm not. A lot of people will fall for it, but enough will
> see through you.
>
> >
> > I see Communists the same way: let them blather all they want, as publically
> > as they want. The attention they get will only serve to show how broken-down
> > & corrupt they are.
> >
>
> Didn't work in Cambodia.
>
> >
> > --
> > think about it,
> > Andrew Northbrook
> > If it wasn't for nitwits with guns, other nitwits wouldn't try to disarm the
> > rest of us. Don't be a nitwit.
>
> David
MISTER Michael gets nailed again and emits the usual whines of protest.
It's amazing how many of us are 'tricked' into mistaking him for a Nazi
sympathizer and apologist. Oh - I forgot. We're all liars and
smearers. David Michael, in reality, is a saint. Sure he is.
Steve
david.e.michael
Steve wrote:
> "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >
> > > david.e.michael wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
> > > >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression.
> > > If
> > > >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or
> > > indeed
> > > >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been
> > > a
> > > >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a
> > > danger
> > > >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into
> > > greater
> > > >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act
> > > so as
> > > >to minimize the probably total repression.
> > >
> > > The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that implementing
> > > "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
> > > "greater oppression" later on.
> > >
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > >
> > > I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely unacceptable,
> > > regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by implementing a
> > > police state.
> > >
> >
> > So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just sit there and let
> > them slog it out, right?
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
> > > >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
> > > >fellow travellers.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
> > > >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to
> > > do
> > > >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
> > >
> > > But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're advocating.
> > >
> >
> > Why are you telling lies?
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
> > > >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
> > > >anti-liberal agendas.
> > >
You know, you should work for one of these email advertising companies. You apparently
spend all day sending out the same boring message and they pay you for it.
David
Steve
"david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > >
> > > > david.e.michael wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
> > > > >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression.
> > > > If
> > > > >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or
> > > > indeed
> > > > >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been
> > > > a
> > > > >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a
> > > > danger
> > > > >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into
> > > > greater
> > > > >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act
> > > > so as
> > > > >to minimize the probably total repression.
> > > >
> > > > The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that implementing
> > > > "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
> > > > "greater oppression" later on.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely unacceptable,
> > > > regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by implementing a
> > > > police state.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just sit there and let
> > > them slog it out, right?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
> > > > >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
> > > > >fellow travellers.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed.
> > > >
> > > > >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
> > > > >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to
> > > > do
> > > > >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
> > > >
> > > > But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're advocating.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why are you telling lies?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
> > > > >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
> > > > >anti-liberal agendas.
> > > >
I no longer have to work for a living, MISTER Michael. My investments
have afforded me lots of spare time, some of which is spent exposing
Nazi sympathizers and apologists like yourself. If that bores you, I'm
very pleased.
Steve
david.e.michael
Steve wrote:
> "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > david.e.michael wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
> > > > > >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression.
> > > > > If
> > > > > >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or
> > > > > indeed
> > > > > >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been
> > > > > a
> > > > > >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a
> > > > > danger
> > > > > >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into
> > > > > greater
> > > > > >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act
> > > > > so as
> > > > > >to minimize the probably total repression.
> > > > >
> > > > > The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that implementing
> > > > > "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
> > > > > "greater oppression" later on.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely unacceptable,
> > > > > regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by implementing a
> > > > > police state.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just sit there and let
> > > > them slog it out, right?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
> > > > > >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
> > > > > >fellow travellers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed.
> > > > >
> > > > > >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
> > > > > >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to
> > > > > do
> > > > > >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
> > > > >
> > > > > But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're advocating.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why are you telling lies?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
> > > > > >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
> > > > > >anti-liberal agendas.
> > > > >
Translation: 'I've been fired.'
David
Sara Salzman
david.e...@variousisps.co.uk wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>
>> "david.e.michael" wrote:
>> >
>> > Steve wrote:
>> >
>> > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > david.e.michael wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [snip]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things.
In short,
>> > > > > >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding
greater oppression.
>> > > > > If
>> > > > > >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or
Stalin, or
>> > > > > indeed
>> > > > > >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression'
not have been
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that
there's a
>> > > > > danger
>> > > > > >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can
turn into
>> > > > > greater
>> > > > > >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle
remains: act
>> > > > > so as
>> > > > > >to minimize the probably total repression.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that
implementing
>> > > > > "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
>> > > > > "greater oppression" later on.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Correct.
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely
unacceptable,
>> > > > > regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by
implementing a
>> > > > > police state.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just
sit there and let
>> > > > them slog it out, right?
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [snip]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism
directly to the
>> > > > > >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like
Lenin and his
>> > > > > >fellow travellers.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Agreed.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the
rhetoric itself,
>> > > > > >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in
the state to
>> > > > > do
>> > > > > >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're
advocating.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Why are you telling lies?
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [snip]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going
communist' but of
>> > > > > >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance
radical
>> > > > > >anti-liberal agendas.
>> > > > >
Please provide anyt facts to back up your ridiculous assertion or retract
it, Mister Michael.
Lots of successful people live quite comfortably off their investment
income. Just because you can't manage it doesn't mean there aren't lots of
others who can.
What proof do you have that Steve was fired -- now or ever?
Sara
--
"I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
Edith Sitwell
Steve
"david.e.michael" wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve wrote:
> > >
> > > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > david.e.michael wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
> > > > > > >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or
> > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a
> > > > > > danger
> > > > > > >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into
> > > > > > greater
> > > > > > >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act
> > > > > > so as
> > > > > > >to minimize the probably total repression.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that implementing
> > > > > > "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
> > > > > > "greater oppression" later on.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely unacceptable,
> > > > > > regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by implementing a
> > > > > > police state.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just sit there and let
> > > > > them slog it out, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
> > > > > > >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
> > > > > > >fellow travellers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
> > > > > > >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're advocating.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are you telling lies?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
> > > > > > >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
> > > > > > >anti-liberal agendas.
> > > > > >
Correct translation: I'm retired. Firing is not something the Chairman
and CEO does to himself. MISTER Michael loses again. MISTER Michael
always loses. And always will.
Steve
Steve
Sara Salzman wrote:
>
> In article <390D3DC1...@variousisps.co.uk>,
> david.e...@variousisps.co.uk wrote:
>
> >Steve wrote:
> >
> >> "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Steve wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > david.e.michael wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [snip]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things.
> In short,
> >> > > > > >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding
> greater oppression.
> >> > > > > If
> >> > > > > >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or
> Stalin, or
> >> > > > > indeed
> >> > > > > >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression'
> not have been
> >> > > > > a
> >> > > > > >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that
> there's a
> >> > > > > danger
> >> > > > > >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can
> turn into
> >> > > > > greater
> >> > > > > >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle
> remains: act
> >> > > > > so as
> >> > > > > >to minimize the probably total repression.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that
> implementing
> >> > > > > "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
> >> > > > > "greater oppression" later on.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Correct.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely
> unacceptable,
> >> > > > > regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by
> implementing a
> >> > > > > police state.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just
> sit there and let
> >> > > > them slog it out, right?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [snip]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism
> directly to the
> >> > > > > >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like
> Lenin and his
> >> > > > > >fellow travellers.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Agreed.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the
> rhetoric itself,
> >> > > > > >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in
> the state to
> >> > > > > do
> >> > > > > >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're
> advocating.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Why are you telling lies?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [snip]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going
> communist' but of
> >> > > > > >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance
> radical
> >> > > > > >anti-liberal agendas.
> >> > > > >
> Please provide anyt facts to back up your ridiculous assertion or retract
> it, Mister Michael.
>
> Lots of successful people live quite comfortably off their investment
> income. Just because you can't manage it doesn't mean there aren't lots of
> others who can.
>
> What proof do you have that Steve was fired -- now or ever?
>
> Sara
Don't bother with him, Sara. Richard Phillips once challenged me on a
similar question of my economic status. Simply refer Mr. Michael to
Phillips (if anyone can find him these days). At any rate, the evidence
of Phillips' retraction is on Deja.com. If Mr. Michael wants to play
the fool by making silly allegations, let him. He does it so well and
the role suits him to a T.
Steve
david.e.michael
Steve wrote:
> "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steve wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > david.e.michael wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
> > > > > > > >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or
> > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a
> > > > > > > danger
> > > > > > > >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into
> > > > > > > greater
> > > > > > > >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act
> > > > > > > so as
> > > > > > > >to minimize the probably total repression.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that implementing
> > > > > > > "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
> > > > > > > "greater oppression" later on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely unacceptable,
> > > > > > > regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by implementing a
> > > > > > > police state.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just sit there and let
> > > > > > them slog it out, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
> > > > > > > >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
> > > > > > > >fellow travellers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
> > > > > > > >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're advocating.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why are you telling lies?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
> > > > > > > >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
> > > > > > > >anti-liberal agendas.
> > > > > > >
> Correct translation: I'm retired. Firing is not something the Chairman
> and CEO does to himself. MISTER Michael loses again. MISTER Michael
> always loses. And always will.
>
> Steve
Ah, so your hamburger stall went bust?
David
david.e.michael
Steve wrote:
> "david.e.michael" wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Steve wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "david.e.michael" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew Northbrook wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > david.e.michael wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Now I tend to take a broadly consequentialist view of things. In short,
> > > > > > > >oppression is acceptable when it is a means to avoiding greater oppression.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > >a little oppression had succeeded in preventing Pol Pot or Stalin, or
> > > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > >Hitler, from coming to power, would that 'little oppression' not have been
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >good thing? Now I know you can come back at me and say that there's a
> > > > > > > danger
> > > > > > > >that the 'little oppression' can be counterproductive and can turn into
> > > > > > > greater
> > > > > > > >oppression. I accept this. Nevertheless, the basic principle remains: act
> > > > > > > so as
> > > > > > > >to minimize the probably total repression.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The interesting part, to me, is that you honestly believe that implementing
> > > > > > > "a little oppression" now is a good thing, so long as it eliminates a
> > > > > > > "greater oppression" later on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I, OTOH, argue that any oppression of any kind is entirely unacceptable,
> > > > > > > regardless of the reasons. You don't make your people free by implementing a
> > > > > > > police state.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if you had a choice between McCarthy and Pol Pot you'd just sit there and let
> > > > > > them slog it out, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I think you can trace the bloodthirstiness of communism directly to the
> > > > > > > >writings and speeches of the early communists -- people like Lenin and his
> > > > > > > >fellow travellers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The other root is the essentially statist nature of the rhetoric itself,
> > > > > > > >whereby it is considered quite legitimate for people acting in the state to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > >all sorts of horrible things to other people.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But... David... that's *exactly* the sort of government you're advocating.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why are you telling lies?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I don't think that the danger is one of countries 'going communist' but of
> > > > > > > >communist influence repressing those of us who want to advance radical
> > > > > > > >anti-liberal agendas.
> > > > > > >
pmar...@globalserve.net
<antipos...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8eadd5$v8h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <390743c2...@206.184.139.132>,
> bow...@best.com wrote:
>
> > I'm not surprised: the university is the last real outpost of
> > Marxism in this country and in most of the world.
> >
> > Out here in California we have some actual declared Communists
> > teaching in the UC system, most notable of which is Angela Davis (UC
> > Santa Cruz).
> >
> > My love for the 1st Amendment says I have to tolerate this, but I
> > don't have to like it.
> >
>
> How big of you. But have you ever read any Marx or any of the Marxists
> who make you so unhappy, or are you just giving a knee jerk reaction?
If you would ask the same question here to czechs,poles,eastern
germans,latvians,letons,hungarians,cubans,rumanians,
chines,north koreans...the most likely answer to you would be : not only I
we have read it ( Marx,Lenin or Mao) but we lived thru it all, some of us
are still living thru it all and on top of that we are not free to dissent
from the damned ideology imposed on all of us by the terror,the
executions,the imprisonments and deportations to Siberia or remote
areas...where only the conservatuion instints would save those who are/were
condemned to the extremes of desolated ,and cold regions of Siberia...
and Kastro's Cuba is no different from any of those damned former communists
countries...where marxism is obligatory...not a hobby to entertain
yourself...
But where the theory never catches up with the practice...or viceversa is
when the methods and the demagogics of those in power are put into practice
or implemented thru sheer terror and blood...plus hunger...
repression, and summary executions...
Cubans know well what that word means...
They suffered under Kastro's << marxism >>...
They are still suffering even though out of Cuba...
they are blackmailed and Kastro uses this to extort
from them the hard cash...USA dollars...that their relatives in Cuba need
today to survive...
To be able to understand the cuban exiles one must do a serious and long
research...they have zillions of reasons to detest and hete Kastro.