Get Them Anarchists
G*rd*n
Judge Rules on Student Anarchy Club
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) _ A judge ruled Thursday that a
15-year-old sophomore cannot form an anarchy club or wear
T-shirts opposing the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan because it
would disrupt school.
Katie Sierra was suspended from Sissonville High School for
three days for promoting the club. She was also told she could
not wear T-shirts with messages such as: ``When I saw the dead
and dying Afghani children on TV, I felt a newly recovered
sense of national security. God Bless America.''
In a complaint filed with her mother, Sierra argued her right
to free speech was being denied.
Circuit Court Judge James Stucky agreed that free speech is
``sacred'' but he found that such rights are ``tempered by
the limitations that they ... not disrupt the educational
process.''
Sierra said she'll pursue the dispute.
``I don't want war. I'm not for Afghanistan,'' Sierra said.
``I think that what we're doing to them is just as bad as what
they did to us, and I think it needs to be stopped.''
James Withrow, lawyer for the Kanawha County Board of Education,
argued that an anarchy club was inappropriate because students
``do not feel that their school is a safe place anymore.''
``Anarchy is the antithesis of what we believe should be in
schools,'' Withrow said.
Sierra's attorney, Roger Forman, said she is ``being punished
for expressing her opinion.''
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
David Berkheimer
G*rd*n wrote:
Katie sounds like one extremely naive little girl.
D.Teale
"David Berkheimer" <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BE1C8E9...@verizon.net...
Ya, if she was a real American she would have tried selling some of those
shirts she came up with.
David Berkheimer
D.Teale wrote:
Sure, why not? Of course with such an idiotic "message," nobody would
want them, so the beauty of capitalism would not benefit her.
Patrice Allais
écrit :
> Thursday, Nov. 1, 2001 Judge Rules on Student Anarchy Club
>
> CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) _ A judge ruled Thursday that a
> 15-year-old sophomore cannot form an anarchy club or wear
> T-shirts opposing the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan because it would
> disrupt school.
I can't find any reference to this news. Could you give us a pointer/URL?
G*rd*n
"David Berkheimer" <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote in message
| > > Katie sounds like one extremely naive little girl.
| > >
D.Teale wrote:
| > Ya, if she was a real American she would have tried selling some of those
| > shirts she came up with.
| Sure, why not? Of course with such an idiotic "message," nobody would
| want them, so the beauty of capitalism would not benefit her.
I mostly posted this little story to publicly track the
suppression of freedom in the name of freedom. The Internet
is good at that, or at least it will be until they start
censoring it, too (in the name of freedom, etc.)
However, since literary criticism has been essayed, I'll add
that I think the slogan is fairly effective, succinctly making
a valid criticism of the Adminstration's policies and actions
-- that is, that they're not only violent, immoral and repulsive
but apparently ineffective and maybe counterproductive -- and
hits as well as their presentation in media propaganda. It's
true the sarcasm is rather broad, but it's political sloganeering,
not classical poetry. 23 words to sum up and condemn the violence
_and_ the sanctimony. Not bad, I'd say.
While I can.
Constantinople
I don't think it's in the name of freedom. It seems to have been done
by the school in order to avoid disruption of classes. It doesn't say
here whether this particular school is a branch of the state, unless I
am reading carelessly and missed it. If it's a private school, then
its actions are no more reprehensible than the actions of Z Magazine
in refusing to publish articles by non-leftists. If it's a public
school, then that's the problem itself.
G*rd*n
| >...
| >I mostly posted this little story to publicly track the
| >suppression of freedom in the name of freedom.
Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com>:
| I don't think it's in the name of freedom. It seems to have been done
| by the school in order to avoid disruption of classes. ...
I'll bet pro-war flag-waving and tub-thumping wouldn't
"disrupt classes". What do you think?
Hewpiedawg
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9rueo3$dk9$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Really, this story is nothing new, exactly. My in-laws
who are still in high school relate to me the many and
varied things they are restricted from doing or wearing
at school. Circle-A's are assumed to be a gang symbol.
You can't wear a preachy Biblical shirt either. So
what? Public chool is supposed to be like a mild version
of prison. That's what it's for.
My point is that this is not indicative of a trend.
> However, since literary criticism has been essayed, I'll add
> that I think the slogan is fairly effective, succinctly making
> a valid criticism of the Adminstration's policies and actions
> -- that is, that they're not only violent, immoral and repulsive
> but apparently ineffective and maybe counterproductive -- and
> hits as well as their presentation in media propaganda. It's
> true the sarcasm is rather broad, but it's political sloganeering,
> not classical poetry. 23 words to sum up and condemn the violence
> _and_ the sanctimony. Not bad, I'd say.
I don't think it was literary criticism exactly.
But in spite of the message's irony, it *is* itself
sanctimonious. Fighting sanctimony with
sanctimony; this can only lead to a steady
escalation of sanctimony. We have to fear
for the future.
> While I can.
Ah, but I don't really think this is indicative
of a trend. Situation normal, nothing to see
here.
Kyle, just plain Kyle
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >...
>| >I mostly posted this little story to publicly track the
>| >suppression of freedom in the name of freedom.
>
>Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com>:
>| I don't think it's in the name of freedom. It seems to have been done
>| by the school in order to avoid disruption of classes. ...
>
>I'll bet pro-war flag-waving and tub-thumping wouldn't
>"disrupt classes". What do you think?
No shit. I'm getting fairly revolted by the anarcho-capitalists,
especially lately. It seems that the need for _war_ is the one thing
they and the state can agree on.
Kyle, just plain Kyle
wrote:
Through 'sedition acts', 'espionage acts', whatever they decide to
call it, the first amendment always goes out the window during
wartime.
It's not only a 'trend', it's a 'trend' that happens every single time
america goes to war. Read some history.
Hewpiedawg
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | >...
> | >I mostly posted this little story to publicly track the
> | >suppression of freedom in the name of freedom.
>
> Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com>:
> | I don't think it's in the name of freedom. It seems to have been done
> | by the school in order to avoid disruption of classes. ...
>
> I'll bet pro-war flag-waving and tub-thumping wouldn't
> "disrupt classes". What do you think?
I bet they would. Besides the parents of Jehovah's
Witnesses would no doubt complain.
Hewpiedawg
"Kyle, just plain Kyle" <Bizn...@theShiznitch.com> wrote in message
news:g4k5utslb53ioq3t7...@4ax.com...
What about Vietnam?
> It's not only a 'trend', it's a 'trend' that happens every single time
> america goes to war. Read some history.
I don't necessarily disagree with you there. I am saying that
this particular case, involving the public schools is not an
indication of any such trend, it is one more day in the life
of that bureaucratic institution, and it has been that way
for a good long time. The one thing that does seem out of
line is that they prohibited her from forming an Anarchy club,
which is a political club.
But, I don't know if the same thing wouldn't have happened
five years ago, if she had tried to start such a club, at least
in these parts. For many school bureaucrats Anarchy means
vandalism, and that's about it.
Kyle, just plain Kyle
wrote:
>
>"Kyle, just plain Kyle" <Bizn...@theShiznitch.com> wrote in message
>news:g4k5utslb53ioq3t7...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 16:36:36 GMT, "Hewpiedawg" <hpen...@coho.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9rueo3$dk9$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> >> | > > > Thursday, Nov. 1, 2001
>> >> | > > > Judge Rules on Student Anarchy Club
>> >> | > > >
>> >> | > > > CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) _ A judge ruled Thursday that a
>> >> | > > > 15-year-old sophomore cannot form an anarchy club or wear
>> >> | > > > T-shirts opposing the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan because it
>> >> | > > > would disrupt school.
>(...)
>> >Really, this story is nothing new, exactly. My in-laws
>> >who are still in high school relate to me the many and
>> >varied things they are restricted from doing or wearing
>> >at school. Circle-A's are assumed to be a gang symbol.
>> >You can't wear a preachy Biblical shirt either. So
>> >what? Public chool is supposed to be like a mild version
>> >of prison. That's what it's for.
>> >
>> >My point is that this is not indicative of a trend.
>>
>> Through 'sedition acts', 'espionage acts', whatever they decide to
>> call it, the first amendment always goes out the window during
>> wartime.
>
>What about Vietnam?
Censorship was all over the place. Kent State, the Chicago democratic
convention. Government reaction to all that stuff was about silencing
anti-war sentiment. Tom Hayden appeared before the house un-american
activities committee after the chicago stuff. If you can find them,
the transcripts are worth reading. There's a good collection of those
transcripts in a book called 'thirty years of treason', can't remember
who edited it. It's pretty interesting. James McDonalds would have fit
right in on the HUAC.
>> It's not only a 'trend', it's a 'trend' that happens every single time
>> america goes to war. Read some history.
>
>I don't necessarily disagree with you there. I am saying that
>this particular case, involving the public schools is not an
>indication of any such trend, it is one more day in the life
>of that bureaucratic institution, and it has been that way
>for a good long time. The one thing that does seem out of
>line is that they prohibited her from forming an Anarchy club,
>which is a political club.
>
>But, I don't know if the same thing wouldn't have happened
>five years ago, if she had tried to start such a club, at least
>in these parts. For many school bureaucrats Anarchy means
>vandalism, and that's about it.
>
You're probably right.
Michael A. Clem
I get the feeling that the school needs a little 'education' on
anarchy. I don't know what the judge's excuse is...
Michael A. Clem
Easy, Kyle. Perhaps you never saw my posts right after the attack. I'm far
from happy about the U.S. response.
Kyle, just plain Kyle
Sorry, didn't mean to over-generalize.
Brique Noir
brique sighs:
Yes, her touching faith in the legal system is quite amusing. Any old fool
knows that she would have better off just going to school with a pump action
shotgun and wasting the Principal, his followers and those that shelter them
>
Hewpiedawg
"Kyle, just plain Kyle" <Bizn...@theShiznitch.com> wrote in message
But HUAC was formed long before Vietnam, and in fact
crumbled during that war.
The sixties cultural revolution certainly resulted
in some barriers to free speech being torn down.
> >> It's not only a 'trend', it's a 'trend' that happens every single time
> >> america goes to war. Read some history.
> >
> >I don't necessarily disagree with you there. I am saying that
> >this particular case, involving the public schools is not an
> >indication of any such trend, it is one more day in the life
> >of that bureaucratic institution, and it has been that way
> >for a good long time. The one thing that does seem out of
> >line is that they prohibited her from forming an Anarchy club,
> >which is a political club.
> >
> >But, I don't know if the same thing wouldn't have happened
> >five years ago, if she had tried to start such a club, at least
> >in these parts. For many school bureaucrats Anarchy means
> >vandalism, and that's about it.
> >
>
> You're probably right.
I am just as concerned about what the State will do
to civil liberties in the potentially dark days ahead, but
I don't think Gordon's example here is much evidence
of their erosion. He will have to do better than this.
Constantinople
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | >...
> | >I mostly posted this little story to publicly track the
> | >suppression of freedom in the name of freedom.
>
> Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com>:
> | I don't think it's in the name of freedom. It seems to have been done
> | by the school in order to avoid disruption of classes. ...
>
> I'll bet pro-war flag-waving and tub-thumping wouldn't
> "disrupt classes". What do you think?
Doesn't matter what I think. The school doesn't belong to me. Unlike
you, I don't imagine myself the all-wise dictator over everything.
Constantinople
> On 2 Nov 2001 11:16:07 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
> >g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >| >...
> >| >I mostly posted this little story to publicly track the
> >| >suppression of freedom in the name of freedom.
> >
> >Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com>:
> >| I don't think it's in the name of freedom. It seems to have been done
> >| by the school in order to avoid disruption of classes. ...
> >
> >I'll bet pro-war flag-waving and tub-thumping wouldn't
> >"disrupt classes". What do you think?
>
> No shit. I'm getting fairly revolted by the anarcho-capitalists,
> especially lately.
Naturally. You "think" with your emotions rather than with your mind.
For you agreement and disagreement are a question of liking and
disliking.
>It seems that the need for _war_ is the one thing
> they and the state can agree on.
I haven't said anything about a need for war.
Augustinus Melies-Marsh
> Thursday, Nov. 1, 2001
> Judge Rules on Student Anarchy Club
>
> CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) _ A judge ruled Thursday that a
> 15-year-old sophomore cannot form an anarchy club or wear
> T-shirts opposing the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan because it
> would disrupt school.
I just visited the official web site of Sissonville [WV] High School
<http://shs.kana.k12.wv.us/>. I was greatly amused that a muzak
version of Nirvana's "Rape Me" was the background music for the page.
They should let her have the club. I imagine other schools have
similar ones; my own HS had a "Students for Peace and Survival" club.
August
David Berkheimer
Augustinus Melies-Marsh wrote:
Lol..."peace and survival"...anarchy...peace and survival...anarchy...
nope, sorry, not getting the connection. Anarchy would foster
chaos as surely as communism fostered poverty. They both
look good on paper. Throw in a dose of human-nature reality,
and they fall to pieces.
Justin Felux
>Lol..."peace and survival"...anarchy...peace and survival...anarchy...
>nope, sorry, not getting the connection. Anarchy would foster
>chaos as surely as communism fostered poverty. They both
>look good on paper. Throw in a dose of human-nature reality,
>and they fall to pieces.
What a delightfully compelling argument...
[sarcasm]
Kyle, just plain Kyle
wrote:
Hey Justin! You're back!
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, directed, indoctrinated,
numbered, estimated, regulated, commanded, controlled, law-driven,
preached at, spied upon, censured, checked, valued, enrolled, by creatures
who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.
-- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Kyle, just plain Kyle
wrote:
>
>
By the way, I think I fixed my new sig. Sorry, it was crowding
everything and looked confusing.
Also, interesting trivia... I copied this quote directly from Jeffrey
C. Dege! Will miracles never end? We must agree somehow, on
_something_!
__________________________________________________________________
Justin Felux
>Hey Justin! You're back!
>
Yes, I have been busy. (I'm on alt.fan.noam-chomsky now btw) I wrote an
op-ed for a local paper and it has catapulted me to the point of being a
regular columnist for several local newspapers and the leader of a
burgeoning anti-war movement here in south Texas [sic]. I remember one of
the last posts I read by you; you asked James McDonald's how he planned on
implementing his vision of a grand anarchocapitalist society. What was his
response?
David Berkheimer
Justin Felux wrote:
>
> [sarcasm]
So "peace and survival" is, in fact, comparable to anarchy and the
theories of communism and anarchy do not rely unduly on the
"goodness" of human nature. Thanks for pointing that out with
your well reasoned argument.
[sarcasm]
Justin Felux
>>
>> What a delightfully compelling argument...
>
>>
>> [sarcasm]
>So "peace and survival" is, in fact, comparable to anarchy and the
>theories of communism and anarchy do not rely unduly on the
>"goodness" of human nature. Thanks for pointing that out with
>your well reasoned argument.
>
>[sarcasm]
>
You are an intelligent and pleasant person and I am not sleeping with your
wife.
[sarcasm]
Hewpiedawg
Hewpiedawg
Evidently you two haven't heard that the age of irony is dead
nor that sarcasm is the lowest form of irony.
"Hewpiedawg" <hpen...@coho.net> wrote in message
news:4I1F7.24290$ck.2...@sjc-read.news.verio.net...
David Berkheimer
Justin Felux wrote:
Yet another brilliant defense of anarchy and communism. You are extremely
well informed and articulate on the issues you blather about, and your
father is not a homosexual who regularly begs me for "sex."
[sarcasm]
Justin Felux
>>
>> You are an intelligent and pleasant person and I am not sleeping with
your
>> wife.
>>
>> [sarcasm]
>
>Yet another brilliant defense of anarchy and communism. You are extremely
>well informed and articulate on the issues you blather about, and your
>father is not a homosexual who regularly begs me for "sex."
>
>[sarcasm]
>
>
lol
[seriousness]
G*rd*n
| So "peace and survival" is, in fact, comparable to anarchy and the
| theories of communism and anarchy do not rely unduly on the
| "goodness" of human nature. Thanks for pointing that out with
| your well reasoned argument.
The usual argument in favor of considering anarchic societies
possible is their apparent existence in the past, including
the recent past, and the present. Second, arguments from
"human nature" -- in this case, the implied "badness of human
nature requires a state" argument -- require that the arguer
be able to give a rather exhaustive account of "human nature",
whatever that may turn out to be. This seems like a very
ambitious claim.
Kyle, just plain Kyle
>| ...
>
>david.be...@verizon.net:
>| So "peace and survival" is, in fact, comparable to anarchy and the
>| theories of communism and anarchy do not rely unduly on the
>| "goodness" of human nature. Thanks for pointing that out with
>| your well reasoned argument.
>
>The usual argument in favor of considering anarchic societies
>possible is their apparent existence in the past, including
>the recent past, and the present. Second, arguments from
>"human nature" -- in this case, the implied "badness of human
>nature requires a state" argument -- require that the arguer
>be able to give a rather exhaustive account of "human nature",
>whatever that may turn out to be. This seems like a very
>ambitious claim.
What an opportune time to lay my new sig on y'all!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name!
Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the
visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of
human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his
insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature.
-Emma Goldman
Levtraro
>| ...
>
>david.be...@verizon.net:
>| So "peace and survival" is, in fact, comparable to anarchy and the
>| theories of communism and anarchy do not rely unduly on the
>| "goodness" of human nature. Thanks for pointing that out with
>| your well reasoned argument.
>
>The usual argument in favor of considering anarchic societies
>possible is their apparent existence in the past, including
>the recent past, and the present. Second, arguments from
>"human nature" -- in this case, the implied "badness of human
>nature requires a state" argument -- require that the arguer
>be able to give a rather exhaustive account of "human nature",
>whatever that may turn out to be. This seems like a very
>ambitious claim.
And it also requires the explanation of why the "badness of human
nature" would not affect the State, with the added problem that these
bad people in the State they have special privileges. In fact, if i
were bad, it would pay to become a policeman or a soldier so that i
can be bad with the law on my side.
Levtraro
G*rd*n
david.be...@verizon.net:
| >| So "peace and survival" is, in fact, comparable to anarchy and the
| >| theories of communism and anarchy do not rely unduly on the
| >| "goodness" of human nature. Thanks for pointing that out with
| >| your well reasoned argument.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >The usual argument in favor of considering anarchic societies
| >possible is their apparent existence in the past, including
| >the recent past, and the present. Second, arguments from
| >"human nature" -- in this case, the implied "badness of human
| >nature requires a state" argument -- require that the arguer
| >be able to give a rather exhaustive account of "human nature",
| >whatever that may turn out to be. This seems like a very
| >ambitious claim.
Levtraro <in...@pen.com>:
| And it also requires the explanation of why the "badness of human
| nature" would not affect the State, with the added problem that these
| bad people in the State they have special privileges. In fact, if i
| were bad, it would pay to become a policeman or a soldier so that i
| can be bad with the law on my side.
Oh, there's an answer for that, which is that the good people
should take over by whatever means are necessary and rule the
bad. Part of being good is knowing that you're good -- our
esteemed maximum leader here in the U.S. had no trouble with
that one. But in this case I was limiting my response to two
of the defects in david.berkheimer2's apparent argument against
the viability of anarchistic societies.
David Berkheimer
Kyle, just plain Kyle wrote:
Nobody could possibly be as naive as you two. First of all, I never
suggested that people are "wicked." If there is a "fool presuming
to speak authoritatively of human nature," it would be the one
espousing anarchy or communism, which rely entirely on the
premise that human nature is completely virtous and selfless.
That's a faith that goes far beyond naivete and into the realm
of absurd fantasy.
Levtraro
Please ellaborate on this thesis. It is interesting but as pure
assertion is vacuous.
Levtraro
David Berkheimer
Finally, a decent point worthy of discussion. As I have said, I never
implied that human nature is fundamentally "bad," just that it is not
entirely good and selfless. As another poster mentioned, it is
pretentious to presume to speak authoritatively about human
nature. But I think most people would agree that people are
basically well-intentioned and more prone to want to help
others than to hurt them (not without exceptions however.)
This being the case, any government which is representative of
its people at all will reflect this inherent "goodness," enacting
and enforcing laws accordingly. Those "bad" people who
attain positions of power as a means to do bad things will
usually be exposed eventually and removed from power.
Under anarchy, these same people would be free to
pursue their goals unchecked. Having no human laws,
people would be governed only by the laws of nature,
the most influential of which is "survival of the fittest"
wherein the strongest thrive at the expense of the
weak. Unrestricted by any sort of democratic
process, every individual or group of individuals
would be free to seek their own power and wield
it over the weak. And what type of person would
be most likely to seek such power? o
G*rd*n
david.be...@verizon.net:
| > >| So "peace and survival" is, in fact, comparable to anarchy and the
| > >| theories of communism and anarchy do not rely unduly on the
| > >| "goodness" of human nature. Thanks for pointing that out with
| > >| your well reasoned argument.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > >The usual argument in favor of considering anarchic societies
| > >possible is their apparent existence in the past, including
| > >the recent past, and the present. Second, arguments from
| > >"human nature" -- in this case, the implied "badness of human
| > >nature requires a state" argument -- require that the arguer
| > >be able to give a rather exhaustive account of "human nature",
| > >whatever that may turn out to be. This seems like a very
| > >ambitious claim.
Levtraro wrote:
| > And it also requires the explanation of why the "badness of human
| > nature" would not affect the State, with the added problem that these
| > bad people in the State they have special privileges. In fact, if i
| > were bad, it would pay to become a policeman or a soldier so that i
| > can be bad with the law on my side.
| Finally, a decent point worthy of discussion. As I have said, I never
| implied that human nature is fundamentally "bad," just that it is not
| entirely good and selfless. As another poster mentioned, it is
| pretentious to presume to speak authoritatively about human
| nature. But I think most people would agree that people are
| basically well-intentioned and more prone to want to help
| others than to hurt them (not without exceptions however.)
| This being the case, any government which is representative of
| its people at all will reflect this inherent "goodness," enacting
| and enforcing laws accordingly. Those "bad" people who
| attain positions of power as a means to do bad things will
| usually be exposed eventually and removed from power.
|
| Under anarchy, these same people would be free to
| pursue their goals unchecked. Having no human laws,
| people would be governed only by the laws of nature,
| the most influential of which is "survival of the fittest"
| wherein the strongest thrive at the expense of the
| weak. Unrestricted by any sort of democratic
| process, every individual or group of individuals
| would be free to seek their own power and wield
| it over the weak. And what type of person would
| be most likely to seek such power? o
These arguments don't do well against the idea of the State,
though, because bad people may be attracted to structures of
political power and take them over for their own bad uses.
In fact, some would say that sort of thing is more likely
to happen than not. Others would go even further and say
that the creation of such institutions in the first place is
the original work of a kind of bad people (sociopaths, one
might call them).
I don't agree, by the way, that people are basically well-
intentioned, and I'm an anarchist. It exactly is my pessimistic
estimate of human nature -- assuming there is such a thing --
that leads me to doubt that institutions of permanent coercion
are the best way to deal with social problems.
David Berkheimer
Knowing that you're "good" is no more or less a part of being
good than knowing that you like chocolate is part of liking
chocolate. In fact, it's probably less so since you might
believe that you're good when you're actually the scum
of the earth (witness bin Laden, e.g.), while it would be
a little weird to believe that you like chocolate when just
the smell of it sends you into violent fits of projectile vomiting.
All of which may just be on the side of agreeing with you;
I get confused with all this sarcasm stuff...Suffice it to say
that there is nothing wrong with "knowing" that you're
good unless, of course, you're not, in which case....
oh nevermind.
G*rd*n
david.be...@verizon.net:
|>|>| So "peace and survival" is, in fact, comparable to anarchy and the
|>|>| theories of communism and anarchy do not rely unduly on the
|>|>| "goodness" of human nature. Thanks for pointing that out with
|>|>| your well reasoned argument.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
|>|>The usual argument in favor of considering anarchic societies
|>|>possible is their apparent existence in the past, including
|>|>the recent past, and the present. Second, arguments from
|>|>"human nature" -- in this case, the implied "badness of human
|>|>nature requires a state" argument -- require that the arguer
|>|>be able to give a rather exhaustive account of "human nature",
|>|>whatever that may turn out to be. This seems like a very
|>|>ambitious claim.
Levtraro <in...@pen.com>:
|>| And it also requires the explanation of why the "badness of human
|>| nature" would not affect the State, with the added problem that these
|>| bad people in the State they have special privileges. In fact, if i
|>| were bad, it would pay to become a policeman or a soldier so that i
|>| can be bad with the law on my side.
G*rd*n wrote:
|> Oh, there's an answer for that, which is that the good people
|> should take over by whatever means are necessary and rule the
|> bad. Part of being good is knowing that you're good -- our
|> esteemed maximum leader here in the U.S. had no trouble with
|> that one. But in this case I was limiting my response to two
|> of the defects in david.berkheimer2's apparent argument against
|> the viability of anarchistic societies.
| Knowing that you're "good" is no more or less a part of being
| good than knowing that you like chocolate is part of liking
| chocolate. In fact, it's probably less so since you might
| believe that you're good when you're actually the scum
| of the earth (witness bin Laden, e.g.), while it would be
| a little weird to believe that you like chocolate when just
| the smell of it sends you into violent fits of projectile vomiting.
| All of which may just be on the side of agreeing with you;
| I get confused with all this sarcasm stuff...Suffice it to say
| that there is nothing wrong with "knowing" that you're
| good unless, of course, you're not, in which case....
| oh nevermind.
I was just pointing out that it's not a killer argument to
say that a state is likely to be staffed by the same sort of
people it rules, or worse. I think when we look at history,
that's what we observe, but the histories we have could be
interpreted differently. Dub's knowing we're good is probably
just a bit of goofiness rather than conscious ideology, but
consider the vanguardist theories of the early Bolsheviks, or
the Italian Fascist Party: an enlightened minority takes power
in order to guide the people to, well, better things -- the
things the party thinks are good -- using as much force as
necessary, and maybe a little extra for good measure. From
_their_ point of view, this sort of thing is perfectly
logical. In fact, it's their duty. It's true there's a lot
of irony in the situation, but the world is a pretty
ironical place, something that I'm sure constantly vexes
all True Believers.
Constantinople
[. . .]
> Those "bad" people who
> attain positions of power as a means to do bad things will
> usually be exposed eventually and removed from power.
>
> Under anarchy, these same people would be free to
> pursue their goals unchecked.
In anarchy, I could kill an intruder just as easily as under a state.
More easily, actually. Maybe you'll explain how the dead intruder is
free. Free of this mortal coil, perhaps.
> Having no human laws,
> people would be governed only by the laws of nature,
We are always governed by the laws of nature, state or no
state.
> the most influential of which is "survival of the fittest"
A criminal makes a lot of people angry with him, and is
therefore unusually likely to die young (unless he has the
backing of a state). Maybe you'll explain what's so fit
about a dead punk.
> wherein the strongest thrive at the expense of the
> weak.
Strength comes from numbers. The honest man makes friends
more easily than the criminal.
> Unrestricted by any sort of democratic
> process, every individual or group of individuals
> would be free to seek their own power and wield
> it over the weak.
See above. Someone who is dead from a bullet in the
brain is not free to seek power.
> And what type of person would
> be most likely to seek such power?
The soon-to-be-deceased type.
Kyle, just plain Kyle
(Constantinople) wrote:
Seems to me that your ideological fantasy involves you in the role of
Dirty Harry, quite a lot. You, James McDonalds and a few others in
here share an vision of the future that is basically 'politics meets
laser-tag'.
If that's your idea of a better society, I feel sorry for you.
_____________________________________________________
The soundest of political rules is always to mistrust
the political perceptions of the comfortable.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Justin Felux
>>The soon-to-be-deceased type.
>
>Seems to me that your ideological fantasy involves you in the role of
>Dirty Harry, quite a lot. You, James McDonalds and a few others in
>here share an vision of the future that is basically 'politics meets
>laser-tag'.
>
>If that's your idea of a better society, I feel sorry for you.
I have always thought anarchocapitalists are just a bunch of adult males who
want to play cowboys and indians without feeling stupid.
Constantinople
Wrong. In anarchy I expect to use violence about as much as I use it
today, i.e., not a lot. Today, I would use violence against an
intruder, and many people would. Because people generally tend to do
unpleasant things to intruders, the number of intrusions is small
enough that most people rarely experience them.
>If that's your idea of a better society, I feel sorry for you.
If that's an example of your reading comprehension, I feel sorry for
you as well.
Constantinople
wrote:
>
I have always thought that socialists were stupid. More recently I've
come to the realization that they're both malicious and stupid.
Justin Felux
Constantinople wrote in message ...
If you want to go paintballing with me that badly all you have to do is ask.
Constantinople
<david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Nobody could possibly be as naive as you two. First of all, I never
>suggested that people are "wicked." If there is a "fool presuming
>to speak authoritatively of human nature," it would be the one
>espousing anarchy or communism, which rely entirely on the
>premise that human nature is completely virtous and selfless.
You would seem to be approximately right about communism, as that
seems to require that each person labor voluntarily, without having
to, and without receiving any reward for the labor aside from the
pleasure of having labored.
However, anarchy is merely the absence of a state. It is not a
positive social program, unlike communism.
Constantinople
David Berkheimer
G*rd*n wrote:
As I said, when this happens in a democracy, these people
will eventually be exposed and removed from power. Does
this always happen? Probably not; nothing is perfect. But
people have to do the best they can in an imperfect world,
and a democracy is preferable by far to the lawlessness
of anarchy.
> I don't agree, by the way, that people are basically well-
> intentioned, and I'm an anarchist. It exactly is my pessimistic
> estimate of human nature -- assuming there is such a thing --
> that leads me to doubt that institutions of permanent coercion
> are the best way to deal with social problems.
Well I think you're wrong about people not being basically
well intentioned. If for no other reason than "enlightened
self-interest," basically adhering to a "what comes around
goes around" mentality, I think most people do act more or
less benevolently.
But whatever the case may be, I think your cynicism and
support for anarchy are contradictory. If people are
in fact not basically well intentioned, just imagine what
life would be like in a society without laws. That there
would be no existing power structures for the criminally
minded to abuse is irrelevant, as there would also be no such
structures in place to remove them from society.
Moreover, inevitably those who wish to exploit and
abuse others would simply create their own.
David Berkheimer
G*rd*n wrote:
And this is exactly the sort of thing that a democratic
system of government prevents and anarchy would
enable.
David Berkheimer
Constantinople wrote:
> David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3BE753E6...@verizon.net>...
>
> [. . .]
> > Those "bad" people who
> > attain positions of power as a means to do bad things will
> > usually be exposed eventually and removed from power.
> >
> > Under anarchy, these same people would be free to
> > pursue their goals unchecked.
>
> In anarchy, I could kill an intruder just as easily as under a state.
> More easily, actually. Maybe you'll explain how the dead intruder is
> free. Free of this mortal coil, perhaps.
So what? What about the intruder who preys on defenseless old ladies
or little children? Who will bring them to justice? Will they be
given a trial, or simply be lynched? If there's a trial, who will be
the judge? If it's simply lynch-mob "justice," how is this an
improvement over democracy, and is this not simply another
form of government?
> > Having no human laws,
> > people would be governed only by the laws of nature,
>
> We are always governed by the laws of nature, state or no
> state.
Of course we are. With a democratic state, we are also
governed by man-made laws that, among other things,
protect the weak from violent predators.
> > the most influential of which is "survival of the fittest"
>
> A criminal makes a lot of people angry with him, and is
> therefore unusually likely to die young (unless he has the
> backing of a state). Maybe you'll explain what's so fit
> about a dead punk.
>
> > wherein the strongest thrive at the expense of the
> > weak.
>
> Strength comes from numbers. The honest man makes friends
> more easily than the criminal.
Strength in numbers sounds suspiciously like a form of
government.
Constantinople
<david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>Constantinople wrote:
>
>> David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3BE753E6...@verizon.net>...
>>
>> [. . .]
>> > Those "bad" people who
>> > attain positions of power as a means to do bad things will
>> > usually be exposed eventually and removed from power.
>> >
>> > Under anarchy, these same people would be free to
>> > pursue their goals unchecked.
>>
>> In anarchy, I could kill an intruder just as easily as under a state.
>> More easily, actually. Maybe you'll explain how the dead intruder is
>> free. Free of this mortal coil, perhaps.
>
>So what? What about the intruder who preys on defenseless old ladies
>or little children?
What??? You mean anarchy is not PERFECT? That sometimes things slip
through the cracks? My God, that's nothing like the state. Thank
goodness for perfect states. However, you're wrong if you think that
"little old ladies" or any other category will systematically slip
through the cracks. Anarcho-capitalist institutions are likely to
provide much better security than "call us then wait for half an hour"
city police (though the efficiency of police does vary from community
to community). The only difference is that the security will be
provided in the market by private security vendors. If you think
little old ladies will be defenseless, just ask yourself how many
little old ladies starve to death, and remember that food is provided
in the market by private farmers through private groceries.
Arguments for state provision of security are as strong as arguments
for state provision of food and shelter. So if you think the USSR was
a great place to live, then there's nothing much I can do to convince
you that the market can do better than the state in providing
security. However if you don't think that, then you might at least
consider, without jerking your knee, that the market might be able to
do a job of providing security equivalent to the job it does of
providing food.
>Who will bring them to justice? Will they be
>given a trial, or simply be lynched? If there's a trial, who will be
>the judge? If it's simply lynch-mob "justice," how is this an
>improvement over democracy, and is this not simply another
>form of government?
You're asking for details. The detailed suggestions that I am familiar
with are anarcho-capitalist. I don't see any point in rewriting the
details in my own words for the nth time, so I'll provide a couple of
links instead.
Here's James Donald's brief explanation of anarcho-capitalism:
http://www.jim.com/anarcho-.htm
Here's an explanation by David Friedman:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html
>> > Having no human laws,
>> > people would be governed only by the laws of nature,
>>
>> We are always governed by the laws of nature, state or no
>> state.
>
>Of course we are. With a democratic state, we are also
>governed by man-made laws that, among other things,
>protect the weak from violent predators.
The state is the main predator. Consider that the various levels of
the state take about half a person's income. Some say less, some say
more. That is *extreme* robbery. A bank robber takes just a tiny
little bit as a fraction of total money in the bank, and he's rightly
considered a very bad guy.
The state no more creates law enforcement than it creates money. The
state has taken over the money supply, but money existed without the
state, and was simply taken over by the state, largely through the
state's takeover of critical elements of banking. Similarly, the state
has simply taken over law enforcement, for obvious reasons (i.e.,
somebody has to do it, and the state, being massively criminal, simply
cannot afford to allow private law enforcement to grow too large).
>> > the most influential of which is "survival of the fittest"
>>
>> A criminal makes a lot of people angry with him, and is
>> therefore unusually likely to die young (unless he has the
>> backing of a state). Maybe you'll explain what's so fit
>> about a dead punk.
>>
>> > wherein the strongest thrive at the expense of the
>> > weak.
>>
>> Strength comes from numbers. The honest man makes friends
>> more easily than the criminal.
>
>Strength in numbers sounds suspiciously like a form of
>government.
I suppose if you want to call even an empty Chinese takeout box
"government" you will do so regardless of what I say.
mikel evins
"Constantinople" <constan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ohshutgc9tvdqmtkv...@4ax.com...
> >With a democratic state, we are also
> >governed by man-made laws that, among other things,
> >protect the weak from violent predators.
>
> The state is the main predator. Consider that the various levels of
> the state take about half a person's income. Some say less, some say
> more. That is *extreme* robbery. A bank robber takes just a tiny
> little bit as a fraction of total money in the bank, and he's rightly
> considered a very bad guy.
>
> The state no more creates law enforcement than it creates money. The
> state has taken over the money supply, but money existed without the
> state, and was simply taken over by the state, largely through the
> state's takeover of critical elements of banking. Similarly, the state
> has simply taken over law enforcement, for obvious reasons (i.e.,
> somebody has to do it, and the state, being massively criminal, simply
> cannot afford to allow private law enforcement to grow too large).
As you know, I accept the argument that the state is not necessary to
protect peaceful honest people from violent predators, that private firms
can do the job as well or better. Lately, now, I am wondering what is it
that makes states economical. Granting the argument of Friedman and Benson
and so on that private individuals and firms can do as well as or better
than the state at protecting peace and prosperity, states should not come
into existence unless those who construct them find it cost-effective to
establish the system of tribute on which they depend. Sometimes when the
state is absent people live in substantially peaceful and prospersou
communities for long periods of time, as happened in the Icelandic Free
State, in Anglo-Saxon Britan before the establishment of the English
monarchy, in modern Somaliland, and so on. Sometimes the absence of the
state occasions the rise of warlords and gangs and the development of
nascent states, or of ongoing conflict that seems to motivate people to
regard establishment of a state as a welcome relief. What, I wonder, are the
costs/benefit tradeoffs that make it economical for states to be
established? Under what circumstances does it pay to establish a state, and
what considerations motivate people to regard states as preferable to
statelessness?
Michael A. Clem
"Kyle, just plain Kyle" wrote:
James may seem bloodthirsty, but when he speaks on the positive aspects of anarcho-capitalism, he usually says
the right things, but with a strong emphasis.
As I see it, the use of force, even when morally justified, would be quite limited. It's merely a last
resort after all other attempts at peaceful resolution have failed. Most people and businesses *want* to
avoid violence. Peaceful resolution is much cheaper and cost-effective, not to mention more humane, pleasant,
and desireable. War is the health of the *state*; it is the sickness of a free society.
Constantinople
<him...@mikelevins.com> wrote:
>Under what circumstances does it pay to establish a state, and
>what considerations motivate people to regard states as preferable to
>statelessness?
I have a feeling you're further along in this than I am, but I'll give
it some thought.
Michael A. Clem
David Berkheimer wrote:
> G*rd*n wrote:
>
Well, I'm the anarcho-capitalist type, and I do think that people are
basically well-intentioned, which is why our society survives in spite of the
government. People *want* order, which is why spontaneous order is possible in
the first place. But people mistakenly believe that government is a necessary
evil for protecting rights, which allows for power to be concentrated in
government and then be abused by those who seek power, regardless of the good
intentions behind it. Good intentions are not enough.
Anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism) isn't "lawlessness" or chaos. It is law and
order freely chosen and accepted by those affected by it, instead of having
laws imposed upon them by force. Authors like David Friedman, Bruce Benson,
and others have covered in greater detail how customary law (not quite the same
thing as common law) works. Private arbitration and mediation services gives a
current, limited example of how it could work.
In any society, it is necessary for rights to be protected; call such a
system "government" if you want to, but it is not necessary for "government" to
act like a protection racket in order to protect us from rights-violators. I
have more faith in the market's ability to protect my rights than I do the
government's.
-------------------------------------------------------
Money talks,
But it don't sing and dance and it can't walk.
-Neil Diamond, "Forever In Blue Jeans"
James A. Donald
On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 20:48:29 GMT, "Kyle, just plain Kyle"
> the role of Dirty Harry, quite a lot.
Dirty Harry does not seek, and is incapable of attaining, any
power over ordinary people.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BlBgVtG+sladIIDG3TqFGqmFuBVKqHfO91zQKmuR
4vvQxyU74IUlZl0rTKjTGeLIqmlXpAoI+QZUE2oHZ
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> people from violent predators, that private firms can do
> the job as well or better. Lately, now, I am wondering what
> is it that makes states economical.
One may reasonably argue that whatever causes states to
appear in the first place, is likely to make them reappear in
anarcho capitalist polity.
States collapse from time to time, and the resulting order
tends to have some anarcho capitalist aspects, which usually
eventually fade away, giving rise to a state -- sometimes
after considerable delay.
There are a wide variety of processes by which a state is
formed. The most common is armed conquest by a tightly
disciplined group. Another common process, less blatantly
criminal, is gradual cartelization of the privilege of self
defence, which becomes ever more restricted, and the cartel
restricting it becomes increasingly disciplined, until the
cartel becomes a clear monopoly, which is unmistakeably a
state.
These processes were far from being swift or inevitable.
Empires were often defeated, cartels of force often broken,
but there was a general tendency towards states and away from
anarchy.
It appears to me that the major factor in this process was
information processing costs. The reason that a large number
of villages could be dominated by a ridiculously tiny handful
of armed men was because each village was largely unaware of
all the others, while the rulers had tight and centralized
communications. The british empire held millions of often
reluctant subjects with a few hundred armed men.
If the most efficient way of processing information about
troubles and bad guys is to take the information to a central
point, then that central point will become the palace, and a
ridiculously small number of armed retainers in the palace
will be able to impose quite unpopular decisions on millions.
The state of the Medes is a very straightforward example of a
state that arose in this fashion.
If, however it is more efficient to have such knowledge and
information networked and distributed, then arrangements for
taking care of bad guys do not have the natural tendency
towards state formation that they have under systems were
communications and data switching are more expensive.
When I look at existent states that have collapsed, or are
failing, it seems to me that there is no longer any advantage
to a central network hub in processing this information, and
that such hubs have no inherent tendency to form, that where
such hubs are artificially created by the will and power of
the state, they do not function very well as compared with
various arrangements made to bypass that hub. As I said in
an earlier posting, in today's Russia the state provides
lawlessness and injustice, and whatever the faults of mafia
provided justice, and they are obviously many and serious, it
is better than what is produced by the state.
Because networking costs have diminished, the economies of
scale that favored state formation are no longer there.
Because of increased complexity, the diseconomies of scale
that disfavored state formation have become far more severe.
This process does not directly affect conquest based states,
but it does indirectly affect them. The Soviet empire
required vastly more police to keep its subjects in line than
the Tsarist empire did. The british empire kept half the
world in line with fewer troops than the average tinpot
baltic state requires. This is clearly a result of improved
communications, as one can tell by the guards on telephones
in Cuba.
So I would say that with the economic forces currently
prevailing, we will see a continuing trend for states to
fail, and empires to collapse -- that with the economies and
diseconomies of scale being as they are at the moment,
anarcho capitalism would be stable, and existent states
should have a gradual overall trend to collapse and failure.
If the US government merely sticks to a goal of making sure
that objectionable people are unable to rule afghanistan, it
is going with the current flow of history, and will probably
succeed. If, however, it gets involved in "nation building",
attempting to impose a "good government" of its own choosing
on Afghanistan, then it is running against the tide of
history, and will probably fail. President Bush is aware of
this, but many in the government feel that it is vital to
turn the tide of history.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
MxmoKS9Q4vTxhzmgq+q3SW+j4QxKKjOcA81VLwQT
4viaigLn5mlGNt41a9Sbfj+GE83G68N6I1/Kdgta8
David Berkheimer
Margaret wrote:
> David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > This being the case, any government which is representative of
> > its people at all will reflect this inherent "goodness," enacting
> > and enforcing laws accordingly. Those "bad" people who
> > attain positions of power as a means to do bad things will
> > usually be exposed eventually and removed from power.
> >
> > Under anarchy, these same people would be free to
> > pursue their goals unchecked. Having no human laws,
> > people would be governed only by the laws of nature,
> > the most influential of which is "survival of the fittest"
> > wherein the strongest thrive at the expense of the
> > weak. Unrestricted by any sort of democratic
> > process, every individual or group of individuals
> > would be free to seek their own power and wield
> > it over the weak. And what type of person would
> > be most likely to seek such power? o
>
> You presume here that people would be the same in a
> democratic socialist world as in the current one. I
> suspect that's probably not true, and offer the
> contrast between European and US political activism in
> support.
>
> All ruling classes depend on the populace they rule
> being docile and biddable, but few would have been able
> to survive a revelation such as that about April
> Glaspie giving Saddam Hussein the green light to invade
> Kuwait so that Bush One could have his war. Such a
> vicious, self-serving act would have brought down most
> European governments and perhaps involved war-crimes
> charges. In the US, it caused hardly a ripple -- the
> corporate media got their smoke generators going and
> everyone relaxed back into their sitcom-mediated
> torpor. End of story.
>
> The basis for any anarchic society is awareness on the
> part of each member. Where there is no 'big brother',
> everyone must be ready to act for their own sake, and
> the sake of others. So long as people are willing to
> do that, no hopeful ill-doer can gain much of a
> foothold. It's when the basis of power is allowed to
> shift from the people to an elite that we get into
> trouble, whether that elite is someone who calls
> himself King or Representative or Director or CEO.
So which is it that you condone, "democratic socialism"
or anarchy? They are just about polar opposites,
after all.
Levtraro
wrote:
>David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> This being the case, any government which is representative of
>> its people at all will reflect this inherent "goodness," enacting
>> and enforcing laws accordingly. Those "bad" people who
>> attain positions of power as a means to do bad things will
>> usually be exposed eventually and removed from power.
>>
>> Under anarchy, these same people would be free to
>> pursue their goals unchecked. Having no human laws,
>> people would be governed only by the laws of nature,
>> the most influential of which is "survival of the fittest"
>> wherein the strongest thrive at the expense of the
>> weak. Unrestricted by any sort of democratic
>> process, every individual or group of individuals
>> would be free to seek their own power and wield
>> it over the weak. And what type of person would
>> be most likely to seek such power? o
>
>You presume here that people would be the same in a
>democratic socialist world as in the current one. I
>suspect that's probably not true, and offer the
>contrast between European and US political activism in
>support.
>
>All ruling classes depend on the populace they rule
>being docile and biddable, but few would have been able
>to survive a revelation such as that about April
>Glaspie giving Saddam Hussein the green light to invade
>Kuwait so that Bush One could have his war. Such a
>vicious, self-serving act would have brought down most
>European governments and perhaps involved war-crimes
>charges.
I'm not sure about this claim. All gov'ts are pretty similar. They
only differ in power. The US gov't can do things the others cannot
because the State of the US is the biggest.
>In the US, it caused hardly a ripple -- the
>corporate media got their smoke generators going and
>everyone relaxed back into their sitcom-mediated
>torpor. End of story.
You seem to be idealizing the 'people' and institutions in Europe.
They are as much or more gullible and insiduous, respectively, than
those from the US.
>The basis for any anarchic society is awareness on the
>part of each member. Where there is no 'big brother',
>everyone must be ready to act for their own sake, and
>the sake of others.
Why for the sake of others?
Which others?
>So long as people are willing to
>do that, no hopeful ill-doer can gain much of a
>foothold. It's when the basis of power is allowed to
>shift from the people to an elite that we get into
>trouble, whether that elite is someone who calls
>himself King or Representative or Director or CEO.
The power can never be with 'the people'.
It always is with 'some people'.
Levtraro
Levtraro
stepped forward and declared:
>Levtraro <in...@pen.com> wrote:
>
>> > Such a
>> >vicious, self-serving act would have brought down most
>> >European governments and perhaps involved war-crimes
>> >charges.
>>
>> I'm not sure about this claim. All gov'ts are pretty similar. They
>> only differ in power. The US gov't can do things the others cannot
>> because the State of the US is the biggest.
>
>You might be right, though I seem to remember a number
>of scandals bringing down European governments over the
>past forty years. I've never heard of one bringing
>down any US government, though. Have you?
You might be right too, though this may be more related to the
political system (parliamentary versus presidential) than to any
inherent greater virtue of European politicians.
>> >In the US, it caused hardly a ripple -- the
>> >corporate media got their smoke generators going and
>> >everyone relaxed back into their sitcom-mediated
>> >torpor. End of story.
>>
>> You seem to be idealizing the 'people' and institutions in Europe.
>> They are as much or more gullible and insiduous, respectively, than
>> those from the US.
>
>I'm thinking, I suppose, principally of the demos in
>the former east-bloc countries, most recently
>Yugoslavia. That seems to happen with some regularity.
>But the last time anything like that happened in the
>US was during the late '60s/early '70s, against the
>senseless, murderous war in VietNam.
>
>
>>
>> >The basis for any anarchic society is awareness on the
>> >part of each member. Where there is no 'big brother',
>> >everyone must be ready to act for their own sake, and
>> >the sake of others.
>>
>> Why for the sake of others?
>> Which others?
>
>I have in mind a sort of scene similar to your noticing
>my house is on fire before I do, or perhaps I'm out of
>town. You wouldn't shrug and say 'it's Margaret's
>business', you'd take action even if your own house
>weren't at risk.
I suppose i'd take action for the fun of it.
I did it once under a similar situation.
I found myself "saving" appliances before the firemen arrived.
>Similarly in the political sphere.
I don't see any political sphere in anarchy. I rather see the
suppression of the political sphere.
>> >So long as people are willing to
>> >do that, no hopeful ill-doer can gain much of a
>> >foothold. It's when the basis of power is allowed to
>> >shift from the people to an elite that we get into
>> >trouble, whether that elite is someone who calls
>> >himself King or Representative or Director or CEO.
>>
>> The power can never be with 'the people'.
>> It always is with 'some people'.
>
>I suppose that depends on whether we're talking about
>immediate, 'executive' power, or more defuse,
>'ratifying' power, doesn't it? In a genuine
>democracy, the people always have the right to
>collectively say to the executives 'no, stop, that's
>not on. undo it.'
Democracy, genuine or whatever, is a form of government.
Anarchy is no government.
Levtraro
David Berkheimer
Margaret wrote:
> I don't think they are, really. *I* certainly don't
> consider them so. Anarchy means no ruler.
Anarchy means no government, not no ruler. It's not the
same thing.
> Democratic
> means 1p=1v, socialism means 1p=1s. That looks
> orthogonal at worst, to me. The most economic form
> of democratic socialism, then, would be anarchic
> socialism, it seems to me -- the ruling power vested in
> the ruled, i.e..
"1p=1s." And how will this be maintained? Are people just
going to voluntarily give away all that which they have worked
so hard for, out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not,
and they should not be expected to. "1p=1s," aside from being
only a superficially good idea at best, would require unimaginable
government to enforce, clearly a far cry from anarchy. The
phrase "arachic socialism" is really quite an oxymoron.
Kyle, just plain Kyle
<david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>Margaret wrote:
>
>> David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > So which is it that you condone, "democratic socialism"
>> > or anarchy? They are just about polar opposites,
>> > after all.
>>
>> I don't think they are, really. *I* certainly don't
>> consider them so. Anarchy means no ruler.
>
>Anarchy means no government, not no ruler. It's not the
>same thing.
Please explain the difference between being 'ruled' by someone else
and being 'governed' by someone else.
Thank you.
-----------------------------------------
I am always doing that which I can not do,
in order that I may learn how to do it.
-Pablo Picasso
Levtraro
wrote:
>> >Similarly in the political sphere.
>>
>> I don't see any political sphere in anarchy. I rather see the
>> suppression of the political sphere.
>
>hmmm...does it seem more bearable if I point out that I
>mean 'political' in the sense of 'people interacting'?
That's a pretty wide sense.
>> Democracy, genuine or whatever, is a form of government.
>> Anarchy is no government.
>
>Perhaps we're using the same word in different ways?
>If you, Gordon, and I agree a course of action for our
>mutual benefit, is that 'government'?
No, but it isn't democracy either, so your example is not very much
relevant.
Levtraro
David Berkheimer
Kyle, just plain Kyle wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:35:35 GMT, David Berkheimer
> <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Margaret wrote:
> >
> >> David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > So which is it that you condone, "democratic socialism"
> >> > or anarchy? They are just about polar opposites,
> >> > after all.
> >>
> >> I don't think they are, really. *I* certainly don't
> >> consider them so. Anarchy means no ruler.
> >
> >Anarchy means no government, not no ruler. It's not the
> >same thing.
>
> Please explain the difference between being 'ruled' by someone else
> and being 'governed' by someone else.
"Ruler" and "someone" both describe an individual. "Government"
does not.
> Thank you.
You're welcome.
David Berkheimer
Kyle, just plain Kyle wrote:
> I am always doing that which I can not do,
> in order that I may learn how to do it.
>
> -Pablo Picasso
Man, old Pablo was one confused dude. Cubism, indeed.
G*rd*n
| > >> Anarchy is no government.
| > >Perhaps we're using the same word in different ways?
| > >If you, Gordon, and I agree a course of action for our
| > >mutual benefit, is that 'government'?
Levtraro <in...@pen.com> wrote:
| > No, but it isn't democracy either, so your example is not very much
| > relevant.
Margaret <marg...@example.com>:
| What is it then, if not democracy? Surely that's all
| democracy is -- people deciding something in an
| even-handed way. No?
The definition of democracy is usually considered to be
satisfied by "one person, one vote", for some reasonably large
subset of the community in question. Thus it is compatible
with the military-industrial plutocracy of the United States.
Of course, one can say this isn't "real" democracy, but then
as one adds to the definition one begins to depart from the
democratic notions of referenda and elections, which are,
after all, symbolic civil wars with winners, losers,
profiteers, and victim-bystanders in large numbers.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
James A. Donald
David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Are people just going to voluntarily give away all that
> > which they have worked so hard for, out of the goodness
> > of their hearts? Of course not, and they should not be
> > expected to.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:14:00 -0500, Margaret
<marg...@example.com> wrote:
> I imagine the slaveowners in antebellum Georgia and Alabama
> felt the same way, don't you?
By comparing ownership of stuff, with ownership of people,
you prepare in advance rationalizations for the liquidation
of the kulaks, showing that in your heart you know the
violence that socialism requires.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ZibISjJ+e2LQpQNrrrg24Y/bt0rVsztXJSmtfrL/
4Cq3MS5lKxcnahhvbI8BArdkfiJgqMc9vZlRkwxoJ
PNEWS.ORG
POINTER: (Read it on the WEB)
Bush proclaims a war on "evil" but morally, the U.S. is not taking the
high ground. The U.S. has always supported authoritarian and
totalitarian regimes, and countries with questionable and atrocious human
rightsrecords for its own purposes, for oil and for war against the
SovietUnion. There never has been a moral high ground for the U.S.
How many civilians is it all right to kill to secure our OIL and
pipelineand revenge all at the same time? Read the Moral High Ground
at: http://pnews.org/art/5art/moralGROUND.shtml
TheGolem
http://pnews.org/
Levtraro
wrote:
>Levtraro <in...@pen.com> wrote:
>
>> >hmmm...does it seem more bearable if I point out that I
>> >mean 'political' in the sense of 'people interacting'?
>>
>> That's a pretty wide sense.
>
>But that's the basic meaning of the word, really --
>people. What do you mean by it, then?
I agree with (or rather, i have adopted) G*rd*n's definition:
politics is the theory and practice of whose will shall prevail in
collective affairs.
>> >> Democracy, genuine or whatever, is a form of government.
>> >> Anarchy is no government.
>> >
>> >Perhaps we're using the same word in different ways?
>> >If you, Gordon, and I agree a course of action for our
>> >mutual benefit, is that 'government'?
>>
>> No, but it isn't democracy either, so your example is not very much
>> relevant.
>
>What is it then, if not democracy? Surely that's all
>democracy is -- people deciding something in an
>even-handed way. No?
Democracy is a political system in which the will of a majority
prevails over the will of a minority, by counting the number of votes,
one vote per person.
Levtraro
David Berkheimer
Margaret wrote:
> David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Anarchy means no government, not no ruler. It's not the
> > same thing.
>
> Am. Her. Dict. N. Coll. Ed.: anarchy. Greek anarkhia,
> from anarkhos, without a ruler. An, without + arkhos,
> ruler.
>
> > "1p=1s." And how will this be maintained? Are people just
> > going to voluntarily give away all that which they have worked
> > so hard for, out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not,
> > and they should not be expected to.
>
> I imagine the slaveowners in antebellum Georgia and
> Alabama felt the same way, don't you?
Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that make vegetarians bad?
And if anybody's position is akin to that of the slave owners,
it would be yours, since you want people to work and
produce not for themselves, but for others, and have
that which they have labored for taken away from them.
Why should people be forced to give away that which is
rightfully theirs? In your strange quest for superficial
equality, you demand that everybody give up their rights.
> Certainly many
> of their descendents felt that way even into the 1960s.
> Probably some do even today.
>
> But slavery no longer exists, all the same.
>
> >"1p=1s," aside from being
> > only a superficially good idea at best, would require unimaginable
> > government to enforce, clearly a far cry from anarchy. The
> > phrase "arachic socialism" is really quite an oxymoron.
>
> I'm sure..
Good. Then it's settled.
Kyle
Margaret wrote:
>> I imagine the slaveowners in antebellum Georgia and
>> Alabama felt the same way, don't you?
David Berkheimer wrote:
>Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that make vegetarians bad?
That has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the analogy of slavery to
wage slavery.
>And if anybody's position is akin to that of the slave owners,
>it would be yours, since you want people to work and
>produce not for themselves, but for others, and have
>that which they have labored for taken away from them.
This perception of socialism really does amaze me, since socialism is
_all_ _about_ worker ownership of their labor. The whole _point_ is to
_prevent_ some people from taking part of the value of other people's
labor away from them!
How do you guys manage to see it that way? From where I sit, it's like
you're looking at white and saying it's black.
>Why should people be forced to give away that which is
>rightfully theirs?
What, exactly, do you imagine being 'taken away' from whom?
And what, exactly, do you mean by 'rightfully theirs'? Are you talking
about land? Something they made themselves? Something they bought from
someone?
Please be more specific. Keeping these things vague doesn't get
anybody any closer to understanding the other side.
>In your strange quest for superficial
>equality, you demand that everybody give up their rights.
What 'rights' are you talking about?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too many have dispensed with generosity
in order to practice charity.
- Albert Camus
Levtraro
wrote:
>Levtraro <in...@pen.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with (or rather, i have adopted) G*rd*n's definition:
>> politics is the theory and practice of whose will shall prevail in
>> collective affairs.
>
>> Democracy is a political system in which the will of a majority
>> prevails over the will of a minority, by counting the number of votes,
>> one vote per person.
>
>Okay, I was right -- we define the terms somewhat
>differently. I don't regard politics as necessarily
>being about power, nor do I believe democracy requires
>that there be a winner and a loser. I acknowledge that
>it very often works out that way, but disagree that it
>loses its right to the label when it works out without
>the perception of contest. Can you acknowledge my
>definition as being a valid alternative?
I don't know. You haven't provided a definition of politics and
another definition of democracy. When you do, i'll tell you what i
think.
Levtraro
David Berkheimer
Kyle wrote:
> >(snip)
>
> Margaret wrote:
>
> >> I imagine the slaveowners in antebellum Georgia and
> >> Alabama felt the same way, don't you?
>
> David Berkheimer wrote:
>
> >Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that make vegetarians bad?
>
> That has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the analogy of slavery to
> wage slavery.
>
> >And if anybody's position is akin to that of the slave owners,
> >it would be yours, since you want people to work and
> >produce not for themselves, but for others, and have
> >that which they have labored for taken away from them.
>
> This perception of socialism really does amaze me, since socialism is
> _all_ _about_ worker ownership of their labor. The whole _point_ is to
> _prevent_ some people from taking part of the value of other people's
> labor away from them!
"1 person, 1 share." That's Margaret's motto. If that's not supposed to
mean nobody has more wealth than anybody else, then it's a poor motto.
G*rd*n
| > I don't know. You haven't provided a definition of politics and
| > another definition of democracy. When you do, i'll tell you what i
| > think.
Margaret <marg...@example.com>:
| Sorry, I thought I had.
|
| Politics: the study (that's not the best word, but I
| can't think of a better one) of how people interact.
One can use a word as one pleases, of course, but one of the
things people seem to be referring to when they use the word
_politics_ (e.g. "office politics, sexual politics") are
precisely questions of power. If other aspects of human
interaction which are potentially free of power issues,
like art, romance or commerce, instead exhibit them, we
often talk about that as politics or politicization.
| Democracy: the process of public-affairs
| decision-making in which every person has an equal
| voice.
Ideally. Note that there is an assumption in this of some
kind of unitary public-affairs thing which requires direction
("decision-making") and thus politics (my definition). We
anarchists would want to make explicit how that thing was
formed and constituted, and why.
Kyle
Why didn't you answer the rest of the questions I asked you? I really
did want to know the answers.
Anyway, The thing about "1 person, 1 share" is this: That "share" is a
share of whatever company they're involved in. It, in no way, stops
them from being _successful_ with that company, it _only_ keeps them
from being getting more than their fair share _within_ that company.
See what I'm saying? If you and three other guys had a great idea for
a business, and were wildly successful, you'd be doing better than
most folks. It's just that you wouldn't necessarily be doing any
better than the other three guys. Unless, of course, you had some
other gig going, at nights or something, bring you some extra income.
---------------------------------------------------------------
When experience is not retained . . . infancy is perpetual.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
- George Santayana
Kyle
By the way, I'm not sure if I'm in 100% agreement about the "1 share"
thing. I mean, I can see some task and jobs being considered more
valuable. I'm definitely for the 1 person, 1 vote, within an
institution. Maybe I'm trying to explain something I don't fully
understand... But, for example, I think the idea of everyone within a
company voting to pay a higher rate for certain postitions is fine.
Margeret, maybe you could elaborate on that idea and how it relates to
"1p, 1s, 1v"?
---------------------------------------------
We must learn to live together as brothers or
perish together as fools.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Justin Felux
>
>By the way, I'm not sure if I'm in 100% agreement about the "1 share"
>thing. I mean, I can see some task and jobs being considered more
>valuable. I'm definitely for the 1 person, 1 vote, within an
>institution. Maybe I'm trying to explain something I don't fully
>understand... But, for example, I think the idea of everyone within a
>company voting to pay a higher rate for certain postitions is fine.
>
>Margeret, maybe you could elaborate on that idea and how it relates to
>"1p, 1s, 1v"?
I no longer believe the traditional socialist theories of "1p 1s 1v" are
good ideas. Read the material on Parecon on parecon.org, or better yet,
listen to the lectures in the ZNet audio section that Michael albert gives
about political economy and Parecon. It is brilliant theory.
Constantinople
Good luck trying to discover the real views of any socialist around here.
Kyle
Thanks, Justin.
G*rd*n
| > mean nobody has more wealth than anybody else, then it's a poor motto.
constan...@my-deja.com (Constantinople):
| Good luck trying to discover the real views of any socialist around here.
Just make them up, the way you usually do. James can have a
socialist eating babies in two minutes flat without even
breathing hard.
If you actually want to read a treatment of the difference
between socialism and communism try _Critique_of_the_Gotha_
_Program_ by the Devil himself at www.marxists.org. Although
why you would want to bother going abroad, and especially into
the mouth of Hell itself, for what you can freely make at
home in as large lumps as you like, I don't know.
David Berkheimer
Margaret wrote:
> David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > "1 person, 1 share." That's Margaret's motto. If that's not supposed to
> > mean nobody has more wealth than anybody else, then it's a poor motto.
>
> Perhaps you should try to follow the argument for
> awhile? Nothing in the socialist principle of 1p:1s:1v
> implies that someone cannot amass personal wealth --
> only that they must do so from the fruits of their
> *own* labor, not by claiming a piece of someone else's.
Then just what "meaning" does "1 person=1 share" have,
pray tell? Everybody has 1 share now. They're not
equal. As to following your argument, I'll be happy to
do so once you present one.
David Berkheimer
Kyle wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:59:47 GMT, David Berkheimer
> <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Kyle wrote:
> >
> >> >(snip)
> >>
> >> Margaret wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I imagine the slaveowners in antebellum Georgia and
> >> >> Alabama felt the same way, don't you?
> >>
> >> David Berkheimer wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that make vegetarians bad?
> >>
> >> That has absolutely _nothing_ to do with the analogy of slavery to
> >> wage slavery.
> >>
> >> >And if anybody's position is akin to that of the slave owners,
> >> >it would be yours, since you want people to work and
> >> >produce not for themselves, but for others, and have
> >> >that which they have labored for taken away from them.
> >>
> >> This perception of socialism really does amaze me, since socialism is
> >> _all_ _about_ worker ownership of their labor. The whole _point_ is to
> >> _prevent_ some people from taking part of the value of other people's
> >> labor away from them!
> >
> >"1 person, 1 share." That's Margaret's motto. If that's not supposed to
> >mean nobody has more wealth than anybody else, then it's a poor motto.
> >
> Why didn't you answer the rest of the questions I asked you? I really
> did want to know the answers.
Because all your other questions, like,
"And what, exactly, do you mean by 'rightfully theirs'? Are you talking
about land? Something they made themselves? Something they bought from
someone?" are tied to the 1p, 1s mentality which is vague at best.
> Anyway, The thing about "1 person, 1 share" is this: That "share" is a
> share of whatever company they're involved in. It, in no way, stops
> them from being _successful_ with that company, it _only_ keeps them
> from being getting more than their fair share _within_ that company.
> See what I'm saying? If you and three other guys had a great idea for
> a business, and were wildly successful, you'd be doing better than
> most folks. It's just that you wouldn't necessarily be doing any
> better than the other three guys. Unless, of course, you had some
> other gig going, at nights or something, bring you some extra income.
I'm not sure that's what she means. But even this version is extremely
bizarre. If the underlying principle is that each person should get
what he deserves from his input, then all I can say is, "duh!" Everybody
would agree with that, and in theory, that's exactly what eventually
happens in capitalism. Of course in reality it doesn't always work
that way (though in general it does), but why would it be any different
under socialism? Who would be in charge of monitoring each worker's
productivity and seeing that he is compensated accordingly?
If that's not the idea, then what is? That every worker within a company
is of exactly the same value, and should therefore be compensated
equally? If that's the idea, then there's an urgent need for a reality
check here.
And if it's neither of the above, then just what the hell is it?
David Berkheimer
Constantinople wrote:
Thanks. I'm obviously going to need it.
Constantinople
>David Berkheimer <david.be...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3BF1CFB1...@verizon.net>...
>| > "1 person, 1 share." That's Margaret's motto. If that's not supposed to
>| > mean nobody has more wealth than anybody else, then it's a poor motto.
>
>constan...@my-deja.com (Constantinople):
>| Good luck trying to discover the real views of any socialist around here.
>
>Just make them up, the way you usually do. James can have a
>socialist eating babies in two minutes flat without even
>breathing hard.
Case in point. See if you can discern Gordon's views from the above.
>If you actually want to read a treatment of the difference
>between socialism and communism try _Critique_of_the_Gotha_
>_Program_ by the Devil himself at www.marxists.org. Although
>why you would want to bother going abroad, and especially into
>the mouth of Hell itself, for what you can freely make at
>home in as large lumps as you like, I don't know.
Can you learn Gordon's views from his comment here? Well, if you can,
then that means that his views are marxist. However, recently when I
said that Gordon's views were similar to Marx's, Gordon objected to my
saying so.
G*rd*n
| >| > "1 person, 1 share." That's Margaret's motto. If that's not supposed to
| >| > mean nobody has more wealth than anybody else, then it's a poor motto.
constan...@my-deja.com (Constantinople):
| >| Good luck trying to discover the real views of any socialist around here.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >Just make them up, the way you usually do. James can have a
| >socialist eating babies in two minutes flat without even
| >breathing hard.
Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com>:
| Case in point. See if you can discern Gordon's views from the above.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >If you actually want to read a treatment of the difference
| >between socialism and communism try _Critique_of_the_Gotha_
| >_Program_ by the Devil himself at www.marxists.org. Although
| >why you would want to bother going abroad, and especially into
| >the mouth of Hell itself, for what you can freely make at
| >home in as large lumps as you like, I don't know.
Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com>:
| Can you learn Gordon's views from his comment here? Well, if you can,
| then that means that his views are marxist. However, recently when I
| said that Gordon's views were similar to Marx's, Gordon objected to my
| saying so.
But I wasn't claiming to be a socialist or to be presenting
socialist views. Besides making fun of James, I was trying
to offer an elucidation of the difference between socialism
and communism which seemed to be confused in David Berkheimer's
comment. As Uncle Karl was a communism-through-socialism
political philosopher, his opinions would seem to be relevant.
If, on a question of Islamic belief, I quote the Koran, does
that make me a Muslim?
As to the supposed similarity of my opinions with Marx's,
rather than object to the suggestion, I usually ask exactly
which opinions the suggester is talking about, with cites if
possible, and almost always a great silence ensues. Why
that is, I don't know -- I guess the prospect of actually
reading Marx's writing _and_ mine is daunting. However,
since (I think) I've borrowed many ideas from Marx, possibly
second- or third-hand, they shouldn't be too hard to find,
and everyone is encouraged to try. Great quantities of
Marx's work are available at www.marxists.org.
James A. Donald
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:12:36 -0500, "PNEWS.ORG" <ch...@fdn.com> wrote:
> Bush proclaims a war on "evil" but morally, the U.S. is not
> taking the high ground. The U.S. has always supported
> authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and countries with
> questionable and atrocious human rightsrecords for its own
> purposes, for oil and for war against the SovietUnion.
Somehow you overlook the most extreme example of the US
supporting a totalitarian regime: US support for the Soviet
Union after they changed sides in the war with Hitler.
That is one example of support for oppressive regimes that
never seems to trouble you guys. On the contrary, those who
argue that such support was unwise and immoral are usually
denounced as fascists and nazis.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
2pwRu5cjZOHKhU+dkfESzdSViCq9jiz8DPy3DxAq
4ds5j+MyCBk3YFP5wZoUUeUfqXUkPdNyrIdZ3YFnL
James A. Donald
On 14 Nov 2001 09:22:15 -0800, constan...@my-deja.com
(Constantinople) wrote:
> Good luck trying to discover the real views of any
> socialist around here.
We are making progress. Used to be that socialists came
forth an pronounced their views in no uncertain terms.
Today, they say the same thing, but in shifting and deniable
weasel words.
Of course there has always been a wavering between plain talk
and weasel words, but when socialism was going strong,
notably in the 1970s, the plain words were clearler, and the
weasel words less evasive. Indeed, going back to as
recently as 1996, for example McKay's web page, their
position was clear enough.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Mg9F0YVsscPF7/XPOz3vHeuENwQAxRRIIBiQoBD
4n0mUh/QtABwSWNik7dqYeXwMWFLvTOrtzZCnLYPz
James A. Donald
> between socialism and communism try _Critique_of_the_Gotha_
> _Program_ by the Devil himself at www.marxists.org.
Marx criticizes the Gotha program by quite correctly saying
that it would in practice turn into what we now call social
democracy. It did, and you people are not social democrats.
Lenin said much the same of Bernstienism, and you lot are not
Bernstienists either.
Thus Marx is not explaining the difference between communism
and socialism, he is explaining the difference between
communism and parties like today's British labor party.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
r3qlLA6VzP/NGFSZOpvSnWLymn3zDMJcfEu+upk2
4XTq2y3ck9kVXoJXiIGrHeMDG9xQVSJKWVHQWTfQ0
James A. Donald
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:30:35 GMT, <constan...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> > If you actually want to read a treatment of the
> > difference between socialism and communism try
> > _Critique_of_the_Gotha_ _Program_ by the Devil himself at
> > www.marxists.org. Although why you would want to bother
> > going abroad, and especially into the mouth of Hell
> > itself, for what you can freely make at home in as large
> > lumps as you like, I don't know.
Constantinople
> Can you learn Gordon's views from his comment here? Well,
> if you can, then that means that his views are marxist.
It could alternatively mean that he advocates the Gotha
program. But if he agrees with Marx's criticism of the Gotha
program then ...
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
gzogPcSDeb174OAkroLvP08V+Uk/RaV/wq52b6qh
4liGrRC357O5NrAsy71CSwIf/YrSXyaHijojgD+aS
G*rd*n
| > If you actually want to read a treatment of the difference
| > between socialism and communism try _Critique_of_the_Gotha_
| > _Program_ by the Devil himself at www.marxists.org.
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| Marx criticizes the Gotha program by quite correctly saying
| that it would in practice turn into what we now call social
| democracy. It did, and you people are not social democrats.
| Lenin said much the same of Bernstienism, and you lot are not
| Bernstienists either.
|
| Thus Marx is not explaining the difference between communism
| and socialism, he is explaining the difference between
| communism and parties like today's British labor party.
Maybe I should have said the difference between
socialism->communism and socialism->social democracy,
and _Gotha_ is too indirect for the occasion.
Ashland Henderson
> --
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:12:36 -0500, "PNEWS.ORG" <ch...@fdn.com> wrote:
> > Bush proclaims a war on "evil" but morally, the U.S. is not
> > taking the high ground. The U.S. has always supported
> > authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and countries with
> > questionable and atrocious human rightsrecords for its own
> > purposes, for oil and for war against the SovietUnion.
>
> Somehow you overlook the most extreme example of the US
> supporting a totalitarian regime: US support for the Soviet
> Union after they changed sides in the war with Hitler.
So in WWII we were supporting one totalitarian country against
another totalitarian country with whom we were in a life or
death struggle. Do you really equate that morally to supporting
a totalitarian country because we want their oil?
> That is one example of support for oppressive regimes that
> never seems to trouble you guys. On the contrary, those who
> argue that such support was unwise and immoral are usually
> denounced as fascists and nazis.
Haven't seen it argued that much recently. And I certainly
haven't seen those who argue that such support was unwise and
immoral denounced as fascists and nazis.
G*rd*n
|>> Bush proclaims a war on "evil" but morally, the U.S. is not
|>> taking the high ground. The U.S. has always supported
|>> authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and countries with
|>> questionable and atrocious human rightsrecords for its own
|>> purposes, for oil and for war against the SovietUnion.
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| > Somehow you overlook the most extreme example of the US
| > supporting a totalitarian regime: US support for the Soviet
| > Union after they changed sides in the war with Hitler.
macea...@astound.net (Ashland Henderson):
| So in WWII we were supporting one totalitarian country against
| another totalitarian country with whom we were in a life or
| death struggle. Do you really equate that morally to supporting
| a totalitarian country because we want their oil?
The American ruling class, and a good many of their supporters
among the folk, may well think so. I was reading the account
of some reporter who went around the 'burbs asking people
whether they would give up their SUVs in favor of achieving
"oil independence", given that oil dependence seem to require
a lot of warfare and oppression and the threat of terrorism
in reprisal. I'll bet everyone can guess what the answer was.
There might well be more determination in America to get cheap
oil than there was to stop the Nazis who, after all, were only
slaughtering people in Europe, and not the sort of people one
knows, anyway. (Recall that in 1939 Jews and Slavs were still
Not Quite White in the U.S.)
By the way, I don't agree that the U.S. (government) has
always supported authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.
They're quite happy with liberal regimes as long as these
are sufficiently subservient. Thus, while dictatorship may
be necessary to keep Algeria out of the hands of radical
Muslim fundamentalists, it's not necessary in Nicaragua
or Canada because in those countries the correct sort of
governments can be elected in reasonably pluto-democratic
procedures.
| ...
James A. Donald
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:12:36 -0500, "PNEWS.ORG"
<ch...@fdn.com> wrote:
> > > Bush proclaims a war on "evil" but morally, the U.S. is
> > > not taking the high ground. The U.S. has always
> > > supported authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and
> > > countries with questionable and atrocious human
> > > rightsrecords for its own purposes, for oil and for war
> > > against the SovietUnion.
> >
> > Somehow you overlook the most extreme example of the US
> > supporting a totalitarian regime: US support for the
> > Soviet Union after they changed sides in the war with
> > Hitler.
On 16 Nov 2001 08:43:01 -0800, macea...@astound.net
(Ashland Henderson) wrote:
> So in WWII we were supporting one totalitarian country
> against another totalitarian country with whom we were in a
> life or death struggle. Do you really equate that morally
> to supporting a totalitarian country because we want their
> oil?
The US does not support any totalitarian countries for oil.
Indeed, the only totalitarian regime remaining is North
Korea.
The Soviet Union sought to rule the world, and probably would
have succeeded if the US had not supported oppressive regimes
that were enemies of the Soviet Union, just as the nazis
might well have succeeded had the US not supported
totalitarian terror states that were enemies of the Nazi
Germany.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9Lk1t8XHHaS365B1R0+Vt5lxgonC0nq1aocDymqI
46sMpfBxlCe7p0ZzYdh/0fo59ogRrC3nZ3xTgtWAy
Ashland Henderson
> --
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:12:36 -0500, "PNEWS.ORG"
> <ch...@fdn.com> wrote:
> > > > Bush proclaims a war on "evil" but morally, the U.S. is
> > > > not taking the high ground. The U.S. has always
> > > > supported authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and
> > > > countries with questionable and atrocious human
> > > > rightsrecords for its own purposes, for oil and for war
> > > > against the SovietUnion.
> > >
> > > Somehow you overlook the most extreme example of the US
> > > supporting a totalitarian regime: US support for the
> > > Soviet Union after they changed sides in the war with
> > > Hitler.
>
> On 16 Nov 2001 08:43:01 -0800, macea...@astound.net
> (Ashland Henderson) wrote:
> > So in WWII we were supporting one totalitarian country
> > against another totalitarian country with whom we were in a
> > life or death struggle. Do you really equate that morally
> > to supporting a totalitarian country because we want their
> > oil?
>
> The US does not support any totalitarian countries for oil.
> Indeed, the only totalitarian regime remaining is North
> Korea.
Saudi Arabia is not known as a bastion of freedom. Kuwait is
not even known as a bastion of freedom. North Korea is not
the only totalitarian regime remaining in the world.
> The Soviet Union sought to rule the world, and probably would
> have succeeded if the US had not supported oppressive regimes
> that were enemies of the Soviet Union, just as the nazis
> might well have succeeded had the US not supported
> totalitarian terror states that were enemies of the Nazi
> Germany.
The Soviet Union never reallly had much chance of succeeding.
The Nazi's never had any chance of succeeding in ruling the
world, although they might have managed to keep a good chunk
of Europe had the US not supported Russia. However, the
continental system never worked well for France and it's
doubtful that it would have worked any better for Germany
in the long run.
James A. Donald
On 19 Nov 2001 09:01:13 -0800, macea...@astound.net ()
wrote:
James A. Donald:
> > The US does not support any totalitarian countries for
> > oil. Indeed, the only totalitarian regime remaining is
> > North Korea.
Ashland Henderson
> Saudi Arabia is not known as a bastion of freedom.
There is an enormous difference between a country that is
merely tyrannical and oppressive, like Saudi Arabia, and a
country that is totalitarian, like Cuba before 1992.
James A. Donald:
> > The Soviet Union sought to rule the world, and probably
> > would have succeeded if the US had not supported
> > oppressive regimes that were enemies of the Soviet Union,
> > just as the nazis might well have succeeded had the US
> > not supported totalitarian terror states that were
> > enemies of the Nazi Germany.
Ashland Henderson
> The Soviet Union never reallly had much chance of
> succeeding.
That was not the situation as it appeared in the mid
seventies and early eighties, when it seemed that almost
every nation in the UN was crawling forward to kiss the
victor's feet.
> The Nazi's never had any chance of succeeding in ruling the
> world,
They, and much of the world, thought otherwise at the time.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
uX898SNyvxl4OxGub25D4Vr3ut3GJ9uXSnuETRxO
43UhHy+ILw9oRstwI42XoKdbV+PY0SBtUF0VTi+qL
G*rd*n
| > > The US does not support any totalitarian countries for
| > > oil. Indeed, the only totalitarian regime remaining is
| > > North Korea.
Ashland Henderson
| > Saudi Arabia is not known as a bastion of freedom.
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| There is an enormous difference between a country that is
| merely tyrannical and oppressive, like Saudi Arabia, and a
| country that is totalitarian, like Cuba before 1992.
Yeah, women could leave the house and drive cars in Cuba,
even before 1992.