Lisp is Sin
Adam Connor
http://blogs.msdn.com/sriram/archive/2006/01/15/lisp_is_sin.aspx
Thinking about my response to this essay (and many others I've seen in
the last year or so), I would put it this way: Lisp has convinced many
people of its beauty and power, but has convinced few of its
practicality as a primary development tool for the here and now. I
guess you could look at that glass as being half-full or half-empty.
Where I work, I think it is more likely that we will add Ruby to the
toolkit than Lisp, mostly because
1) it appears to be easier for average developers to get started in
Ruby
2) the price is right; as a non-profit institution, commercial Lisps
seem kind of expensive.
3) the general consensus is that the Ruby community is friendlier and
more likely to offer constructive help.
That makes me sad, since I like Lisp, but I have to admit that I agree
with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
All roads may lead to Lisp, but maybe not any existing Lisp.
--
adamnospamaustin.rr.com
s/nospam/c\./
Pascal Costanza
> Just a post I saw that I thought was interesting:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sriram/archive/2006/01/15/lisp_is_sin.aspx
>
> Thinking about my response to this essay (and many others I've seen in
> the last year or so), I would put it this way: Lisp has convinced many
> people of its beauty and power, but has convinced few of its
> practicality as a primary development tool for the here and now. I
> guess you could look at that glass as being half-full or half-empty.
http://wiki.alu.org:80/Industry_Application and
http://wiki.alu.org:80/Success_Stories
> Where I work, I think it is more likely that we will add Ruby to the
> toolkit than Lisp, mostly because
> 1) it appears to be easier for average developers to get started in
> Ruby
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
> 2) the price is right; as a non-profit institution, commercial Lisps
> seem kind of expensive.
See open source implementations at http://wiki.alu.org/Implementation
> 3) the general consensus is that the Ruby community is friendlier and
> more likely to offer constructive help.
I don't know how friendly the Ruby community is, but my impression is
not that the Lisp community is unfriendly.
> That makes me sad, since I like Lisp, but I have to admit that I agree
> with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
Yes.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Closer to MOP & ContextL:
http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Coby Beck
news:431uajF...@individual.net...
> Adam Connor wrote:
>> 3) the general consensus is that the Ruby community is friendlier and
>> more likely to offer constructive help.
>
> I don't know how friendly the Ruby community is, but my impression is not
> that the Lisp community is unfriendly.
I think this is destined to be as persistent as the "lisp is slow"
complaint. True once apon a time but unshaken no matter how outdated a
complaint it may be...
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Wade Humeniuk
The compelling counter-argument is not an argument at all. Simply
develop something in Lisp, completely in Lisp, not a toy, complete
functionality. This is not hard though one has to do some learning
along the way. Putting the energy into learning Lisp is well
worth it. If one finds that learning Lisp (as programming language)
is hard, then take this a good sign, you are actually learning
something. Learning is hard, its bloody work, and there is no
other way to do things. Its part of the human condition that
people at some point stay away from mental work. The brain
hardens up (for some very good reasons) and the process of changing
it can be disconcerting.
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by average programmer??
Wade
Cameron MacKinnon
> Just a post I saw that I thought was interesting:
>
> Thinking about my response to this essay (and many others I've seen in
> the last year or so), I would put it this way: Lisp has convinced many
> people of its beauty and power, but has convinced few of its
> practicality as a primary development tool for the here and now.
I thought that was a pretty poor blog-rant. He is looking at the problem
from the mass-market tool vendor's point of view: Some coders live on
the far left side of the bell curve, and he doesn't want to alienate
them. Further, he'd like to convince his (management) customers that
he's got a tool that can move those left-siders over towards the median.
Whereas from the software shop's point of view, if some of your
programmers are dim bulbs, you find them another position or you
terminate them.
> 1) it appears to be easier for average developers to get started in
> Ruby
Is initial productivity more important than long term productivity?
Would it be overly cruel if I suggested that this switch to a new
language could be used as an opportunity to weed out subpar performers,
creating room for better new hires and increasing average productivity?
> 2) the price is right; as a non-profit institution, commercial Lisps
> seem kind of expensive.
You're looking at it wrong. Your unit of production is programmer+tools,
and the goal is high productivity at low cost. If you're saving 1% of
the total (per year) with inferior tools but your programmers are 3%
less productive, what's the bottom line? Not spending money to improve
labour efficiency only makes sense when the labour is very cheap
relative to the technology.
Going further, I'd question why a non-profit institution needs
programmers, anyway. It likely has a formal or informal policy of not
being able to pay premium (or perhaps even median) salaries "because
we're a non-profit" and so, while it thinks it may have a stable of
average programmers, its median programmer may well be below average[1].
Are you creating programs which are a competitive advantage (e.g. for
fundraising)? If not, perhaps there's a bit of corporate narcissism of
small differences causing management to believe that the organization's
needs are unique enough that off-the-shelf solutions aren't available
for most of their generic computing needs.
> 3) the general consensus is that the Ruby community is friendlier and
> more likely to offer constructive help.
Might be true -- who am I, a mere corporal, to argue with General
Consensus? Balanced against that I'd say the Lisp community is wiser and
has a better bookshelf and archives. When a language is the 'new thing',
most of its proponents are friendly, helpful, proselytizing early
adopters. They've only just finished drinking the Kool-Aid themselves,
and are eager to see others validating their choice.
Why not just write it all in Awk? I ask not in seriousness, but to point
out that, at one time, Awk may well have been the language of choice for
your software (whatever it is). Then came Perl, Python and Ruby, each
with multiple incompatible releases and rapidly evolving libraries. If
you choose a new, evolving language, you'll find yourself porting old
code to incompatible new releases every year or so[2], or running three
releases concurrently to keep the old code happy. Then after a few years
Intercal becomes the hot new thing, Ruby books go out of print, and the
available young programming talent will desire a Ruby job about as much
as they currently desire Awk jobs.
[1] Similarly, commercial enterprises' HR departments have management
convinced that can hire above average programmers for "competitive"
(i.e. average) salaries. What do they get? Average programmers.
[2] Some companies write software which evolves or is replaced so
quickly that platform obsolescence isn't a concern.
jayessay
> with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
I don't think you are "missing" any of the numerous (and imo
compelling) counter-arguments and more importantly counter evidence.
After all, you've been here saying the exact same thing for some time
now - despite being presented with the counter-evidence/arguments.
So, I believe it is more a case of you actively not hearing or paying
any attention to them. Sort of like you desparately want to believe
it is all just a load of rubbish and you will be just fine not needing
to pay any attention.
Shrug. You'll probably be just fine even if you continue to succeed
at blocking any and all contrary evidence.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
joseph...@gmail.com
Coby Beck wrote:
> "Pascal Costanza" <p...@p-cos.net> wrote in message
> news:431uajF...@individual.net...
> > Adam Connor wrote:
> >> 3) the general consensus is that the Ruby community is friendlier and
> >> more likely to offer constructive help.
> >
> > I don't know how friendly the Ruby community is, but my impression is not
> > that the Lisp community is unfriendly.
>
> I think this is destined to be as persistent as the "lisp is slow"
> complaint. True once apon a time but unshaken no matter how outdated a
> complaint it may be...
I think this impression is a false one because people confuse the
difference between the Lisp and X programming language 'communities' to
some extent with the difference between forums for 'experts' and forums
filled with 'novices/intermediates.'
Any group of experts will become annoyed when their forum is polluted
with people who fail to do the most basic homework and preparation,
shout out noise and misinformation, or respond to contrary (but
accurate) information with knee-jerk hostility.
Many newly invented languages have communities who are following the
latest roadshow, full of the excitement that follows something fresh
and undiscovered, or are part of the community for its own sake.
Anything goes, because hey, we're all still learning here (except for
the few people who invented the language and stop by regularly, of
course.)
Lisp programmers have (typically) found their way to Lisp as part of
their maturing craftsmanship, and (hopefully) are conscious of forming
part of a community of craftspersons, with a long history of experience
and excellence in what they do.
Consider the different crowds and etiquette that follow a rock band,
attend a jazz club, go to a symphony concert, or participate in a
master class. One should, to be polite, try to conform one's own
behavior to be acceptable to the group, not expect the group to accept
whatever behavior you choose to adopt.
Joe Marshall
Don't forget that Lisp is so unpopular that ....
No, wait. Lisp is twice as popular as Ruby (according to Tiobe), so
that can't be it....
Ummm, Oh, I know. There are so few Lisp implementations that if one
goes away it could.... no, wait, that can't be it......
Commercial Ruby implementations are so much cheaper than ... no...
Damn if I can figure it out.
Alan Crowe
> Just a post I saw that I thought was interesting:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sriram/archive/2006/01/15/lisp_is_sin.aspx
That blog was the final straw that persuaded me to order a
copy of Norvigs Paradigms of AI programming: Case studies in
Common Lisp.
I had been hoping to find a second hand copy cheap. I found
Artificial Intelligence, A modern approach for twelve pounds
in a second hand book shop. However, I decided that PAIP is
one of those books that people hold onto, so I might as well
buy a new copy.
Alan Crowe
Edinburgh
Scotland
Paolo Amoroso
> the last year or so), I would put it this way: Lisp has convinced many
> people of its beauty and power, but has convinced few of its
> practicality as a primary development tool for the here and now. I
> guess you could look at that glass as being half-full or half-empty.
I don't just stare at the glass, I try to fill it. And I am by no
means the only one. A group of Lispers are working for improving
things:
CL Gardeners - Tending the Common Lisp garden
http://www.lispniks.com/cl-gardeners/
> Where I work, I think it is more likely that we will add Ruby to the
> toolkit than Lisp, mostly because
> 1) it appears to be easier for average developers to get started in
> Ruby
Any specific problems with the existing Common Lisp learning resources
such as books, tutorials, software, etc.
> 2) the price is right; as a non-profit institution, commercial Lisps
> seem kind of expensive.
Any specific needs that the existing open-source Common Lisp
implementations do not adequately address for your intended uses?
http://www.cl-user.net/asp/tags/implementations
> 3) the general consensus is that the Ruby community is friendlier and
> more likely to offer constructive help.
Work is under way to offer constructive help to new--and current--Lisp
users. Here is the start of a FAQ that is intended to become a
primary, extensive and up to date resource:
Common Lisp FAQ
http://www.lispniks.com/faq/faq.html
And here is a rapidly growing directory of Lisp software and
resources:
The Common Lisp Directory
http://www.cl-user.net
> That makes me sad, since I like Lisp, but I have to admit that I agree
> with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
If you do not want to miss an important occasion for changing the real
or perceived situation of Lisp, here is how you can help:
Gardeners Projects
http://wiki.alu.org/Gardeners_Projects
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
The Common Lisp Directory: http://www.cl-user.net
Pascal Costanza
> I don't just stare at the glass, I try to fill it.
This one made it into my list of memorable quotes. ;)
Thanks,
Majorinc
says...
>
> That makes me sad, since I like Lisp, but I have to admit that I agree
> with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
I think that Lisp has same problems like communism, christianity or
sport; they were built around good idea, but with time it turned that
people around these ideas prefer power over solidarity, salvation over
love, glory over healthy mind in the healthy body.
Thats same with Lisp. Ideas like AI, code=data, everything as 1st order
value and simple, uniform syntax are good ideas. However, it turned up
that Lisp users actually do not want such things; instead, they gone for
more "earthly" features like objects and macros. CLOS did relatively
little harm, it only overcomplicated implementation and sucked up lot of
community energy, but macro's were big miss. They not only absorbed lot
of energy, but they also polluted whole Lisp and compromised the main
code as data idea. The result is that Lisp does not progress any more. C
gone from #include to STL in last 25 years. Lisp? It goes nowhere.
Lisps ideas are good, and they will be integrated in the most popular
languages of the future. But not in the Common Lisp or Common Lisp form
that will be compatible with Common Lisp - or even Scheme.
>
> All roads may lead to Lisp, but maybe not any existing Lisp.
Lisp will not be an and. In my opinion, code=data is the most important
idea of Lisp, and data structure of the code is not necessarily list,
especially not Lisp list. It can be hash table as well; or some even
more general data structure.
Zach Beane
> CLOS did relatively little harm, it only overcomplicated
> implementation and sucked up lot of community energy, but macro's
> were big miss. They not only absorbed lot of energy, but they also
> polluted whole Lisp and compromised the main code as data idea.
Macros are functions that take code (as data) and return code (as
data). How much more code=data can you get?
Zach
Dan Corkill
> gone from #include to STL in last 25 years. Lisp? It goes nowhere.
Please don't feed the trolls. Their uninformed rants do not progress
anymore. They go nowhere.
Pascal Costanza
> In my opinion, code=data is the most important
> idea of Lisp, and data structure of the code is not necessarily list,
> especially not Lisp list. It can be hash table as well; or some even
> more general data structure.
Interesting idea. I'd like to hear about it as soon as you have come up
with something workable.
http://intentsoft.com/ had a similar idea. They have been working on it
since 15 years, if I remember correctly, and haven't come up with a
working product yet. 10 years of that it was worked on at Microsoft
Research, until Microsoft ditched them.
It's one thing to have a nice idea, it's another to build a stable piece
of software based on it. But go ahead, noone is stopping you from
anything...
Majorinc
says...
> Please don't feed the trolls. Their uninformed rants do not progress
> anymore. They go nowhere.
Strange answer. But this one is also wrong.
Adam Connor
<whumeniu+...@telus.net> wrote:
>The compelling counter-argument is not an argument at all. Simply
>develop something in Lisp, completely in Lisp, not a toy, complete
>functionality. This is not hard though one has to do some learning
>along the way. Putting the energy into learning Lisp is well
>worth it. If one finds that learning Lisp (as programming language)
>is hard, then take this a good sign, you are actually learning
>something. Learning is hard, its bloody work, and there is no
>other way to do things. Its part of the human condition that
>people at some point stay away from mental work. The brain
>hardens up (for some very good reasons) and the process of changing
>it can be disconcerting.
I don't see this as an argument. I agree that learning Lisp (or any
new and interesting language) is good for you. But... You can develop
useful software in most languages, even bad ones. When my coworker
develops something useful in PHP, that doesn't make me want to use
PHP.
>Perhaps you can explain what you mean by average programmer??
Really, just the average business applications developer, mostly
building CRUD applications.
--
adamnospamaustin.rr.com
s/nospam/c\./
Adam Connor
<cmack...@clearspot.net> wrote:
>Adam Connor wrote:
>> 1) it appears to be easier for average developers to get started in
>> Ruby
>
>Is initial productivity more important than long term productivity?
>Would it be overly cruel if I suggested that this switch to a new
>language could be used as an opportunity to weed out subpar performers,
>creating room for better new hires and increasing average productivity?
Often, yes, it is more important. Moreover, the reality is that it
won't be used in that way, and if it was, the business knowledge lost
would probably outweigh the improvement in programming talent.
I won't even go into the politics.
>> 2) the price is right; as a non-profit institution, commercial Lisps
>> seem kind of expensive.
>
>You're looking at it wrong. Your unit of production is programmer+tools,
>and the goal is high productivity at low cost. If you're saving 1% of
>the total (per year) with inferior tools but your programmers are 3%
>less productive, what's the bottom line? Not spending money to improve
>labour efficiency only makes sense when the labour is very cheap
>relative to the technology.
I understand your argument, but I think you are neglecting many
real-world factors... to start with, salaries are budgeted differently
than tools, and it is a lot harder to get money for tools.
But even if that were not a factor, your argument requires getting the
decision-makers to believe in your numbers. Bearing in mind that they
aren't Lisp programmers, and that "Ruby on Rails" has a better "silver
bullet" story, I think that is a very hard argument to win.
In any case, the numbers are made up, so we don't even really know
what the tradeoffs are for Lisp versus, say, Ruby.
--
adamnospamaustin.rr.com
s/nospam/c\./
Bruce Stephens
> "Pascal Costanza" <p...@p-cos.net> wrote in message
> news:431uajF...@individual.net...
>> Adam Connor wrote:
>>> 3) the general consensus is that the Ruby community is friendlier and
>>> more likely to offer constructive help.
>>
>> I don't know how friendly the Ruby community is, but my impression is not
>> that the Lisp community is unfriendly.
>
> I think this is destined to be as persistent as the "lisp is slow"
> complaint. True once apon a time but unshaken no matter how outdated a
> complaint it may be...
I suspect it's that the "constructive help" available is very often a
pointer to something someone can download which will just work.
That's easier to do with a single implementation (ignoring versions of
the same implementation---and mostly there's only a couple of common
ones at any time).
Lisp help tends to come with "some self-assembly required" type
instructions, and sometimes the self-assembly can seem enough that it
doesn't seem worth the effort, when someone's already done it for the
one implementation of Python, Perl, Ruby, or whatever.
Adam Connor
wrote:
>Majorinc wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, code=data is the most important
>> idea of Lisp, and data structure of the code is not necessarily list,
>> especially not Lisp list. It can be hash table as well; or some even
>> more general data structure.
>
>Interesting idea. I'd like to hear about it as soon as you have come up
>with something workable.
>
>http://intentsoft.com/ had a similar idea. They have been working on it
>since 15 years, if I remember correctly, and haven't come up with a
>working product yet. 10 years of that it was worked on at Microsoft
>Research, until Microsoft ditched them.
>
>It's one thing to have a nice idea, it's another to build a stable piece
>of software based on it. But go ahead, noone is stopping you from
>anything...
I haven't seen anything even close to Lisp for expressing code=data.
There are other languages that permit metaprogramming, but they lack
Lisp's generality.
--
adamnospamaustin.rr.com
s/nospam/c\./
Kenny Tilton
Correct. Lisp is so great that even trollbait turns into gold, as when
Lispniks respond not with vitriol but with temperate refutations packed
with solid information about Lisp.[1]
I suppose if what you said had any merit it would occasion hostility,
but as it is you are just feeding us fat pitches we love knocking into
the bay.[2]
kenny
[1] I think at least one troll must be a Lisp fan (or vendor)
periodically provoking the NG into marketing activity when it gets a
little quiet around here.
[2] San Francisco's new baseballpark is built on a bay. Long home runs
to right field land in a small bay where waiting kayakers fight for
them. The metaphor use to be "downtown". "Going yard" is also popular
now. With that etymology I cannot help.
k
Geoffrey S. Knauth
> I haven't seen anything even close to Lisp for expressing code=data.
> There are other languages that permit metaprogramming, but they lack
> Lisp's generality.
Smalltalk?
--
Geoffrey S. Knauth | http://knauth.org/gsk
BR
> Lisp programmers have (typically) found their way to Lisp as part of
> their maturing craftsmanship, and (hopefully) are conscious of forming
> part of a community of craftspersons, with a long history of experience
> and excellence in what they do.
>
> Consider the different crowds and etiquette that follow a rock band,
> attend a jazz club, go to a symphony concert, or participate in a
> master class. One should, to be polite, try to conform one's own
> behavior to be acceptable to the group, not expect the group to accept
> whatever behavior you choose to adopt.
Welcome to the LISP guild. :)
Kenny Tilton
> Just a post I saw that I thought was interesting:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sriram/archive/2006/01/15/lisp_is_sin.aspx
Thx for the heads up. Wow, the Lisp mindshare is going throught the
roof. Well, we knew that, the programming community has been in a frenzy
since Python, frantically trying to throw the bit of strong static
typing. They have the attention span of a two year-old now.
There is no such thing as bad publicity. Microsoft (for the third time,
if you have been paying attention) explaining why Lisp sucks. The cow
protests too much, methinks.
>
> Thinking about my response to this essay (and many others I've seen in
> the last year or so), I would put it this way: Lisp has convinced many
> people of its beauty and power, but has convinced few of its
> practicality ...
yeah, what the hell can anyone accomplish with beauty and power?
Did you attend the Robert Maas School of Terminal Depression? No, you
are just addicted to all the attention you get by screaming that the sky
is falling. "My name is Adam, and I have a problem."
Look, we told Dussud (sp?) of Microsoft to take a hike at ILC 2005, now
this. Just keep laughing at them and they will deprecate .Net and roll
out Microsoft Common Lisp. Enjoy the deliberate deviations from the
standard and patents on list processing.
kenny
Adam Connor
> Did you attend the Robert Maas School of Terminal Depression? No, you
> are just addicted to all the attention you get by screaming that the sky
> is falling. "My name is Adam, and I have a problem."
Responses like this go a long way toward explaining the perception that
the Lisp community is not that friendly. I'm not complaining, since
I've read this newsgroup for a while and had some idea of what to
expect.But it takes a thick skin to interact with this community.
I don't think the sky is falling on Lisp; that happened long ago. From
what I can see, things are slowly improving. Apparently those in
comp.lang.lisp are satisfied with the rate of progress (mostly). I
guess that makes sense, since y'all have found ways to work with Lisp
even in its relative unpopularity.
I do think that Lisp faces challenges, and that it is interesting to
look at outsider perceptions. If the Lisp community were a bit more
open-minded it might benefit from those perceptions, but that doesn't
seem to be the prevailing response. Maybe that is also a corollary of
the selection process that weeded down the lisp community to true
believers. (In most "newer" language communities, I see a lot of folks
excited to get involved in an expanding community. Lisp folks seem
resistant to that charm.)
As far as the language itself: I admire the ideas behind Lisp. I do
find some difficulties with libraries. Some of it comes down to Common
Lisp (and its standards) being old. If the standard were more recent,
things like sockets would probably be in it. Some of this comes down to
having multiple lisps, and insufficient standardization for using
libraries. I've been spoiled by Java, where I can almost always just
download the damn jar file, put it in my classpath, and have things
work. Perl and Ruby have good ways of installing packages, too. Ruby
and Perl are single implementation languages. Java isn't, technically,
but in practice it is. The folks in comp.lang.lisp seem happy with the
current situation, but it confuses newbies like me and seems to divide
the Lisp community's energies into supporting different
implementations.
All of these have implications for adopting Lisp in more quotidian
programming shops. The reddit switch to Python suggests that even in
the more rarified air of startups Lisp's library situation has
downsides. I am sure that in some circumstances Lisp's flexibility
makes up for this. The question (for any given shop or independent
practicioner) to consider is whether these cases are common enough to
make Lisp the language of choice. The best way to determine this is to
try Lisp on some "real world" sized project for your shop. For obvious
reasons, it can be hard to commit sufficient resources, so many of us
read books, troll newsgroups, and write very small applications in an
attempt to get a feel for the value proposition.
Sorry if that process is unpleasant for comp.lang.lisp-ers.
Wade Humeniuk
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:55:45 GMT, Wade Humeniuk
> <whumeniu+...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> The compelling counter-argument is not an argument at all. Simply
>> develop something in Lisp, completely in Lisp, not a toy, complete
>> functionality. This is not hard though one has to do some learning
>> along the way. Putting the energy into learning Lisp is well
>> worth it. If one finds that learning Lisp (as programming language)
>> is hard, then take this a good sign, you are actually learning
>> something. Learning is hard, its bloody work, and there is no
>> other way to do things. Its part of the human condition that
>> people at some point stay away from mental work. The brain
>> hardens up (for some very good reasons) and the process of changing
>> it can be disconcerting.
>
> I don't see this as an argument. I agree that learning Lisp (or any
> new and interesting language) is good for you. But... You can develop
> useful software in most languages, even bad ones. When my coworker
> develops something useful in PHP, that doesn't make me want to use
> PHP.
>
Perhaps I can simplify my point:
Just Do It.
Don't be a girlie programmer.
You are over-thinking the problem.
Don't be a victim of PR.
One of man's biggest advantages is their big brain, it's also their
greatest weakness.
The blog entry you posted was just rhetorical crap. Get out of
your defensive position and stop trying to put everyone else there
with you.
Wade
Majorinc
NOktil...@nyc.rr.com says...
> Majorinc wrote:
> > In article <YdednUKp7c6...@comcast.com>, danco...@comcast.net
> > says...
> >
> >
> >>Please don't feed the trolls. Their uninformed rants do not progress
> >>anymore. They go nowhere.
> >
> >
> > Strange answer. But this one is also wrong.
> >
>
> Correct. Lisp is so great that even trollbait turns into gold, as when
> Lispniks respond not with vitriol but with temperate refutations packed
> with solid information about Lisp.[1]
>
> I suppose if what you said had any merit it would occasion hostility,
> but as it is you are just feeding us fat pitches we love knocking into
> the bay.[2]
What an asshole!
Majorinc
u...@nospam.com says...
> I haven't seen anything even close to Lisp for expressing code=data.
> There are other languages that permit metaprogramming, but they lack
> Lisp's generality.
Some time ago, typical BASIC interpreter had ability to update
code it interpretes during runtime. With such BASIC
interpreter, code=data structure (roughly hash-table of
strings) is comparable to Lisp code=data structure (list or
tree or DAG), and it arguably even more expressive due to line
numbers, "goto x" and "renumber" statements, for example.
Lisps main advantage is its manipulation-friendly syntax.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> What an asshole!
You repeat yourself...
--
The problems of the real world are primarily those you are left with
when you refuse to apply their effective solutions.
Edsger W. Dijkstra
Marco Antoniotti
> In article <d0fns1dfvasaoquje...@4ax.com>, u...@nospam.com
> says...
>
> >
> > That makes me sad, since I like Lisp, but I have to admit that I agree
> > with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
>
>
> Thats same with Lisp. Ideas like AI, code=data, everything as 1st order
> value and simple, uniform syntax are good ideas. However, it turned up
> that Lisp users actually do not want such things; instead, they gone for
> more "earthly" features like objects and macros. CLOS did relatively
> little harm, it only overcomplicated implementation and sucked up lot of
> community energy, but macro's were big miss. They not only absorbed lot
> of energy, but they also polluted whole Lisp and compromised the main
> code as data idea. The result is that Lisp does not progress any more. C
> gone from #include to STL in last 25 years. Lisp? It goes nowhere.
C++ had to go from #include to STL because 25 years ago "Greenspun's
Tenth Rule of Programming" was already (and still is) true :)
>
> Lisps ideas are good, and they will be integrated in the most popular
> languages of the future. But not in the Common Lisp or Common Lisp form
> that will be compatible with Common Lisp - or even Scheme.
Yes. Meanwhile all these other languages are sucking up and wasting
far greater resources in order to satisfy the Fundamental Theorem on
Programming Languages (expressed, of course, in quasi-LaTeX)
\lim_{t \rightarrow \mathrm{today} + \epsilon} PL(t)
= \mathsf{ANSI-CL}(1994) + \mathrm{type-inference}
where $t$ is time, $\epsilon$ is a positive constant and $PL(t)$ is any
programming language of your choice :)
Cheers
--
Marco
Majorinc
says...
> Majorinc wrote:
> > What an asshole!
>
> You repeat yourself...
Nonsense.
Tayssir John Gabbour
That syntax is only the most hyped aspect. Take things like dynamic
scope, nothing to do with syntax and macros.
So dynamic scope and macros help you implement the Condition System.
Or take the ability to modify a function name's binding at runtime.
That and macros can give you simple memoization.
And so forth; the list goes on.
Now, if we admit the things which can conceivably be built by warping a
basic Lisp syntax, but have little to do with syntax themselves, we can
go further. Like CLOS. Loop.
Ok, add dynamic scope to CLOS. That helps build context-oriented
programming.
So we have things which multiply off each other. Not just addition.
Tayssir
jayessay
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
> > Did you attend the Robert Maas School of Terminal Depression? No, you
> > are just addicted to all the attention you get by screaming that the sky
> > is falling. "My name is Adam, and I have a problem."
>
> Responses like this go a long way toward explaining the perception that
> the Lisp community is not that friendly .
^
to trolls.
You forgot that bit.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
Paolo Amoroso
> what I can see, things are slowly improving. Apparently those in
> comp.lang.lisp are satisfied with the rate of progress (mostly). I
The existence of this project:
CL Gardeners - Tending the Common Lisp garden
http://www.lispniks.com/cl-gardeners/
is a hint that a significant number of active Lispers are working to
increase the rate of progress.
> I do think that Lisp faces challenges, and that it is interesting to
> look at outsider perceptions. If the Lisp community were a bit more
> open-minded it might benefit from those perceptions, but that doesn't
> seem to be the prevailing response. Maybe that is also a corollary of
Outsider perceptions and feedback are useful. But the problem is that
we now have plenty--truckloads--of that. What we miss is someone who,
based on those perceptions and feedback, actually does something--anything.
Coby Beck
news:MPG.1e3626dce...@news.carnet.hr...
> In article <d0fns1dfvasaoquje...@4ax.com>, u...@nospam.com
> says...
>> That makes me sad, since I like Lisp, but I have to admit that I agree
>> with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
>
> I think that Lisp has same problems like communism, christianity or
> sport; they were built around good idea, but with time it turned that
> people around these ideas prefer power over solidarity, salvation over
> love, glory over healthy mind in the healthy body.
sigh. Doesn't Tim Bradshaw send out his Black Helicopters anymore....?
> macro's were big miss
...
> code=data is the most important idea of Lisp
I find it hard to reconcile these two statements. Oh, well.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Richard J. Fateman
solving freshman calculus problems,
a Symbolic Integrator he called SIN. (c. 1967)
(It was an improvement, in some sense, of James
Slagle's approach to the same problem, a program
called Symbolic Automatic Integrator, or SAINT.)
SIN (and most of SAINT) were written in Lisp.
JM was particularly keen to have his presentations
titled "Moses speaks on Sin".
The SIN code was incorporated in the Macsyma project, and
can be seen in the open-source Maxima program on sourceforge.
It was modified in many ways to fit into the Macsyma
context. A mostly unmodified version was available for
many years in another project, Scratchpad, running on IBM 360
Lisp, at IBM Research. Scratchpad was said to contain
the "Original SIN".
Scratchpad evolved to Axiom, now also open-source.
RJF
Majorinc
cb...@mercury.bc.ca says...
> <Majorinc>; "Kazimir" <fa...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e3626dce...@news.carnet.hr...
> > In article <d0fns1dfvasaoquje...@4ax.com>, u...@nospam.com
> > says...
> >> That makes me sad, since I like Lisp, but I have to admit that I agree
> >> with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
> >
> > I think that Lisp has same problems like communism, christianity or
> > sport; they were built around good idea, but with time it turned that
> > people around these ideas prefer power over solidarity, salvation over
> > love, glory over healthy mind in the healthy body.
>
> sigh. Doesn't Tim Bradshaw send out his Black Helicopters anymore....?
Another asshole. Oh well ...
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Another asshole. Oh well ...
In case you haven't noticed. ALL of us on c.l.lisp are utterly evil and
rotten to the core. We hate all newbies, especially you, and we try to
be the worst assholes we can be to have some elitist peace.
Just so you are prepared and don't encounter any nasty surprises the
next months...
Sam Steingold
>
> I think that Lisp has same problems like communism, christianity or
> sport; they were built around good idea, but with time it turned that
> people around these ideas prefer power over solidarity, salvation over
> love, glory over healthy mind in the healthy body.
I think you know _nothing_ about communism.
I suggest that you start with http://www.podval.org/~sds/commies.html
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://www.camera.org http://www.iris.org.il http://www.palestinefacts.org
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org http://www.jihadwatch.org http://ffii.org
Professionalism is being dispassionate about your work.
Duane Rettig
I know a game just like the one you're playing. My grandson and
granddaughter play it together, almost any chance they get; whenever
they are either in a car or on the street, and they see a newer
style Volkswagon go by, they shout "Slug Bug!" as fast as possible -
the first one to recognize this Bug-that-looks-like-a-slug wins
that round and adds to points accumulated.
So now, you're doing very well at your own recognition game - it seems
you are winning with no effort at all. But wait - perhaps the game
is rigged, and you are winning because everybody is mooning you?
Yes, I have one as well...
--
Duane Rettig du...@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Majorinc
> I think you know _nothing_ about communism.
I've spent first 30 years in one communist country so I know
some things even from personal experience. And of course, I've
read some texts on that subjects.
> I suggest that you start with http://www.podval.org~sds/commies.html
Thank you. I could agree with some parts of your text, however
my impression is that overall, your view is not ballanced.
Majorinc
> I know a game just like the one you're playing. My grandson and
> granddaughter play it together, almost any chance they get; whenever
> they are either in a car or on the street, and they see a newer
> style Volkswagon go by, they shout "Slug Bug!" as fast as possible -
> the first one to recognize this Bug-that-looks-like-a-slug wins
> that round and adds to points accumulated.
Nice game.
>
> So now, you're doing very well at your own recognition game - it seems
> you are winning with no effort at all. But wait - perhaps the game
> is rigged, and you are winning because everybody is mooning you?
>
> Yes, I have one as well...
:) I actually know exactly what happens here - it is much more
complicated than it looks like, but it would be way too long
and off topic for this newsgroup.
David Trudgett
>> * Majorinc, Kazimir <sn...@rznvy.pbz> [2006-01-16 21:56:19 +0100]:
>>
>> I think that Lisp has same problems like communism, christianity or
>> sport; they were built around good idea, but with time it turned that
>> people around these ideas prefer power over solidarity, salvation over
>> love, glory over healthy mind in the healthy body.
>
> I think you know _nothing_ about communism.
> I suggest that you start with http://www.podval.org/~sds/commies.html
Or perhaps it is you does not understand that there are people who
define 'communism' differently from the authoritarian and violent
agenda promulgated by Marx, Lenin, Stalin et al. According to your
view there could be no such thing as anarchistic communism, but there
is, which shows that your view is not entirely complete or balanced as
to what 'communism' is exactly.
If you define 'communism' as 'authoritarian communism', as brought to
you by the great "communists" of the past, then it is indeed an
abomination. Social structures built upon authoritarian principles,
coercion and oppression (such as our society, by the way) are
illegitimate. The only legitimate communism is free, anarchistic
communism in which people participate free of any coercion.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and
injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and
brutality."
-- The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269
Fred Gilham
"Adam Connor" <ada...@gmail.com> writes:
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
> > Did you attend the Robert Maas School of Terminal Depression? No, you
> > are just addicted to all the attention you get by screaming that the sky
> > is falling. "My name is Adam, and I have a problem."
>
> Responses like this go a long way toward explaining the perception that
> the Lisp community is not that friendly. I'm not complaining, since
> I've read this newsgroup for a while and had some idea of what to
> expect.But it takes a thick skin to interact with this community.
Sorry, but this is not the problem. The problem is that a certain
number of people who post here, especially new people, are just
stupid.
By "stupid" I mean "so wedded to their own ideas that they can't learn
anything new."
If you are going to learn Lisp, you have to be willing to let go of
your own ideas for a while. Lisp is different enough from what most
programmers already know that it will go strongly against the grain
for a while. Most of the ways Lisp goes against the grain are
heartily embraced by experienced Lisp programmers. It is simply
annoying to have stupid [see above] people come and tell you that you
don't know what you're doing.
Perhaps we should have some kind of warning that we post periodically,
something like:
WARNING
Lisp is different from what you know. Do not attempt to critique it
until you have done something substantial in the language, perhaps
written at least one substantial program. Even then, you should not
attempt fundamental critiques unless you are a language guru or have
several years of experience with Lisp.
Again, lisp is fundamentally different from what you are used to.
Unless you are willing to deal with this, even embrace it, you will be
seen as a whining ignoramus when you complain about it.
Do not attempt to critique the syntax of Lisp. While it is different
from what you are used to (see above) it makes sense as it stands and
Lisp programmers like it. If you don't like it, the problem is with
you, not Lisp. There are plenty of other languages out there with
syntax you are used to that you are free to use. Critiquing Lisp for
its syntax is like critiquing a small plane for having wings too long
to fit into your garage.
If something about Lisp doesn't make sense to you, assume it's because
you don't understand something, not because the language is hosed.
The language does have its warts, but most Lisp programmers like it a
lot, and the thing you are complaining about is quite likely to be one
of the things Lisp programmers like.
Do not think that Lisp enthusiasts care whether you use Lisp. Chances
are very great that any contribution you can make to the Lisp
community will be insignificant unless you are willing to dive in and
start writing significant code. Most people who complain about Lisp
will not do that.
If you think that Lisp would be great except that it is missing a few
libraries, go ahead and write them, or improve something that's
already out there. There is a lot of stuff, old and new, out there;
go look for it. People who write libraries for Lisp or who do other
significant Lisp-related projects quickly graduate into the ranks of
those who are taken seriously in comp.lang.lisp. Do not demand that
someone else to do your work for you for free. However, polite
requests for pointers to code and other information will most likely
be answered in a positive way.
The reason most people read comp.lang.lisp is that they like Lisp a
lot. If you post in this newsgroup, keep that in mind and follow
USENET etiquette, and you will do fine.
--
Fred Gilham gil...@csl.sri.com
I can see you're going to do just *fine* here in comp.lang.lisp. I'm
rather looking forward to the ritual disembowelling, in particular,
although the bit where we chop your arms and legs off and feed them to
crocodiles is also good. --- Tim Bradshaw
Greg Menke
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> <Majorinc>; "Kazimir" <fa...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e3626dce...@news.carnet.hr...
> > In article <d0fns1dfvasaoquje...@4ax.com>, u...@nospam.com
> > says...
> >> That makes me sad, since I like Lisp, but I have to admit that I agree
> >> with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
> >
> > I think that Lisp has same problems like communism, christianity or
> > sport; they were built around good idea, but with time it turned that
> > people around these ideas prefer power over solidarity, salvation over
> > love, glory over healthy mind in the healthy body.
>
> sigh. Doesn't Tim Bradshaw send out his Black Helicopters anymore....?
>
Didn't you get the memo? They're tied up dealing with XML at the moment
and no end in sight... Which is probably more important than dealing
with wanking about Lisp syntax for the 10 millionth time.
;)
Greg
Bruce Hoult
David Trudgett <wpo...@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> wrote:
> Or perhaps it is you does not understand that there are people who
> define 'communism' differently from the authoritarian and violent
> agenda promulgated by Marx, Lenin, Stalin et al.
I'm not sure that Marx and Lenin *intended* authoritarian and violent
results, although those were the natural consequences of their
philosophy.
> According to your view there could be no such thing as anarchistic
> communism, but there is, which shows that your view is not entirely
> complete or balanced as to what 'communism' is exactly.
There is? In theory or in practise?
> If you define 'communism' as 'authoritarian communism', as brought to
> you by the great "communists" of the past, then it is indeed an
> abomination. Social structures built upon authoritarian principles,
> coercion and oppression (such as our society, by the way) are
> illegitimate.
I'm with you there.
> The only legitimate communism is free, anarchistic
> communism in which people participate free of any coercion.
Does this exist anywhere in any group larger than a hippie commune?
All those I've seen (and there were three within about 10 km radius of
the farm I grew up on in the 60's and 70's and several of my teachers
and some of my school friends lived in them) had one strong and
charismatic leader. I don't think that scales becuase eventualyl the
leader needs several layers of deputies and soon enough the deputies
become thugs.
--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
Kenny Tilton
What a mouth! There's a connection, you know. Now get your fat ass into
my killfile, you toad.
kenny
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| "Adam Connor" <ada...@gmail.com> writes:
| > But it takes a thick skin to interact with this community.
|
| Sorry, but this is not the problem. The problem is that a certain
| number of people who post here, especially new people, are just stupid.
| By "stupid" I mean "so wedded to their own ideas that they can't learn
| anything new."
I think the term you're looking for is "willfully ignorant" or
perhaps "stubbornly ignorant". They're actually too fundamentally
intelligent to be truly stupid, but the intelligence is being
perverted in the service of an active ignorance that seeks
reinforcement of its own preconceptions, rather than being
open to the subtle panic that inevitably arises when learning
something truly new & different.
When this attachment to the already-"known" is exposed, of course,
the most commmon response is to attack the exposer, as we often
see here...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Tayssir John Gabbour
> In article <m34q42z...@rr.trudgett>,
> David Trudgett <wpo...@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> wrote:
>
> > The only legitimate communism is free, anarchistic
> > communism in which people participate free of any coercion.
>
> Does this exist anywhere in any group larger than a hippie commune?
NOTE: I only intend this for purposes of information. Evaluate with
appropriate skepticism.
There are corporations (which are internally command economies anyway)
where people try to achieve democratic ideals while operating in some
kind of market. Semco is one example, explicitly influenced by Bakunin,
where the CEO is regularly invited to give talks at Harvard Business
School... South America is starting to have a lot of examples. You
might watch Argentina and Venezuela.
For a system worked out in surprising detail, there's Parecon. The gist
is of a decentralized, democratic economy, avoiding both the
monopolization of decisionmaking (problems of Marxist/Leninist
countries) and of scarce productive resources (contemporary societies).
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm
Contrary to the TINA philosophy (There is No Alternative to two kinds
of economies), they enumerate about 36, which they distill into 4 broad
types.
> All those I've seen (and there were three within about 10 km radius of
> the farm I grew up on in the 60's and 70's and several of my teachers
> and some of my school friends lived in them) had one strong and
> charismatic leader. I don't think that scales becuase eventualyl the
> leader needs several layers of deputies and soon enough the deputies
> become thugs.
To be fair, the same is true for my own country's republic. We have
"leaders" selected not by issues but by "personal qualities," like does
the one guy sound like someone you'd have a beer with, or is the other
guy too snobbish. We have specially-crafted town meetings where the
leader explains the importance of following him, and of accepting his
deputies' actions. Some say the leaders' elections are run by the same
people who sell toothpaste on TV.
Last night, I was listening to a serious libertarian, a real
right-winger in charge of the Mises Institute, reaching out to the left
wing because in modern days the left is sounder than the right. (Lew
Rockwell.)
http://shout.lbo-talk.org/lbo/RadioArchive/2005/05_01_13.mp3
Tayssir
Eli Gottlieb
> Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
>>In article <m34q42z...@rr.trudgett>,
>> David Trudgett <wpo...@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The only legitimate communism is free, anarchistic
>>>communism in which people participate free of any coercion.
>>
>>Does this exist anywhere in any group larger than a hippie commune?
>
>
> NOTE: I only intend this for purposes of information. Evaluate with
> appropriate skepticism.
>
> There are corporations (which are internally command economies anyway)
> where people try to achieve democratic ideals while operating in some
> kind of market. Semco is one example, explicitly influenced by Bakunin,
> where the CEO is regularly invited to give talks at Harvard Business
> School... South America is starting to have a lot of examples. You
> might watch Argentina and Venezuela.
>
I think we call those cooperatives.
That's the web address for a rather large and successful bunch of them.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> I think we call those cooperatives.
>
> http://www.mondragon.mcc.es/
>
> That's the web address for a rather large and successful bunch of them.
I don't see what cooperatives have to do with fighting capitalism or
establishing socialism. Cooperatives are a great tool available in any
free system, and the less regulations there are, the easier it's for
them to (co)operate.
Cooperation is both a human need, and it's what helps us to be stronger,
even against other powerful entities.
At least Germany has an explicit company form called Genossenschaft
(like "comradeship"), which is like a share-owned company, but all
members, regardless of how much capital they provide to the cooperative,
have the same voting rights (but they earn profit according to their
capital share, IIRC).
Many farmers are organized in these cooperatives AFAIK, and also some banks.
Eli Gottlieb
> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>
>> I think we call those cooperatives.
>>
>> http://www.mondragon.mcc.es/
>>
>> That's the web address for a rather large and successful bunch of them.
>
>
> I don't see what cooperatives have to do with fighting capitalism or
> establishing socialism. Cooperatives are a great tool available in any
> free system, and the less regulations there are, the easier it's for
> them to (co)operate.
>
> Cooperation is both a human need, and it's what helps us to be stronger,
> even against other powerful entities.
>
> At least Germany has an explicit company form called Genossenschaft
> (like "comradeship"), which is like a share-owned company, but all
> members, regardless of how much capital they provide to the cooperative,
> have the same voting rights (but they earn profit according to their
> capital share, IIRC).
>
> Many farmers are organized in these cooperatives AFAIK, and also some
> banks.
>
of voting rights and profit sharing. They have nothing to do with
Communism or socialism because they are one of the few known and viable
Third Ways.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> That German form is what is now called a cooperative, the explicit form
> of voting rights and profit sharing. They have nothing to do with
> Communism or socialism because they are one of the few known and viable
> Third Ways.
It's not a third way. In a capitalist (i.e. mostly unregulated) world
it's merely one form for people to cooperate, there being many many
others. People can cooperate informally, by pooling capital into a
shareholders' company, or into a cooperative. All of these are just
options. The system is capitalism.
Restricted capitalism, like in Germany, still has these explicit forms
of cooperation (call them black and white), while others (the gray ones)
aren't really possible because of our rules (for instance, if I'd like
to pay someone for some sort of cooperation (say, because the other
person does more work on it than me), I legally can't, because I would
have to obey all kinds of regulations and pay taxes in addition to our
deal; of course most people still do it, which is good for both sides,
but it doesn't give the government money).
Eli Gottlieb
> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>
>> That German form is what is now called a cooperative, the explicit
>> form of voting rights and profit sharing. They have nothing to do
>> with Communism or socialism because they are one of the few known and
>> viable Third Ways.
>
>
> It's not a third way. In a capitalist (i.e. mostly unregulated) world
> it's merely one form for people to cooperate, there being many many
> others. People can cooperate informally, by pooling capital into a
> shareholders' company, or into a cooperative. All of these are just
> options. The system is capitalism.
>
> Restricted capitalism, like in Germany, still has these explicit forms
> of cooperation (call them black and white), while others (the gray ones)
> aren't really possible because of our rules (for instance, if I'd like
> to pay someone for some sort of cooperation (say, because the other
> person does more work on it than me), I legally can't, because I would
> have to obey all kinds of regulations and pay taxes in addition to our
> deal; of course most people still do it, which is good for both sides,
> but it doesn't give the government money).
>
abolishing the old distinction between labor and capital) are different
from the emergent properties of Pure Capitalist markets, especially when
you start forming cooperatives of cooperatives and things like that.
PCL
news:Ojwzf.120560$XC4....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> The emergent properties of cooperatives (especially worker cooperatives,
> abolishing the old distinction between labor and capital) are different
> from the emergent properties of Pure Capitalist markets, especially when
> you start forming cooperatives of cooperatives and things like that.
On the lighter side and in the best spirit of the metaobject protocol, these
"cooperatives of cooperatives" could then be legitimately characterized as
"meta-cooperatives", which Lisp (to remind everyone what this newsgroup is
supposed to be all about) can simulate very well, as the premier paradigm of
abstraction. Of course, because in reality there IS a big difference between
labor and capital (otherwise every hawker would be a millionaire after a few
years) the financial failure of instances of this meta-class probably give
an altogether new extension to the semantics of the term .... "closure".
Chill out guys, this is a Common Lisp newsgroup. Get a life!
Panos C. Lekkas
Eli Gottlieb
think that's their name) in NYC) tend to succeed financially and pay
nice wages to their worker-owners.
Eli Gottlieb
BR
> NOTE: I only intend this for purposes of information. Evaluate with
> appropriate skepticism.
A strong and educated public goes a long way towards making a good
socioeconomic system work. If the people are weak, then how can anything
lasting be built on top?
Eli Gottlieb
A truly strong and educated public needs nothing built on top, they
build for themselves. However, most people tend to incorrectly define
"strong and educated".
David Trudgett
Hi Bruce!
Bruce Hoult <br...@hoult.org> writes:
> In article <m34q42z...@rr.trudgett>,
> David Trudgett <wpo...@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> wrote:
>
>> Or perhaps it is you does not understand that there are people who
>> define 'communism' differently from the authoritarian and violent
>> agenda promulgated by Marx, Lenin, Stalin et al.
>
> I'm not sure that Marx and Lenin *intended* authoritarian and violent
> results, although those were the natural consequences of their
> philosophy.
I believe you are correct in one sense; and that sense is that Marx (I
don't know about Lenin, who of course, unlike Marx, was a
revolutionary[*]) most likely did not intend violence as a necessary
outcome or ingredient of his philosophy. I assume that, like a
majority of people, he would have preferred a world without
violence.
[*] In the sense of actively taking part in a revolution.
On the other hand, I am loathe to insult a man who has no come back
that he did not have the intelligence to know what the consequences of
trying to implement his ideas in practice would entail. I see no
reason to believe that Marx was a pacifist or philosophically or
pragmatically opposed to violence; therefore, I can only assume that
he was not in principle opposed to the use of violence in implementing
his revolutionary ideas. On the contrary, he seems to have been of the
belief that, at a minimum, an organised and violent revolution would
be necessary on account of his other belief that the ruling class
would not give up their position of privilege voluntarily.
>
>
>> According to your view there could be no such thing as anarchistic
>> communism, but there is, which shows that your view is not entirely
>> complete or balanced as to what 'communism' is exactly.
>
> There is? In theory or in practise?
Christianity, some say, is a theory that has never been put into
practice. Of course, that is not entirely true, as many individuals
and communities throughout the ages have come a lot closer to the
Christian ideal than, say, present day mainstream Churches of all
flavours. Which is to say that, when looking at the present
disgraceful state of Churches, Christianity is no more than a distant
theory to be discussed in the abstract by theologians. Yet
Christianity exists.
Communism can be regarded in a similar light. State communism, making
necessary use, as it does, of violence, is abhorrent and far from any
true spirit of brotherhood. Yet voluntary and free communism can exist
in small and large communities if they are simply left alone. So, yes,
free communism does exist despite communist states, in the same sense
that Christianity exists despite Christian Churches.
As an aside, although I personally lean towards some of the best
ideals of communism, I am not an ideologue, I don't agree with much of
Marxist analysis, and I believe that any free association and
organisation of people without hierarchical power structures is
legitimate. Hunter gatherer societies, for example, though hardly
communist, were also a good idea at the time and, at least in the case
of Australian Aborigines, largely free of "power" hierarchy long
before the word 'anarchism' was ever thought of.
>
>
>> If you define 'communism' as 'authoritarian communism', as brought to
>> you by the great "communists" of the past, then it is indeed an
>> abomination. Social structures built upon authoritarian principles,
>> coercion and oppression (such as our society, by the way) are
>> illegitimate.
>
> I'm with you there.
As are an increasing number, I believe.
>
>
>> The only legitimate communism is free, anarchistic
>> communism in which people participate free of any coercion.
>
> Does this exist anywhere in any group larger than a hippie commune?
Does it have to, though? Certainly, 'communism' and 'state power' do
not go hand in hand. So there will never be a communist state, same as
there will never be a Christian Church based on a power hierarchy.
>
> All those I've seen (and there were three within about 10 km radius of
> the farm I grew up on in the 60's and 70's and several of my teachers
> and some of my school friends lived in them) had one strong and
> charismatic leader. I don't think that scales becuase eventualyl the
> leader needs several layers of deputies and soon enough the deputies
> become thugs.
There will always be individuals with leadership charisma. That, at
least, appears to be a genuine human trait, as does the propensity of
individuals to give weight to the desires of a leader figure. Christ
himself was a leader by all appearances, yet his deputies did not
become thugs, I think... at least not straight away... :-)
Thuggery and the abuse of one's influence over others will be problems
that will never entirely go away, I think. Unless we become radically
different from the way we are now.
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Problems cannot be solved
at the same level of awareness
that created them.
-- Albert Einstein
drewc
>> There are corporations (which are internally command economies
>> anyway)
>> where people try to achieve democratic ideals while operating in some
>> kind of market. Semco is one example, explicitly influenced by Bakunin,
>> where the CEO is regularly invited to give talks at Harvard Business
>> School... South America is starting to have a lot of examples. You
>> might watch Argentina and Venezuela.
>>
>
> I think we call those cooperatives.
>
> http://www.mondragon.mcc.es/
>
> That's the web address for a rather large and successful bunch of them.
And a little closer to being on-topic, Check out http://tech.coop ,
which may not be paticularly large, but is a democratically run
business which provides Technical Services (including common lisp
programming) to its member/owners.
The Tech Co-op one of many emerging 'Services Co-operatives', which is
a mix between a Consumer and a Workers co-op. In our case, the
explicit goal of the co-op is simply to provide our members with the
best possible technical services. Obviously, to provide these services
it helps to have happy, well fed workers. And to achieve that, we need
happy, well serviced consumers. Co-operation :)
Our members trust us, because they own us. All our finacials are open
book, and like all co-operatives our board is elected by the members
(one member, one vote).
To me, being a part of a co-operative allows a nice mix of doing well,
and doing right. And i get to code in common lisp ... doesn't get much
better than that!
(sorry for the plug)
--
drewc at tech dot coop
Eli Gottlieb
Nathan Baum
> Just a post I saw that I thought was interesting:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/sriram/archive/2006/01/15/lisp_is_sin.aspx
Something I noted is that he praises Scheme for having a large library
in the form of the SRFIs, but at the same time praises Scheme for having
such a short specification.
The R5RS and SRFIs combined are, uncompressed, about half the size of
the Common Lisp HyperSpec. Considering that much of the pages of the
HyperSpec contain duplicated matter that wouldn't be present in the
printed version, I compressed them to remove as much of the duplicated
material as possible.
After compression, the HyperSpec is only 11% larger than the 'full'
specification for Scheme. So it isn't at all clear to me that Scheme's
reputation as a 'small' language is entirely justified, if Common Lisp
is to be considered a hulking monstrosity.
> 1) it appears to be easier for average developers to get started in
> Ruby
I'd agree that it's probably easier for an 'average developer' (by
which, I assume, you mean an 'average C++/Java developer') to get
started in Ruby.
But is that relevant?
If your non-profit institution is in the business (so to speak) of
taking in average C++/Java developers and turning them into either
skilled Lisp developers or skilled Ruby developers, then it would make
sense to opt for Ruby.
Contrariwise, if your non-profit institution is in the business of
making and/or using software, then it would make sense to opt for Lisp.
Why? Because skilled Lisp developers are more productive than skilled
Ruby developers.
Yes, this is a broad generalisation. As broad as yours? I would say no.
> 2) the price is right; as a non-profit institution, commercial Lisps
> seem kind of expensive.
This is patent nonsense.
Unless you are compelled to pay for your software when it could be
obtained for free -- which would be a curious policy indeed for a
non-profit institution -- you can simply use a free Lisp.
This is like complaining that Evian is expensive when you have a well in
your back garden.
I have heard that non-free Lisps do a much better job of optimisation
than free Lisps, I have neither the funds nor the inclination to test
the claim, so I'll just assume it's true. But that doesn't matter for
several reasons.
1. I know from experience that free lisps are 'fast enough' for all but
the most special of cases.
2. I consider it unlikely that you wouldn't be able to afford a non-free
Lisp if you really _need_ the performance boost it offers. If the task
is mission-critical, I can't imagine people wouldn't be willing to pay.
3. I consider it unlikely that you'd be considering Ruby as an
alternative if performance was an issue.
Non-free Lisps likely have better guaranteed support (in that they have
it at all) and probably have better documentation. Of course support
isn't _that_ much of a problem unless you are of the opinion that the
Common Lisp community is unfriendly and unlikely to offer constructive help.
> 3) the general consensus is that the Ruby community is friendlier and
> more likely to offer constructive help.
The general consensus amongst whom? I don't know the Ruby community, so
I can't comment on them, but I don't find that the Common Lisp community
is unfriendly and unlikely to offer constructive help.
Certainly the more.. prominent.. members of the Common Lisp community
are quite vocal about people who want Common Lisp to be a different
language. This is pretty much inevitable because Common Lisp, almost
unlike any other language, can be a different language for you if you
want it to be.
People who know that tend to get annoyed at people who don't. Those who
are used to static languages like C or Java often can't quite grasp that
what, to them, seems like a huge fundamental change in the nature of the
language (like wanting new special syntax for array member access) is
quite mundane and commonplace in Common Lisp, and doesn't require that
the specification be changed.
Apart from berating people who don't yet grok the tao of Lisp, I can't
say I've noticed the community being particularly hostile. Certainly no
more hostile than any other group of language advocates.
> That makes me sad, since I like Lisp, but I have to admit that I agree
> with all three points. Am I missing some compelling counter-argument?
I think you are. Of course, your mileage may vary. If my poorly thought
out counter-arguments don't give you pause, then perhaps they simply
don't apply to you, and Ruby would be the correct choice.
> All roads may lead to Lisp, but maybe not any existing Lisp.
> --
> adamnospamaustin.rr.com
> s/nospam/c\./
Ulrich Hobelmann
> On the contrary, he seems to have been of the
> belief that, at a minimum, an organised and violent revolution would
> be necessary on account of his other belief that the ruling class
> would not give up their position of privilege voluntarily.
Basically saying that the solution to the poor wages paid by factory
owners wasn't for the workers to build their own factory, but to simply
steal one. The question is: what did they do before the factory came to
life? Hand-knit carpets? If so, why didn't they continue to do so?
A simple fact, both in capitalism and in socialism is that you are free
to produce whatever you produced in the way you produced it, but there
is no guarantee that anyone will buy it. Cooperatives are cool, but
they too have to adapt to the market pressure if they want to be
competitive. Unless some central government allocates some money for
them anyway.
> Christianity, some say, is a theory that has never been put into
> practice. Of course, that is not entirely true, as many individuals
> and communities throughout the ages have come a lot closer to the
> Christian ideal than, say, present day mainstream Churches of all
> flavours. Which is to say that, when looking at the present
> disgraceful state of Churches, Christianity is no more than a distant
> theory to be discussed in the abstract by theologians. Yet
> Christianity exists.
I haven't heard of any Christian, except maybe Mother Theresa. Jesus
said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that. At least
all of Christian USAians don't give up their job etc. Nonetheless, even
though I'm basically against Christianity-as-religion (and all other
Theist the-sole-god-that's-the-only-way-to-heaven religions), Jesus was
a *very* cool guy (more in a cultural and political way) and IMHO a good
person to inspire us. Just leave out the Antisemites like Saul/Paul or
Luther to keep it clean :)
> Communism can be regarded in a similar light. State communism, making
> necessary use, as it does, of violence, is abhorrent and far from any
> true spirit of brotherhood. Yet voluntary and free communism can exist
> in small and large communities if they are simply left alone. So, yes,
> free communism does exist despite communist states, in the same sense
> that Christianity exists despite Christian Churches.
But these communities can perfectly exist within capitalism. Again: I
don't see where anarchism has to be socialist, except that people are
free to choose so (and I like the idea).
In communist states, however, there's enough coercion that maybe a free
anarchist community couldn't exist, unless it operated like a black
market in the underground.
> As an aside, although I personally lean towards some of the best
> ideals of communism, I am not an ideologue, I don't agree with much of
> Marxist analysis, and I believe that any free association and
> organisation of people without hierarchical power structures is
> legitimate. Hunter gatherer societies, for example, though hardly
> communist, were also a good idea at the time and, at least in the case
> of Australian Aborigines, largely free of "power" hierarchy long
> before the word 'anarchism' was ever thought of.
Agreed.
Tiarnán Ó Corráin
> I can only assume that he was not in principle opposed to the use of
> violence in implementing his revolutionary ideas. On the contrary,
> he seems to have been of the belief that, at a minimum, an organised
> and violent revolution would be necessary on account of his other
> belief that the ruling class would not give up their position of
> privilege voluntarily.
You are mistaken. Marx was not a revolutionary, and saw no reason to
implement his revolutionary ideas. What the Russians misunderstood was
that Marx was a Hegelian teleologist. The central point of dialectical
materialism is that the revolution would come about as an inevitable
stage in the historical process. Speeding it up, a la Lenin, could not
work. As it turned out, Lenin's revolution ended in (irony of
ironies), Stalinist state capitalism.
Of course, a double irony is that the technological lead of the United
States was achieved by a command economy. The ideological
animadversions of 'libertarians' aside, it can be noted that most
technology has its roots in state-funded military-industrial research,
freed from the profit motive.
When you submit technology to the profit motive, you get Microsoft.
--
Tiarnán
David Trudgett
Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> writes:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> On the contrary, he seems to have been of the
>> belief that, at a minimum, an organised and violent revolution would
>> be necessary on account of his other belief that the ruling class
>> would not give up their position of privilege voluntarily.
>
> Basically saying that the solution to the poor wages paid by factory
> owners wasn't for the workers to build their own factory, but to
> simply steal one.
Although the owners of capital came to be so through a process of
theft and illegitimate appropriation, violence is never a legitimate
solution. That's what Marx et al. got wrong, and it's what those who
believe in the power of the state get wrong.
No one in Australia, for example, owns the land upon which sit their
factories or houses, even though they may have a "legal title" to
it. Forgetting for a moment the legal reality that title does not
confer ownership because the state arrogates to itself and itself
alone ultimate ownership, the truth still remains that the land is not
legitimately owned, because it was stolen by force from the original
Aboriginal owners when Europeans invaded this continent. Other
countries, such as the U.S., have similar histories in this
regard. The British people committed a crime of aggression against the
Aborigines who lived here, and such a crime does not confer valid
ownership or title.
> The question is: what did they do before the factory came to life?
> Hand-knit carpets? If so, why didn't they continue to do so?
Instead of asking rhetorical questions, you should rather spend your
time finding out the answer.
>
> A simple fact, both in capitalism and in socialism is that you are
> free to produce whatever you produced in the way you produced it, but
> there is no guarantee that anyone will buy it.
As you know, communism is a specific form of socialism, and therefore
nominally covered by your general remark. Did you also know that
communism means a moneyless society? So where does "buying" come into
the picture in that case? It obviously doesn't. If you produce
something useless in communist society, people just won't use it, so
the smart communist will produce something useful, which will get
used. Unlike in capitalist societies, you do not have to "afford"
something before you can use it.
Note that I am referring to communism in the sense of anarchistic,
decentralised communism (the only legitimate communism), and not to
centrally planned state communism, which can never work because it
inherently involves both high complexity and high levels of violent
repression.
It is also interesting to note as an aside that the former Soviet
Union did use money, and that this fact alone rules it out as a valid
example of true communism, and some believe that 'state capitalism' better
describes the reality of the former Soviet Union.
> Cooperatives are cool, but they too have to adapt to the market
> pressure if they want to be competitive. Unless some central
> government allocates some money for them anyway.
There does not need to exist any "market". And competition as a way of
life, as opposed to cooperation, is harmful and dangerous to
individuals and society and the environment.
>
>> Christianity, some say, is a theory that has never been put into
>> practice. Of course, that is not entirely true, as many individuals
>> and communities throughout the ages have come a lot closer to the
>> Christian ideal than, say, present day mainstream Churches of all
>> flavours. Which is to say that, when looking at the present
>> disgraceful state of Churches, Christianity is no more than a distant
>> theory to be discussed in the abstract by theologians. Yet
>> Christianity exists.
>
> I haven't heard of any Christian, except maybe Mother Theresa.
You've led a sheltered life... ;-)
> Jesus said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that.
Not quite, but close. He said that it is as impossible for a rich man
to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle; but that for God, anything is possible. See Mark
10:17-29 for the details, if you are interested.
> At least all of Christian USAians don't give up their job etc.
What is rich? Anyone who has a job? Anyone who owns their house? Two
houses? Three houses, two cars and five TVs? Oprah or Gates-rich?
It is a relative term, but if your possessions stop you from doing
what is right, such as shutting up and doing unethical work for the
boss so you can keep your job and pay the mortgage, then your riches
are preventing you from "entering the kingdom of heaven" as Jesus put
it. Obviously, this situation becomes exponentially harder the more
wealth is accumulated, and that fact is what Jesus was referring to.
> Nonetheless, even though I'm basically against
> Christianity-as-religion (and all other Theist
> the-sole-god-that's-the-only-way-to-heaven religions), Jesus was a
> *very* cool guy (more in a cultural and political way) and IMHO a
> good person to inspire us.
Actually, Jesus was a seriously demented madman and blasphemer who
believed he was God and said so, or he was the greatest person who
ever lived and was right when he identified himself with the
godhead. He didn't really leave much room for middle ground; he meant
to make you decide.
> Just leave out the Antisemites like Saul/Paul or Luther to keep it
> clean :)
Paul and Luther were anti-semites?
>
>> Communism can be regarded in a similar light. State communism, making
>> necessary use, as it does, of violence, is abhorrent and far from any
>> true spirit of brotherhood. Yet voluntary and free communism can exist
>> in small and large communities if they are simply left alone. So, yes,
>> free communism does exist despite communist states, in the same sense
>> that Christianity exists despite Christian Churches.
>
> But these communities can perfectly exist within capitalism.
Only up to a point, because capitalist societies are violent and
coercive by nature, and such communities will always be subject to
that violence and coercion which surrounds them (for an extreme
example, you need look no further than the mass murder at Waco,
Texas). Also, community members are less free to leave, because their
main alternative would be to endure life in the surrounding capitalist
hell.
A violent state will not acknowledge the sovereignty of a free
anarchist community, and will seek to levy tribute from it by force in
several different ways. That turns the community into a ghetto.
> Again: I don't see where anarchism has to be socialist, except that
> people are free to choose so (and I like the idea).
Any economic system that ultimately requires the violence of the state
to support it, such as capitalism and state communism, has nothing in
common with anarchism.
>
> In communist states, however, there's enough coercion that maybe a
> free anarchist community couldn't exist, unless it operated like a
> black market in the underground.
True enough, but don't suppose that it is a lot easier in
"enlightened" democratic states like the U.S.^H^H^H^H, Brit^H^H^H^H,
Austral^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ... oh well, I'm sure there are examples.
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
The State is a soulless machine that owes its very existence to violence.
David Trudgett
ocor...@yahoo.com (Tiarnán Ó Corráin) writes:
> David Trudgett <wpo...@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>
>> I can only assume that he was not in principle opposed to the use of
>> violence in implementing his revolutionary ideas. On the contrary,
>> he seems to have been of the belief that, at a minimum, an organised
>> and violent revolution would be necessary on account of his other
>> belief that the ruling class would not give up their position of
>> privilege voluntarily.
>
> You are mistaken. Marx was not a revolutionary, and saw no reason to
> implement his revolutionary ideas. What the Russians misunderstood was
> that Marx was a Hegelian teleologist. The central point of dialectical
> materialism is that the revolution would come about as an inevitable
> stage in the historical process. Speeding it up, a la Lenin, could not
> work. As it turned out, Lenin's revolution ended in (irony of
> ironies), Stalinist state capitalism.
Well, you could be right about Marx, which is why I said that Marx
"seems to have been of the belief" etc. Life is short, and I have not
yet had the opportunity to read Marx's original works, but only other
people's summaries and interpretations of them. If you refer to
Wikipedia, for instance, you will see that Marx is characterised as a
revolutionary, and that he advocated violent revolution.
On the other hand, I cannot see any reason to ascribe pacifism to
Marx, nor any reason to believe that he was philosophically or
pragmatically opposed to violence. Marx did not live in a pacifist,
nonviolent society, and so if Marx did not specifically caution
against the use of violence to implement his ideas, then by default he
blessed such use.
What does teleology have to do with this, anyway? Does history have a
purpose or end in mind? And does this rule out violent revolution?
<confused>
>
> Of course, a double irony is that the technological lead of the United
> States was achieved by a command economy. The ideological
> animadversions of 'libertarians' aside, it can be noted that most
> technology has its roots in state-funded military-industrial research,
> freed from the profit motive.
>
> When you submit technology to the profit motive, you get Microsoft.
It would be funny if it weren't true. ;-)
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
As for those who profit by the privileges gained by previous acts of
violence, they often forget and like to forget how these privileges
were obtained. But one need only recall the facts of history, not the
history of the exploits of different dynasties of rulers, but real
history, the history of the oppression of the majority by a small
number of men, to see that all the advantages the rich have over the
poor are based on nothing but flogging, imprisonment, and murder.
-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
Tiarnán Ó Corráin
> Hi there!
Hello.
> If you refer to Wikipedia, for instance, you will see that Marx is
> characterised as a revolutionary, and that he advocated violent
> revolution.
Please do not take anything written in Wikipedia seriously.
> Marx did not live in a pacifist, nonviolent society, and so if Marx
> did not specifically caution against the use of violence to
> implement his ideas, then by default he blessed such use.
My point was that Marx saw no need to implement anything, since the
class war was inevitable. Therefore there was no need for a revolution
to bring about Marx's ideas. It was Lenin (or perhaps Trotsky) who
originated the concept of the revolutionary 'vanguard'. This
'socialism by compulsion' is repugnant to Marx's concept of a
historical process.
Of course, the class war would be violent, but that is different from
a revolution to bring about socialism.
> What does teleology have to do with this, anyway? Does history have a
> purpose or end in mind? And does this rule out violent revolution?
> <confused>
Dialectical materialism, Marx's modification of Hegel, means that
history moves inevitably towards the rule of the proletariat, after
which the state melts away and we are left in a kind of social
nirvana. So yes, baldly, history has a purpose.
For an example of an unbelievably wrong-headed adaption of Marx
(though his disciples are amusingly unaware of it), see Francis
Fukayama's "The End of History and the Last Man", where he proposes
liberal democratic capitalism as the historial telos.
--
Tiarnán
BR
> No one in Australia, for example, owns the land upon which sit their
> factories or houses, even though they may have a "legal title" to
> it. Forgetting for a moment the legal reality that title does not
> confer ownership because the state arrogates to itself and itself
> alone ultimate ownership, the truth still remains that the land is not
> legitimately owned, because it was stolen by force from the original
> Aboriginal owners when Europeans invaded this continent. Other
> countries, such as the U.S., have similar histories in this
> regard. The British people committed a crime of aggression against the
> Aborigines who lived here, and such a crime does not confer valid
> ownership or title.
Hmmm. If memory serves there are some (primitive?) societies that don't
belive that one can "own" land to begin with.
Eli Gottlieb
> David Trudgett wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, he seems to have been of the
>> belief that, at a minimum, an organised and violent revolution would
>> be necessary on account of his other belief that the ruling class
>> would not give up their position of privilege voluntarily.
>
>
> Basically saying that the solution to the poor wages paid by factory
> owners wasn't for the workers to build their own factory, but to simply
> steal one. The question is: what did they do before the factory came to
> life? Hand-knit carpets? If so, why didn't they continue to do so?
Because the factories were driving them out of business by manufacturing
carpets, that's why! Furthermore, they didn't build their own factory,
because that required a large capital investment which THEY COULDN'T
MAKE due to being WORKERS paid LOW WAGES.
We apologize for any inconvenience the capital letters may have caused you.
>
> A simple fact, both in capitalism and in socialism is that you are free
> to produce whatever you produced in the way you produced it, but there
> is no guarantee that anyone will buy it. Cooperatives are cool, but
> they too have to adapt to the market pressure if they want to be
> competitive. Unless some central government allocates some money for
> them anyway.
All the cooperatives I know of operate in the market and adapt to it,
they just don't have as bad or as many conflicts of interest between
workers, owners and management since all three are mostly the same
(though middle-management is sometimes appointed by upper rather than by
the democratically elected Board of Directors).
> I haven't heard of any Christian, except maybe Mother Theresa. Jesus
> said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that. At least
> all of Christian USAians don't give up their job etc. Nonetheless, even
> though I'm basically against Christianity-as-religion (and all other
> Theist the-sole-god-that's-the-only-way-to-heaven religions), Jesus was
> a *very* cool guy (more in a cultural and political way) and IMHO a good
> person to inspire us. Just leave out the Antisemites like Saul/Paul or
> Luther to keep it clean :)
I would just like to note that there are organized religions without the
"If you're not one of us you're going to hell" attitude.
> But these communities can perfectly exist within capitalism. Again: I
> don't see where anarchism has to be socialist, except that people are
> free to choose so (and I like the idea).
They can exist within capitalism, but it's a better idea not to. Real
Communists (anarcho-communists, as we call them now) don't like the idea
of having to compete with the rest of the world as a business, they'd
rather be a self-sufficient economy.
>> As an aside, although I personally lean towards some of the best
>> ideals of communism, I am not an ideologue, I don't agree with much of
>> Marxist analysis, and I believe that any free association and
>> organisation of people without hierarchical power structures is
>> legitimate. Hunter gatherer societies, for example, though hardly
>> communist, were also a good idea at the time and, at least in the case
>> of Australian Aborigines, largely free of "power" hierarchy long
>> before the word 'anarchism' was ever thought of.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
Marxist analysis switches between wrong and right based on the era.
Right now I'd say it's tilting towards being right.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> No one in Australia, for example, owns the land upon which sit their
> factories or houses, even though they may have a "legal title" to
> it. Forgetting for a moment the legal reality that title does not
> confer ownership because the state arrogates to itself and itself
> alone ultimate ownership, the truth still remains that the land is not
> legitimately owned, because it was stolen by force from the original
> Aboriginal owners when Europeans invaded this continent. Other
> countries, such as the U.S., have similar histories in this
> regard. The British people committed a crime of aggression against the
> Aborigines who lived here, and such a crime does not confer valid
> ownership or title.
Then you think it's ok to invade peoples' houses and walk into their
factories, because the land doesn't belong to anybody?
I'm not sure what society one could build on these assumptions.
>> The question is: what did they do before the factory came to life?
>> Hand-knit carpets? If so, why didn't they continue to do so?
>
> Instead of asking rhetorical questions, you should rather spend your
> time finding out the answer.
I'm not interested in the answer. I'm only wondering that Socialists
usually blame a small handful of rich factory owners for paying workers
shit wages, but nobody complains about everybody else who doesn't pay
workers *better* wages. Usually before the Rich Guy opened the factory,
all of these people had lives, too, so it's quite unconstructive
criticism to say: Rich Guy, your wages suck. Let's take your factory
and run it ourselves, even though we didn't pay money to build it.
>> A simple fact, both in capitalism and in socialism is that you are
>> free to produce whatever you produced in the way you produced it, but
>> there is no guarantee that anyone will buy it.
>
> As you know, communism is a specific form of socialism, and therefore
> nominally covered by your general remark. Did you also know that
> communism means a moneyless society? So where does "buying" come into
> the picture in that case? It obviously doesn't. If you produce
> something useless in communist society, people just won't use it, so
> the smart communist will produce something useful, which will get
> used. Unlike in capitalist societies, you do not have to "afford"
> something before you can use it.
Then how are things allocated? Does everybody get a 100th of a car,
until enough cars are produced? In real life the commie-party-people
got the cars, and everybody else didn't. Now that's justice and equality :)
Without currency, how can I say that I want a computer? In capitalism I
would have to NOT buy other things, because my money is limited. If you
want to model this "only buy limited amounts of stuff" thing, you have
to end up with some kind of point system - money. IMHO at least.
> Note that I am referring to communism in the sense of anarchistic,
> decentralised communism (the only legitimate communism), and not to
> centrally planned state communism, which can never work because it
> inherently involves both high complexity and high levels of violent
> repression.
Without repression, why would anybody stop trading with money? It's
convenient you know? ;)
Especially since until the end of time, cars and computers *will* be
scarce resources, people will have to trade for them. On a legal, or on
a black market - they DO. Prices are the automatic result. No society
of more than a few 100 people has ever really lived without a market for
goods or jobs.
> It is also interesting to note as an aside that the former Soviet
> Union did use money, and that this fact alone rules it out as a valid
> example of true communism, and some believe that 'state capitalism' better
> describes the reality of the former Soviet Union.
I'm waiting for your alternative. I don't believe in it, though.
By the way, unlike in current EU or USA, money isn't something made by
government. Money is just a scarce resource, usually one that isn't
often needed for other stuff. Gold is such an example, even though some
gold is wasted on jewellery for the rich.
>> Cooperatives are cool, but they too have to adapt to the market
>> pressure if they want to be competitive. Unless some central
>> government allocates some money for them anyway.
>
> There does not need to exist any "market". And competition as a way of
> life, as opposed to cooperation, is harmful and dangerous to
> individuals and society and the environment.
But markets pop up everywhere where resources are limited. Competition
pops up on every market. Want to sell your corn and wheat? Either
produce better stuff, or make it cheaper than your neighbor's!
>> I haven't heard of any Christian, except maybe Mother Theresa.
>
> You've led a sheltered life... ;-)
No, cause then I'd probably still be Christian and Socialist.
But real life isn't that easy, and not everybody is good in the world.
And corruption exists. I haven't ever met real Christians, only
Churchgoers.
>> Jesus said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that.
>
> Not quite, but close. He said that it is as impossible for a rich man
> to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through
> the eye of a needle; but that for God, anything is possible. See Mark
> 10:17-29 for the details, if you are interested.
I've read the four books some time ago, but I don't remember all the
details.
>> At least all of Christian USAians don't give up their job etc.
>
> What is rich? Anyone who has a job? Anyone who owns their house? Two
> houses? Three houses, two cars and five TVs? Oprah or Gates-rich?
Well, IIRC Jesus said something like "drop all you have, or give it to
the poor, and follow me".
> Actually, Jesus was a seriously demented madman and blasphemer who
> believed he was God and said so, or he was the greatest person who
> ever lived and was right when he identified himself with the
> godhead. He didn't really leave much room for middle ground; he meant
> to make you decide.
But he did away with the bureaucratic society. He said that rules
aren't made by God *for* God, but for men. He had the practical
attitude that it's ok to help people even on Sabbat, or to pick stuff to
eat on that day, when you're hungry. I find that inspiring.
>> Just leave out the Antisemites like Saul/Paul or Luther to keep it
>> clean :)
>
> Paul and Luther were anti-semites?
BIG ones, yes; at least Luther wrote lots of stuff against Jews. AFAIK
Paul also says some sentence against them.
>> But these communities can perfectly exist within capitalism.
>
> Only up to a point, because capitalist societies are violent and
> coercive by nature, and such communities will always be subject to
No, but current society is. Capitalism doesn't give you the right to
coerce people. They may - of course - defend themselves. It's a moral
right.
> that violence and coercion which surrounds them (for an extreme
> example, you need look no further than the mass murder at Waco,
> Texas). Also, community members are less free to leave, because their
> main alternative would be to endure life in the surrounding capitalist
> hell.
Don't know about Waco, but of course in any society there may be
criminals. A sensible Capitalist society would have laws and prosecute
or banish criminals.
> A violent state will not acknowledge the sovereignty of a free
> anarchist community, and will seek to levy tribute from it by force in
> several different ways. That turns the community into a ghetto.
Exactly, but current states are quite far from capitalism, not the least
because they use violent force.
>> Again: I don't see where anarchism has to be socialist, except that
>> people are free to choose so (and I like the idea).
>
> Any economic system that ultimately requires the violence of the state
> to support it, such as capitalism and state communism, has nothing in
> common with anarchism.
What you seem to call capitalism, is nothing but Fascism or
state-capitalism, or mercantilism. Capitalism, or anarcho-capitalism is
a society with laws against all kind of coercion. People live by
voluntary exchange or cooperation.
>> In communist states, however, there's enough coercion that maybe a
>> free anarchist community couldn't exist, unless it operated like a
>> black market in the underground.
>
> True enough, but don't suppose that it is a lot easier in
> "enlightened" democratic states like the U.S.^H^H^H^H, Brit^H^H^H^H,
> Austral^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ... oh well, I'm sure there are examples.
It's not that easy I suppose. As long as you don't do things "for
business" and exchange isn't based on money, but on goods only, maybe
you can get away with free cooperation.
At least neighbors still help each other sometimes; I guess they do
that in State-Communism, too.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Hmmm. If memory serves there are some (primitive?) societies that don't
> belive that one can "own" land to begin with.
There used to be nomad cultures, but since people have been claiming
land, farming it, building housing and factories and roads, things have
become a bit difficult for them. Nomad societies also need much land
per person to prosper I think.
Ulrich Hobelmann
>> Basically saying that the solution to the poor wages paid by factory
>> owners wasn't for the workers to build their own factory, but to
>> simply steal one. The question is: what did they do before the
>> factory came to life? Hand-knit carpets? If so, why didn't they
>> continue to do so?
>
> Because the factories were driving them out of business by manufacturing
> carpets, that's why! Furthermore, they didn't build their own factory,
> because that required a large capital investment which THEY COULDN'T
> MAKE due to being WORKERS paid LOW WAGES.
But why didn't people buy peoples' carpets, but evil capitalists'
carpets? Why can't workers ally to build a factory (cause for the
Capitalist it's also THEM who build them, right? it doesn't take money,
only resources and work!)? Why don't the workers use another currency,
when the current currency is to 95% in the hands of a few capitalists?
They seriously lacked cooperation it seems to me. And in that case, no
system in the world can help such people.
By the way, even poor people can borrow money (I've heard many
US-americans borrowed LOTS of money in the past), and invest it.
> We apologize for any inconvenience the capital letters may have caused you.
Aaaah, silence. :)
> All the cooperatives I know of operate in the market and adapt to it,
> they just don't have as bad or as many conflicts of interest between
> workers, owners and management since all three are mostly the same
> (though middle-management is sometimes appointed by upper rather than by
> the democratically elected Board of Directors).
Yes, many current corporations are severely misguided. Well, anyway I
hope one might employ me sometime ;)
> I would just like to note that there are organized religions without the
> "If you're not one of us you're going to hell" attitude.
People might not have that attitude, but the religion in principle does.
"You can't come to the father than by me" Mostly MHO is that there
are few real Christians who are consistent in their views and strict,
but then that's a good thing, because I wouldn't want any strict
religious people around me who followed that bloody book.
>> But these communities can perfectly exist within capitalism. Again: I
>> don't see where anarchism has to be socialist, except that people are
>> free to choose so (and I like the idea).
>
> They can exist within capitalism, but it's a better idea not to. Real
> Communists (anarcho-communists, as we call them now) don't like the idea
> of having to compete with the rest of the world as a business, they'd
> rather be a self-sufficient economy.
I'd like that, too, but separation of labor, and trade, often make sense
for such communities. Again: it's all possible within capitalism, and
I'd even say encouraged. It's mostly discouraged within current
systems, though.
Tayssir John Gabbour
> We apologize for any inconvenience the capital letters may have caused you.
On the topic of anarcho capitala dialecticourse post-materialist
neo-Hegelian corporate duopolies...
I think people will start rebelling against this economic discussion
very soon. I'm sure that at this point, everyone knows where to read up
on each others sources if they have serious curiosity rather than a
desire to debate this on a Lisp forum...
For serious forums across the political spectrum, I think you could ask
around Lew Rockwell's blog, at ZNet or Paul Krugman's archive; and I've
heard of lbo-talk as well.
Tayssir
Eli Gottlieb
> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>> the "If you're not one of us you're going to hell" attitude.
>
>
> People might not have that attitude, but the religion in principle does.
> "You can't come to the father than by me" Mostly MHO is that there are
> few real Christians who are consistent in their views and strict, but
> then that's a good thing, because I wouldn't want any strict religious
> people around me who followed that bloody book.
Christianity. There are plenty of non-Christian organized religions (I
can name 2 off the top of my head) which don't brand all outsiders as
horrible, needing their souls saved, going to hell or any such thing.
Pascal Bourguignon
>> Jesus said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that.
>
> Not quite, but close. He said that it is as impossible for a rich man
> to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through
> the eye of a needle; but that for God, anything is possible. See Mark
> 10:17-29 for the details, if you are interested.
And moreover, it's quite possible, by quantum mechanics, for a camel to
pass thru the eye of a needle, only very very slowly.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody can be trusted with their finger
on the button. Nobody's perfect. VOTE FOR NOBODY.
Pascal Bourguignon
> No, cause then I'd probably still be Christian and Socialist.
This is not possible.
If you are a true Christian, you are libertarian.
If you are a true Socialist, you are anti-christian.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
CAUTION: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of
85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
Eli Gottlieb
> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> writes:
>
>
>>No, cause then I'd probably still be Christian and Socialist.
>
>
> This is not possible.
> If you are a true Christian, you are libertarian.
> If you are a true Socialist, you are anti-christian.
>
Nowadays, what with the fall of the Soviet Union, it can mean
practically any leftist ideology which wants to change the roots and
systems of the economy.
Cameron MacKinnon
> If you are a true Christian, you are libertarian.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" -- JC, libertarian.
> If you are a true Socialist, you are anti-christian.
There have been far too many attempts to redefine words here lately. In
that spirit, I'd like to propose that here in c.l.l 'communist' means
someone in favour of free ice cream every Sunday.
Eli Gottlieb
Bruce Hoult
David Trudgett <wpo...@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> wrote:
> > Of course, a double irony is that the technological lead of the United
> > States was achieved by a command economy.
I agree that the US was largely run as a command economy during the 70
years war, and that it is showing few signs of recovery from that. And
I find that very scary.
> > The ideological animadversions of 'libertarians' aside, it can be
> > noted that most technology has its roots in state-funded
> > military-industrial research, freed from the profit motive.
There's plenty of profit motive in competing for government contracts
althogh the machanism is political rather than market.
> > When you submit technology to the profit motive, you get Microsoft.
>
> It would be funny if it weren't true. ;-)
It's true in one sense, but it's also untrue in that Microsoft wouldn't
be where they are today had they been held accountable for their lying
and cheating and bullying business practises.
--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
Joe Marshall
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> > Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> >> That German form is what is now called a cooperative, the explicit
> >> form of voting rights and profit sharing. They have nothing to do
> >> with Communism or socialism because they are one of the few known and
> >> viable Third Ways.
> >
> >
> > It's not a third way. In a capitalist (i.e. mostly unregulated) world
> > it's merely one form for people to cooperate, there being many many
> > others. People can cooperate informally, by pooling capital into a
> > shareholders' company, or into a cooperative. All of these are just
> > options. The system is capitalism.
> >
> > Restricted capitalism, like in Germany, still has these explicit forms
> > of cooperation (call them black and white), while others (the gray ones)
> > aren't really possible because of our rules (for instance, if I'd like
> > to pay someone for some sort of cooperation (say, because the other
> > person does more work on it than me), I legally can't, because I would
> > have to obey all kinds of regulations and pay taxes in addition to our
> > deal; of course most people still do it, which is good for both sides,
> > but it doesn't give the government money).
BR
> Can we talk about religion or sex, now, please?
Well Lisp is sexy. :)
drewc
>
>> Jesus said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that.
>
> Not quite, but close. He said that it is as impossible for a rich man
> to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through
> the eye of a needle; but that for God, anything is possible. See Mark
> 10:17-29 for the details, if you are interested.
Actually, there is some interesting debate on the meaning of this
phrase (as with all of Jesus's parables of course, but this one is one
of my favorites).
Although the scholars generally frown on it, the following is one of
my favorite interpretations :
There was, it seems, a very narrow mountain pass (or a town gate in
some interpretations) near Jerusalem which has traditionally been
known as the 'needle's eye'. For a (fully laden) camel to make it
through was very difficult. The story goes that it was neccesary to
either/both remove the camels trappings and/or have it kneel to get it
through. It paints an interesting visual for certain.
Now, there are some fundamentalists who would use that interpretation
of the story to mean that a rich man can be saved as long as he walks
a narrow path, but i prefer the idea that it is neccesary to both cast
off your wealth (or more importantly, the desire for wealth) and
humble thyself before passing.
Another interpretation relies on the fact that the words "Camel" and
"Rope" are very similar in some languages (Aramaic and Greek being the
two particularly important examples here), so the saying could refer
to the difficulties of threading a needle with a rope.
Now, or so the scholars say, the canonical interpretation is quite
literal. A camel and a sewing needle. There is more evidence for this
than any of the others. In some Talmudic works the eye of a needle is
used simply to mean 'a small place', and a similar saying used but
with elephant in place of camel. (The Talmud being partially a
geographically babyloninan work, where elephants are not uncommon and
larger than camels.)
So the prevailing opinion is that the phrase is a great example of
typical, beautiful hebrew hyperbole (like removing a spec from
anothers eye whilst having a tree in your own). I'd leave it at that,
but then i wouldn't get a chance to explore the apocrypha.
There is a wonderful story in the "Acts of Peter and Andrew (vv.14-21)"
where Peter and Andrew, to the amazement of a Rich Man (who provides
the camel), actually do the impossible (with a little help from a
manafestation of the Christ), and a Camel is seen by many to pass
through a needle. The rich man is even allowed to order the camel
through the needle himself, although the Camel only gets halfway
through do to the fact the the rich man was not baptised.
I really like this saying, as it's one of the few that can be
attributed directly to Jesus. I personally think that the context is
very similar to when he says that Mary M. must first become a man in
order to enter heaven. We must be willing to become what we are not,
to be one with ourselves etc.
Of course, all that debate is a failure to see the forest, for finally
(as you've noted) Jesus states that in the end, it is all up to
YHWH. I feel that he was simply saying one should not concern oneself
with anothers wealth (or sins), as men are not free to judge each
other (speck and tree again). In the end, the choice is that of YHWH
and YHWH alone.
Is has to be noted that the reaction of his followers to this
statement was amazement and disbelief, as it was thought that the rich
and prosperous were favoured by god (how else would they get rich and
prosperous?).
> What is rich? Anyone who has a job? Anyone who owns their house? Two
> houses? Three houses, two cars and five TVs? Oprah or Gates-rich?
>
> It is a relative term, but if your possessions stop you from doing
> what is right, such as shutting up and doing unethical work for the
> boss so you can keep your job and pay the mortgage, then your riches
> are preventing you from "entering the kingdom of heaven" as Jesus put
> it. Obviously, this situation becomes exponentially harder the more
> wealth is accumulated, and that fact is what Jesus was referring to.
The _desire_ for wealth, and not the wealth itself, is the actual
problem (which is similar to what you state). A similar theme exists
in many of the other eastern faiths (Buddhism being the obvious
example, esp as they consider Christ a buddha).
When you look at it in terms of desire, then a desire for wealth,
poverty, or even a desire for salvation(!) is a detriment to those
seeking 'to enter the kingdom of heaven', 'enlightenment', or
'salvation' itself.
One must not desire to do and be right, one must simply do and be
right. There is no try, only do, road to hell paved with good
intentions and all that
Anyways, thanks for giving me the opportunity to 'word-wank', it's not
often i get to spew out all this interesting information i've
accumulated :)
Viva L'Anarchia.
PS- I am not Christian/Jew nor Atheist, and i hope i did not offend
any group with my interpretations/ideas.
drewc
> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>> Because the factories were driving them out of business by
>> manufacturing carpets, that's why! Furthermore, they didn't build
>> their own factory, because that required a large capital investment
>> which THEY COULDN'T MAKE due to being WORKERS paid LOW WAGES.
>
> But why didn't people buy peoples' carpets, but evil capitalists'
> carpets? Why can't workers ally to build a factory (cause for the
> Capitalist it's also THEM who build them, right? it doesn't take
> money, only resources and work!)? Why don't the workers use another
> currency, when the current currency is to 95% in the hands of a few
> capitalists?
Give me a break! To build a factory you need land. To own land you
need to buy/rent it from the guys with the big guns. They _love_ money
and power, those gun wielding land-owners, and will do everything to
make sure they stay in money and power. This has to involve making
sure that they control the means of production.
And lets say the workers build a wonderful, successful factory and pay
themselves well.. that drives up the cost of the product. Now,
the rest of the people who are not so lucky as to have managed to
subvert the system are still working for the 'evil capitalists' at
shite wages, and cannot afford to buy your carpets (they still need
carpets), so to compete with the caplitalists, you have to become one.
Not to mention the fact the the gun-toters will look at your success
with envy, and possibly seek to take it over, whether by legal
(enforced with guns) means, or through other tactics.
>
> They seriously lacked cooperation it seems to me. And in that case,
> no system in the world can help such people.
Right... systems are not made to help people, they are made to help
systems. Perhaps people can help people, but not with the system
constantly striving to prevent that. Remeber that the system is what
divided up the land, dammed off the water, destroyed our environment,
and then makes money off of letting us live(1) on 'their' land
(whoever has the biggest guns owns the land), pipe us 'their' water
(and charge us for it), and sells 'environmentally friendly' products
at a markup, even though it's obvious to most people that a product
that does not ruin the earth (our only means of survival) has a lower
_cost_ to society than one that does.
I live in the city, so i can not even keep a few chickens for eggs and
a goat for milk. It is illegal. I have to buy the overpriced products
that 'they' feed me. If your suggestion would be 'move to the
country', my question would be why should i have to?
>
> By the way, even poor people can borrow money (I've heard many
> US-americans borrowed LOTS of money in the past), and invest it.
Right, but not everybody wants to be a capitalist, and not everybody
wants to go into debt to the gun-blazing loan sharks. That in no way
makes those people wrong or stupid, or lazy or unco-operative.
> People might not have that attitude, but the religion in principle
> does. "You can't come to the father than by me".
Have you yourself read the works you quote, and come up with your own
interpretations of them, or are you regurgitating what you've heard
others say? If you are going to quote John, which is quite esoteric,
you need to put things in the proper context. John 14:
1"Don't be troubled. You trust God, now trust in me. 2There are many
rooms in my Father's home, and I am going to prepare a place for
you. If this were not so, I would tell you plainly. 3When everything
is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me
where I am. 4And you know where I am going and how to get there."
5"No, we don't know, Lord," Thomas said. "We haven't any idea where
you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can
come to the Father except through me. 7If you had known who I am, then
you would have known who my Father is. From now on you know him and
have seen him!"
I think the important line is "There are many
rooms in my Father's home, and I am going to prepare a place for
you. If this were not so, I would tell you plainly."
This is important because Jesus _never_ speaks plainly. He's saying
that there is room in his fathers kingdom for everybody (many rooms),
and if there were not, he'd come out and say it.
Then Thomas (oh that Thomas!) wants to know more about the way to
heaven, and Christ's reply is that 'You already know the way, you know
me.'. Perhaps he is just saying that, if you follow his example (being
a nice guy who tries to help others, forgives those who have sinned,
etc), you are welcome to one of the rooms he has set aside for you.
So, your misquote "You can't come to the father than by me"
drastically mischaracterises what was actually (fsvo actually)
said. "No one can" (not nobody, no _one_) vs. "you can't", and 'than by
me' as opposed to 'but through me'. This could suggest that one must
unite themselves with the person christ is refering to as 'me' in
order to be saved.
While i will admit that by the time John was written, Jesus had gotten
quite full of himself, but a little further on gives us another look
at what Jesus may have been trying to get at :
23Jesus replied, "All those who love me will do what I say. My Father
will love them, and we will come to them and live with them. 24Anyone
who doesn't love me will not do what I say. And remember, my words are
not my own.
That last little bit 'my words are not my own' is important. Whos
words are they? who is the 'I' in "I am the way, the truth, and the
life" if not Jesus? Perhaps the I is the I&I of the Rasta, or the
spark of the divine that lives in us all. Maybe he's saying the the
struggle for salvation is an individual one.
Keep in mind that John was also trying to set up the second coming,
and Christ spends a lot of his time in this book prophesing his own
death and resurrection, so the allegory and metaphor is laid on
pretty thick.
It's still a nice story though.
Pascal Bourguignon
> [...]
> And lets say the workers build a wonderful, successful factory and pay
> themselves well.. that drives up the cost of the product. Now,
> the rest of the people who are not so lucky as to have managed to
> subvert the system are still working for the 'evil capitalists' at
> shite wages, and cannot afford to buy your carpets (they still need
> carpets), so to compete with the caplitalists, you have to become one.
This is the key!
Freedom lover wants (to let) all people become one of them filthy rich
capitalists, with enough cash to be generous and charitable or to buy
gold WC, that is, to have even more freedom.
Commies wants everybody to become filthy poor third worlder.
> I live in the city, so i can not even keep a few chickens for eggs and
> a goat for milk. It is illegal. I have to buy the overpriced products
> that 'they' feed me. If your suggestion would be 'move to the
> country', my question would be why should i have to?
In the meantime, you live to buy these overpriced products, while
thirdworlder who can own chickens for eggs in their homes die of bird
flu.
Well, you know what? While it's illegal in most countries to attempt
suicide, if you're successfull they can't get at you, so go ahead!
(I don't mean you drewc, I feel you're just being ironic. I mean the
commies oppressed by the capitalists).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE: This product contains minute electrically
charged particles moving at velocities in excess of five hundred
million miles per hour.
Coby Beck
news:877j8vl...@thalassa.informatimago.com...
> In the meantime, you live to buy these overpriced products, while
> thirdworlder who can own chickens for eggs in their homes die of bird
> flu.
Just to steer this back to Lisp, isn't bird flu a problem of the factory
farm settings, not Ma and Pa Wong?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
drewc
> drewc <drewc+better-...@rift.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> And lets say the workers build a wonderful, successful factory and pay
>> themselves well.. that drives up the cost of the product. Now,
>> the rest of the people who are not so lucky as to have managed to
>> subvert the system are still working for the 'evil capitalists' at
>> shite wages, and cannot afford to buy your carpets (they still need
>> carpets), so to compete with the caplitalists, you have to become one.
>
> This is the key!
>
> Freedom lover wants (to let) all people become one of them filthy rich
> capitalists, with enough cash to be generous and charitable or to buy
> gold WC, that is, to have even more freedom.
That is absolutely the key. Neither 'Communism' nor 'Capitalism' (note
quotes) nor any other soci-economic system is the problem. The problem
is the lack of freedom, plain and simple. Of course, people would
rather blaim abstracts than take personal responsibility, and those
men in power will make sure there are plenty of abstracts to
blame. Thus freedom slips further.
> Commies wants everybody to become filthy poor third worlder.
:)
> Well, you know what? While it's illegal in most countries to attempt
> suicide, if you're successfull they can't get at you, so go ahead!
I find that the ultimate in irony. The only right i think someone is
entitled to is the right to die, and yet the /archos/ wish to take
even that from us.
(Life is not a right, it's a responsibility)
> (I don't mean you drewc, I feel you're just being ironic. I mean the
> commies oppressed by the capitalists).
Whew! <puts down revolver>. ;)
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
>
> HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE: This product contains minute electrically
> charged particles moving at velocities in excess of five hundred
> million miles per hour.
--
Pascal Bourguignon
> "Pascal Bourguignon" <sp...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
> news:877j8vl...@thalassa.informatimago.com...
>
>> In the meantime, you live to buy these overpriced products, while
>> thirdworlder who can own chickens for eggs in their homes die of bird
>> flu.
>
> Just to steer this back to Lisp, isn't bird flu a problem of the factory
> farm settings, not Ma and Pa Wong?
On the contrary. In factory farm, the environment is strictly
controled, the birds are enclosed and epidemies, if there was some
there, couldn't spread.
The problem is with Ma and Pa Wong who are in direct contact with
their birds, themselves being in a "natural setting" directly in
contact with salvage migrating birds.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Specifications are for the weak and timid!"
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Can we talk about religion or sex, now, please?
Religion is good, sex is baaaad.
Or vice versa. Take your pick ;)
(me, I'd prefer a hedonistic society as in Brave New World over one
where Religion is the opiate of the masses; but it's only a small
difference, both are based on opiate)
Ulrich Hobelmann
drewc wrote:
> Give me a break! To build a factory you need land. To own land you
> need to buy/rent it from the guys with the big guns. They _love_ money
> and power, those gun wielding land-owners, and will do everything to
> make sure they stay in money and power. This has to involve making
> sure that they control the means of production.
Well, in my country many families buy houses. I think building a small
factory on the land that could hold a few houses isn't much more
expensive, especially if it's not one family financing it, but maybe
1000 families holding shares, or even many more.
> And lets say the workers build a wonderful, successful factory and pay
> themselves well.. that drives up the cost of the product. Now,
> the rest of the people who are not so lucky as to have managed to
> subvert the system are still working for the 'evil capitalists' at
> shite wages, and cannot afford to buy your carpets (they still need
> carpets), so to compete with the caplitalists, you have to become one.
Ok, but I don't see how being a nice anarchist (leftist one) doesn't
change any of reality. Does the world change just by saying that There
Is No Property, and all landowners should be robbed (or what'd be the
conclusion?)?
> I live in the city, so i can not even keep a few chickens for eggs and
> a goat for milk. It is illegal. I have to buy the overpriced products
> that 'they' feed me. If your suggestion would be 'move to the
> country', my question would be why should i have to?
You don't have to; it's your choice. Too bad though, that your
authoritarian society prohibits you from keeping farm animals on your
property, as long as they don't cause others harm.
>> By the way, even poor people can borrow money (I've heard many
>> US-americans borrowed LOTS of money in the past), and invest it.
>
> Right, but not everybody wants to be a capitalist, and not everybody
> wants to go into debt to the gun-blazing loan sharks. That in no way
> makes those people wrong or stupid, or lazy or unco-operative.
I don't mean that. The US system has many problems, most of which hurt
poor people the most. One being that without a car you can't do near
anything.
But still, I think there's definitely more room for cooperative
organizations. I.e. IMHO most political systems are too un-libertarian
(I consider that immoral), but most cultural systems, especially the US,
Europe is better in that regard, are not enough left-wing, i.e. too
little concerned with social cohesion.
>> People might not have that attitude, but the religion in principle
>> does. "You can't come to the father than by me".
>
> Have you yourself read the works you quote, and come up with your own
> interpretations of them, or are you regurgitating what you've heard
> others say? If you are going to quote John, which is quite esoteric,
> you need to put things in the proper context. John 14:
Yes, I read it, but I didn't remember in which book it was. But even
your verbatim quote doesn't change my opinion of that context.
> So, your misquote "You can't come to the father than by me"
> drastically mischaracterises what was actually (fsvo actually)
I think it was pretty close, but if you interpret it differently that's
fine. I'm not telling you what opinion you should have about religion(s).
> It's still a nice story though.
Yep.
David Trudgett
BR <ben...@comcast.com> writes:
>> regard. The British people committed a crime of aggression against the
>> Aborigines who lived here, and such a crime does not confer valid
>> ownership or title.
>
> Hmmm. If memory serves there are some (primitive?) societies that don't
> belive that one can "own" land to begin with.
Yes, I've heard that old canard numerous times over the years, too. I
wouldn't put too much store in it, if I were you. It basically amounts
to cultural hubris to impose one society's ideas of ownership onto
another, claiming that they do not "own" land because they do not till
it and build permanent dwellings. That is nothing more than
imperialism in language, and I find it quite contemptible; although,
of course, many do not see through the guile (to get back on topic
;-)).
Thanks for your comment. Back to lisp?
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent,
anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced
tradition than a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists
oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society,
and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of
social, political and economic organisation."
-- The Politics of Individualism
David Trudgett
> David Trudgett wrote:
>> regard. The British people committed a crime of aggression against the
>> Aborigines who lived here, and such a crime does not confer valid
>> ownership or title.
>
> Then you think it's ok to invade peoples' houses and walk into their
> factories, because the land doesn't belong to anybody?
Come now, Ulrich, you know me better than that by now. You know I'm a
pacifist, yet you ask rubbish questions like that. I don't see
evidence of sincerity when you do that.
>> Instead of asking rhetorical questions, you should rather spend your
>> time finding out the answer.
>
> I'm not interested in the answer.
I believe you are correct, Ulrich. As Tayssir said, we all have the
ability to research this information further for ourselves. Let's
leave it there.
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
"Then leading him to a height, the devil showed him in a moment of
time all the kingdoms of the world and said to him, 'I will give you
all this power and the glory of these kingdoms, for it has been
committed to me and I give it to anyone I choose. Worship me, then,
and it shall all be yours.' But Jesus answered him, 'Scripture says:
You must worship the Lord your God, and serve him alone.'"
(Luke 4:5-8)
David Trudgett
Cameron MacKinnon <cmack...@clearspot.net> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> If you are a true Christian, you are libertarian.
>
> "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" -- JC, libertarian.
It is interesting that Christ's deliberately ambiguous statement is
misrepresented by right wing libertarians, statist Church
organisations, and those who have been hoodwinked by them.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Capitalism is about sharing things in the same way that
Tug-Of-War is about sharing the rope.
David Trudgett
(I like that name, by the way! My only question is, why is Lisp your
favourite programming language?! :-))
Pascal Bourguignon <sp...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> David Trudgett <wpo...@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>>> Jesus said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that.
>>
>> Not quite, but close. He said that it is as impossible for a rich man
>> to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through
>> the eye of a needle; but that for God, anything is possible. See Mark
>> 10:17-29 for the details, if you are interested.
>
> And moreover, it's quite possible, by quantum mechanics, for a camel to
> pass thru the eye of a needle, only very very slowly.
:-) Actually, no, but it's funny anyway.
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
One of the clearest lessons of history, including recent history, is
that rights are not granted; they are won. The rest is up to us.
-- Noam Chomsky
<http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm>
David Trudgett
Bruce Hoult <br...@hoult.org> writes:
Oh, yes, there is that. Of course, when you mix mega-corporations and
government, you can expect no other outcome, and nothing but show
trials.
>
> --
> Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
North of Wellington?
Bye for now,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
"Nasty, tricksy parenthesises. We hates them!"
-- Sampo Smolander
David Trudgett
Hi, Drew,
Wow, you sure packed a lot in! I'm going to have to mercilessly snip
out a lot of good stuff for brevity, though!
drewc <drewc+better-...@rift.com> writes:
> David Trudgett <wpo...@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>
>>
>>> Jesus said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that.
>>
>> Not quite, but close. He said that it is as impossible for a rich man
>> to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through
>> the eye of a needle; but that for God, anything is possible. See Mark
>> 10:17-29 for the details, if you are interested.
>
> Actually, there is some interesting debate on the meaning of this
> phrase (as with all of Jesus's parables of course, but this one is one
> of my favorites).
Yes, I've heard alternative interpretations, but was never very
convinced by them, and the motivation for them seems to be the same as
that which caused the disciples' amazement.
>
> Although the scholars generally frown on it, the following is one of
> my favorite interpretations :
>
> There was, it seems, a very narrow mountain pass (or a town gate in
> some interpretations) near Jerusalem which has traditionally been
> known as the 'needle's eye'.
That always came across to me as a bit of a manufactured myth. When
you look at a literal translation, however, it does on the face of it
seem that the text was referring to _the_ eye of the needle:
It is easier for a camel through the eye of the needle to enter,
than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God.
-- Young's literal translation
The matched word or phrase "to enter" (one instance of which is
altered to "pass through" in other translations) seems to add some
weight to the interpretation, which (in English only, perhaps) does
not seem to make sense if it were a reference to a literal sewing
needle. Also, of course, the significance of 'the' in the translation
depends on the use of definite and indefinite articles (or their
presence or absence) in the original language (New Testament Greek, I
believe, in this case).
There is at least one logical counter argument to the narrow gateway
interpretation, however. If it were possible, but hard, for a camel to
pass through this "eye of the needle" gateway, then the disciples
would have no reason to ask, "Who, then, can be saved?" implying that
this would rule out salvation to (at least) a large number of
people. This implication would not make sense if salvation for the
rich were merely difficult. Therefore, either the "eye of the needle"
gateway was so small as to make it impossible for a camel to pass
through it, or the reference was to a literal needle.
In either case, the main point of impossibility is the same.
> Is has to be noted that the reaction of his followers to this
> statement was amazement and disbelief, as it was thought that the rich
> and prosperous were favoured by god (how else would they get rich and
> prosperous?).
That also seems to be the viewpoint of many "Christian" Churches that
have been labeled "fundamentalist". They must have a really neat
rationalisation up their sleeves, I guess. Probably something like,
"it only matters what my attitude to my riches is," I suppose. ;-)
>
> The _desire_ for wealth, and not the wealth itself, is the actual
> problem (which is similar to what you state).
Perhaps it seems similar. It goes further, though, than desire for
wealth or attachment to wealth. In other words, it goes further than
Buddhist teaching. The accumulation of wealth in the face of other
people's poverty and need shows a fundamental immorality of character,
which the rich often justify through the rationalisation that goes
like this: "I have to have wealth and resources first before I can
help others." Most have probably really convinced themselves of this,
too. Hence, the impossibility of salvation (speaking, of course, in
relation to the powers of people, not of God).
>
> Viva L'Anarchia.
Viva la liberta' e la pace sulla faccia della terra.
>
> PS- I am not Christian/Jew nor Atheist, and i hope i did not offend
> any group with my interpretations/ideas.
Honesty subverts.
Bye for now.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
History says, Don't hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up
And hope and history rhyme.
So hope for a great sea-change
On the far side of revenge.
Believe that a further shore
Is reachable from here.
Believe in miracles
And cures and healing wells.
-- Seamus Heaney, "The Cure at Troy"
Tim X
> Hi, Ben,
>
> BR <ben...@comcast.com> writes:
>
> >> regard. The British people committed a crime of aggression against the
> >> Aborigines who lived here, and such a crime does not confer valid
> >> ownership or title.
> >
> > Hmmm. If memory serves there are some (primitive?) societies that don't
> > belive that one can "own" land to begin with.
>
> Yes, I've heard that old canard numerous times over the years, too. I
> wouldn't put too much store in it, if I were you. It basically amounts
> to cultural hubris to impose one society's ideas of ownership onto
> another, claiming that they do not "own" land because they do not till
> it and build permanent dwellings. That is nothing more than
> imperialism in language, and I find it quite contemptible; although,
> of course, many do not see through the guile (to get back on topic
> ;-)).
>
While it would be great to get back to lisp, I just wanted to mention
that the comment regarding many "primitive" societies not recognising
the concept of land ownerhsip etc does apply to many traditional
aboriginal societies who believed it was essentially beyond arrogance
to claim ownership over the land or any other resource. In fact, in
some aboriginal societies, the whoe concept is inverted and they
actually believe the land owns them.
BTW, the reference to 'primitive' societies is often considered
insulting and judgemental because it implies a lack of
industrialisation implies less worthy or intelligent social
structure. Therre are some who will argue that modern industrial
copitalism is more primitive as it fails to recognize the central
importance of living with the environment rather than from it. I guess
we will have to wait and see if global warnming, peak oil production,
polution, GM foods and whatever else are as detrimental as some claim
before we will know which is true.
to some
extent, it reminds me of the Douglas Adams Hitchhikers guide where it
is talking about dolphins and humans and says something like
"Humans believed they were more evolved and intelligent than other
creatures because they had left the ocean and learnt to walk on two
legs. Dolphins believed they were more intelligent and evolved for
essentially the same reason".
(Sorry, its paraphrasing - I read "the guide" over 25 years ago and
have'nt seen the movie yet!)
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Tim X
You horrible state commie bastard, how dare you! What about that poor
hard working capitalist ice cream vendor that makes 80% of his income
from Sunday ice cream sales? You've just destroyed his business he has
worked hard to develop for the last 500 years and now his 40 kids and
5 wives are all going to starve.
You selfish selfish utter bastard
Tim X
> David Trudgett <wpo...@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> >> Jesus said that the rich won't come to heaven, and stuff like that.
> >
> > Not quite, but close. He said that it is as impossible for a rich man
> > to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through
> > the eye of a needle; but that for God, anything is possible. See Mark
> > 10:17-29 for the details, if you are interested.
>
> And moreover, it's quite possible, by quantum mechanics, for a camel to
> pass thru the eye of a needle, only very very slowly.
>
Yes, but only if nobody is watching while it does it.