how Britain underdeveloped its colonies
Jack Campin
eunet.politics because (a) these concerns are not purely British,
and (b) this took me so long to write I'm going to make damn sure
I get a decent-sized audience for it. :-) It began about Indian
immigrants to the UK, with statements like the following: ]
[Matthew Fletcher]
> What exactly were these industries in Asia and the Caribbean which Britain
> wiped out? [ referring to a claim of mine to that effect - jack ]
[Paul Murphy]
> If they [non-white immigrants] want a better economic life, let them build
> one in their own nation.
The example I was thinking of was the destruction of the Indian textile
industry in the 19th century. This was done my a mixture of tariff
barriers and brute force, in the interests of the the cotton barons of
Manchester and Glasgow. Textiles were the industry, above all others, that
drove the Industrial Revolution in Britain; the Raj's suppression of Indian
competition gave the big cotton-spinners a captive market and blocked India
from following Britain's path of development. The colonial regime had a
systematic policy of always placing contracts for government supplies with
British firms, even when Indian-made goods would have been cheaper.
It would have been more accurate for me to say "wiped out or strangled at
birth". Unlike India, most of the Third World never got a chance to start
industries beyond primary production - West Africa's infrastructure was
built at gunpoint by forced labour in the interests of companies like
Unilever; the Caribbean was a slave society, and someone "freed" from
slavery into lifelong debt bondage to a company store owned by the former
slavers is in no position to strike out as an entrepreneur.
In the late 19th century, the Congo had one of the most developed economies
in Africa. In twenty years the "System" imposed by King Leopold of Belgium
(and, on a smaller scale, by the French) killed possibly 20 million people
by forcing them to work rubber plantations at the expense of even
subsistence level food production, and left a diseased and illiterate
population that is barely larger now than a century ago. Nowadays the West
is similarly interested in developing Zaire only into a hole in the ground
producing strategic minerals - to achieve this, essentially all the
development "aid" it has received since independence has gone into the
pockets of Mobutu and his goons, with the connivance of the US banks;
average real income is a tenth of what it was in 1964.
The Green Revolution achieved a capital-intensification of agriculture in
the most densely populated parts of the Third World that was great for the
profits of companies like ICI but drove tens of millions of agricultural
labourers into urban ghettos like those of Nairobi and Sao Paulo - better
beg or steal there than starve in a village.
Subsidized dumping by the West routinely destroys local producers; in 1986
the USA spent 2 billion dollars subsidizing the export of 500 million
dollars' worth of rice. New Zealand, using the surplus capacity of the
world's biggest milk powder factories, similarly bankrupted Third World
dairy producers, often under the disguise of "famine relief". The effect
of this policy is to force Third World farmers into capital-intensive cash
cropping, supplying a cartel of Western buyers - like the chocolate firms -
who can then easily use their monopoly position to drive prices down.
The conditions attached to development money by the World Bank and the IMF
(both of which are under the complete political control of the developed
West) continue to fund only projects calculated to boost the profits of
multinational corporations - for example, by preferring to build factories
using high-tech Western machinery, irrespective of its effect on local
employment or whether the "aided" country will ever be able to pay for it.
Secondly, Western banks continue to assist in capital flight, which, from
Latin America, is comparable to the continent's total debt. These two
effects, together with the steady decline in commodity prices since World
War 2, mean that the Third World has no chance of finding the funds to
start new employment-generating industrial concerns. In 1984, the IMF
forced Zaire to sack a fifth of its teachers and a third of its higher
education staff - that's going do wonders for its long-term development,
isn't it? The latest piece of sabotage being the US's abrogation of the
International Coffee Agreement a few weeks ago; this is estimated to lose
Colombia over ten times what Bush was offering in anti-drug aid. Debt
service alone is enough to prevent any chance of autonomous development;
between 1982 and 1986, the net transfer of cash (debt repayments minus new
aid money) from Latin America to the developed world was $130 billion.
For an example of just how destructive the commodity-buying cartel and the
IMF can be: Zambia is more than 90% dependent on copper for export earnings.
The 1975 crash in the copper price has led to Zambians owing $600 per head
(when the GDP is $470 per head). IMF restraints on credit since then have
left a situation where
"Zambian industry, hamstrung by shortages of spare parts and
imported raw materials, is running at 50% of capacity. As of
November 1985, only 2,000 of 6,500 tractors in the country were
operational; 320 of the bus company's 555 buses were out of
service; the airport was closed because the airport fire-truck had
broken down; two and a half million bags of harvested corn had not
yet been hauled from the countryside to dry storage, despite the
imminent arrival of the rainy season, because of the shortage of
trucks, tires, fuel and tarpaulins. At the nation's largest
copper mine, only 57 of 190 ore-hauling vehicles were serviceable"
(quoted in one of the books cited below).
Debt-equity swaps, where an indebted country pays its creditors by handing
over whole industries to foreign banks, permit direct foreign control (and
possible asset-stripping) of indigenously developed Third World industries.
These go back to the (British/French/German) Commission for the Ottoman
Debt's takeover of the Ottoman Empire's silk and tobacco production and
railway system after 1875, and continue into the present day with Chrysler's
takeover of a large chunk of the Mexican motor industry.
The Pacific Rim economies are anomalies in the above pattern - but they are
in no sense counterexamples. The upshot: as an Indian immigrant told a
British interviewer, "I am here because you were there."
I could multiply these examples a hundredfold without much difficulty, and
I'm just an amateur at this (the above just comes from literature I happen
to have at home). Any library will have dozens of books and journals that
tell the same story. A few of them, all very well-written:
Susan George, "How The Other Half Dies" and "A Fate Worse than Debt", both
Penguin.
Frances Moore Lappe, "Aid as Obstacle", Institute for Food and Development
Policy (available in the UK from Third World Publications in Birmingham)
Gunter Wallraff, "Lowest of the Low", Methuen (about what it's like being
a Turkish gastarbeiter in Germany; original German title "Ganz Unten").
Eduardo Galeano, "Open Veins of Latin America", Monthly Review Press.
Walter Rodney, "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa", Bogle-L'Ouverture Press,
London (recently reprinted).
Neal Ascherson, "The King Incorporated" (about King Leopold and the Congo).
Edmund Morel: "The Black Man's Burden", "Red Rubber" (ditto).
Malcolm Caldwell, "The Wealth of Some Nations", Zed Press.
The Open University's "Third World Studies" course materials (U204).
"New Internationalist" (monthly: 120-126 Lavender Avenue, Mitcham, Surrey
CR4 3HP) or "Race and Class" (#10 quarterly: Institute of Race Relations,
2-6 Leeke Street, London WC1X 9HS).
Somewhat tougher and more abstract stuff: Paul Baran's "The Political
Economy of Growth", Andre Gunder Frank's "Crisis" books, the writings of
Immanuel Wallerstein and Samir Amin.
--
Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6045 wk 041 556 1878 ho
INTERNET: jack%cs.glasg...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: ja...@glasgow.uucp
JANET: ja...@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack
Magnus Kempe
cover of a condemnation of colonization). While slavery and other
atrocities *are* immoral -- and have been practiced by racists and
European monarchists -- one should not conclude that the wealth of
Western countries is the exclusive product of looting. In fact, wealth
is *created* (steam machines didn't exist before their invention), and
looting has a quite negative influence on the economy of the looters
(as witness Spain's economical crash due to the looting of "El Dorado").
There is one extremely important point which Mr. Campin has failed to
consider in his message; he actually dismissed it as an "anomaly." Let's
see what it is, and whether it is not a case of *disinformation*:
: The Pacific Rim economies are anomalies in the above pattern - but they
: are in no sense counterexamples.
Yes, they are. Why do you think South-East Asia is different from Africa?
One concept is the key answer: individual productivity. E.g. South Koreans
have increased their *productivity* over the years, and that is what
brought the dollars home. But Mr. Campin is concerned with Africa; so let's
focus on Africa, and on how African leaders have attempted to solve the
problem of production...
---- ----
Most African countries are under the control of tribal leaders, who believe
that socialism is the way to prosperity (with a lot of help from Soviet
Russia, Cuba, East Germany, North Korea, etc.). What they have failed to
understand, is that socialism is not about individual productivity, but
about collective sacrifice. But when there is nothing to sacrifice, you
don't get anywhere with sacrifices (a variant of this principle is also
known as: "you can't have your cake and eat it too" [Francisco D'Anconia,
in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand]).
Tanzania leader has said (whatever his name is, something like ??Julius
Nyerere?? don't flame, his name is not worth being remembered):
"African Marxism-Socialism is the expression of our tribal
traditions. We live like our fathers did."
And indeed they do. Forced socialization of Tanzania (with such wonders
as forced "alphabetization," forced "road construction," forced whatever)
has lead this country to be one of the poorest of Africa (not an easy
achievement) although the Communist block has poured billions there, as
has the UNESCO. Note also, by the way, that the degree of alphabetization
in Tanzania is one of the lowest in the world (thus illustrating the
principle that savages don't learn to read as long as they have not grasped
the need for productive work -- whereas people who work in factories have
both the time and the incentive to read: they can see ads and offices...)
What African socialist leaders have failed to understand is that:
1. Western wealth was achieved by capitalism, not by socialism,
2. it was entrepreneurs, i.e. individuals, who created the industrial
revolution, not Kings or Dictators, and
3. business and trade rely upon reason, not upon force.
"Enlightened" African leaders, like Julius Nyerere, decided that the
welfare-state was to provide food, clothes, and education to "their"
people. Why did they decide that? "Well," they said, "look at Europe!
They have welfare-states, and they have food, clothes, and education!"
But how did Europeans *create* these commodities? Right, the Industrial
Revolution created wealth. What Julius Nyerere and his brothers have
done is: to try to eat a non-existent cake. No wonder that the result
is: no cake at all, just as there was no cake to start with, but with
more people -- thanks to Western medecine -- and with less to eat --
thanks to quinquennial plans a la Soviet (look at Egypt and Ethiopia.)
The way out of poverty is not organized looting and mooching (socialism),
but: intellectual birth, accompanied by an industrial revolution; that
is, intellectual recognition of man's nature and rights, accompanied
by the birth of glorious men: entrepreneurs; that is, capitalism.
---- ----
Notice the last references given by Mr. Campin:
: "New Internationalist" (monthly: 120-126 Lavender Avenue, Mitcham, Surrey
: CR4 3HP) or "Race and Class" (#10 quarterly: Institute of Race Relations,
: 2-6 Leeke Street, London WC1X 9HS).
If that is not marxist propaganda, I don't know what is...
And, on a more "abstract" level, Mr. Campin offers:
: Somewhat tougher and more abstract stuff: Paul Baran's "The Political
: Economy of Growth", Andre Gunder Frank's "Crisis" books, the writings of
: Immanuel Wallerstein and Samir Amin.
All heirs of Marx... Add Immanuel Kant, and you'll know why sacrifice
is preached.
If anyone really wants to *know* what economics is about, start with
Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson,"
(an easy, short, explanation of what consequences are to be expected
from government interference in the economy [tariffs, wage-controls,
rent-controls, price-controls, inflation, government spending...])
then proceed to Ludwig Von Mises' "Human Action."
(an explanation of *economics*, not *collectivist* economics)
and finally, for political principles, refer to Ayn Rand's
_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_.
The road to prosperity is not paved with sacrifices; it is *made* of
achievements.
Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Irek Defee
>Mr. Campin, offers us a condemnation of Western economics ...
No former colony developed yet. There had to be something in colonialism
which had an effect of preventing this. See below...
>Why do you think South-East Asia is different from Africa?
They were never colonized!. OK, Hongkong is still a colony but developed
after it has become only a formal colony.
>One concept is the key answer: individual productivity. E.g. South Koreans
>have increased their *productivity* over the years, and that is what
>brought the dollars home.
In fact the mechanism which made this productivity increase possible
was based on concerted effort, orchestrated mainly by governments in
promoting industrialization and education. The overall control of
economy was always in l o c a l hands.
>Most African countries are under the control of tribal leaders...
Partially true, it could be also said that climate is too hot there.
Local economy, especially raw materials, is controlled from outside.
>What African socialist leaders have failed to understand is that:
> 1. Western wealth was achieved by capitalism, not by socialism,
Yeah, but it took several hundred years to tune the system. And more
than 1000 years passed were tribes were substituted by nations in Europe.
>"Enlightened" African leaders, like Julius Nyerere, decided that the
>welfare-state was to provide food, clothes, and education to "their"
>people. Why did they decide that? "Well," they said, "look at Europe!
>They have welfare-states, and they have food, clothes, and education!"
That was of course big illusion. There were many even bigger...
crimes in capitalist Europe (like world wars).
>But how did Europeans *create* these commodities?
Yeah, but before there were hundreds of years of poverty in Europe.
>
>The way out of poverty... [is]...
>by the birth of glorious men: entrepreneurs; that is, capitalism.
But what kind of capitalism?
>and finally, for political principles, refer to Ayn Rand's
>_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_.
Laissez-Faire/Ayn Rand as advocated before does not seem to apply here.
Experience of countries which managed to jump out (Pacific Rim)
suggests that they did it by a mixture of free market rules directed by
guys in the goverment educated in good western universities. Extremely
hard work motivated partially BTW, by the will to overcome danger of
neocolonial domination of former colonial powers had also its part.
Another part of motivation was to beat "overseas devil" with its
own (economic) weapon.
>The road to prosperity is not paved with sacrifices; it is *made* of
>achievements.
The problem now is if the same trick with introducing free market
rules and clever goverment direction can be realized by some of the
communists countries which try to reform. Unfortunately, no guys
educated in good western universities seem to be there and social
apathy is similar to the one prevailing in former colonies.
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Irek De...@tut.fi
Magnus Kempe
: No former colony developed yet. There had to be something in colonialism
: which had an effect of preventing this.
The United States of America were colonies. Mr. Defee's assertion is false.
Here, the proper question to ask is:
what made the *American* development possible?
The answer is:
Individual Rights, and the corresponding system: Capitalism.
Another question we have to ask is:
what has prevented, and still prevents, development in Third-World countries?
The answer is:
the *absence* of individual rights, and the corresponding *presence* of
statism/collectivism.
What is the prerequisite for the recognition of Individual Rights? Reason.
Reason, which Aristotle first advocated, and which was at the heart of the
Renaissance, is the tool of Man.
Note: America has adopted more and more statist legislation during the last
century (unfortunately influenced by European countries), which is
precisely *why* America doesn't shine as brightly today, economically.
It is still the freest country on Earth, however.
Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Irek Defee
>The United States of America were colonies. Mr. Defee's assertion is false.
If my remarks were stupid, then I find above idiotic :-).
Sorry, but this belongs to the case when f o r m e r colonists wanted
to become independent and c o l o n i z e local population plus slaves
they brought in on their own account without any profit-sharing :-).
Please note that South Africa has a l s o developed, pardon, w h i t e s
there developed. In this respect, there is an interesting similarity:
in both countries mentioned local populations (or remainings of them)
live in r e s e r v e s and are still c o l o n i z e d , Mr. Kempe.
> what made the *American* development possible?
> Individual Rights, and the corresponding system: Capitalism.
Laissez-Faire capitalism of course? But what made *Japanese*
development possible, Mr. Kempe?
> what has prevented, and still prevents, development in Third-World countries?
> the *absence* of individual rights, and the corresponding *presence* of
> statism/collectivism.
Nonsense. BTW, what made Swedish development possible, Mr. Kempe?
>Note: America has adopted more and more statist legislation during the last
>century (unfortunately influenced by European countries), which is
>precisely *why* America doesn't shine as brightly today, economically.
They lost their manufacturing and partially financial power to Japan
which according to your 'theory' should be less statist, collectivist
and more laissez-faire than USofA, while it is quite opposite, Mr. Kempe :-).
>It is still the freest country on Earth, however.
So it looks like an ideal place for you :-). But they would not like
you there, as you are too much laissez-faire even for them. Unless,
of course, you qualify to $$$$high-society which shares your notions but
not the height of your $ account :-).
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
The Premises w o u l d be Good for you, Mr. Kempe, if your real $
would also be Good. Otherwise you are just a theoretician supporting
a theory which is Good and promoted by/for those whose real $$$$
are also G o o d. Anyway, that's nice that you are so generously
supportive for those with real Big-Bang Bucks... that's also your
dream, isn't it so :-)?.
Irek De...@tut.fi
David Shepherd
>known as: "you can't have your cake and eat it too" [Francisco D'Anconia,
>in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand]).
So *that's* where that phrase originated .... you learn something new every
day on eunet ;-)
Is there an unending supply of quotable quotes for Magnus to keep
enlightening us with from the collected works of Ayn Rand. Perhaps he
should write an aynrandfortune program --- would make a change from
the Dr Who or Star Trek versions ! (Actually I suspect he already has
one interfaced into his mailer ;-)
> Note also, by the way, that the degree ofalphabetization
>in Tanzania is one of the lowest in the world (thusillustrating the
>principle that savages don't learn to read as long asthey have not grasped
^^^^^^^
>the need for productive work -- whereas peoplewho work in factories have
>both the time and the incentive to read:they can see ads and offices...)
I will assume this is less offensive in Swedish (though friends who have
lived in Sweden have commented on racist attitudes there).
>"We never make assertions, MissTaggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> our enemies. We do nottell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
> -- Hugh Akston, in_Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
looks like an assertion to me ;-)
david shepherd
INMOS
ps you will have to take the above signature on trust --- I don't think
I can prove it over the net ;-)
Hans Huttel
Here, the proper question to ask is:
what made the *American* development possible?
The proper answer is:
TV commercials.
Another question we have to ask is:
what has prevented, and still prevents, development in Magnus Kempe's views ?
The answer is:
the *absence* of sense, and the corresponding *presence* of Ayn Rand and
her "librarian" views (or whatever they call them).
What is the prerequisite for the recognition of Magnus Kempe's views? Reason.
Reason, which I first advocated, and which was at the heart of my
first poster, is the tool of Man and should also be used by Magnus.
Note: Eunet.politics has applied more and more reason to Magnus Kempe's
postings during the last week or so century (unfortunately influenced by
the time of year), which is precisely *why* eunet.politics doesn't shine
as brightly today, intellectually.
It is still the funniest group on eunet, however.
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Good Grief -- Hans
"Don't make such assertions, Taggart. The film is rolling."
(From the sorely missed "Taggart", ITV Tuesdays)
| Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: ha...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
| LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans
| University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.e...@nfsnet-relay.ac.uk
| Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!
Jeff Dalton
>: No former colony developed yet. There had to be something in colonialism
>: which had an effect of preventing this.
>
>The United States of America were colonies. Mr. Defee's assertion is false.
While it is true that Mr. Defee's claim is false, the US, and North
America generally, as well as Australia were colonies on a different
pattern from most of the others. But it would be hard to argue that
the native polulation benefited from the colonial experience.
In the case of the US, the immigrant population reacted to the
attempt to treat them as a convenient source of raw materials
by fighting and winning a war of independence.
Jack Campin
eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) wrote:
[ assorted things I'll respond to in a couple of days, and then this : ]
>> "New Internationalist" (monthly: 120-126 Lavender Avenue, Mitcham, Surrey
>> CR4 3HP) or "Race and Class" (#10 quarterly: Institute of Race Relations,
>> 2-6 Leeke Street, London WC1X 9HS).
> If that is not marxist propaganda, I don't know what is...
New Internationalist is not by any stretch of the imagination Marxist. Its
politics is somewhere near the centre of the British Green Party, with
occasional excursions to the left of the Labour Party (which is where War on
Want stands) or towards the Christian activism of the Quakers or Christian
Aid. I don't think their politics is particularly coherent, but the paper
is a useful source of factual information and I don't think it's a bad thing
that they so often try to encapsulate political processes in personal life
stories - rather that than try to obfuscate reality entirely behind a cloud
of "principles".
Race and Class, on the other hand, *is* substantially Marxist, though with
occasional feminist or anarchist pieces; it is certainly not tied to any
party line, though it does tend to be dominated by the personality of
A.Sivanandan at times. (Rather his personality than Rand's, anyway). What
matters is that it is a good source of hard information that is not easy to
come by in other places without a lot of library-trawling (see, for
example, the recent "Un-greening the Third World" issue; no green movement
paper I've seen has covered this in anything like that depth); and its
first-person accounts of events like the Palestinian Intifada often appear
nowhere else in English.
I don't know what "propaganda" is supposed to mean here - that it contains
information that doesn't fit into Magnus's world picture? Is there any
cognitive content to the term beyond "Magnus doesn't like it"? If so, can
you cite a precise example of what you mean?
>> Paul Baran's "The Political Economy of Growth", Andre Gunder Frank's
>> "Crisis" books, the writings of Immanuel Wallerstein and Samir Amin.
> All heirs of Marx... Add Immanuel Kant, and you'll know why sacrifice
> is preached.
We are *all* heirs of Marx; the relevant distinction is what we want to do
with what we've inherited from him. Not everyone who wants to use Marx's
conceptual frameworks is thereby a Marxist (I'm not, and I'm none too sure
about Wallerstein). I have absolutely no idea what Kant is doing in this
context, except that he is a leading figure in Rand's demonology. His
influence on anti-imperialist activists is nil and his influence on Marx
was less. Or is Magnus recommending Kantian ethics because his own has the
same Calvinist deductive structure? This is confusing.
> If anyone really wants to *know* what economics is about, start with
> Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson,"
> (an easy, short, explanation of what consequences are to be expected
> from government interference in the economy [tariffs, wage-controls,
> rent-controls, price-controls, inflation, government spending...])
Most of the examples I cited were precisely of (Western) government
interference in (Third World) economies - since governments control the IMF
and dictate what banks can do. But those governments are hardly autonomous
entities, are they? Who do think pays for candidates to be elected, to
take only the most obvious way in which large corporations gain influence
in Western governments? In the Third World, what happened to Iran when
Mossadeq tried to oppose BP, Guatemala when Arbenz took on United Fruit, or
Chile when the Popular Unity government clashed with ITT? What do you think
governments spend money on, anyway? - do you suppose the shareholders of
Boeing and Bofors are due for an attack of conscience about the amount of
taxpayers' cash that finds its way into their bank balances? Some chance.
Jack Jansen
> what made the *American* development possible?
>The answer is:
> Individual Rights, and the corresponding system: Capitalism.
Sorry, Magnus, bad premises.
Indeed, the question is interesting, but the answer is wrong.
How come Sweden is so developped? Japan? Korea? Taiwan?
How come Chile, Friedman's private playground, isn't?
Also, how come the UK economy is going down the drain now that
they're pushing towards a more american model of organizing
society?
If you propose to solve all the worlds problems by logic *do*
make sure that your inferences are correct, please.
--
--
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen
zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: ja...@cwi.nl
dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack
Dirk Husemann
>In article <22...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
...
>>What African socialist leaders have failed to understand is that:
>> 1. Western wealth was achieved by capitalism, not by socialism,
>Yeah, but it took several hundred years to tune the system. And more
>than 1000 years passed were tribes were substituted by nations in Europe.
Also, the resources for being able to "tune the system", to achieve
"western wealth" were taken from - the colonies! So, this unreflected praise
of "capitalism" seems to be a short-stop, failing to reflect European (American)
history ...
>>"Enlightened" African leaders, like Julius Nyerere, decided that the
>>welfare-state was to provide food, clothes, and education to "their"
>>people. Why did they decide that? "Well," they said, "look at Europe!
>>They have welfare-states, and they have food, clothes, and education!"
>That was of course big illusion. There were many even bigger...
>crimes in capitalist Europe (like world wars).
One doesn`t have to start with world wars - just look at the early
stages of the industrial revolution. Conditions for the normal, working class
people were extremely bad. Most of the changes to the better have been caused
not by capitalists but by socialists or people being concerned with the fate
of the lower class. I think that taking socialism for marxism is the same as
taking apples for peaches ... I'm not a socialist, netither do I belong to a
socialistic party (nor to a capitalistic or conservative party), but I think
that both capitalism and socialism have their drawbacks and also their
advantages.
>>But how did Europeans *create* these commodities?
see above.
>>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>Irek De...@tut.fi
>>"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
>> our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
>> -- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
---------------------- Smile, tomorrow will be worse! ------------------
X.400: <S=dkhusema;OU=informatik;P=uni-erlangen;A=dbp;C=de>
RFC822: dkhu...@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
RFC822: dkhu...@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.dbp.de [BETTER!FASTER!]
UUCP: {pyramid,unido}!fauern!immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de!dkhusema
Home: Dirk Husemann, Aufsess-Str. 19, D-8520 Erlangen, West Germany
Busi- University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Computer Science Dep.,
ness: IMMD IV, Martensstr. 1, D-8520 Erlangen, West Germany
Phone: (Home) +49 9131 302036, (Business) +49 9131 857908
-- Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here! --
------------------- My opinions are mine, mine, mine -------------------
Dirk Husemann
>I'll just comment on one of the stupid things Mr. Defee has written:
>: No former colony developed yet. There had to be something in colonialism
>: which had an effect of preventing this.
>The United States of America were colonies. Mr. Defee's assertion is false.
Whow - Just a moment, about which "United States of America" are we
talking? The "United States of America" of all (American) Indian tribes, who
constituted the *original* population? Or - the "United States of America" of
(mostly) European origin (and showing the same attitude towards colonies and
third world nations as the Europeans did and still do today)?
>Here, the proper question to ask is:
> what made the *American* development possible?
>The answer is:
> Individual Rights, and the corresponding system: Capitalism.
Whose "individual rights?" Do you mean those of the pre civil war slaves
upon which a lot of wealth in the southern states was build and a lot of
nowadays wealth in the northern (and southern) states? (Personally I think,
that the motivation for "liberating" the black people wasn't primarily the
American concern with the civil lives of those slaves, but instead were
primarily economical reason - most of the former slaves could be found in the
more industrialized north after the civil war, yet, their conditions of living
were as bad as before or even worse ...).
A lot of the American "success" relies heavily on European methods and
European attitudes towards other - less developed countries.
>Another question we have to ask is:
> what has prevented, and still prevents, development in Third-World countries?
>The answer is:
> the *absence* of individual rights, and the corresponding *presence* of
> statism/collectivism.
>What is the prerequisite for the recognition of Individual Rights? Reason.
>Reason, which Aristotle first advocated, and which was at the heart of the
>Renaissance, is the tool of Man.
>Note: America has adopted more and more statist legislation during the last
>century (unfortunately influenced by European countries), which is
>precisely *why* America doesn't shine as brightly today, economically.
>It is still the freest country on Earth, however.
Measured how? And: During the "early" days of the USA they had
slavery, they got rid of that, then what do we have today? The US has all
kinds of laws regulating a lot of issues which aren't regulated in most of
Europe - this starts with the sex life of grown ups and ends at book banning
by single states - the freest country on Earth???
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
> our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
> -- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
---------------------- Smile, tomorrow will be worse! ------------------
Irek Defee
>While it is true that Mr. Defee's claim is false, the US, and North
>America generally, as well as Australia were colonies ....
BTW, you have somehow forgotten to add South Africa here...
>on a different pattern from most of the others.
~~~~~~~~
...and the polite word "pattern" fits now very well...
>But it would be hard to argue that the native polulation benefited from the
>colonial experience.
...which just implies that these "primitives" also have not lost very much.
>In the case of the US, the immigrant population ...
~~~~~~~~
At this time, the "immigrant" population was c o l o n i a l population ...
(so this is yet another polite word)
>...reacted to the attempt to treat them as a convenient source of raw materials
>by fighting and winning a war of independence.
...and which continued colonization of local populations which were
convient source of raw materials and l a n d. The local populations
there continued and s t i l l continue their war of independence.
But I see your point - those who lost are not worth remembering.
Besides, they were 'primitives' with inferior culture and weapon
technology, so they deserved their fate ;-).
The use of the word "pattern" in the above context is just outrageous.
The "pattern" was different from the 'pattern' of colonization of, say,
India, only because the population of India was just too numerous to
be forced to total retreat. Ah, but probably you think that India also
got 'superior' British civilization as a gift from colonialists :-).
Fortunately, the past history can not be undercovered since everybody
may see a living skansen in the southern part of Africa. For your
attention also: many native American populations n e v e r recognized their
US citizenship and have n e v e r subordinated sovereingty over their
territories to federal goverment. They still consider that their heritage
has been invaded and plundered by... colonialists and continue fighting
for their rights.
Summarizing, only those former colonies developed in which f o r m e r
colonialists declared independence from the colonial center. In other
cases, colonialists have not managed to demolish totally local populations,
but managed to destroy their original identity enough to put them into
an apathy which may last for generations. But this is still better
than the fate of remainings of local populations living in super
highly developed places like South Africa, Australia, USofA... ;-).
> ...it is true that Mr. Defee's claim is false...
Yes, my claim is obviously false, since I take the position of some
'rubbish, drunk, and lazy' people living in some 'Sowetolands' and
which are saying something 'idiotic' about their rights ;-).
Irek De...@tut.fi
Jonas Lundholm
>I'll just comment on some of the stupid things Mr. Kempe has written.
>
>Here, the proper question to ask is:
> what made the *American* development possible?
>The proper answer is:
> TV commercials.
Has the way the European Countries behaved towards their collonies really
anything to do with whether capitalism or socialism is the
superior system? I really agree with Mr Kempe about the benefits of
free enterprise and a capitalist-style (there are variations on the theme)
government but in no way can I agree with the ideals of the "white man"
and his/her behavior in the past.
American developent is actually in part made by TV commercials. The commercial
system is the only system that will guarantee a division of power and
thus make sure the information is not monopolized by anyone, individual or
organization, who wants to use it for their own benefit. TV commercials is
not as bad as Mr Huttel thinks, the positive effect on society far outweights
the interrupt with some silly message in the middle of my favourite program.
Regards
Jonas L
Magnus Kempe
: We are *all* heirs of Marx; the relevant distinction is what we want to do
: with what we've inherited from him.
Either you reject his theories, or you accept them. Man is not a helpless
automaton, subject to "inner contradictions" or ruled by the tyranny of
"dialectical materialism." Use your faculty of reason, judge Marxism,
condemn it, and *reject* it. Marx was a bad historian, who merely mouthed
slogans he had gotten from Hegel.
: Not everyone who wants to use Marx's conceptual frameworks is thereby
: a Marxist (I'm not [...]).
Marx is a dead horse, and anyone who "wants to use [his] conceptual
frameworks" is an evil man-hater.
: I have absolutely no idea what Kant is doing in this context, except that
: he is a leading figure in Rand's demonology. His influence on anti-
: imperialist activists is nil and his influence on Marx was less.
Marx got his ideas from Hegel. Hegel got his ideas from Kant. Your "anti-
imperialism" looks more like irrational condemnations of "Western economy"
(what you ascribe to "Western" evil, should be ascribed to *statist*
*collectivist* evil.)
: Most of the examples I cited were precisely of (Western) government
: interference in (Third World) economies - since governments control the IMF
: and dictate what banks can do.
So, clearly, the solution is to have *no* control at all of the banks
(*whatever* the government), and *no* interference at all with *any*
economy (whether Third-world or not). In short, the solution is Laissez-
Faire Capitalism (against any kind of "imperialism," whether communist,
socialist, simply statist, totalitarian, or fascist.)
: In the Third World, what happened to Iran when
: Mossadeq tried to oppose BP, Guatemala when Arbenz took on United Fruit, or
: Chile when the Popular Unity government clashed with ITT?
How funny you haven't mentionned the invasion of Hungary in 1956, the
invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the invasion of Afghanistan in 1980,
the crackdown on Solidarity in 1981, the repeated attacks on Israel,
the expulsion of Taiwan from the United Nations in favor of Red China,
the occupation of Laos and Kambodja, the attempted invasion of South
Korea, the economy of Madagascar, Angola, Yemen, the self-destruction
of Rumania, the arbitrary expropriations in Mexico, Soviet Russia,
Ecuador, Chile, Egypt, Iran, the socialization of Nicaragua, Peru,
Bolivia, the statism in Brazil, Argentina, Lybia, North Korea,
Albania, the nationalisations in France, Britain, Sweden, the murderers
of the ANC (African National Council), RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion), BR (Brigade
Rosso), AD (Action Directe), PLO, the concentration camps in Soviet Russia,
Vietnam, the quinquennial plans in Ethiopia, Soviet Russia, France,
East Germany, Tanzania, Angola, Cuba, Vietnam, the millions dying under
the boots of "enlightened" socialist, marxist-whatever, maoist, nationalist
Leaders, Presidents, Revolutionnaries...
How funny you consistently avoid to name any "imperialist" action
when commited by socialists, dictators, communists, or marxist-
leninists.
: What do you think governments spend money on, anyway?
On you? [or on your university...]
Justice, the police, and the army. Additionally, in mixed-economies, on
various pressure-groups, and on bureaucrats (looters.) In totalitarian
states, such as Cuba, Soviet Russia, Red China, Ethiopia, etc., money
is mainly used to buy arms, in order to kill men (or, more simply,
to starve them.)
Hm-dr-kz_The_Gnome
>In article <22...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>>Here, the proper question to ask is:
>> what made the *American* development possible?
>>The answer is:
>> Individual Rights, and the corresponding system: Capitalism.
>
>they're pushing towards a more american model of organizing
>society?
Simple: the freemarket cannot work given the basic Human
weakness, which is the lust for power (a subset of general avarice).
You can also ask why is it that Japan and Germany are so
successful by operating such a limited form of the free market. Perhaps
because the Government of those two countries "controls" (not the word
the ubiquitous "they" would use) more carefully. I know the arguements
for low defence spending etc. but that can only be part of the reason.
The U.S. grew strong firstly on the back of slave labour ( I
read somewhere that at the time the constituition was being drawn up
the price of a Negro slave was fixed at the equivalent of two
cows), secondly because of the vast natural resources the country
enjoys, thirdly because by pursuing isolationism the U.S. was able
to create massive internal markets and keep defense spending low.
The U.S. is going down the drain because of it's dogmatic conceit
in it's role as the world's policeman ( a role most people in Europe
at least do not want them to take) and (that word again) dogmatic
adherence to monetarism.
It is impossible to argue with the average American about
politics: they are indoctrinated from birth to believe that their country
is God's gift to Humanity; thier ignorance about foriegn affairs is so
acute that they are unaware that there are other countries in the world
that do enjoy that precious commodity, freedom. In a survey of Americans
between the ages 18-25 40% couldn't identify their own country on the
map of the world and 1 in 5 were "functionally illiterate." I realise
that the typical adherent to this news group would not be one of these
but sometimes I wonder when I see the "America - land of the free"
bullshit. Tell that to Black America. Any country that allows a
significant minority to be disenfranchised for so long (ie Blacks)
should keep quiet about "Individual Rights."
Disclaimer: I generlise.
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>In article <22...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>>known as: "you can't have your cake and eat it too" [Francisco D'Anconia,
>
>So *that's* where that phrase originated .... you learn something new every
>day on eunet ;-)
Personally, I doubt very much that this phrase was invented by Ayn Rand.
>> Note also, by the way, that the degree ofalphabetization
>>in Tanzania is one of the lowest in the world (thusillustrating the
>>principle that savages don't learn to read as long asthey have not grasped
> ^^^^^^^
>>the need for productive work -- whereas peoplewho work in factories have
>>both the time and the incentive to read:they can see ads and offices...)
>
>I will assume this is less offensive in Swedish (though friends who have
>lived in Sweden have commented on racist attitudes there).
This is just as offensive in Swedish as in English.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Tej Koonar
>frameworks" is an evil man-hater.
How come you are still discussing him?
>
>How funny you consistently avoid to name any "imperialist" action
>when commited by socialists, dictators, communists, or marxist-
>leninists.
>
How funny you never mention Hitler,Mussolini and other fascists.
>various pressure-groups, and on bureaucrats (looters.) In totalitarian
>states, such as Cuba, Soviet Russia, Red China, Ethiopia, etc., money
>is mainly used to buy arms, in order to kill men (or, more simply,
>to starve them.)
>
Do you mean to say that non totalitarian states buy/manufacture arms as
decoration pieces and not to kill humans?
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to
> our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
> -- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
All your postings make you a moral criminal. All you do is assert,tell and
claim. You NEVER EVER show OR prove. This makes you your own enemy.
Tej.
Magnus Kempe
: [I wrote]
: >How funny you consistently avoid to name any "imperialist" action
: >when commited by socialists, dictators, communists, or marxist-
: >leninists.
:
: How funny you never mention Hitler,Mussolini and other fascists.
I did name the fact that Laissez-faire Capitalism is totally opposed to
fascism, in another part of my message, which you haven't quoted. Further,
Hitler was the Fuehrer of the National *Socialist* party, in case you haven't
learned *that* at school.
Anyone who has the intellectual *honesty* to read the party platforms of
the Nazis (years 1933 and on) will discover that:
1. the Nazis advocated, and created, a welfare-state,
2. they were opposed to "business profit",
3. they advocated the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, and
4. they called themselves *socialists*.
The Nazis were socialists. Mussolini had exactly the same kind of ideas.
That, you can also discover by looking at the facts (i.e. by reading his
speeches and studying his actions.)
Fascism is merely a specialisation of socialism: sacrifice of the individual
to the collective. So is communism. Remember *that*, next time you advocate
socialism, or next time you vote for it.
Magnus Kempe
: The U.S. grew strong firstly on the back of slave labour
: [...] secondly because of the vast natural resources the country
: to create massive internal markets and keep defense spending low.
If Mr. Pugh was right, then Soviet Russia should be the richest country
on Earth: the whole population is enslaved, they have more natural
resources than anyone else, and they have "massive internal markets."
However, reality does not lend itself to rewriting. The American wealth
is not the product of *physical* work, it is the product of *intellectual*
work, i.e. it is the result of a *higher*productivity*:
- Slaves are not encouraged to think. The northern USA have contributed
much more to the American prosperity than the southern states.
- Natural resources do not "somehow" transform themselves into wealth and
values. Someone has to look at them, take them, transform them, and sell
them. The American businessmen did, efficiently.
- "Massive internal markets" do not just lie somewhere, waiting for
someone to "supply whatever is demanded." A market is primarily a
market of *producers*, who are able to consume *because* they produce.
High production is made possible by intellectual work, exclusively.
High production makes high consumption possible, not the reverse.
Mr. Pugh's assertions were falsehoods. In fact, his assertions correspond
*exactly*, in principle, to what Marx said. You can look at Soviet Russia,
to see how much he was wrong; if you are intellectually honest.
M E Fletcher
[Deleted]
>Ah, but probably you think that India also
>got 'superior' British civilization as a gift from colonialists :-).
Well it got a road network, a rail network, a telephone network, a police
force, a legal system, a reduction in internal conflict, elimination of the
thugees, widows on funeral pyre etc. and the last legacy of colonialism is
of course, paradoxically, a democracy. Of course the developing of the
country was for the benefit of the British not the native population, but
are you seriously suggesting that India would be more developed today if it had
never been colonised?
Matthew Fletcher
Erhard Sanio
>: We are *all* heirs of Marx; the relevant distinction is what we want to do
>: with what we've inherited from him.
>
>Either you reject his theories, or you accept them. Man is not a helpless
>automaton, subject to "inner contradictions" or ruled by the tyranny of
>"dialectical materialism." Use your faculty of reason, judge Marxism,
>condemn it, and *reject* it. Marx was a bad historian, who merely mouthed
>slogans he had gotten from Hegel.
>
reasons. I am sure Marx never asserted humans to be "automatons". But,
decades before sociology and psychology proved that, he stated the
correlation between the social environment men are living in and the
opinions and points of view they tend to.
Marx also pointed out a strong correlation between the opinions and behaviour
people carry out and their economic interest. I think that Magnus himself
shows that this is not completely irrealistic. I doubt that he would that
strictly insist on Objectivism (typical middle-class ideology, sorry), if
he would depend on public support by any reason (poverty, disabledness, unem-
ployment etc.).
Again, sociology, demoscopy etc. proved that correlation to exist.
It was Marx himself who always stated that men are able to individually
overcome such influences which is lots easier when they are conscious about.
To accept those facts not automatically makes somebody a marxist, communist,
or stalinist.
(Btw, those are "facts" under my (and not only my) opinion. Anybody may feel
free to argue against.)
>
>: Not everyone who wants to use Marx's conceptual frameworks is thereby
>: a Marxist (I'm not [...]).
>
>Marx is a dead horse, and anyone who "wants to use [his] conceptual
>frameworks" is an evil man-hater.
>
and all other fanatics. Not sharing their point of view makes people "evil".
Calling somebody an "evil man-hater" that way is dogmatic, intolerant and
offensive. Maybe somebody is in error when thinking in the one or the other
way, but all humans commit errors (always) and that doesn't justify to insult
them. And there is more than one way to knowledge and enlightment.
Further on, even rejecting someone's axiomatic framework - partially or
totally - does not mean you're done with him/her.
Example: "Einstein believed in God (was pacifist, wasn`t anticommunist etc.)
- something I disagree to. Therefore, all that relativity theory is
bullshit and anybody who defends that is an evil guy."
IMHO, this way of arguing (which strictly reminds me to the attitude
of sect preachers - political as well as religious) violates the rules on
this network. I don't mind flaming (if somebody feels the need to get rid
of a particular anger, ok - I sometimes do, myself, and sometimes recognize
the necessity to apologize, afterwards). But the mutual respect to the
wide variety of opinions published here is a must.
And if Mr. Kempe thinks that there is but on correct & relevant opinion
all over the world (the Objectivist's one), then he should leave people
alone who think different. He should open an Ayn Rand Memorial Church
and invite people to listen his preachings there - not in eunet.politics.
regards, es
Jeff Dalton
>>While it is true that Mr. Defee's claim is false, the US, and North
>>America generally, as well as Australia were colonies ....
>BTW, you have somehow forgotten to add South Africa here...
I thought it was a sufficiently different case.
>>on a different pattern from most of the others.
> ~~~~~~~~
>...and the polite word "pattern" fits now very well...
I'm sorry, but I think pattern is a perfectly reasonable word to use.
>>But it would be hard to argue that the native polulation benefited from the
>>colonial experience.
>
>...which just implies that these "primitives" also have not lost very much.
I think you've almost completely misunderstood my intent. And that
is probably my fault for being insufficiently clear. In any case,
what I said does not imply they have not lost very much. I though
that everyone would know how much they had lost and that it wasn't
necessary to say more.
The point I was trying to make was that while some former colonies
are not underdeveloped, the development was done at tremendous cost
to the pre-colonial inhabitants.
>But I see your point - those who lost are not worth remembering.
>Besides, they were 'primitives' with inferior culture and weapon
>technology, so they deserved their fate ;-).
That was not my point *at all*. I agree with you in this, not
with Magnus!
>The use of the word "pattern" in the above context is just outrageous.
I'm sorry you think so.
>The "pattern" was different from the 'pattern' of colonization of, say,
>India, only because the population of India was just too numerous to
>be forced to total retreat.
I agree.
>Ah, but probably you think that India also got 'superior' British
>civilization as a gift from colonialists :-).
Didn't say it, and don't think it.
>Summarizing, only those former colonies developed in which f o r m e r
>colonialists declared independence from the colonial center.
That's a better description of the pattern I had in mind than
the description I used.
>> ...it is true that Mr. Defee's claim is false...
Strictly speaking, you claim was false. Some former colonies
are not now underdeveloped. But basically I agree with you.
I was trying to say "strictly speaking it's false, but so what?"
I apologize for the confusion.
-- Jeff
Hm-dr-kz_The_Gnome
>on Earth: the whole population is enslaved, they have more natural
>resources than anyone else, and they have "massive internal markets."
>
blinkering.
To argue that the whole population of the USSR is enslaved is
nothing but Right Wing Cold War Rhetoric: Fascist propaganda is
just as boring as Marxist (or derivations of) propaganda.
I would agree that exploitation of natural resources does require
a certain amount of business acumen, but then again Humanity as been
doing that for a long time so is it that difficult?
As for the "massive internal markets" of the USSR, your arguement
defeats itself (as usual: sometimes I think your whole world view
was formed by reading a book you didn't understand properly).
Slaves, by definition, are incapable of exercising free choice
about that which they consume. It is difficult for a native of the
U.K. to criticise freedom in other countries but I do recognise that
the USSR is less free than some Western "Democracies." However Russians
are not slaves. Neither are Russians in a position to consume to the
extent that we lucky westerners are( if low pay is a qualifier
for slavery there are millions of slaves in the U.K., for example).
Paul Pugh.
Jack Campin
eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) wrote:
> Laissez-faire Capitalism is totally opposed to fascism [...]
Pull the other one. You yourself found that the only logical escape your
ideology gave you when confronted with what imperialism had done to Africa
was to blame African underdevelopment on Africans being "tribal" and
"savages". This dialectical move is exactly the one laissez-faire
libertarians usually end up making; the FCS (Federation of Conservative
Students) here, a professedly "libertarian" organization, supports the
following:
- the MNR in Mozambique
- the Somozists in Nicaragua
- revival of public execution
- the Orange Lodges of Northern Ireland
- Pinochet's Chile
Of the above, the MNR came out of Salazar's fascism, the Orange Lodges have
close links with the English neo-nazi parties, and Chile has been home to a
number of escaped war criminals and seems to have a government-supported
Nazi slave camp still operating in the south.
The FCS are also notorious for giving Nazi salutes at their gatherings.
There is a steady traffic to and fro between their membership and that of
the neo-nazi parties, depending on which seems to be tactically the best
bet to belong to at the time.
Not that this is due exclusively to the internal logic of the laissez faire
ideology. The FCS and other rightist "libertarian" groupings have had
substantial funding from the Heritage Foundation and the Coalition for
Peace through Security; these are channels for American money, largely from
the CIA but to some extent from the out-and-out Nazis of the World Anti-
Communist League (in turn funded by such specimens as the Reverend Sung
Myung Moon and the war-criminal-cum-yakuza-boss-turned-"philanthropist"
Ryoichi Sasakawa).
Enough money can buy a lot of principles.
[ And, as an aside, Britain's best-known rightist "libertarian" is Chris
Tame, who works for a pro-tobacco-industry publicity organization. The
tobacco industry has killed over ten million people since 1945, quite a
lot more than the Nazi death camps. ]
Magnus Kempe
: I am sure Marx never asserted humans to be "automatons".
And Marx proceeded to expose his theory of dialectical materialism, which
holds that any entity has inner contradictions, including man (thus, man
is held to be subject to those inner contradictions. Marx got that from
Hegel, who got that from Kant.)
Further, Marx asserted that there are various "logics" for various
"classes." For example, a "bourgeois believes that a thing is what
it is" and a worker "may believe that a thing is *not* what it is."
And vice-versa.
Marx's explanation is that both are right, *according*to*their*
*logic* and that they can't discuss: he proposed murder as a tool of
argument, in the hands of the "workers" (as if the "bourgeois" didn't
work.) Thus, Marx's argument was that the "bourgeois" and "workers"
cannot communicate, except by force, because they are helplessly
*conditionned* by their social environment (their social environment
*imposes* its "logic" on them.)
So much for the Marxist man not being an automaton.
: I doubt that [Mr. Kempe] would that
: strictly insist on Objectivism (typical middle-class ideology, sorry), if
: he would depend on public support by any reason (poverty, disabledness, unem-
: ployment etc.).
What Mr. Sanio means, is that the poor, the disabled, and the unemployed would
not insist on using their faculty of reason, because they have a different
"logic" (force, faith, need, whatever.) He says, in essence, that a man's ideas
are totally conditionned by his social environment, which he holds to
"depend on public support."
Man is a being of volitional condition. In other words, man has free-will.
But that is not what Marxists say, and Mr. Sanio is a social determinist too.
: It was Marx himself who always stated that men are able to individually
: overcome such influences which is lots easier when they are conscious about.
No need to be a Karl Marx in order to say that an *unconscious* man cannot
deal with reality. Read Aristotle, who lived 2'000 *years* before Marx.
: To accept those facts not automatically makes somebody a marxist, communist,
: or stalinist.
: (Btw, those are "facts" under my (and not only my) opinion. Anybody may feel
: free to argue against.)
What Mr. Sanio means is that there is a "social consensus," and that the force
of the consensus will influence reality (he got that from Hegel, whom Marx
faithfully repeated.) That's why he writes "facts": for Marxists, "facts"
do not exist independently of "inner contradictions," so a "fact" may become
a "non-fact," whenever the "battle between contradictions" turns to the
advantage of "another contradiction." It is the duty of the proletariat to
choose the appropriate contradictions and help them win...
Note that, usually, Marxists will merely shrug at the above arguments, saying,
in essence, that I use "bourgeois" logic, which contradicts *their* "logic,"
and that the solution lies in the use of force. What Marxists cannot accept
is that reality is an absolute, independently of any man's irrational wishes,
whims, prayers, or "inner contradictions." Screaming and kicking won't change
the metaphysical, by definition (gravity, the existence of matter, of life, of
consciousness, etc.)
: Thats the way of judging which is common to stalinists, fascists, religious
: and all other fanatics. Not sharing their point of view makes people "evil".
Observe that what Mr. Sanio means is that calling someone's ideas evil makes
the speaker a fanatic (implicitly, a murderous fanatic.) For example, if I
say that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Deng-Xiao-Ping, Pol Pot, were/are all
evil men, I thereby turn myself into a fanatic.
Actually, what Mr. Sanio means is that someone who says that there are
absolutes is evil, because "there are no absolutes." He himself confesses
that belief further in his message.
: Calling somebody an "evil man-hater" that way is dogmatic, intolerant and
: offensive. Maybe somebody is in error when thinking in the one or the other
: way, but all humans commit errors (always) and that doesn't justify to insult
: them.
Honest errors of knowledge are not the same as willfull irrationality. Children
make honest errors. Adults are entirely responsible for their statements and
actions. And errors are *not* the to-be-expected. Errors are *potential*, and
they may be avoided; how? by the volitional use of reason.
: And there is more than one way to knowledge and enlightment.
There, we get it, explicitly. There are several "ways to knowledge and
enlightenment," says Mr. Sanio. So, according to that idea, one cannot
condemn any idea or action, because it might be an "unknown way to
knowledge and enlightenment." In other words, there are no absolutes.
Mr. Sanio, stop drinking water for one week, and we'll see whether you
are still around to talk about non-absolutes. Or cut your legs, and we'll
see how fast you'll be able to run after non-absolutes.
: Further on, even rejecting someone's axiomatic framework - partially or
: totally - does not mean you're done with him/her.
Of course, contradictory "axiomatic frameworks" might lead to "knowledge
and enlightenment." Someone who willfully rejects volition and reason does
not offer any interesting arguments: such a person merely repeats what he
is told by his peers, or by an ambitious thug (such as Stalin, or Goebbels.)
: Example: "Einstein believed in God (was pacifist, wasn`t anticommunist etc.)
: - something I disagree to. Therefore, all that relativity theory is
: bullshit and anybody who defends that is an evil guy."
:
: IMHO, this way of arguing (which strictly reminds me to the attitude
: of sect preachers - political as well as religious) violates the rules on
: this network.
There are no rules for arguing specifically on this network, but there are
universal laws of logic (read Aristotle), and they may be used to argue that
the above example can be dismissed by pointing out that it is a non-sequitur
(or that it is an Ad Hominem.)
: the mutual respect to the wide variety of opinions published here is a must.
No. If someone argues in favor of Nazism, or Communism, I have no respect to
show towards such evil arguments. *That* is an absolute. And if you reject
this absolute, you are just as evil as Nazists and Communists: you let them
free to pretend they are rational, and might find one of the "ways to
knowledge and enlightenment."
: And if Mr. Kempe thinks that there is but on correct & relevant opinion
: all over the world (the Objectivist's one), then he should leave people
: alone who think different. He should open an Ayn Rand Memorial Church
: and invite people to listen his preachings there - not in eunet.politics.
If you were right, Mr. Sanio, your "suggestion" would apply to socialists,
communists, marxist-leninists, non-absolutists, etc. What you fail to
understand, is that if you have a public forum entitled "eunet.politics,"
you should expect to see arguments in favor of the individual, not only in
favor of the collective.
Here, I'm the one arguing in favor of the *individual*, of man the *rational*
animal, who possesses *free-will*.
Timothy Teitenberg
>convient source of raw materials and l a n d. The local populations
>there continued and s t i l l continue their war of independence.
Mr. Defee, do you have some secret intelligence information about
future Native American actions? Having lived in the Pacific Northwest
of the U.S. for the last 27 years I am completely unaware of any
"war of independence" by the Native Americans. Just what parties
are at war? Your statements are absurd.
The only conflicts that are going on are those through the judicial
system. (Native American vs. commercial fishing rights seem to come
up every few years.) Your statements are a gross fabrication of
reality in an attempt to justify your assertions.
Also, I don't follow this line of argument that the Native American
populations were colonized. They never took part in the colonies to
any great degree. The European immigrants colonized the North
American continent, not the Native Americans. The Native Americans
were invaded and displaced. And before you get on your high-horse I
would like to remind you that the North American colonies did not
invent the action that is commonly called "invasion." You people here
in Europe perfected it long before it was ever tried in North America.
I'm certain that there have been invasions in Europe that were
far more oppressive to those being invaded than what the Native
Americans experienced.
Contrary to your assertion, I don't see how you can claim that the
Native Americans themselves were a source of raw materials. However,
the land that they lived on certainly was used as a source of raw
materials. The Native Americans were not used in the colonies, nor
today, as a primary source of labor, slave or otherwise.
I have read your postings over the last couple of months and have
been generally amused by what you try to attribute to the U.S.
government, culture, people, etc.. My only reservation is that
somebody reading this newsgroup may place some value in what you
write.
Tim
Timothy Teitenberg
> Simple: the freemarket cannot work given the basic Human
>weakness, which is the lust for power (a subset of general avarice).
This is a load of mush-mouth talk. It means nothing. If you truly
have so little faith in human kind, then you surely must believe that
no system whether capitalist, socialist, communist, etc. will save
us. There is nothing in your statement the proves that a free-market
system will work any better or worse than any other.
> You can also ask why is it that Japan and Germany are so
>successful by operating such a limited form of the free market. Perhaps
>because the Government of those two countries "controls" (not the word
>the ubiquitous "they" would use) more carefully. I know the arguements
>for low defence spending etc. but that can only be part of the reason.
If you think the Japanese economic system is substantially different
than the U.S. system then prove it. You've simply stated your
opinion without any meaningful support.
> The U.S. grew strong firstly on the back of slave labour ( I
Wrong! The U.S. grew strongly after the beginning of the industrial
age and the massive influx of immigrants. Slavery ended well before
the industrial age, and slavery never contributed significantly
to the economic position of the U.S. as it stands today.
>cows), secondly because of the vast natural resources the country
>enjoys, ...
My God! You've stated something accurately.
>enjoys, thirdly because by pursuing isolationism the U.S. was able
>to create massive internal markets and keep defense spending low.
>The U.S. is going down the drain because of it's dogmatic conceit
>in it's role as the world's policeman ( a role most people in Europe
>at least do not want them to take) and (that word again) dogmatic
>adherence to monetarism.
Which will it be Mr. Pugh, isolationism or world policeman? You can't
attribute the U.S. with both. Even you should be able to see the
contradiction in your statement.
If it be isolationism then it seems to me that is the business of the
people of the U.S. to decide, not you or anyone else. The fact that
the U.S. has created massive internal markets simply provides further
evidence that capitalism is superior when it comes to effectively
using the available resources and distributing them as widely as
possible for the public good.
If it be world policeman then that is a choice that the U.S. must
make. However, it seems to me that the U.S. is asked to play this
roll by the world community just as often as the U.S. decides to take
this roll on its own. Sometimes I think the U.S. should just say to
hell with the rest of the world because of people like yourself, Mr.
Pugh, but being the arrogant, conceited American that I am I truly
believe that the U.S. has an ideallogical and practical roll to play in
the world. If the U.S. ever decides to turn inward on itself it would
be a sad day for not only the U.S., but also the rest of the world.
And that, Mr. Pugh, is a wholly pragmatic statement whether you or
anyone else reading this wishes to admit it.
> It is impossible to argue with the average American about
>politics: they are indoctrinated from birth to believe that their country
>is God's gift to Humanity; thier ignorance about foriegn affairs is so
>acute that they are unaware that there are other countries in the world
>that do enjoy that precious commodity, freedom. In a survey of Americans
>between the ages 18-25 40% couldn't identify their own country on the
>map of the world and 1 in 5 were "functionally illiterate." I realise
>that the typical adherent to this news group would not be one of these
>but sometimes I wonder when I see the "America - land of the free"
>bullshit. Tell that to Black America. Any country that allows a
>significant minority to be disenfranchised for so long (ie Blacks)
>should keep quiet about "Individual Rights."
>
This hatemongering diatribe is well below the level of even this
newsgroup. You've shown yourself to be a bigot far beyond those that
you assail.
Assuming that you are a British citizen, it is ironic that you talk
of the blacks in the U.S., given the amount of bigotry that people
like you in the UK display towards other cultures.
>Disclaimer: I generlise.
Yes you do.
Tim
Nico Verwer
> In article <35...@netmbx.UUCP> sa...@netmbx.UUCP (Erhard Sanio) writes:
> : I am sure Marx never asserted humans to be "automatons".
> And Marx proceeded to expose his theory of dialectical materialism, which
> holds that any entity has inner contradictions, including man (thus, man
Furthermore, Marx showed that this explains why humans are _not_
automatons. Because humans have contradictory ideas, live under
different social circumstances, etc., these will influence what
they think and how they act. The fact that humans are not
automatons explains why social and technical changes can take
place. The fact that humans are not automatons was the basis for
Marx's theory of class society. He was able to analize class
society because he had the theory (or, rather, method) of
dialectical materialism. The misinterpretation and deformation
of this method in the hands of stalinist ideologists in state
capitalist Russia since the late twenties is a completely
different matter. Also, Marx didn't just take over Hegel's
dialectics: Hegel wasn't a materialist, but assumed that there
was something like a "superior spirit". By giving Hegel's
dialectics a materialist basis (inspired by Ricardo's economic
theory), Marx was able to formulate a scientific (in the sense
of the enlightenment) sociological theory.
> Further, Marx asserted that there are various "logics" for various
> "classes." For example, a "bourgeois believes that a thing is what
> [...]
> Marx's explanation is that both are right, *according*to*their*
> *logic* and that they can't discuss: he proposed murder as a tool of
> argument, in the hands of the "workers" (as if the "bourgeois" didn't
> work.) Thus, Marx's argument was that the "bourgeois" and "workers"
> cannot communicate, except by force, because they are helplessly
> *conditionned* by their social environment (their social environment
> *imposes* its "logic" on them.)
The fact is that, because of their different social positions,
workers and capitalists have different interests _as a class_.
The capitalist must make a profit in order to compete, whereas
the worker is coerced to do wage-labour in order to make a
living. The capitalist takes part of what the worker produces,
in order to re-invest it _to make a profit_. Workers and bosses
can (and do) discuss, but only within this capitalist (whether
private capitalist or state capitalist as in Russia, China,
etc.) framework.
> Note that, usually, Marxists will merely shrug at the above arguments, saying,
> in essence, that I use "bourgeois" logic, which contradicts *their* "logic,"
> and that the solution lies in the use of force. What Marxists cannot accept
> is that reality is an absolute, independently of any man's irrational wishes,
> whims, prayers, or "inner contradictions." Screaming and kicking won't change
> consciousness, etc.)
Because of class society, people have different and
contradictory ideas. Moreover, peoples' ideas are not directly
determined by their class posistions. This explains, for
instance, why their are people with utterly reactionary ideas
like Magnus posting to this net, which is an excellent platform
for the exchange of idead and opinions otherwise.
The problems created by capitalism (poverty, starvation, war, to
mention just a few) cannot be solved within the limits of
capitalism itself. Whenever workers go beyond the bounds imposed
by capitalism, the capitalist state tries to crush their resistance.
What happens then depends on the relative strength of class
forces. Unfortunately, the last 60 years have only seen defeats
for the working class --- often at the hands of stalinism. Examples
range from Spain 1936 to China 1989. The only way to bring down
the capitalist system is by using force: The spanish workers
were defeated because the "communist" party disarmed them. The
workers and students revolt in China was crushed because they
couldn't fight off the army. In order to break the state
violence, workers will have to use force _eventually_, which
does not mean that I advocate terrorism (not because it is
"immoral, but because it doesn't work as a tactic).
Of course, this is too much for Magnus, who will be the first to
support the Russian ruling class when they let the tanks rolling
over Red Square when there will be a popular uprising in Russia,
in the name of law and order.
Reality is not "absolute", not independent of man's wishes. As
Marx said: "People make their own history, but not under the
circumstances of their choice." Even Magnus recognises this,
although he will never admit, otherwise he wouldn't argue on
this net (a situation many people would enjoy).
> There are no rules for arguing specifically on this network, but there are
> universal laws of logic (read Aristotle), and they may be used to argue that
> the above example can be dismissed by pointing out that it is a non-sequitur
> (or that it is an Ad Hominem.)
Universal laws of logic? I don't want to go into issues which
belong to sci.logic, but their have been some developments in
logic since Aristotle. I also doubt if you can use these laws to
argue what Magnus does. He would better read Marx first before
pretending to know about what Marx actually wrote and meant.
--
Nico Verwer @ Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
(ver...@cs.ruu.nl)
Irek Defee
>In article <89...@etana.tut.fi> de...@joutsen.UUCP (Irek Defee) writes:
>>...and which continued colonization of local populations which were
>>convient source of raw materials and l a n d. The local populations
>>there continued and s t i l l continue their war of independence.
>
>Mr. Defee, do you have some secret intelligence information about
>future Native American actions? Having lived in the Pacific Northwest
>of the U.S. for the last 27 years I am completely unaware of any
>"war of independence" by the Native Americans. Just what parties
>are at war? Your statements are absurd.
No, no this is not a 'big style' war you could notice, or which
could get through the media screening. But still something is
going on... I am just enclosing first example at hand (reprinted without
permission). You can get more from jdm...@cdp.uucp (David Yarrow).
It is long but several minutes of reading is nothing comparing to
the 27 years of living in the Pacific Northwest in a state of
unconsciusness.
CITATION STARTS:
Subject: Native Americans & Citizenship
/* Written 11am 9/20/89 by David Yarrow(jdmann) */
I see from the discussion of the voting rights of Native Americans there
continues to be confusion about the status of these aboriginal people - a
confusion which too oftens extend to them, also. It also extends to the
courts, the state and federal legislatures, and most executives.
Last summer I sat in Council Chambers of Syracuse City Hall with a chief
of Onondaga Nation; when the meeting began everyone rose to recite the
Pledge of Allegiance - except the Onondaga chief. He was official
representative of a democratic government which is centuries older than the
US: the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Confederacy of the Iroquois League.
The City of Syracuse has been here 200 years this year; Onondaga Nation has
been here at least 8,000 years. Fortunately no one made a big deal out of
it, but in high school I saw a classmate beaten up who refused, due to the
Vietnam War, to stand and recite the pledge.
In the last 100 years numerous attempts have been made by US government
to pass laws which impose citizenship on Native Americans. Since the US
refuses to recognize dual citizenship, to accept US citizenship requires
Native Americans to renounce their native citizenship, which they refuse
to do. Most tribes resisted such efforts, and, I believe, many were beaten
up for such refusal to join in allegiance to our "foreign" government.
Citizenship cannot be imposed, but requires consent of the individual. So
in the 1900's federal policy shifted. Tribes who wouldn't accept US citizen
status had US funded "colonial" governments imposed - "democratic" elected
tribal councils replaced traditional councils of elders. Then, in what was
hoped to be a coup de grace to the "Indian problem," the Termination Acts
were passed to simply declare the remaining holdouts "extinguished."
It is interesting to look at the history of the legal history of Indian
status. The most critical event took place in 1922 in NYS....
In the 1910's an Oneida Indian mortgaged land to a white, then defaulted
on the mortgage. The white had his sheriff seize the Oneida land, sell it
and pay him the proceeds. The Oneida sued in court, and won; the land was
returned to the Oneida and the white lost his money. History doesn't record
if the Oneida was beaten, but local stories about such behavior are common.
The NY court said the Oneida had no right to dispose of his nation's
land, and since a mortgage is a conditional sale, the Oneida couldn't
mortgage it either. To this day, this causes problems for Haudenosaunee,
since they can't get mortgages for housing construction, which results in
severe housing shortages in their communities (Nobody lives in bark & pole
longhouses anymore).
The sheriff's county contested the decision, and a US Court judge ruled:
1) Indians are aliens (not US citizens),
2) Indians never ceded their sovereignty to the US, and
3) Indians are wards of the US government (not NY government).
This is quite astonishing, since the three rulings are mutually exclusive.
Startled, NY's Comptroller, who annually paid $150,000 to what had always
been called "NY Indians," said NY law forbade payments for obligations not
under NY law. If Indians were US wards, then it was US responsibility to
pay the $150,000. In 1919 NY's Governor and Legislature quickly assembled a
NY Indian Commission to determine the "status" of the Indians and who
should pay the bill due them. In the Commission's report its Chairman said
he thought the US Court judge was drunk when he made his ruling.
For three years the Commission studied the problem, including meeting
with all the Indian nations, researching history back to 1620, examining
all federal, state, Canadian, and British treaties, and attempted to find
the "lost man" - the Indian. In 1923, Commission Chairman Edward Everett, a
lawyer and legislator, submitted his report.
Everett concluded Indians were under federal jurisdiction, since only
federal government could, under Art. I Sect. 10 "No state shall enter into
any treaty, alliance or confederation...." He also found Indians never
ceded their sovereignty, but in fact, in 1776 and 1784, made treaties in
which the US recognized Indian sovereignty and promised to protect Indians
from loss of their land. Everett found NY had no right to take away Indian
land, nor had any of its treaties with Indians been properly ratified by US
Congress, and the US failed to uphold its sworn agreement to prevent just
such actions by NY.
Therefore most of NY is still Indian land; NY knowingly and willfully
refused to execute the proper protocol to extinguish Indian title.
Needless to say, Everett's report was rejected by NY, and never printed.
Everett, too, was quashed, was never re-elected and died a poor man. But
today NY still knows it sits on legally thin ice, and the Indians search
for a copy of Everett's report. This is a bigger coverup than IranContra or
Watergate - at least 6 million acres of the Empire State. (If anyone in the
rare book & documents business ever finds it, let me know.....)
In 1975 and again in 1984 the US Supreme Court reviewed these same legal
principles and agreed NY violated federal law and therefore had to make
restitution to Oneida Nation for land taken illegally from them. Today NY
has quit fighting the Oneida claim and negociates a resolution. Some say
these negociations may take another 200 years.
Not all Indian tribes enjoy the unique historic and legal advantage of
the so-called "NY Indians." Many never had stable villages and governments,
and were declared to not be nations at all; their lands were simply seized
by the right of sovereign "discovery." Others became involved in wars with
the US, and were forced to cede their lands and sovereignty to the US. Many
were simply exterminated.
Since 1977 the Haudenosaunee have petitioned to be seated in the UN, but
their efforts have been quashed by the US influence as a veto-wielding
member of the UN Security Council. The US refuses to recognize them as free
and independent nations, and most whites routinely refuse to grant such
recognition to native governments.
It's important to reflect on possible next steps of unceasing US attempts
to extinguish Native Americans. Military campaigns of early centuries gave
way to 20th century socio-political efforts to break tribal identity and
force assimilation into US society. But survivors of the Red Race refuse,
like lumps of Turtle Island granite, to melt into the American pot. With
the rise of genetic engineering, many Native peoples fear the US will
employ this new technology against them. If this sounds macabre, take heed
of recent documented cases of forced sterilization of native women. More
than a few traditionals refuse vaccinations and innolculations for fear of
deliberate infection of their communities with AIDS.
Today Africa and Asia have thrown off the yoke of colonialism. But the
native aboriginal peoples of the Americas and Australia are still seeking
relief. And I, for one, believe they are a critical and missing voice
within the planetary family in the global discussion about the future of
the planet - the threat of nuclear and ecological annihilation we all face.
CITATION ENDS
I don't necessarily agree with all opinions expressed above but how
about the FACTS?.
>The only conflicts that are going on are those through the judicial
>system. (Native American vs. commercial fishing rights seem to come
>up every few years.) Your statements are a gross fabrication of
>reality in an attempt to justify your assertions.
There are many other cases like the ones above. Historically, no
rights at all or of Native Americans were recognized or they were
being cheated/deprived. They rights are not perceived today only
because they were majorized by the colonial population. This is
not the case in South Africa were native population still
greatly outnumbers descendants of the colonialists. But media
image is like above :"besides some minor fishing problems
Native Americans are happy in reserves".
>Also, I don't follow this line of argument that the Native American
>populations were colonized. They never took part in the colonies to
>any great degree. The European immigrants colonized the North
>American continent, not the Native Americans.
So we can say more: all colonialists in history colonized only
land but not natives living there. Native Americans were forced to
retreat to the places which were not considered 'valuable' by
colonialists.
>The Native Americans were invaded and displaced.
This whas thus not 'pure' colonialism because the Native Americans
somehow were not good material for slaves which were imported from Africa.
>And before you get on your high-horse I
>would like to remind you that the North American colonies did not
>invent the action that is commonly called "invasion." You people here
>in Europe perfected it long before it was ever tried in North America.
>I'm certain that there have been invasions in Europe that were
>far more oppressive to those being invaded than what the Native
>Americans experienced.
You are right here.
I was in no way going to perform Europe-contra-America bashing. In fact
Europe is m u c h worse in its historical record of opression,
mass-murdering, totalitarism etc., than America.
>Contrary to your assertion, I don't see how you can claim that the
>Native Americans themselves were a source of raw materials. However,
>the land that they lived on certainly was used as a source of raw
>materials. The Native Americans were not used in the colonies, nor
>today, as a primary source of labor, slave or otherwise.
OK, let's take that they were o n l y displaced(?).
>I have read your postings over the last couple of months and have
>been generally amused by what you try to attribute to the U.S.
>government, culture, people, etc..
That's quite a misunderstanding of my position. The problem started
with Mr. Kempe idealizing America, its history and system as an
ultimate paradise and model for everybody. My opinion is that this is
a normal country with weak and strong points and histry which is not
as clean as our ameridealist says, but here I had to concentrate on
negatives to counter-balance Mr. Kempe glorification. I am quite
understandable that such a glorification is appealling for you, from
what I heard about nationalistic brainwashing in USofA.
>My only reservation is that somebody reading this newsgroup may place
>some value in what you write.
>Tim
Everybody can counterbalance my opinions here :-).
Irek
Jamie Andrews
>on Earth: the whole population is enslaved, they have more natural
>resources than anyone else, and they have "massive internal markets."
It's easy to criticise a totalitarian Communist state.
Lumping every non-Objectivist doctrine under "socialism", and
trying to use those criticisms to argue that Objectivism is the
only valid response, is ludicrous.
Whenever people use the word "socialist", I can tell that
they're trying to make some false generalisation of this kind.
--Jamie.
j...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
"Look at this tangle of thorns"
Jamie Andrews
>learned *that* at school.
If this is the way that Objectivists "prove" things, I'm
glad I didn't learn logic from them...
--Jamie.
Karl Tombre
discussions with the There-is-Only-One-Ayn-Rand-and-*guess-who*-is-her-prophet
religion. So here is a joke instead.
[Sorry if the joke has already been made - We didn't get any news in
France these last days, so I have to jump into a discussion]
> We are *all* heirs of Marx; the relevant distinction is what we want to do
> with what we've inherited from him.
Yes, we are all heirs of Marx...
in Western Europe we inherited das Kapital
in Eastern Europe they inherited the Manifest
Karl Tombre - INRIA Lorraine / CRIN
EMAIL : tom...@loria.crin.fr - POST : BP 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France
Magnus Kempe
: The capitalist must make a profit in order to compete, whereas
: the worker is coerced to do wage-labour in order to make a
: living.
Observe that "life" for a "capitalist" is "to compete," whereas a "worker"
"make[s] a living." What Mr. Verwer wants to reject, is that: a man is a man.
Whatever his abilities, his success, his economical position, his political
theories. Any man has to make a living, in *various* kinds of work, which
means with various degress of *intellectual* and physical work.
To differentiate between a "capitalist" and a "worker" on the grounds that the
former "indulges" in "competition" while the latter "toils" "to make a living"
is a stupid attempt at destroying the meaning of *intellectual* work.
A businessman has *ideas* that might lead to higher productivity. The reason
why his employees do not get wages that are exactly *equivalent* to the market
value of what they produce is that the businessman's part of the work is his
*ideas*. His employees wouldn't produce as much without his ideas; in fact,
they probably wouldn't produce enough to feed themselves (look at Soviet
Russia, or the middle ages.)
: The capitalist takes part of what the worker produces,
: in order to re-invest it _to make a profit_.
That should read: the profit motive is what leads the businessman to *think*,
and to invent new ways to higher *productivity*. Higher productivity allows
his employees to produce more with less work, and thus to buy more with less
work: in short, the employees make *huge* profits on their employer's *ideas*,
for which he *alone* is responsible.
The businessman allows his employees to produce more, because he selfishly
wants more: the more he produces, and the more he wants to produce, the more
his employees produce, and thus, the more they own. The "worker" should thank
the "capitalist," not chant that he will "free the inner contradictions of the
world -- and kill his 'boss'."
: The problems created by capitalism (poverty, starvation, war, to
: mention just a few) cannot be solved within the limits of
: capitalism itself.
Poverty is exactly what Capitalism does *not* "create." Poverty is the
hallmark of the middle ages, and of socialist countries. It is only with
Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution that famine, diseases and feudal
looting disappeared.
Starvation is *only* found in socialist countries (Soviet Russia, Poland,
Ethiopia, etc.) It is a problem that has been solved in a few particular
countries, thanks to higher *productivity*, i.e. typically thanks to the
capitalist *profit* motive.
War is the hallmark of statist/colectivist countries. Observe that the two
World Wars were started by the most statist/collectivist countries on Earth.
It is not in the interest of the businessmen to wage wars. Bombed factories
do not produce anything. Capitalism is *anti-war*, because it holds that
man lives by *productive* effort, not by *looting*.
: [...] The only way to bring down the capitalist system is by using force
What *that* means is: Capitalism is totally *opposed* to the initiation of
force; the initiation of force is the hallmark of collectivism, socialism,
fascism, communism, and mixed-economies. Force is the central tenet of all
anti-capitalist ideologies.
: [...] In order to break the state
: violence, workers will have to use force _eventually_, which
: does not mean that I advocate terrorism (not because it is
: "immoral, but because it doesn't work as a tactic).
Observe that "terrorism" (i.e. blindly killing innocent people) is rejected,
not because it is "immoral," but because it's not a good "tactic." How much
lower in morality can Marxist propaganda go?
: Of course, this is too much for Magnus, who will be the first to
: support the Russian ruling class when they let the tanks rolling
: over Red Square when there will be a popular uprising in Russia,
: in the name of law and order.
How utterly *stupid*. I will welcome the fall of Soviet Russia, as I will
welcome the fall of *all* collectivist states.
: Reality is not "absolute", not independent of man's wishes.
Here, again, an avowed Marxist tells you what it is about: reality submits
to mans' "wishes." I'll tell you the same thing I told Mr. Sanio: stop
ingesting water for one week, and then we'll see whether you still have wishes
to mold reality with.
Reality is an absolute. That's why sacrifices, as preached by all
collectivists, will not lead to happiness and prosperity.
: As Marx said: "People make their own history, but not under the
: circumstances of their choice."
What *that* statement means is that a man's wishes can not change what
has *already* happened. That is one of the senses in which "Reality is
an absolute." But it does *not* mean that the future is *entirely* deter-
mined by the past, contrary to what Marxists claim.
: Universal laws of logic? I don't want to go into issues which
: belong to sci.logic, but their have been some developments in
: logic since Aristotle.
Yes, there have been, especially the Marxian logic: "a thing is not what
it is, and it is what it is, and the contradiction will lead to the downfall
of Capitalism..."
There *are* universal laws of logic, because the universe is an absolute.
A thing is what it is, and not what it is not: that is the basis for logic,
the art of *non-contradictory* identification. Reality does not contradict
itself. Any attempt to contradict reality ends up in self-destruction; look
at Soviet Russia, Ethiopia, Red China, Kambodja, Peru, etc.
Magnus Kempe
: [I wrote]
: >Hitler was the Fuehrer of the National *Socialist* party, in case you haven't
: >learned *that* at school.
:
: If this is the way that Objectivists "prove" things, I'm
: glad I didn't learn logic from them...
Because I can't accept that a human being willfully blinds himself to reality,
I'm going to give you one more chance: it is not for nuts that Hitler and his
peers called themselves National *Socialists*.
How can you *know* why they called themselves *Socialists*? Read the Nazi
party platforms, Hitler's "Mein Kampf," and his close friends' reports on
what he *said* and *did* [1].
*If* you are not totally brain-dead, you'll discover that:
1. Nazis were collectivists
2. they advocated the welfare state
3. they opposed businessmen making profits, i.e. they opposed Capitalism
4. they considered that the ultimate virtue for the individual is to
sacrifice himself to the collective
5. they had the same fundamental premises as all altruists and
collectivists have.
The above doesn't *prove* what I say, but *indicates* where you should go
to seek confirmation of what I say. Get it? If you don't understand *that*,
or prefer *not* to know, please have the honesty of stating at the beginning
of your future messages that:
"I, Jamie Andrews, do not care to know facts, and thus do not care
to understand anything anyone says."
That way, everybody will know that honesty is not one of your virtues.
--
[1] Dr. Leonard Peikoff has spent 12 years researching this topic, and
has published a book called _The Ominous Parallels_, with *extensive*
quotes and references, where he has shown *what* the philosophy of the
Nazis was, and, in addition, he has shown that the current philosophical
trends are unfortunately similar in the USA.
--
Dr. Sanio
>: I am sure Marx never asserted humans to be "automatons".
>
>And Marx proceeded to expose his theory of dialectical materialism, which
>holds that any entity has inner contradictions, including man (thus, man
>is held to be subject to those inner contradictions. Marx got that from
>Hegel, who got that from Kant.)
Modern psychology states that human motivations and actions derive from
- often contradicting - wishes and goals - conscious as well as unconscious.
Political theory of open, pluralist society states that society has to
maintain an arena of non-violent competition of contradicting opinions etc.
I don't see that Marx is away from reality, here. Btw, Kant did not cope
with dialectic, as I remember.
>
>Further, Marx asserted that there are various "logics" for various
>"classes." For example, a "bourgeois believes that a thing is what
>it is" and a worker "may believe that a thing is *not* what it is."
>And vice-versa.
Completely wrong. Post-Marx Marxism did sometimes (and especially Stalinism
in an excessive way).
What Marx stated (as I remember), is, for example, something like:
The employer regards low wages to be good (low cost), whereas
the worker regards it to be bad (few food). The logic is the same, but the
(social) point of view is different. So, the conclusions are different.
>Marx's explanation is that both are right, *according*to*their*
>*logic* and that they can't discuss: he proposed murder as a tool of
>argument, in the hands of the "workers" (as if the "bourgeois" didn't
>work.) Thus, Marx's argument was that the "bourgeois" and "workers"
>cannot communicate, except by force, because they are helplessly
>*conditionned* by their social environment (their social environment
>*imposes* its "logic" on them.)
As I remember, you regard it just to kill people who touch your property.
So you are not entitled to condemn other people who regard(ed) violence
as a means of social change. And note that Marx regarded democracy (which
he found only in England at that time) as a possibility to do social
change in a non-violent way. His opinion that the feudal societies on the
continent had to be removed by revolutions was shared even by most liberal
democrats at that time.
>So much for the Marxist man not being an automaton.
Sorry, but you didn't prove anything. I doubt you ever read a line of Marx,
Hegel, or Kant (nor Aristotle).
> [ ... ] He says, in essence, that a man's ideas
>are totally conditionned by his social environment, which he holds to
>"depend on public support."
I think it's lots easier to close one's eyes upon the necessity of public
support when oneself has no need of.
>Man is a being of volitional condition. In other words, man has free-will.
>But that is not what Marxists say, and Mr. Sanio is a social determinist too.
If "social determinism" means that opinions, points of view, goals etc are
influenced by the social environment, well, then I'm one. To deny that means
to throw away at least one century of progress in psychology, sociology and
other areas.
>: It was Marx himself who always stated that men are able to individually
>: overcome such influences which is lots easier when they are conscious about.
>No need to be a Karl Marx in order to say that an *unconscious* man cannot
>deal with reality. Read Aristotle, who lived 2'000 *years* before Marx.
I did (Marx, Hegel & Kant did, too). But that contradicts your assertion
that Marx regarded men as "automatons".
>What Mr. Sanio means is that there is a "social consensus," and that the force
>of the consensus will influence reality (he got that from Hegel, whom Marx
>faithfully repeated.) That's why he writes "facts": for Marxists, "facts"
>do not exist independently of "inner contradictions," so a "fact" may become
>a "non-fact," whenever the "battle between contradictions" turns to the
>advantage of "another contradiction." It is the duty of the proletariat to
>choose the appropriate contradictions and help them win...
bullshit. What I meant was simply that I haven't the definite key to know-
ledge and wisdom. I cited some results of psychology, sociology and educational
science in a short (and a little generalizing) way. If somebody more knowledge-
able could show me the incorrectness of the one or the other of that, (s)he
should feel free to do so. Everything else derived therefrom is your annoying
way of shooting strawmen.
>Note that, usually, Marxists will merely shrug at the above arguments, saying,
>in essence, that I use "bourgeois" logic, which contradicts *their* "logic,"
>and that the solution lies in the use of force. What Marxists cannot accept
>is that reality is an absolute, independently of any man's irrational wishes,
>whims, prayers, or "inner contradictions." Screaming and kicking won't change
>the metaphysical, by definition (gravity, the existence of matter, of life, of
>consciousness, etc.)
We're back to the objectivist prayers. Note that not only marxists don't share
your opinion. And today, few people state that usage of force is a solution.
As mentioned above, you are no pacifist at all, yourself.
>: Thats the way of judging which is common to stalinists, fascists, religious
>: and all other fanatics. Not sharing their point of view makes people "evil".
>Observe that what Mr. Sanio means is that calling someone's ideas evil makes
>the speaker a fanatic (implicitly, a murderous fanatic.) For example, if I
>say that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Deng-Xiao-Ping, Pol Pot, were/are all
>evil men, I thereby turn myself into a fanatic.
>Actually, what Mr. Sanio means is that someone who says that there are
>absolutes is evil, because "there are no absolutes." He himself confesses
>that belief further in his message.
I regard it stupid to believe in absolutes. Condemning crimes (of Hitler,
Stalin or whomever) is neither bad nor fanatic. I don't know how far somebody
is "evil", I leave that to psychologists. But I remember that you called
an other contributor "an evil man-hater", simply because he was not willing
to reject everything of Marx' thought. That's what I call fanatism, and I
would do, even if I did share your philosophical point of view.
Even then, I would blame others to be wrong (what I do with you, actually),
but not condemn them to be "evil", "enemies", "man-haters" or "murderers".
>Honest errors of knowledge are not the same as willfull irrationality. Children
>make honest errors. Adults are entirely responsible for their statements and
>actions. And errors are *not* the to-be-expected. Errors are *potential*, and
>they may be avoided; how? by the volitional use of reason.
Oops, I'm falling asleep. History of science & knowledge is a history of
errors. I regard your point of view to be highly erroneous. And Aristotle
believed in the flat earth.
And who are you to blame people who don't share your opinion to be "willfully
irrational"?.
>: And there is more than one way to knowledge and enlightment.
>There, we get it, explicitly. There are several "ways to knowledge and
>enlightenment," says Mr. Sanio. So, according to that idea, one cannot
>condemn any idea or action, because it might be an "unknown way to
>knowledge and enlightenment." In other words, there are no absolutes.
>Mr. Sanio, stop drinking water for one week, and we'll see whether you
>are still around to talk about non-absolutes. Or cut your legs, and we'll
>see how fast you'll be able to run after non-absolutes.
Sure, because 1+1=2, it's obvious that the earth is flat. And because
v+v=2*v, this is as well true if v=c (ask Einstein).
>: Further on, even rejecting someone's axiomatic framework - partially or
>: totally - does not mean you're done with him/her.
>Of course, contradictory "axiomatic frameworks" might lead to "knowledge
>and enlightenment." Someone who willfully rejects volition and reason does
>not offer any interesting arguments: such a person merely repeats what he
>is told by his peers, or by an ambitious thug (such as Stalin, or Goebbels.)
Again, somebody who rejects your and your goddess' eternal truths, willfully
rejects reason. And sure (s)he is a true follower of Hitler & Stalin.
>: Example: "Einstein believed in God (was pacifist, wasn`t anticommunist etc.)
>: ...
>: IMHO, this way of arguing (which strictly reminds me to the attitude
>: of sect preachers - political as well as religious) violates the rules on
>: this network.
>There are no rules for arguing specifically on this network, but there are
>universal laws of logic (read Aristotle), and they may be used to argue that
>the above example can be dismissed by pointing out that it is a non-sequitur
>(or that it is an Ad Hominem.)
Your confirming what I said. You have the key to knowledge & wisdom, everybody
else has to submit. That's sect preaching at its best. Btw, the non-sequitur
claim is true, of course, but you missed the point that your "conclusions"
don't differ from that example.
And there are rules on that network. Read the *.newusers groups to obtain some
information about the behaviour expected.
>: the mutual respect to the wide variety of opinions published here is a must.
>No. If someone argues in favor of Nazism, or Communism, I have no respect to
>show towards such evil arguments. *That* is an absolute. And if you reject
>this absolute, you are just as evil as Nazists and Communists: you let them
>free to pretend they are rational, and might find one of the "ways to
>knowledge and enlightenment."
Note that people meet here on the net in order to exchange informations and
opinions. Discussing with fascists or stalinists would probably be equally
hard as discussing with you and they would be urged to leave the forum after
short time, I guess. Discussing with other people (Conservatives, marxists
and as well communists) as far as they would show tolerance and mutual
respect wouldn't be a problem.
>: [ my proposal to preach somewhere else ]
>If you were right, Mr. Sanio, your "suggestion" would apply to socialists,
>communists, marxist-leninists, non-absolutists, etc. What you fail to
>understand, is that if you have a public forum entitled "eunet.politics,"
>you should expect to see arguments in favor of the individual, not only in
>favor of the collective.
My suggestion applies to everybody refusing dialogue.
>Here, I'm the one arguing in favor of the *individual*, of man the *rational*
>animal, who possesses *free-will*.
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Don't you feel yourself a little paranoid? (I forgot, paranoics never do)
>"We never make assertions, [ etc etc ]
" Jesus loves you, Allah is great, Om mani padme hum etc etc "
regards, es
Irek Defee
> "free the inner contradictions of the world -- and kill his 'boss'."
Why not to say clearly that workers should be servants and beggars of
capitalists?;-). In the statements like above the true nature
Mr. Kempen's laissez faire capitalism is revealed. Humans should be
subsided to other humans by making from work relation a tool for
enslaving human natures. This has been tested practically in the XIX
century practical version of LF capitalism. And the observation of the
debilitating results of this system on human beings belonging to the
"working class" has led Marx to his extreme conclusions. In fact,
these were quite valid reflections of many work relations at their time.
And these reflections were recognized by others leading to the
creation of humanized working relations in the present developed world.
Characteristically for hard-core capitalists, Mr. Kempen neglects
absolute character of humans and social character of work. Humans
can not be subsided to other humans, so there is nothing for which
they can thank capitalists mercy. It is only the treatment of humans
as "things", common for LF capitalism and totalitarism and relative
abundance of such "things" (unorganized and unprotected) which makes
this possible and enables to use the statements like the one above.
Free humans reject sharply any degradation of them to the status of "things".
A truly human and moral analysis of the relation of work must
consider three parties: supplier of work, direct producer and
consumer. Peculiarity in this relation is that the parties engaged
are h u m a n s which are absolute entities and a l l having equal
and higher (infinite) status than things. Thus, all parties in
the relation of work (as in other human relation) m a y o n l y
have e q u a l status. They have also fundamental rights and obligations.
Let's only mention that the supplier of work is morally obliged to
make everything possible to avoid degradation of direct producers
to the status of "things". This is difficult since the supplier
in a peculiar way is a kind of an "owner" of humans during the
course of work. But being such an "owner" of absolute entities makes
him responsible for the proper and responsible work resulting in
a best-intended product for the consumer. Supplier has of work has
also a fundamental right to be a sole owner of a product. In fact
work without a real owner of products is devastation of the
potential of direct producers and thus also degrades them.
Among numerous results of improper work relation one of the most
severe is a l i e n a t i o n (noticed first by Marx) felt by
direct producers and made by suppliers of work. Dignity of direct
producers is then violated because of their feeling as being used
o n l y as a source of (hefty)profits and treated like
d i s p o s a b l e things. Another kind of alienation is observed
in communist systems where lack of real owners of work products has
led to the feeling of humans as part of machinery devastating their
efforts. The results of alienation are common: Humans do not see any
social sense in their work as satisfying other human needs, and
become cynical, fighting only for their direct compensations which
obviously can not compensate fully for the lost sense, since humans
are not just machines needing only enough fuel to run full speed.
The alienation of work appears in every system: in capitalism and
in collectivism, everywhere where humans are degraded to things.
It seems that it has no easy cure by any social system, and surely
theoretical Laissez-Faire capitalism of Mr. Kempen would not solve
it. Worse enough, the XIX century version of practical LF capitalism
has a very bad record in this respect.
It seems that there is no simple solution to all violations of the
work relation. In fact there are numerous partial improvements being
offered like humanization, participation, consumerism, legal
protection. Powerful concept for the solution of this problem is
realization that in modern, advanced working environment a high
motivation, commitment and cooperation are required from all parties
to achieve work objectives. But high motivation can be achieved
o n l y when humans are treated as humans. BTW, here is one of the
main sources of USofA being distanced by Japan. Remarkably, the
best American companies offer similar work environment as Japanese
ones.
Perhaps the whole problem of alienation will disappear in the next
century when work will be robotized, humans will be only playing (or
working for pleasure:-) and remnant capitalists will be satisfying
their sadistic instincts on special mentally-hardened robots :-).
The theory advocated by Mr. Kempen will be then (humorously)studied
as a yet-another deviant invention of human mind.
>Starvation is *only* found in socialist countries (Soviet Russia, Poland,
>Ethiopia, etc.)
This is typical 0.5-truth demagogy of Mr. Kempen. While it is true that
starvation is characteristic for countries with totalitarian economy
(first 0.5-truth) is this a full-truth?. Taking examples of
starvation in non-socialist countries would make the whole theory
invalid so its better to forget about them. Or ex-definitione the
countries with starvation can not be capitalist? BTW, how about
humans which lived (Great Recession) or are living today on food
stamps in some very rich countries? That is not starvation... yet.
>War is the hallmark of statist/colectivist countries. Observe that the two
>World Wars were started by the most statist/collectivist countries on Earth.
>It is not in the interest of the businessmen to wage wars. Bombed factories
>do not produce anything. Capitalism is *anti-war*, because it holds that
>man lives by *productive* effort, not by *looting*.
Except when the bussinessmen happen to be in a bomb-making bussiness :-).
Of course, a *good* war is when 'my-bussiness' factories are not
reachable by enemy forces. Thus, e.g., Vietnam war was good for
many bussinesses which boomed so that they were hard to find in *anti-war*
movements, or I am wrong here, Mr. Kempen?. But one has to agree that
the b e s t bussiness is to supply weapons to somebody's else war
even by *looting* (and even in Sweden, because only profits count ;-).
>What *that* means is: Capitalism is totally *opposed* to the initiation of
>force;
*That* means *in* Mr. Kempen's "theoretical LF capitalism", which is going to
bring yet-another-paradise-on-Earth, I presume. But was it so always
also in *practical* capitalism or there has not been any *real* capitalism yet?.
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Mr. Kempen ideology offers simple and ideal solution to all problems by using
0.5-truth, demagogy and prophetic zeal based on "irresistible logic".
Forunately most humans are too human and too irrational to be convinced by
the "cold" logic of theoretical LF capitalism.
Irek De...@tut.fi
Hans Huttel
A : He/she holds the bulb, and the world revolves around him/her .
| Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: ha...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
| LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans
| University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.e...@nfsnet-relay.ac.uk
| Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!
Hans Huttel
holds that Ayn Rand and her followers has no inner contradictions, including
Magnus himself (thus, we are held to be subject to his posters. Magnus got
his ideas from Rand who deduced them from `A is A', whatever that means.)
Further, Magnus asserted that there is one "logic" for all people.
For example, "Ayn Rand believes that existence exists" and a worker
should therefore also see it as central that existence exists.
Et cetera.
Magnus's explanation is that Ayn Rand is right (far right, in fact),
*according*to*her**logic* and that there is no need to discuss: he proposed
long lists of "definitions" or "axioms" as a tool of
argument, in the hands of the "objectivists" (as if the objectivists weren't
subjective every once in a while)
So much for Magnus not being an automaton.
There are no rules for arguing specifically on this network, but there are
some good principles of a discussion (and do read some of that
post-Aristotelian stuff!), and they may be used in this newsgroup so that
the above poster can be dismissed by pointing out that it is nonsense.
(or that it is "definitions" Ad Nauseaem.)
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Good Grief -- Hans
"Why wait any longer for the world to begin ? You can have your cake and
eat it too"
Bob Dylan, "Lay Lady Lay" (from Nashville Skyline)
Paul Pugh
>> Simple: the freemarket cannot work given the basic Human
>>weakness, which is the lust for power (a subset of general avarice).
>
>This is a load of mush-mouth talk. It means nothing. If you truly
>have so little faith in human kind, then you surely must believe that
>no system whether capitalist, socialist, communist, etc. will save
>us. There is nothing in your statement the proves that a free-market
>system will work any better or worse than any other.
Did I propose any system that will work better than the free market?
What I have described as the basic human weakness has been the downfall
of the USSR's idea of communism as well.
>If you think the Japanese economic system is substantially different
>than the U.S. system then prove it. You've simply stated your
>opinion without any meaningful support.
The systems are not substanially different: isn't the Japanese
system a copy of the US ? I would suggest that the attitude
of the Governments in their approach to industrial collaboration
etc are substantially different. Do you disagree that Japan's
economy is much healthier than the US's?.
>> The U.S. grew strong firstly on the back of slave labour ( I
>
>Wrong! The U.S. grew strongly after the beginning of the industrial
>age and the massive influx of immigrants. Slavery ended well before
>the industrial age, and slavery never contributed significantly
>to the economic position of the U.S. as it stands today.
This article began as "how Britain underdeveloped it's
Colonies" ie I was referring to a the early 1880s. I was under the
impression that the industrial revolution was well under way
before the US abolished slavery.
>Which will it be Mr. Pugh, isolationism or world policeman? You can't
>attribute the U.S. with both. Even you should be able to see the
>contradiction in your statement.
Again I was referring to an earlier age. Ever since the US
adopted the conceit of being the World's policeman it's
economy as suffered.
>evidence that capitalism is superior when it comes to effectively
Superior to what? America's particular form of capitalism
is not very successful at the moment is it?
>This hatemongering diatribe is well below the level of even this
>newsgroup. You've shown yourself to be a bigot far beyond those that
>you assail.
Other interesting characteristics of the typical American
is their paranoia, self delusion, and an inferiority complex
that allows no criticism of their own country.
>Assuming that you are a British citizen, it is ironic that you talk
>of the blacks in the U.S., given the amount of bigotry that people
>like you in the UK display towards other cultures.
Absolute crap. To compare any bigotry prevalent in Britain
(how about a few examples?) to the way the blacks have been
treated in your country is an example of the total ignorance
you have of the cultures of my own country and even your own.
What's happened in the States: some sort of National Amensia
about the unpleasent things that have happened?
Paul Pugh.
Dr. Sanio
>were invaded and displaced. ...
>I'm certain that there have been invasions in Europe that were
>far more oppressive to those being invaded than what the Native
>Americans experienced.
>today, as a primary source of labor, slave or otherwise.
>been generally amused by what you try to attribute to the U.S.
>somebody reading this newsgroup may place some value in what you
>write.
to genocide, slavery, conquest, robbery etc . Note that he is citizen
of a country which contributed few (if any) to those nice parts of
history of mankind (different to yours, and - even more - mine).
What I understood from his postings was that he didn't want to generally
accuse your country to be especially evil (I don't, too), but he
attacked the naive idealization Mr. Kempe carried out in his postings.
So, I'm one of those which fullfil your concern, as I read Mr. Defees
postings with interest, though I don't agree to anything he states.
Though I agree that the native population was mainly not used for slavery
etc, I regard your point of view as cynical. At least, the native population
was made subject of invasion (which you admit) as well as suppression and
genocide. This was a poor usage of the declaration of Rights of (Hu)Man(s),
which I regard as an important contribution of your country to the progress
of humanity and civilization.
>In article <18...@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> Hm-dr-kz_...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Paul Pugh) writes:
>> You can also ask why is it that Japan and Germany are so
>>successful by operating such a limited form of the free market. ...
>If you think the Japanese economic system is substantially different
>than the U.S. system then prove it. You've simply stated your
>opinion without any meaningful support.
In a lot of newsgroups mainly frequented by US citizens, I always found
the repeated and annoying damnation of anything European countries (not
only mine) doing in favour of workers, underprivileged, disabled, poor
or sick people as "socialist". Any interference of the state or the public
into reckless actions of (what was regarded as) "business" were flamed
there for lack of freedom or even something close to bad, bad
communism.
Obviously, it's the opinion of many of your own compatriots that the
USA are substantially different from Japan or most European countries
and that those are more close to communism than to your ideal society.
>Wrong! The U.S. grew strongly after the beginning of the industrial
>age and the massive influx of immigrants. Slavery ended well before
>the industrial age, and slavery never contributed significantly
>to the economic position of the U.S. as it stands today.
>
I cite you: "My God! You've stated something accurately."
>Which will it be Mr. Pugh, isolationism or world policeman? You can't
>attribute the U.S. with both. Even you should be able to see the
>contradiction in your statement.
There was no contradiction at all. Paul first stated that the USA arose
by isolationism, big internal market etc, then declined by obtaining
the world policeman role.
>
>If it be isolationism then it seems to me that is the business of the
>people of the U.S. to decide, not you or anyone else. The fact that
>the U.S. has created massive internal markets simply provides further
>evidence that capitalism is superior when it comes to effectively
>using the available resources and distributing them as widely as
>possible for the public good.
As stated before, the USA grew up as well by conquest, robbery and
genocide. Though I agree that slavery in particular did not significantly
contribute to that process, it remains true that they got rid of it nearly
a century after the declaration of independance. This should warn you off
from a moralistic attitude, which is boring to be carried out by many of
your compatriots.
And I feel that it might have been, too, the "business" of the victims of
that uprise (Red Indians, Mexicans etc) to decide. They weren't asked.
>If it be world policeman then that is a choice that the U.S. must
>make. However, it seems to me that the U.S. is asked to play this
>roll by the world community just as often as the U.S. decides to take
>this roll on its own. Sometimes I think the U.S. should just say to
>hell with the rest of the world because of people like yourself, Mr.
>Pugh, but being the arrogant, conceited American that I am I truly
>believe that the U.S. has an ideallogical and practical roll to play in
>the world. If the U.S. ever decides to turn inward on itself it would
>be a sad day for not only the U.S., but also the rest of the world.
>And that, Mr. Pugh, is a wholly pragmatic statement whether you or
>anyone else reading this wishes to admit it.
Note that there are many people which do (and did) not want the USA
to "make this choice". I sometimes doubt whether it was - and much more,
actually is - in favour to "the world community". Maybe your country
saved Western Europe to be overwhelmed by stalinism, but I heard serious
arguments that this threat has been exaggerated even in the late 40's
and early 50's (That topic should be discussed more closely).
Btw, nobody denies the merits of your country in defeating Hitler.
But I'm sure that Nicaraguans as well as lots of other people would
have been lots happier if your country had kept away from his "sheriff's"
role (if they survived it at all). And I believe that this would have
been (and will be) as well in favour of your country itself.
>Tim
regards, es
----
Erhard Sanio unido!sinix!athen!es unido!tmpmbx!netmbx!sanio
Saarinen Kimmo Samuli
>
>: Calling somebody an "evil man-hater" that way is dogmatic, intolerant and
>: offensive. Maybe somebody is in error when thinking in the one or the other
>: way, but all humans commit errors (always) and that doesn't justify to insult
>: them.
>
>Honest errors of knowledge are not the same as willfull irrationality. Children
>make honest errors. Adults are entirely responsible for their statements and
>actions. And errors are *not* the to-be-expected. Errors are *potential*, and
>they may be avoided; how? by the volitional use of reason.
Children make honest errors, because they don't (always) recognise
the wrong and the right. How the adults then differ from the children ?
They have more knowledge than the children (trivial). But still we
adults must act according our knowledge, which might be erroneus or
uncompleted etc. Here lies the possibility to make errors, we
are not perfect and we can't know everything so only way to avoid
making errors is not making anything :-).
>
>: And there is more than one way to knowledge and enlightment.
>
>There, we get it, explicitly. There are several "ways to knowledge and
>enlightenment," says Mr. Sanio. So, according to that idea, one cannot
>condemn any idea or action, because it might be an "unknown way to
>knowledge and enlightenment." In other words, there are no absolutes.
When we are dealing with different types of experimentations (this is
life, you know, not a hypothetical world), we should accept that not
all of our knowledge is not reached only by reasoning from some set
of axioms. There may be absolutes, but we may make an error asserting
one as an absolut before we are sure about it. To make sure is not
a simple task and that's why there can be more than one way to
knowledge and enlightment.
>
>: Further on, even rejecting someone's axiomatic framework - partially or
>: totally - does not mean you're done with him/her.
>
>Of course, contradictory "axiomatic frameworks" might lead to "knowledge
>and enlightenment." Someone who willfully rejects volition and reason does
>not offer any interesting arguments: such a person merely repeats what he
>is told by his peers, or by an ambitious thug (such as Stalin, or Goebbels.)
We surely got more knowledge, thanks for them (as "evil" they were).
There are now lots of data about that phenomenon, the point is do we
learn anything from it.
>: the mutual respect to the wide variety of opinions published here is a must.
>
>No. If someone argues in favor of Nazism, or Communism, I have no respect to
>show towards such evil arguments. *That* is an absolute. And if you reject
>this absolute, you are just as evil as Nazists and Communists: you let them
>free to pretend they are rational, and might find one of the "ways to
>knowledge and enlightenment."
No, they have the same right to express their opinion as you have, what
makes you different than they ? You have to rely on the reader's faculty
of reason, that (s)he can choose freely and objectively his/hers standpoint.
>
>Here, I'm the one arguing in favor of the *individual*, of man the *rational*
>animal, who possesses *free-will*.
And we are not already ? Who is thinking with my brains ? :-)
>
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Life is only an abstraction, I can feel it but can I touch it ?
Kimmo ki...@vtsai2.sai.vtt.fi
Nico Verwer
> A truly human and moral analysis of the relation of work must
> consider three parties: supplier of work, direct producer and
> Supplier of work has
> also a fundamental right to be a sole owner of a product. In fact
> work without a real owner of products is devastation of the
> potential of direct producers and thus also degrades them.
But what then constitutes this right? I think there is no need to
seperate the "supplier of work" from the producer and the consumer. In
order to live, humans need to consume. But this means they have to
produce the things they consume, which requires human labour. What needs
to be produced is determined by the needs of the consumers.
Where do the "suppliers of work" come in? At the beginning of human
societies, and long after, scarcity prevailed. People could not live in
abundance. At some point in history, however, technology had been
developed which enabled man to produce _surplus_, i.e. to produce more
than is needed for bare subsistence. This was still not enough for
everybody to live in abundance, and the surplus was appropriated by some
people. Thus, a seperation of what Marx calls _classes_ occured: On the
one hand you have the direct producers, on the other hand those who reap
the surplus and use it to further _their_ aims, the ruling class. Of
course the ruling class needs to explain why this situation is just, so
they say they "have been appointed by God to rule" or "they supply work
and provide prosperity for humanity".
The basic feature of capitalism is that productive units (companies,
states) _compete_ with eachother. In order to survive in the struggle
with their competitors, they must make a profit and re-invest it, to
expand their business. Production is geared to the need for profit, not
to human needs for consumption. It is this which devastates the
potential of the direct producers: With current technology there is no
physical reason why poverty and starvation still exist, it is the drive
for profit which destroys human and natural resources.
> Among numerous results of improper work relation one of the most
> severe is a l i e n a t i o n (noticed first by Marx) felt by
> direct producers and made by suppliers of work. Dignity of direct
> producers is then violated because of their feeling as being used
> o n l y as a source of (hefty)profits and treated like
> d i s p o s a b l e things. Another kind of alienation is observed
> in communist systems where lack of real owners of work products has
> led to the feeling of humans as part of machinery devastating their
> efforts. The results of alienation are common: Humans do not see any
> social sense in their work as satisfying other human needs, and
> become cynical, fighting only for their direct compensations which
> obviously can not compensate fully for the lost sense, since humans
> are not just machines needing only enough fuel to run full speed.
Considring the comments above, it cannot be the lack of owners of
products which causes alienation in the so-called communist countries.
In fact there is a class of "owners of work" in these countries: The
state bureaucracy, which expropriates the direct producers, the workers,
in order to compete with their western rivals. The fact that formal
property relations are different from those in the West does not mean
that the basis of these societies is any different. The motive of
production turns out to be exactly the same, there exist a ruling class
and a working class, and these countries can only be appropriately
described as _state-capitalist_. In fact, this is the only analysis
which conforms to Marx's own analysis of what capitalism really _is_,
not what it seems to be (Marx himself stated that one should look at the
relations of production, not at property relations).
Why then do the "communist" states claim they are communist/marxist
etc.? This is _their_ rulers' justification for being in power. As Lenin
wrote: After their death, the great revolutionaries are iconized, their
theories stripped off their revolutionary content, to console and
oppress the masses. This is exactly what happened during and after
Stalin's counter-revolution in the late twenties, and in Eastern-Europe
after the 2nd world war. This is especially sad, because the idea that
socialism/communism = stalinism has held back and betrayed workers'
struggles for more than 60 years now. Fortunately, various groups now
begin to pick up the real marxist tradition now, even in Russia (I'm
thinking of the Moscow (NOT the Russian!) Popular Front.
-- "Workers of the world unite!"
Jack Jansen
>Ethiopia, etc.) It is a problem that has been solved in a few particular
>countries, thanks to higher *productivity*, i.e. typically thanks to the
>capitalist *profit* motive.
Magnus, PLEASE!!!!
This is utterly untrue. I wouldn't call Mexico a socialist country.
Or any other Latin American country, for that matter. Or most African
countries.
>It is not in the interest of the businessmen to wage wars. Bombed factories
>do not produce anything. Capitalism is *anti-war*, because it holds that
>man lives by *productive* effort, not by *looting*.
Ha Ha Ha!
Try and come leave your terminal once in a while, and check up with
reality, please.
Capitalists might have some incentive not to start a war at home, but
they're usually more than eager to start wars elsewhere.
--
--
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht | Oral: Jack Jansen
zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen | Internet: ja...@cwi.nl
dan dooft het licht | Uucp: mcvax!jack
Teemu Leisti
writes about Magnus Kempe:
> There are no rules for arguing specifically on this network, but there are
> some good principles of a discussion (and do read some of that
> post-Aristotelian stuff!), and they may be used in this newsgroup so that
> the above poster can be dismissed by pointing out that it is nonsense.
> (or that it is "definitions" Ad Nauseaem.)
Magnus cannot be dismissed by pointing out that he's spouting nonsense.
As has been pointed out before in this newsgroup, Objectivism is a
religion, and Magnus is a True Believer. What's more, he's already
proved his persistence in posting, posting, posting, so the only way to
not have to suffer him is to ignore him. To repeat, it's no use trying to
argue rationally with him.
Teemu Leisti
U of Helsinki, Finland
Jamie Andrews
In article <13...@majestix.ida.liu.se> ti...@majestix.ida.liu.se (Timothy Teitenberg) writes:
>Mr. Defee, do you have some secret intelligence information about
>future Native American actions? Having lived in the Pacific Northwest
>of the U.S. for the last 27 years I am completely unaware of any
>"war of independence" by the Native Americans. Just what parties
>are at war? Your statements are absurd.
I suppose he was using the word metaphorically. Certainly
almost all the native tribes in the Pacific Northwest (where I
lived 1970-1982, 1984-1987) are struggling to reclaim rights
stolen from them, or to be able to put into practice rights that
they already have.
You don't often hear about these struggles in the press,
possibly because they have been going on for so long that
they're "no longer news". Also, the lack of native voices in
the press means that native views are often misrepresented or
underrepresented.
In Washington State, the group that comes to mind is the
Kootenai tribe of the north-central state and south-central
British Columbia, who are fighting for their fishing rights.
I'm more familiar with BC, in which the Nuu-chah-nulth on
Vancouver Island, the Haida in the Queen Charlotte Islands, and
the Git'ksan-Wetsuwetan in central BC are fighting for their
right to control their land, by legal and "illegal" means
("illegal" relative to the laws of Canada, which are often
irrelevant). The Git'ksan-Wetsuwetan never signed any land
deals or treaties, and have often chased trespassers off their
land with shotguns -- even though their land is "officially"
Crown land, and various forest products companies "officially"
have the right to log it.
The Hopi, in Arizona, come to mind as a people who have for
centuries resisted successive colonists' attempts at subjecting
them. Up til recently, their salvation has been partly that
their land is very poor farmland. However, now that uranium has
been found on their land (at Big Mountain) the big guns are
coming out to find ways of denying them their right to use their
land as they want. Characteristically, this conflict has been
misrepresented by the mining interests and the press as one
between the Hopi and the Navaho nations. See the documentary
movie _Broken Rainbow_ about this conflict, if it ever comes
your way.
>The only conflicts that are going on are those through the judicial
>system. (Native American vs. commercial fishing rights seem to come
>up every few years.) Your statements are a gross fabrication of
>reality in an attempt to justify your assertions.
There's a basic dilemma for natives here: should they try
to gain rights through the legal system, or should they do it by
trying to assert their ancient sovereignty over their resources,
against laws which were imposed on them without their consent?
Some, like the Kootenai, are using mainly legal means, and some,
like the Git'ksan-Wetsuwetan, are using mainly "illegal" means.
Most groups use both to some degree.
These dilemmas are similar to those of taking handouts from
governments: should they resist getting governmental aid as a
matter of principle, or should they take it to prevent their
people from being completely ground into the dust?
>... I'm certain that there have been invasions in Europe that were
>far more oppressive to those being invaded than what the Native
>Americans experienced.
The difference is that we still have the opportunity to
redress some of the wrongs that we perpetrated. The Beothuck
were the natives of Newfoundland; if you haven't heard of them,
I'm not surprised, because they were hunted into extinction like
wild animals hundreds of years ago. I don't propose that we
try to think up some compensation for them (or the Picts, or the
Geats, or the Allemands, or any other European racial group that
no longer exists); but I do think that we should find ways of
compensating and re-empowering the native nations that still
exist, which suffered under colonisation and still suffer from
the effects of colonisation. (The same goes for the Scots, the
Welsh, the Bretons, the Catalonians, the Lapps..... etc., etc., etc.)
--Jamie.
j...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
"How can we sleep when our beds are burning"
Richard Tobin
>: and all other fanatics. Not sharing their point of view makes people "evil".
This statement says,
(A) "If you are a fanatic, you regard people with different views as evil"
>Observe that what Mr. Sanio means is that calling someone's ideas evil makes
>the speaker a fanatic (implicitly, a murderous fanatic.) For example, if I
>say that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Deng-Xiao-Ping, Pol Pot, were/are all
>evil men, I thereby turn myself into a fanatic.
This statement says,
(B) "If you say certain people are evil, you are a fanatic"
The belief that A implies B here is an example of a rather well-known
logical error.
-- Richard
PS:
>Here, I'm the one arguing in favor of the *individual*, of man the *rational*
>animal, who possesses *free-will*.
If all my actions are the result of rational decisions, what do I need free
will for?
--
Richard Tobin, JANET: R.T...@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
Jeff Dalton
>>enjoys, thirdly because by pursuing isolationism the U.S. was able
>>to create massive internal markets and keep defense spending low.
>>The U.S. is going down the drain because of it's dogmatic conceit
>
>Which will it be Mr. Pugh, isolationism or world policeman? You can't
>attribute the U.S. with both. Even you should be able to see the
>contradiction in your statement.
I'll let the two of you fight it out, but I'd like to offer a
clarification of one point: Paul Pugh's statement isn't contradictory,
because he's talking about two different times. What he's saying is
this:
The US _was_ isolationist, and hence able to keep defense spending
down. But now it _is_ going down the drain because of it's role as
world policeman (and hence high defense spending).
And it's true that the US was isolationist at certain points in its
history. It was difficult to get the US into WW I, for example, and
Wilson campaigned on a promise to keep the US out of the war. (Or
maybe it was on his record of having kept the US out. I forget
which.) A common and infulential view was that the US should avoid
getting entangled in foreign wars.
Moreover, Americans long had a distrust of standing armies that
existed even in peacetime. It took two world wars to turn the
US into the so-called policeman.
Jeff Dalton
>politics: they are indoctrinated from birth to believe that their country
>is God's gift to Humanity; thier ignorance about foriegn affairs is so
>acute that they are unaware that there are other countries in the world
>that do enjoy that precious commodity, freedom.
Give me a break.
>Any country that allows a significant minority to be disenfranchised
>for so long (ie Blacks) should keep quiet about "Individual Rights."
Everyone should be allowed to argue for things that are right
(and even for things that are wrong).
But, if you want to play that game: have you forgotten the Falklands
War? Have you forgotten what it did for the then unpopular Tories?
>Disclaimer: I generlise.
Indeed.
Jeff Dalton
>> Marx's explanation is that both are right, *according*to*their*
>> *logic* and that they can't discuss: he proposed murder as a tool of
>> argument, in the hands of the "workers" (as if the "bourgeois" didn't
>> work.) Thus, Marx's argument was that the "bourgeois" and "workers"
>> cannot communicate, except by force, because they are helplessly
>> *imposes* its "logic" on them.)
The idea that our social environment might influence how we think
is a threat to dogmatic absolutists. Consequently, they caricature
this argument to have it say that we're helpless in the face of such
conditioning, and to treat it as an apology for murder. That is,
turn it into something that no one would be likely to agree with.
Or, suppose someone says:
And there is more than one way to knowledge and enlightment.
Well, that can be caricatured too. Let's have it say that _anything_
(no longer "more than one" thing) might be be a way to enlightenment,
and then that there "are no absolutes". For then it's easy to
refute. Just find some obvious truth, preferably connected with
one's ability to survive in the world, and call it an "absolute":
There, we get it, explicitly. There are several "ways to knowledge
and enlightenment," says Mr. Sanio. So, according to that idea, one
cannot condemn any idea or action, because it might be an "unknown
way to knowledge and enlightenment." In other words, there are no
absolutes.
Mr. Sanio, stop drinking water for one week, and we'll see whether
you are still around to talk about non-absolutes. Or cut your legs,
and we'll see how fast you'll be able to run after non-absolutes.
Well, I guess that shows there can't be more than one way to knowledge
all right.
Why are dogmatic Objectivists so sure they're right? Imagine that you
saw every argument in such terms. Wouldn't you then be sure you were
right? After all, the other guy's arguing that he could live without
drinking! He may not think he's doing that, but if we look at the
real basis of what he says...
Somewhere, Magnus says:
I am addressing *honest* men. Not willful evaders of reality,
because such irrational people cannot be convinced by rational
arguments: they prefer to keep unchecked premises, acquired by
faith, in their minds.
Dogmatic Objectivists do not seem to be willful evaders of reality;
they haven't decided to ignore reality. Instead, they are no longer
able to see it. They are in the grip of a philosophical system that
has taught them to think in a way that makes it difficult to see
anything that doesn't fit the system.
Dogmatic objectivists cannot be convinced by rational arguments
because they never bother to try to understand them. Instead,
they have learned how to classify arguments according to simple
objectivist categories. By identifying and labeling the "error",
they can dismiss the argument rather than understand it.
Consequently, their description of an argument comes out as
caricature. A suggestion that people should cooperate in other than
free-market ways becomes "collectivism"; socialism becomes communism
becomes fascism becomes "I wouldn't accept your sacrifice. But Mao,
Hitler and Stalin would have welcomed you." Taxes become "theft",
bureaucrats become "looters". "Altruism" is another favorite
category of error:
Altruists hold that slavery is better than freedom; that compulsory
help is better than voluntary help; that forcing the individual to
sacrifice himself is better than letting the individual refuse to
sacrifice himself.
So if you say something that _can be interpreted_ as saying that
the interests of other people count as well as your own, it will
be so interpreted, and you'll be considered an "altruist".
And, of course, this is all made easier by using Objectivist
definitions whenever possible and rejecting any meaning that
doesn't fit.
Objectivists are suggesting that your vocabulary is tainted by warped
ways of thinking. They want you to adopt their vocabulary instead,
before they'll even discuss anything. But then you'll you'd be in the
same fix they're in and find it difficult to see any more where
dogmatic Objectivism and reality don't fit.
Christian Murphy
> In article <18...@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> Hm-dr-kz_...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Paul Pugh) writes:
>> Simple: the freemarket cannot work given the basic Human
>>weakness, which is the lust for power (a subset of general avarice).
> This is a load of mush-mouth talk. It means nothing.
>> You can also ask why is it that Japan and Germany are so
>>successful by operating such a limited form of the free market. Perhaps
>>because the Government of those two countries "controls" (not the word
>>the ubiquitous "they" would use) more carefully.
> If you think the Japanese economic system is substantially different
> than the U.S. system then prove it. You've simply stated your
> opinion without any meaningful support.
This is a typical American debating trick - to ask for proof where none is
needed. This is just pedantry. The truth is that the Japanese market is *not*
free. Why are there so few foreign-made cars in Japan, to give an obvious
example. Why do they insist on developing a new fighter when they could buy
them cheaper. Why are Japanese goods cheaper and more available abroad than in
Japan? Because of the distortions of the Japanese market. Satisfied?
>> The U.S. grew strong
>>... because of the vast natural resources the country
>>enjoys, ...
> My God! You've stated something accurately.
>>, thirdly because by pursuing isolationism the U.S. was able
>>to create massive internal markets and keep defense spending low.
>>The U.S. is going down the drain because of it's dogmatic conceit
>>in it's role as the world's policeman ( a role most people in Europe
>>at least do not want them to take) and (that word again) dogmatic
>>adherence to monetarism.
> Which will it be Mr. Pugh, isolationism or world policeman?
What he said that the US *did* pursue an isolationist policy, but now gets
involved in everything.
> You can't
> attribute the U.S. with both. Even you should be able to see the
> contradiction in your statement.
There is such a thing as *time* and you can do different things at different
times.
> If it be isolationism then it seems to me that is the business of the
> people of the U.S. to decide, not you or anyone else. The fact that
> the U.S. has created massive internal markets simply provides further
> evidence that capitalism is superior when it comes to effectively
> using the available resources and distributing them as widely as
> possible for the public good.
It proves no such thing. Who says this is a straight race between capitalism
and communism anyway? The truth is, *all* markets are regulated to some extent.
This is not to support communism. For some countries, more regulation may be
better than what exists in the US.
> If it be world policeman then that is a choice that the U.S. must
> make. However, it seems to me that the U.S. is asked to play this
> roll by the world community just as often as the U.S. decides to take
> this roll on its own.
I don't know about that. Are you saying that your country is anything near
altruistic when it acts as world poice-man? I think it acts out of
self-interest, just like every other country. And I think US foreign policy is
a total disaster. America has succeeded in alienating many Europeans who should
be your natural allies.
> Sometimes I think the U.S. should just say to
> hell with the rest of the world because of people like yourself, Mr.
> Pugh, but being the arrogant, conceited American that I am I truly
> believe that the U.S. has an ideallogical and practical roll to play in
> the world.
Teddy Roosevelt said "speak softly, but carry a big stick". At present, the US
hollers out and bashes lots of people clumsily with it's *very* big stick.
You're not doing anyone a favour (especially not yourself).
> If the U.S. ever decides to turn inward on itself it would
> be a sad day for not only the U.S., but also the rest of the world.
> And that, Mr. Pugh, is a wholly pragmatic statement whether you or
> anyone else reading this wishes to admit it.
Not at all coloured by the fact that you are an American. I admire a lot of
things about Ameriaca, but you don't make good world-policemen.
>> It is impossible to argue with the average American about
>>politics: they are indoctrinated from birth to believe that their country
>>is God's gift to Humanity;
Tim is a prime example.
>> thier ignorance about foriegn affairs is so
>>acute that they are unaware that there are other countries in the world
>>that do enjoy that precious commodity, freedom. In a survey of Americans
>>between the ages 18-25 40% couldn't identify their own country on the
>>map of the world and 1 in 5 were "functionally illiterate." I realise
>>that the typical adherent to this news group would not be one of these
>>but sometimes I wonder when I see the "America - land of the free"
>>bullshit. Tell that to Black America. Any country that allows a
>>significant minority to be disenfranchised for so long (ie Blacks)
>>should keep quiet about "Individual Rights."
>>
>
> This hatemongering diatribe is well below the level of even this
> newsgroup. You've shown yourself to be a bigot far beyond those that
> you assail.
The previous paragraph consisted mainly of facts. You can call him a bigot if
you like but you should have cooled down before you followed up on this. I
don't think that the US should shut up about human-rights. I just wish they
would be less holier-than-thou about it.
> Assuming that you are a British citizen, it is ironic that you talk
> of the blacks in the U.S., given the amount of bigotry that people
> like you in the UK display towards other cultures.
Yours was the diatribe. You didn't present any real arguments, just hurt
feelings.
Christian Murphy Trinity College,Dublin cpmu...@vax1.tcd.ie
Dave Kennard
>the "capitalist," not chant that he will "free the inner contradictions of the
>world -- and kill his 'boss'."
So objective Randian religion is aimed primarily at middle/upper class
"I want, I want" yuppies; who require their employees to drool and grovel..
fine idea of freedom!
>Poverty is exactly what Capitalism does *not* "create." Poverty is the
>hallmark of the middle ages, and of socialist countries. It is only with
>Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution that famine, diseases and feudal
>looting disappeared.
Oh dear, what reality are we discussing this in now? I thought this
discussion got going largely around the effects of British colonialism -
where many examples of capitalist inflicted poverty were given.
>Here, again, an avowed Marxist tells you what it is about: reality submits
>to mans' "wishes." I'll tell you the same thing I told Mr. Sanio: stop
>ingesting water for one week, and then we'll see whether you still have wishes
>to mold reality with.
Definition of a Marxist - someone who disagrees with Magnus. They are
evil communists who should stop drinking water in the hope that they are
all wiped out. :-)
--
+-+ +-+ +- | | Regards, Dave Kennard.
| | | | | |/ Dept. 30820, STC Telecommunications, Oakleigh Road South,
|-+ | | | |\ New Southgate, LONDON. N11 1LU, England, UK, (etc..)
| \ +-+ +- | |Voice (+44) 01-945-2195 <ro...@tcom.stc.co.uk>
Paul Pugh
>Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution that famine, diseases and feudal
>looting disappeared.
>
>Starvation is *only* found in socialist countries (Soviet Russia, Poland,
>Ethiopia, etc.) It is a problem that has been solved in a few particular
>countries, thanks to higher *productivity*, i.e. typically thanks to the
>capitalist *profit* motive.
This statement is such an example of gross ignorance that I find
it difficult to frame a coherent reply.
The nature of Capitalism is such that a poor underclass is
always created. There are extremes of poverty in all societies.
I have seen people living in cardboard boxes in London who are
almost certainly starving. They are forced to live as tramps
mostly because of the inadequate social (I do not mean Socialist)
policies of an inept Government, and because in Britain the
housing market has been seen as a safe way of making money,
attractive to the toy capitalist that infest this country; hence
decent accomadation has been pushed out of the reach of the poor.
For every success in a Capitalist society there is a failiure: the
" trickle down effect " so beloved of Thatcher has yet to be seen.
The real motivator in a capitalist society is fear of failiure
and consumer greed. Poverty is necessary in Capitalism as a
warning.
Try living in the real world. I have an image of you sitting at a
terminal, scratching away, plagarising a few beloved text books ( or
perhaps just a book of glib buzz words?). A trip into reality would
do you a lot of good.
Paul Pugh.
Neil Dunbar
>
>eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) wrote:
>
>> Laissez-faire Capitalism is totally opposed to fascism [...]
>
>Pull the other one.
Forget trying to argue with Magnus. A private mail correspondence with him
has left me with the impression that he's either
a) a silly bugger
b) a very good prankster
c) a bigot
d) a) and c)
Anyway, he said in a letter to me that he's off the net now, as he's left
to join the army. Pity the poor bastards in the Swedish army.
> [The Federation of Conservative Students] support
> - revival of public execution
Not only that, but the selling of videos of the execution, with the blood
money being given to the victim's families (assuming the execution was for
murder). As far as I can see they wish the death penalty's return for all
crimes except insider dealing. :-)
It is a striking fact that the FCS was disaffiliated from the main Tory
Party by the then Party Chairman Norman Tebbit for being too right wing!
(Note to Europeans unfamiliar with Brit politics - Norman Tebbit is about
as far right wing as you can get and still remain out of prison.)
However, the disbandment of the FCS has had dreadful side effects. They
merely decamped into the official Tory Party Youth Group, the Young
Conservatives. The Scottish Young Conservatives have thus become a slightly
paler image of the FCS. This has meant that far right Scottish Tory
Chairman Michael Forsyth has recruited all sorts of unpleasant characters
into his hierarchy (Forsyth was a former leader of the FCS).
To give one example -
Russell Walters
former deputy director of research from the Economic
League - a shady organisation which compiles lists of
people involved in "subversive" organisations, like CND,
the Communist Party, Charter '88 etc... These lists are
then sold to employers. Numerous errors are made and the
speaker of the House of Commons was forced to criticise
the manner of their operation when several Labour MPs
found themselves on the lists. Michael Forsyth has praised
the "excellent work" done by the Economic League in a
recent newspaper interview (Scotland on Sunday, 8/10/89).
I think it is important for all Britons, and most Europeans to know what
sort of people that the Party of the British Government employ. A while
ago I might have passed it off as a few lunatics in charge of an
insignificant part of the Tory Party. Not any more. These people (Forsyth
and company) are a dangerous threat to our already fragile liberties.
No doubt I'm off the Conservative Party's Christmas list.
Neil Dunbar,
Scottish HCI Centre,
Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh.
Jack Campin
here goes anyway:
If objectivists and other "libertarian" capitalists are so opposed to
fascism, in what way has that opposition been practically manifested?
I've put myself physically at risk on several occasions in a variety of
anti-fascist activities. Several leftists have died in Britain for
opposing fascism in recent years; Blair Peach and Iraqi opponents of the
Ba'ath come to mind. Anarchists and communists have been tortured and
executed by Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Hirohito's Japan,
Pavelic's Croatia, and Saddam's Iraq. The dead must be in seven figures;
I couldn't easily get a more exact number.
So: name ONE laissez-faire opponent of fascism who's actually suffered for
it at the hands of the fascists. I'm not asking for 20,000 people beaten
to death with hammers like one group of Pavelic's victims; a prison stretch
comparable to Gramsci's will do.
And: describe ONE occasion on which you've put yourself to ANY trouble to
physically confront fascism. Even going down to the pub and trying to
argue with a group of Nazi skins will count. Saying you once wrote a
letter to a student newspaper giving the Rand party line on Hitler doesn't.
Well?
--
Jack Campin * Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank
Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND. 041 339 8855 x6045 wk 041 556 1878 ho
INTERNET: jack%cs.glasg...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk USENET: ja...@glasgow.uucp
JANET: ja...@uk.ac.glasgow.cs PLINGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack
Magnus Kempe
: [after a lot of falsehoods and accusations]
: And today, few people state that usage of force is a solution.
Right. They don't state that *explicitly*. But they scream at anyone who
mentions the fact that taxation is an act of force, or that compulsory
help to the "needy" is initiation of force too. I wonder if you really
have read what I wrote; I have said, more than once, that the basic
political principle of Capitalism is that the initiation of force is
*banned* from *all* human relationships; I have given some examples of what
this principle entails, such as the abolition of involuntary taxation and
of the "re-distribution of wealth," because wealth is the result of an
individual's productive work, and has to be *extorted* in order to be
"re-distributed."
: [...] Discussing with fascists or stalinists would probably be equally
: hard as discussing with you and they would be urged to leave the forum after
: short time, I guess.
The difference is that fascists and stalinists want to kill anyone who
dissents, because they claim to have the "right" to initiate the use of
force. I advocate a political system where the initiation of force is
banned, and *that* is the system *you*, and you are not alone, oppose.
: Discussing with other people (Conservatives, marxists
: and as well communists) as far as they would show tolerance and mutual
: respect wouldn't be a problem.
Why do you preach tolerance in the *intellectual* realm, and advocate
*intolerance* in the material realm, e.g. "compulsory help to the injured,"
taxation, and more? You are willing to "tolerate" various ideologies, as
long as they "show mutual respect," but you sure don't want to "tolerate"
anyone's productive ability and *enjoyment* of the product of his own effort,
*because* it is different -- i.e. because it is more productive, selfish,
non-sacrificial, successful, and independent, in *action* as well as in
*idea*.
Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Irek Defee
> ...I have seen people living in cardboard boxes in London who are
> almost certainly starving....
But Magnus certainly couldn't see such things as he is in 'damned
socialistic' Sweden. On the other hand, his objectivist explanation
for this would be "How the hell these people managed to be still
alive? Either thatcherism is too socialistic, or garbage containers
are not closed properly - there is no right to consume anything
which you have not produced".
Irek De...@tut.fi
Torkel Franzen
Forget trying to argue with Magnus. A private mail correspondence with him
has left me with the impression that he's either
a) a silly bugger
=> b) a very good prankster
c) a bigot
d) a) and c)
Unfortunately he isn't a prankster, but your including alternative b)
prompts me to raise a general question. It seems to me that a handful of
people who didn't mind their names being mud could disrupt
practically the whole of usenet, wreaking havoc and creating chaos,
reducing people all over the world to gibbering, frothing wrecks. How?
Simply by consistently and untiringly posting the most outrageous garbage
to the net. Apparently it is very hard and practically impossible for
many people to let such garbage pass by unanswered when it is presented
as a usenet article. Each of us knows that millions swear by the most
outrageous garbage - whatever our personal view of what constitutes such
garbage - but we don't write replies to their junk mail or feel impelled
to counter each and every manifestation of their views (even if we do in
fact actively work for or against some cause). When we come across somebody
who consistently spouts garbage in real life we will most likely say to
ourselves "this person is a total mess" and thereafter avoid that person.
So why is it so hard to take a philosophical view of electronically
posted garbage? Maybe you have some ideas on this. -By the way, I've
seen the same phenomenon on a smaller scale, in bbs's. A conversation
going on, with a certain amount of bickering, but on the whole pretty
sensible. Then somebody steps in and writes a few comments here and there,
and within a few days the formerly sensible bbs is reduced to a shambles
as everybody vents his fury on the intruding knucklehead (who for all I
know may be chuckling fiendishly to himself).
Timothy Teitenberg
>In article <13...@majestix.ida.liu.se>, ti...@majestix.ida.liu.se (Timothy Teitenberg) writes:
>> In article <18...@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> Hm-dr-kz_...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Paul Pugh) writes:
> This is a typical American debating trick - to ask for proof where none is
>needed. This is just pedantry. The truth is that the Japanese market is *not*
Indeed. Oh, well, you've caught me. I learned it in Debating 101, as
does every American. But go ahead and humor me anyway.
>free. Why are there so few foreign-made cars in Japan, to give an obvious
>example. Why do they insist on developing a new fighter when they could buy
>them cheaper. Why are Japanese goods cheaper and more available abroad than in
>Japan? Because of the distortions of the Japanese market. Satisfied?
>
It seems to me you are talking of external markets here, rather than
internal. Specifically, trying to enter the Japanese market from the
outside, as the Japanese are quite good at exporting their products.
I've been lead to believe that the reason the Japanese markets are so
difficult to enter is because of the culture of the people and the
protectionist attitudes there.
Japanese markets are not completely free, but neither are American or
any other country. American markets are protectionist to a degree,
but less so than in Japan. But aside from degrees of protectionism, I
don't think that their markets are structured significantly different
from those in the U.S..
And protectionism allows producers within a country to charge more
for their products, hence Japanese goods may well be cheaper abroad.
As for the development of new fighters, there are issues of national
security that weight just as heavily as whether or not a cheaper
fighter can be found elsewhere.
> What he said that the US *did* pursue an isolationist policy, but now gets
>involved in everything.
O.K. If that's what he meant then I agree, although I wouldn't say
the U.S. gets involved in everything. But for my taste the U.S. does
get involved too often in external affairs. However, there is a fine line
between meddling and sticking your head in the sand, and you'll
never get everybody to agree where that line is.
> I don't know about that. Are you saying that your country is anything near
>altruistic when it acts as world poice-man? I think it acts out of
Definitely not.
>self-interest, just like every other country. And I think US foreign policy is
>a total disaster. America has succeeded in alienating many Europeans who should
>be your natural allies.
Many within the U.S. would agree that current U.S. foreign policy is a
total disaster.
Certainly the U.S. acts on behalf of its own self-interest.
Hopefully, in many cases where it is applied, this self-interest
benefits the world community; when it doesn't I'm sure you or
someone else will let us know. The U.S. doesn't operate in a
vacuum, and world opinion does play a role, although a few like
Mr. Pugh don't think we ever listen. However, don't expect for
our actions to simply mimic world opinion.
In regards to "world-policeman", I don't think the U.S. government
should take on that role more than any other. However, getting other
countries to agree that it is also their responsibility is another matter.
Take the lack of support the U.S. feels it has received from Europe on
terrorism and drugs, for instance.
> Not at all coloured by the fact that you are an American. I admire a lot of
Well, I am an American. Is there a country that doesn't teach world
history and report current events somewhat biased towards its
view of the world? The U.S. is hardly unique in that
respect, and I think far less biased than most.
>>> It is impossible to argue with the average American about
>>>politics: they are indoctrinated from birth to believe that their country
>>>is God's gift to Humanity; thier ignorance about foriegn affairs is so
>>>acute that they are unaware that there are other countries in the world
>>>that do enjoy that precious commodity, freedom. In a survey of Americans
>
>
> Tim is a prime example.
Mr. Murphy, I apologize if I have offended the people of the U.K.; I
was only trying to show how ridiculous generalized statements like Mr.
Pugh's are, and I try hard not to make them although I fail at times.
I admit that I was pissed-off and my remarks were rather harsh. But
the above statement by Mr. Pugh is false, arrogant, and far too
generalized to let pass by. I regret that I let the above remark
color the rest of my posting, but I am hardly a prime example, nor is
any other American.
We are no more indoctrinated than you. I find it hard to hold any
reasonable discussion when the arguments consist of name calling such
as "you've been indoctrinated, you're dogmatic." Mr. Pugh's article
was full of them. That fact that I, or any other American looks upon
something from a viewpoint different than yours does not prove
in the least that we are indoctrinated or dogmatic.
Many Americans are as critical of U.S. policy, foreign or domestic, as
the majority of people reading this newsgroup. This constant
portrayal (by a limited few) of all Americans as automatons with a
single mind-set is pure garbage.
All I would like is the same respect shown me (or any other
American) as you would expect from me. Take Mr. Pugh's statement
and substitute your country of citizenship and I think you'll
find it just as distasteful and invalid.
Tim
Timothy Teitenberg
> is their paranoia, self delusion, and an inferiority complex
> that allows no criticism of their own country.
>
It seems as though you're an expert on the "typical or average American."
Unfortunately there are few of those around. You know, those that
are 35 and a half, married, and have 2.2 children.
>>Assuming that you are a British citizen, it is ironic that you talk
>>of the blacks in the U.S., given the amount of bigotry that people
>>like you in the UK display towards other cultures.
>
> Absolute crap. To compare any bigotry prevalent in Britain
> (how about a few examples?) to the way the blacks have been
> treated in your country is an example of the total ignorance
> you have of the cultures of my own country and even your own.
> What's happened in the States: some sort of National Amensia
> about the unpleasent things that have happened?
>
> Paul Pugh.
Can't take any criticism, eh? Paranoid? It seems by your postings that
you already display a significant amount of intolerance towards (and
ignorance of) Americans, my bet is that we're not the limit of your
prejudices.
I did not say that the bigotry towards Blacks in Britain was equal to
or worse that in the U.S.. Are you saying that it doesn't exist at
all? And lets not limit ourselves to within the shores of the British
Isles. How about the Indians(India)? Have you forgotten all the
unpleasant things that have happened at the hands of the British?
Amnesia?
If I, being an American, cannot talk about Human Rights, etc., then how
about you? As they say, "let he who has not sinned cast the first
stone." Cast away Mr. Pugh, I certainly cannot.
Tim
richard lucock
>A thing is what it is, and not what it is not: that is the basis for logic,
Not, unfortunately true. Which objects are, for instance, considered human ?
Most of us would agree that 'that cluster of atoms, moving down the street
over there, about six foot in length, with five projections on a main
body' is a human. Here, we have no real disagreement between the (underlying)
'absolute' reality and most people's perceived reality. However, if the
cluster of atoms this time is a foetus (sp?) then we get lots of
disagreement between perceived and absolute reality - some people call
it a human, some people disagree. And therefore there is dificulty, for
instance, in deciding whether or not it has a right to life (which,
according to some, is an absolute, inherent right of humans).
(And, of course, our perception of the reality underlying a human
being depends on many things - humans are not made up of atoms, they
are made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons .... no, sorry, they are
made up of quarks and electrons .. no got that wrong, they are ....)
Reality is an absolute (this is (almost ?) a tautology), but it is
simplistic to believe that individuals' perceived realities necessarily
match up with each other - and it is perceived realities that people
work with.
Richard
Jeff Dalton
>and to invent new ways to higher *productivity*.
I suppose it might be nice if all businessmen did that, but they
don't.
>Poverty is exactly what Capitalism does *not* "create." Poverty is the
>hallmark of the middle ages, and of socialist countries.
Let's just say that capitalism has failed to eliminate all poverty, then.
>Starvation is *only* found in socialist countries (Soviet Russia, Poland,
>Ethiopia, etc.)
That is simply false.
>: Universal laws of logic? I don't want to go into issues which
>: belong to sci.logic, but their have been some developments in
>: logic since Aristotle.
>
>Yes, there have been, especially the Marxian logic:
You could think that only if you'd looked at nothing that happened
in logic since, say, 1848.
>There *are* universal laws of logic, because the universe is an absolute.
>A thing is what it is, and not what it is not: that is the basis for logic,
>the art of *non-contradictory* identification. Reality does not contradict
>itself.
So? The question is whether our reasoning is contradictory. Some
people evidently think it's easy to avoid contradictions. But even
in mathematics, where the reasoning is relatively straightforward,
it can take years for errors to come to light.
Jeff Dalton
In article <22...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>[1] Dr. Leonard Peikoff has spent 12 years researching this topic, and
>has published a book called _The Ominous Parallels_, with *extensive*
>quotes and references,
Wow, twelve years! I guess he must be RIGHT then!
>where he has shown *what* the philosophy of the Nazis was, and, in addition,
>he has shown that the current philosophical trends are unfortunately similar
>in the USA.
Indeed. You'd better not accept Godel's incompleteness results, for
example, because then you'll be tainted too.
Jeff Dalton
And all Americans are the same, I suppose. This sort of American
bashing really raises the tone debate.
> Not at all coloured by the fact that you are an American.
Oh?
>I don't think that the US should shut up about human-rights. I just
>wish they would be less holier-than-thou about it.
You'd be a lot more convincing if you didn't treat all of the US
and all Americans as one.
Richard Tobin
Socialist believe X
Nazis believe X
Therefore Socialists and Nazis are the same.
One might as well say:
Objectivists believe the world is round
Rosicrucians believe the world is round
Therefore Objectivists and Rosicrucians are the same.
Actually, of course:
Nazis believe that Jews should be exterminated
Socialists do not believe that Jews should be exterminated
Therefore Socialists and Nazis are not the same.
For someone so dedicated to logical argument, Magnus makes an awful lot of
trivial errors.
-- Richard
David Shepherd
>It is not in the interest of the businessmen to wage wars. Bombed factories
>do not produce anything. Capitalism is *anti-war*, because it holds that
>man lives by *productive* effort, not by *looting*.
There is of course the Swedish ploy as used by Nobel etc ---- wait for a war
to start, stay neutral and sell arms to everyone involved ;-)
Hans Huttel
>: [I wrote]
>: >Hitler was the Fuehrer of the National *Socialist* party, in case you haven't
>: >learned *that* at school.
>:
>: If this is the way that Objectivists "prove" things, I'm
>: glad I didn't learn logic from them...
>
Because I can't accept that Magnus Kempe willfully blinds himself to reality,
I'm going to give him one more chance: it is not for nuts that Ayn Rand and her
followers call themselves *Objectivists*.
How can you *know* why they call themselves *Objectivists*? Read Magnus Kempe's
postings in eunet.politics, other people's posters in other newsgroups and
find out what they *say* and *do* [1].
*If* you are not totally brain-dead, you'll discover that:
1. Objectivists are objectivists (an application of `A is A')
2. they advocate nonsense
3. they oppose discussions making progress, i.e. they oppose sense
4. they consider that the ultimate virtue for the individual is to
sacrifice him/herself to Ayn Rand
5. they always have the same fundamental premises which are hard to
figure out
The above doesn't *prove* what I say, but *indicates* where you should go
to seek confirmation of what I say. Get it? If you don't understand *that*,
or prefer *not* to know, please have the honesty of stating at the beginning
of your future messages that:
"I am an objectivist and the following is my list of
definitions: "
That way, everybody will know that sense is not one of your virtues.
[1] I have now written 3 posters researching this topic, with *extensive*
use of the original wordings of Magnus Kempe (no quotes or references),
where he has shown *what* the "philosophy" of the "librarians" is, and,
in addition, he has shown that the current trends are unfortunately similar
to those found in other newsgroups.
>
>Good Premises -- Magnus eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Good Grief -- Hans
"Sha la la
Sha la la la la
Sha la la la
La la la"
Bruce Springsteen : "Darlington County" (from Born in The USA)
| Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603 JANET: ha...@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
| LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans
| University of Edinburgh ARPA: hans%lfcs.e...@nfsnet-relay.ac.uk
| Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ... Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!
Hans Huttel
>In article <6...@castle.ed.ac.uk>, ha...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Hans Huttel)
>writes about Magnus Kempe:
[stuff deleted]
>Magnus cannot be dismissed by pointing out that he's spouting nonsense.
>As has been pointed out before in this newsgroup, Objectivism is a
>religion, and Magnus is a True Believer. What's more, he's already
>proved his persistence in posting, posting, posting, so the only way to
>not have to suffer him is to ignore him. To repeat, it's no use trying to
>argue rationally with him.
A truly fascinating comment. Did you really think I ever did ? :-)
Regards
Hans
M E Fletcher
> always created. There are extremes of poverty in all societies.
> I have seen people living in cardboard boxes in London who are
> almost certainly starving. They are forced to live as tramps
> mostly because of the inadequate social (I do not mean Socialist)
> policies of an inept Government
The nature of human life is that a poor underclass is always created.
You seem to ignore the fact that those in boxes may have contributed to
themselves being there.
> The real motivator in a capitalist society is fear of failiure
> and consumer greed. Poverty is necessary in Capitalism as a
> warning.
Not true. It's a desire for self-improvement that motivates. When you have
no possibility of self-improvement because the state dishes everything out
you have no motivation.
Matthew Fletcher
Richard Caley
"self improvment" might motivate one to learn to sing, read a book, have
a nose job ( :-) ), but it is hardly going to motivate onr to go work
down a coal mine.
Black lung is never much of an improvment to anyone.
Now refusing people access to food, that is a motivator.
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.aipna HALTS can be used to define
some quite useful procedures.
- Poplog help file.
Jeff Dalton
>no possibility of self-improvement because the state dishes everything out
>you have no motivation.
Give me a break. If the state dished out everything (which it
doesn't, and I wouldn't want it to) people could still improve
themselves, learn, invent, etc. Not everyone is motivated by
the desire to have more things.
Adam Hamilton
>Take the lack of support the U.S. feels it has received from Europe on
>terrorism and drugs, for instance.
>
bomb Gadaffi didn't we, how much more terroristic do you want to be??
:-) <- that IS my signature.
Henry Mensch
->In article <26...@vax1.tcd.ie> cpmu...@vax1.tcd.ie (Christian Murphy) writes:
->> This is a typical American debating trick
->
->And all Americans are the same, I suppose. This sort of American
->bashing really raises the tone debate.
rubbish, we yanks really all are the same. repeat after me:
"Yes, we are all individuals..."
not only that, but we still drink coca cola in place of fruit juice,
and insist on driving gas-guzzling land yachts around town (no matter
that there's no place to park these land yachts). we're also amoral,
irreverent slobs who are certain that culture can only be found in
laboratories and yogurt cups.
and, in case you missed them, there are smilies written in invisible
ASCII (oops, another american thing, the ascii code) all over the last
few paragraphs.
a network virtual usan,
--
# Henry Mensch / <he...@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# <hme...@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> / <he...@tts.lth.se> / <men...@munnari.oz.au>
Timothy Teitenberg
Personally, I don't want you to be terroristic at all.
First of all, I did write "Europe", not UK. I don't consider them
synonyms. Is the "WE" you refer to UK or Europe? Europe certainly
was not involved, and France did not permit use of their airspace as
I recall.
I had hoped that you would interpret my statement in a broader sense,
although, I admit the raid provides a convenient club to beat me over
the head with. Whatever you may think of the raid, Gadaffi is hardly
the extent of the problems of world terrorism, let alone drugs.
If you must have an example, I would point to something I saw a few
weeks ago on CNN. It was reported there that the French government
pledged support and aid to the Columbian government in their fight
against the Drug Lords. The Drug Lords are a good example of the
combination of drugs and terrorism which is moving that country
towards a state of chaos.
But then, maybe that's just too terroristic for you, eh?
Tim
Dr. Sanio
>In article <7...@castle.ed.ac.uk> ad...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton) writes:
>>bomb Gadaffi didn't we, how much more terroristic do you want to be??
>
>
>First of all, I did write "Europe", not UK. I don't consider them
>synonyms. Is the "WE" you refer to UK or Europe? Europe certainly
>was not involved, and France did not permit use of their airspace as
>I recall.
particular independence feeling in the UK, I guess most people in the U.K.
might share that opinion. I think there are lots of mutual misunderstandings
between US citizens and "Europeans" and feel sometimes annoyed when Americans
posting to this group are flamed. I feel those topics should be discussed
at both sides of the atlantic rather than pushing US guests and colleagues
into the role of defenders of their country.
But look, there is a particular difference between France and the UK. Whereas
the UK government emphasizes the bounds of the country over the Atlantic and
its "special" relations to the USA (and Canada), France traditionally pointed
out its independence towards USA and even the NATO (France is not member of
the military part of the treaty). And the unfortunate raid on Tripolis was
opposed in the UK, too, where Mrs. Thatcher was accused to carry out a
submissive attitude towards Mr. Reagans adventures.
>
>I had hoped that you would interpret my statement in a broader sense,
>although, I admit the raid provides a convenient club to beat me over
>the head with. Whatever you may think of the raid, Gadaffi is hardly
>the extent of the problems of world terrorism, let alone drugs.
are treated as appeal instance for the affairs of their country. But well, not
everybody may receive the transatlantic groups.
>
>If you must have an example, I would point to something I saw a few
>weeks ago on CNN. It was reported there that the French government
>pledged support and aid to the Columbian government in their fight
>against the Drug Lords. The Drug Lords are a good example of the
>combination of drugs and terrorism which is moving that country
>towards a state of chaos.
>But then, maybe that's just too terroristic for you, eh?
bullshit. France, for example, is known to support groups in Lebanon which
are well-known to take part in drug wholesale.
Most of the Latin American drug Lords have closest ties to military leaders
trained and backed by the US government.
All western countries (the FRG included) back the Afghan "freedom fighters"
(which may fight against those countries rival, the USSR, and its allies,
but not for freedom at all), though those people are well known as huge
heroin wholesalers. And guess how Cambodian opposition groups (at least
partially) pay their weaponry bills. That may be true as well for left-wing
movements somewhere, though a lack particular examples, actually.
If the topic would only be to support governments to win back internal
sovereignty against a big criminal substructure covering huge parts of
the ruling oligarchy, I could see some sense in it.
Surely, its the wrong way to fight internal drug problems. If there is any
effect, drug price rise, and with them the need of addicts to get money by
crime and prostitution.
Though I can't tell you quick and easy final solutions of Western drug problems,
Im sure it's not be done by such inconsequent, half-hearted and hypocritic
marketing hypes as which I regard Mr. Bush's "war on drugs". And any government
may claim for very good reasons not to back it. The actual confirmation of
Mr. Kohl in the FRG to back it strengthens my opinion of the complete incompe-
tence of that government (unfortunately ours).
>
>Tim
regards, es
Ken Johnson
Reply-To: k...@aiai.UUCP (Ken Johnson)
Followup-To: eunet.politics
Distribution: eunet
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Keywords:
>... Gadaffi is hardly
>the extent of the problems of world terrorism, let alone drugs.
But by supplying the IRA with weapons and training, he is not helping
matters.
--
Ken Johnson, AI Applications Institute, 80 South Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1HN
E-mail k...@aiai.ed.ac.uk, phone 031-225 4464 extension 212
`I have read your article, Mr Johnson, and I am no wiser now than when I
started'. -- `Possibly not, sir, but far better informed.'
Timothy Teitenberg
>In article <14...@majestix.ida.liu.se> ti...@majestix.ida.liu.se (Timothy Teitenberg) writes:
>>First of all, I did write "Europe", not UK. I don't consider them
>>synonyms. Is the "WE" you refer to UK or Europe? Europe certainly
>>was not involved, and France did not permit use of their airspace as
>>I recall.
>Personally, I regard UK as part of Western Europe. Though there may be
And I regard UK as part of Western Europe also. I simply said
I don't consider them synonymous.
>But look, there is a particular difference between France and the UK. Whereas
And between every other European country. My point was simply
that just because the planes took off from British soil does not
imply that Europe, as a whole, took part or supported the raid.
I honestly don't see how you can read so much into the few lines
I wrote, and have received such a distorted view of my meaning.
>Forgive me, but I regard the whole "war on drugs" as a silly and hipocritic
>bullshit. France, for example, is known to support groups in Lebanon which
> [...]
I guess it's just my foolish American idealism thinking that
we should oppose injustices, even if the methods used may fall
short of the ideal. (Insert those smiley things where you like.)
>Most of the Latin American drug Lords have closest ties to military leaders
>trained and backed by the US government.
And of course we're still supporting Noriega. And of course the
motive for supporting those military leaders was to indirectly
support the Latin American drug Lords in the first place.
Ok, Ok, I yield.
Tim
Dr. Sanio
>In article <8...@athen.sinix.UUCP> e...@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio) writes:
>>In article <14...@majestix.ida.liu.se> ti...@majestix.ida.liu.se (Timothy Teitenberg) writes:
>
>I honestly don't see how you can read so much into the few lines
>I wrote, and have received such a distorted view of my meaning.
>>Forgive me, but I regard the whole "war on drugs" as a silly and hipocritic
>>bullshit. France, for example, is known to support groups in Lebanon which
>> [...]
>
>I guess it's just my foolish American idealism thinking that
>we should oppose injustices, even if the methods used may fall
>short of the ideal. (Insert those smiley things where you like.)
I already expressed that I regard it as just & correct to back the democratical-
ly elected president Borca in his attempts to win back souvereignty against
criminal parts of the oligarchy. Note that I did not accuse the USA, especially,
for half-hearted and incompetent measures.
I sometimes follow the discussions about the "War on Drugs" in misc.legal and
I agree with those ("foolish American idealists", as well :-) ), who blame
Mr. Bush and Mr. Bennet to walk into the wrong direction.
>
>>Most of the Latin American drug Lords have closest ties to military leaders
>>trained and backed by the US government.
>
>And of course we're still supporting Noriega. And of course the
>motive for supporting those military leaders was to indirectly
>support the Latin American drug Lords in the first place.
>Ok, Ok, I yield.
Maybe you are a little tired about US bashing in this group ( I can understand
that). But I regard it a little injust only to quote what I wrote about the
USA. What I wanted to express was that virtually all important countries back
due to several more or less honest reasons people or groups highly involved
in international drug pushing. As long as that doesn't change, and, frankly,
I don't see any chance that it does, every pressure on a single country as
Colombia or concentrating on individuals like Noriega is doomed to failure
concerning drain of international drug markets. It's fairly nice when looking
for a scapegoat in order to impress conservative voters.
But I believe that drug problems are too serious to be abused for those dirty
games, which I blame Mr. Bush as well as Mr. Kohl for.
Just for information: The German company Merck sells a huge amount of the
substance anhidric acetic acid to Third World countries well known as
heroin producers. Similarly, US chemical and chem equipment companies
have nice export figures in equipment and substances for cocaine production.
As far as I know, nobody in the whole War on Drugs has even thought about
controlling that stuff as crucial for drug production as poppy or coca
rather than taking pressure on Third World countries.
>Tim
regards, es