Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
A reply to Ruphus
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
 A reply to Ruphus
|
|
|
So as not to further hijack the luthiery thread:
quote:
Thank you, Richard, for explaining your perspective.
Like always I like your sincere approach, and you mention points that make me agree partially. However, there is still too much suggestion of upright and ethical intensions regarding US regency.
quote:
And just to point out in between:
quote:
I am pretty loyal to my country. To the politicians? Not so much.
I am all with you on that. And if either the polls were genuine or the people actually informed about what is going on, the majority of American people with greatest certainty would had never allowed the adminsitrations ( and slim / ridiculous political range of two parties, that make in fact for no actual choice) they have had / are having.
You remind me of an English friend. At a time before the coal miners destroyed the Old Labor Party, he asked me, "Why do you Yanks bother with elections at all? Both parties are just the same." I thought he had a point.
quote:
You are too forbearing in the examples, and thus come to omitting major contents while pondering about the illegal aspects of above mentioned instigations. Be that how a subjective dismissing of a societal form cannot morph into justicial nor into ethical justification for foreign operations and sabotage, or how the Iran-Contra affair would have been illegal for the essential involvementt of cocain dealings alone.
( A "Just-say-no!"-state that ships and sells drugs en gross to then buy weapons from which again will be supplied to massacring low-life ... And that only to prevent another people´s society of choice ... How on earth can there ever been tried to interpret anything of human concern and integrity in such an unspeakable action and agenda? ... Honestly, Richard! )
As is so often the case, I failed to make myself clear. I was not trying to justify Iran-Contra. I was tying to point out that in criminal law the perpetrator's state of mind often has a strong bearing on the seriousness of the offense. This was meant to lead in to the Reagan administration's state of mind while committing the offenses of Iran-Contra. They thought they were doing the right thing.
Why do I say this? Among other reasons, my father was a friend of the Vice President, George H. W. Bush, and I knew Richard Perle, one of the leading neoconservatives fairly well. Bush was an educated and cultured member of the old East Coast moderate Republican establishment, unlike his son, George W., a relatively simple-minded Texas true believer.
Perle, who was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Policy, was later co-opted by big financial interests, but at the time he was still driven almost exclusively by ideology. Perle was one of the few Cold War leaders who frightened me. He not only feared and hated the Soviets and the Chinese, he mistrusted our allies almost as much.
quote:
If the American admin´s concern about `socialist´states and for that matter any even just remote approach to a people´s sociietal form had been for worries about people´s freedom and democracy as you suggest, the American constitution would had laid down for direct democracy in the first place.
You paint with a broad brush. The group who later formed the nucleus of the Federalist party, of whom Washington, Adams and Hamilton were leading members, were attached to the idea that significant property should be a qualification not only for public office, but also for voting. The group who later formed the nucleus of the Democratic Republican party, of which Jefferson was the most prominent member, envisioned a republic of yeoman farmers, as the King James version of the Bible puts it, "each with his own vine and fig tree." The Constitution was a compromise between these two factions, between the slave economy of the south and the inchoate industrialism of the north, etc. None of their visions of the future ever really panned out.
quote:
Further the American societal form would had never been lackey of a plutocracy, but instead a howsoever struggling or flourishing kind of people´s state, - which after all noone in his right mind would try to paint the American and any country´s state as.
( Everyone should be knowing to whom existing variations of states belong.
Not a single one is actually what it is displayed to be, ergo a state of and for the people. And the USA reigning is among the last in the descending rank of democratic listing, far after examples of alikes say in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, or several in Latin America.)
I tend to agree that few countries, and no large ones adhere to the prevailing myth. But these "rankings" are based on criteria that make the answer come out the way whichever author wants them to. Greed has far too much influence on American politics, as do a number of ideological forces I disagree with.
quote:
The truth behind the American policie´s hysteria against all hypothetical authentic democracy is the threat that a democracy and fair society as a lively example would be presenting to the US oligarchy.
The oligarchs in the USA are well aware about the American majority´s original sense of justice, which after all once gave the big landowners and financial aristocracy strenuous opposition.
A solidarity and vehement rebellion that the US´ upper crust since traditionally dreads like nothing else in life. From there undermining nothing as aggressively as a democratic societal form that could remind American people of what they were once heading to in a land of the free.
Nothing ever warded off like it. Not even ancient violent mysthicism that demands all other kinds of conviction and belief to be wiped off from earth.
Rather has such a lethal beast been fed than allowing even just the labelling "socialist" on an even just strategically worthless spot at the Hindukush.
I find it ironic that you lecture me on the thought processes of the "US' upper crust". I am a somewhat hybridized member of it. I am a 12th generation white southerner on the side of my father, who was a high ranking military officer. Two of my great grandfathers were significant slave owners, and were appointed to high ranks in the Confederate Army. From age four to age seventeen I spent every summer on my family's feudal domain in far south Texas.
On the other side, my mother's father was a prosperous yeoman farmer who ran for the U.S. Senate on the Socialist ticket, and polled 49% of the vote. He campaigned against the gold standard, the grip of the railroads and banks on agriculture, and the influence of the giant "trusts" like Standard Oill upon politics. My other two great grandfathers fought for the Union.
quote:
You are mistaking masters from Boing, Lehmann Brothers or Unilever with people´s representatives, Richard.
As it happens one of the clients of my consulting business was a Senior Vice President of Boeing Missiles and Space Company. Another was the Chief Engineer of Lockheed Missiles and Space Company. Both were self made men, one from a lower middle class background, the other from a working class family. Both worked their way through college. Neither appeared to be under the power of Satan, as nearly as I could tell.
When the financial sector was still dominated by the old upper crust, there was no more thievery and depredations than there is now under a newer generation of self made men and technocrats. In recent years greed has been more generalized and pervasive than it seems to have been during the era of the robber barons.
quote:
I remember well how German people and administration were downplaying the Third Reich and the power behind it. Our history school books that were reducing the cruelty to the SS and claiming that the Wehmacht had no notion of the progroms, etc.
And I know that some time not too far in the future American people will realize and acknowledge the US goverments´ending / post WWII underhandedness as what it actually was. From Fat Boy over Ukraine and further, to the fullest.
The Navajo have just been ( howsoever meagerly, with in the end altogether 2,5 billion bucks for all Indian tribes jointly. Ashaming sum and gesture still) compensated, and blatant injust finally been officially admitted.
The disingenuousness from after the last World War shall not be taking as long to be finally confessed.
Ruphus
You would be hard put to find any nation in history which acted according to today's standards of personal ethics. I doubt there will be one any time soon. As a child I was old enough to perceive American attitudes during WW II. People passionately feared and hated the Germans and Japanese. After the war we had sense enough to follow an updated version of the Roman policy, and make them our allies.
Stalin destroyed not only communism, but socialism in the USA. During the Great Depression, when they saw the utter collapse of capitalism, large numbers of the intelligentsia and the labor movement became Communists or fellow travelers. These people supported Franklin Roosevelt's welfare state initiatives. But the Communist Party USA was under firm control of the Comintern, which was subject to Stalin. When Stalin's enormous crimes became known in the West, American Communist Party members resigned en masse, and the right wing was given a stick to beat socialism with. The Soviet repression of Eastern Europe rekindled the existential fears of the American public.
From youth to middle age I had a close up view of the attitudes of the American establishment during the Cold War. I cannot say the American people, or the U.S. establishment were shining paragons of virtue. What I can say is that I think they were less evil than Hitler and Stalin. They caused notably less damage and suffering than either of those two, or Mao Tse-Tung. Chairman Mao was by all accounts a civilized and educated person, but unfortunately a dedicated ideologue. We have had and still have our own share of dedicated ideologues, but they have not caused quite as much damage.
Capitalism is an imperfect system. Freedom of speech has its ill effects as well as good ones. "Pure democracy" would, in my opinion be found to have its flaws, if it ever were to be put in practice. The employee owned company I still have an interest in was the best place I ever worked. But later they had to eject one of the principals. When it was his turn to occupy the rotating presidency, he thought it made him the boss.
We, our cultures, our economic and political systems are all works in progress. There is no magic cure for our troubles, nor is there any evil conspiracy to blame for all of them.
To me your views seem Manichean--couched in terms of pure good and pure evil. You seem to share the general American view that evil must be stamped out absolutely. You just disagree about what is good and what is evil. I believe that campaigns to absolutely stamp out evil, or to pursue righteousness at any cost, have been some of the greatest causes of human suffering.
Eastern religions and philosophies tend to avoid an extremist posture. One might say that they recognize on some level that we humans have not yet evolved to our highest aspirations, nor have our cultures done so either. They try to keep things in balance, reining in and damping down tendencies the West might call evil, instead of trying to stamp them out absolutely.
They also counsel moderation in righteousness, since nobody is perfect.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 2 2014 22:37:02
 |
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
Perle, who was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Policy, was later co-opted by big financial interests, but at the time he was still driven almost exclusively by ideology. Perle was one of the few Cold War leaders who frightened me.
What I can say is that I think they [American public and government} were less evil than Hitler and Stalin. They caused notably less damage and suffering than either of those two, or Mao Tse-Tung. Chairman Mao was by all accounts a civilized and educated person, but unfortunately a dedicated ideologue. We have had and still have our own share of dedicated ideologues, but they have not caused quite as much damage.
Eastern religions and philosophies tend to avoid an extremist posture. One might say that they recognize on some level that we humans have not yet evolved to our highest aspirations, nor have our cultures done so either. They try to keep things in balance, reining in and damping down tendencies the West might call evil, instead of trying to stamp them out absolutely. They also counsel moderation in righteousness, since nobody is perfect.
Regarding Richard Perle, before he became a right-wing "Neoconservative," he was a Democrat and an aide to Democratic Senator Henry Jackson of Washington state. Like so many other Neoconservatives (Jean Kirkpatrick, Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, et. al.) Perle became what was termed a "Neoconservative" because it was thought that President Jimmie Carter was giving the store away, to the Soviets and to the Group of 77 in the United Nations General Assembly during his presidency.
To say that the Americans, in spite of our ideologues, were "less evil" and "have not caused quite as much damage" as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, is, I hope, meant facetiously. It comes close to drawing a near equivalency between America and the murderous dictatorial regimes. Hitler's policies killed probably 8-10 million overall; Stalin's policies of collectivization, the Great Terror, and Show trials killed upwards of 20 million; and Mao's "hundred flowers" so-called opening, Great Leap Forward, counter-revolutionary policies, and Cultural Revolution resulted in the deaths of 30 to 40 million Chinese. Americans, particularly during the World War II era and the Cold War moving forward, can hardly be said to "have not caused quite as much damage" as the referenced dictatorial regimes.
Finally, although Eastern religions and philosophies do tend to avoid an extremist posture and keep things in balance, it matters not a whit in the real world. I would offer two examples. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, a fervently Buddhist society, turned the country upside down and killed two million people in an act of genocide in the 1970s. And no, it was not because the Americans bombed the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia (Cambodia's neutrality was nonexistent, as the North Vietnamese had been using Cambodia since 1965). The Khmer Rouge had a detailed plan of control and implemented it as soon as they could take over.
I have personal experience in Burma (Myanmar), a fervently Buddhist country. I spent much time in Burma during 2003-2004, when the military dictatorship was at its most virulent peak, and I assure you that the Generals, including the leader Than Shwe, were every bit as much Buddhist as the general population. Yet, they ruled the country with an iron fist, as anyone who followed the news would know. That they were Buddhist did not restrain them one bit. And now Buddhists in Burma are killing the Rohingha, the Muslims in Arakan province. Religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other, is never a gauge of how people will behave.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 3 2014 1:51:47
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Facetious? Guilty as charged.
Perle was a piece of work, during the time I knew him. Apparently coercion was the only means he understood for gaining his ends. Every time one of our closest allies didn't do exactly what he wanted, he didn't try consultation, discussion or negotiation. He retaliated--or at least he thought he did. As often as not he was shooting himself in the foot.
Perle seemed not to understand the purpose of international technology exchange programs. Of course he didn't understand technology itself, even in general terms. He seemed to think we were just giving stuff away to our allies, who would promptly leak it to the Soviets. In fact, we were also learning valuable tech info from them, as well as keeping a close and technically expert eye on what they were up to. And we were cementing good relations, except when Perle put his oar in.
Perle seemed to think Israel was OK, could be trusted. In fact, some technology that I was directly involved with developing did leak to the Chinese eventually. Strong indications are that it was via Israel. I never dealt with Israel, nor did they have any use for the technology, except as intelligence trade goods.
Fortunately Cap Weinberger was a far cooler head than his Assistant Secretary.
I didn't mean to imply that compliance with eastern religious precepts was any greater than with Abrahamic ones.
I haven't been to Myanmar, but I have been to Cambodia a number of times. I heard more than a few first person accounts from those tortured by the Khmer Rouge and from the families of people they killed.
The Swiss founder of three free children's hospitals in Cambodia told me that the major cause of death among their patients was tuberculosis. Some staggering majority of admitted patients tested positive for tuberculosis. Often it was relatively dormant, but under the stress of other illness it became active and killed the patient.
At the end of the Pol Pot regime there were only fourteen medical doctors left in the entire country of Cambodia. Before the Khmer Rouge Cambodia had the best public health system in southeast Asia, a legacy of French colonial rule.
Mentioning the Asian religious view was meant as a relatively non-confrontational way of bringing up the idea of moderation.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 3 2014 2:50:27
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
Perle was a piece of work....Perle seemed to think Israel was OK
Your point on Perle is well taken, Richard. In fact, Perle's obstreperous manner and attitude reminds me of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu--the same bullying manner and inability to consider anyone's viewpoint but his own.
I just mentioned Perle's previous incarnation as a Democrat working for Senator Henry Jackson as a point of interest. So many former Democrats--Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, and others--switched to the Republican Party and became "Neoconservatives" because they were convinced that President Carter's weaknesses and ineffectiveness in dealing with the Soviets, the Third World, the Iranian hostage situation, and other problems were weakening the U.S. position in the world.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 3 2014 11:30:20
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
To my defence I want to point out that my approach is not being moralistical at all. It concerns ethics, not moral.
I am confused by this statement. My understanding of the words "morality" and "ethics" are closely paralleled by the definition given by Merriam-Webster, whose dictionary is considered by many to be an accurate reflection of American English usage:
quote:
from Merriam Webster
eth·ic noun \ˈe-thik\
: rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad
ethics : an area of study that deals with ideas about what is good and bad behavior : a branch of philosophy dealing with what is morally right or wrong
: a belief that something is very important
Full Definition of ETHIC
1 plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics>
b plural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics>
c : a guiding philosophy
d : a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>
3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>
See ethic defined for English-language learners »
Examples of ETHIC
Ethics is his chosen field of study.
Origin of ETHIC
Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek ēthikē, from ēthikos
First Known Use: 14th century
Continuing the quote from Ruphus:
quote:
My critics are directed at the fact that one party´s right ends where another one´s starts. Would such sound like fanatism of a kind?
And you have read multiple foregone comments of mine which were focussed on surplus labour value as prime source of unfairness / exploitaion, - of which countless metastasis, covering the very vast of injustice, emerge from.
The concept of surplus labor value has been discussed at some length since Marx made it a central idea in his analysis, so I am not sure precisely what is meant by the phrase. Would your use of the phrase correspond more or less to the exegesis of this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
quote:
Do you think the inalienable right on manpower as the ( suppressed) human right that it is, would stand for a moralistic point?
Ruphus
Yes. The question of human rights has moral (ethical), practical and legal dimensions. No doubt other dimensions exist, which others might point out.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 3 2014 18:54:56
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
Yes, Richard, "surplus value" meant in the same sense as in the Wikipedia article you linked to.
-
The difference between moral and ethics is that the first is being determined by a culture´s traditional interpretation, which is vastly arbitrary and usually based on religious hypocrisy; whereas ethics are being rational attempts to make out fair and unfair behaviour.
The first one typically consists of firm generalizations which in doctrins like of the abrahamic religions are supposed to cover all situations in life. ( Dwindling into spawns of simplcity, like for instance going as far as to manifest how an instance of otherwise rigid prudery can let through incest when for instance an aunt during an earthquake may fall from first floor into a nephews bedroom in the basement, in such a way that the two on collision meet each other in coincidental coitus, etc.)
The second, very differently, only delivers logical clues / basics that shall help weighing each situation individually and under deconstructive consideration.
The first one is often meant to contribute to hierarchic societal establishment / bondage through intimidating, manipulating and distorting; the second as server of sobriety aiming to find out what is right.
Ruphus
You may be surprised to read a mathematician, physicist and engineer writing that he is deeply suspicious of the application of logic to human affairs.
Let me try to explain, first with a tale of scientific revolution. Newtonian mechanics was one of the greatest intellectual contributions of all time. It is still among the most useful physical theories. Perhaps even more important than its usefulness was its intellectual style, the extensive mathematization of physical theory.
A philosophical flaw was the lack of a secure logical foundation for calculus, a necessary tool.
It was not until the mid-19th century that electromagnetism was successfully mathematized by Clerk Maxwell. The logical foundations of calculus were finally secured at about the same time by Cauchy et al, with their precise definition of the limit concept, and Dedekind et al, with their axioms for the real number system.
There were congratulations all around.
The electromagnetic waves predicted by Maxwell were first conceived as propagating through some stationary physical medium, the "luminiferous aether." It was not readily apparent what such a medium might be. Some thinkers said, "Well, maybe the waves are transmitted even through a complete vacuum," silly as that sounded at the time. It still sounds silly to intelligent people not accustomed to the manipulation of mathematical abstractions.
At the very least Maxwell's equations clearly implied the existence of a single preferred coordinate system. Newton's did not, except to specify that his equations were valid for a coordinate system "at rest with the fixed stars, or in uniform motion relative to them." Maxwell's equations do not admit even this limited freedom of choice.
Michelson and Morley set out to discover the Earth's motion relative to the luminiferous aether, or in the more daring interpretation, what the preferred coordinate system was. They designed and carried out a very clever and precise experiment.
They found no preferred coordinate system.
Various physicists, including Poincare and Einstein set out to understand this result. Though Poincare was near a solution, Einstein was first to publish, and was arguably the most advanced conceptually.
Einstein' s theory was utterly revolutionary. The most basic postulate was that the speed of electromagnetic waves was the same for all observers. This postulate was consistent with Michelson and Morley's experimental data. Among the radical results were that time passed at different rates for different observers, and that they would measure different lengths for the same objects. The equivalence of mass and energy was another consequence.
Einstein's first published theory, Special Relativity remained controversial. By 1922 Einstein had further developed his ideas in the theory of General Relativity. Eddington's analysis of the bending of light rays by the sun's gravity was a striking confirmation of a prediction incompatible with classical physics. There were others.
Both Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism were conceptually overthrown by Einstein's revolution, though they retained the ability to make usefully accurate predictions within a limited domain.
The logic of classical mechanics was at last shown to be impeccable in the mid-19th century. The fault lay not in its logic, but in its assumptions, some nearly tacit.
But to paraphrase the movie disclaimer, "No animals were harmed by this revolution." The horrific implications of E = mc^2 were discovered and acted upon later.
The most recent revolution in physics but one was benign in its impact on society. In stark contrast, events that might charitably be seen as experiments to validate revolutionary political and economic theories killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century. No matter whether you agree with the theories or not, I contend that it was, in considerable part, utter devotion to theory that led to evil consequences that were previously unimaginable.
To a person who has been taught tensor calculus, General Relativity is far less complex than the Marxian analysis of political economy. The Marxian analysis is long, complex, and shot through with tacit assumptions and untested postulates of human behavior. Yet people still insist on its truth, or upon the truth of at least some of its conclusions.
Inalienable rights: Anyone would agree that the right to life is inalienable, wouldn't they? Well, not everybody. Certain backward countries and terrorist organizations impose the death penalty. But everybody would agree that the right to life is inalienable for the righteous. You're not supposed to get away with murder. However in the USA a political debate over abortion that has led at times to violence and murder, is now cast precisely in terms of the definition of human life. Everybody agrees to the right to life for the righteous. They just don't agree what life is.
Anti-abortion forces are presently proposing legislation that defines a fertilized ovum as an instance of human life. Pro-abortion forces insist on the current legal definition, a fetus viable at (premature) birth. Legislative battles are presently going on over a precise, (thus inevitably inaccurate) definition of when viability arrives.
I come at last nearer the point. I agree with Marx that surplus value of labor is necessary in any industrialized society. There has to be a source for capital investment in the means of production. The vexed question is who should control this capital.
In the employee owned company I speak of, everyone had a say in it. But not everyone had an equal say, at least in theory. My salary was higher than my secretary's, so I was awarded more stock, and my share of distributed profits was greater. In theory I also contributed more surplus value, since customers paid more for my work than they did for hers, as things were itemized in our bills, according to statutory accounting rules .
During my time at the company, disputes never arose. There were only thirty-five of us. We all knew and respected one another. Transparency in accounting was complete. We on the steering committee were aware of the interests of others, and did our best to take them into account. At weekly meetings of the whole staff, anything was fair game for questioning and discussion.
One of Marx's conclusions was that in capitalism, the drive to increase capital trumps any other motivation. This was untrue in our case. We consciously placed harmony in the workplace and the compatibility of any person we hired far above growth of the company and increased profits for ourselves. We intentionally sacrificed expansion of capital for a decent place to work.
This somewhat informal arrangement worked for our small group of friendly colleagues. It would be impractical in groups above a certain size.
Two proposed solutions for a mass society have been that the state should own capital, the state's actions presumably governed democratically; or that capital should be the private property of individuals or legal constructs like stock corporations. Abuses of the power of the capitalists are to be limited by the laws and regulatory agencies of a democratic government.
Attempts to implement either model have not resulted in a humane economy for the whole population, or in some cases even for a significant minority. Neither model has come anywhere near anticipating what human behavior would be when its implementation was attempted.
Yet we hear every day people who truly believe that one solution or the other, or else their own proposal is absolutely the only way that will work. I'm not talking about those who advocate one system or the other for covert motives, hoping to exploit its loopholes. I'm talking about the true believers, not the cynics.
In my opinion, power in the hands of such cynics is likely to be less dangerous than power in the hands of the true believers. Successful cynical opportunists are reasonably likely to perceive the results of their actions and to modify them out of self interest. See much of the behavior of the Chinese Communist Party since the Tiananmen massacre. (It remains to be seen what will happen in Hong Kong.)
True believers like Chairman Mao are likely to persist in the face of horrific disaster.
Thus my counsel for skepticism concerning political and economic theories, and moderation in political action. Moderation not only in political action, but in political discourse, for fear of mistaking a Chairman Mao for a normal human.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 3 2014 22:55:01
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to guitarbuddha)
|
|
|
Relative naifs like George W. Bush and Obama have fallen easy prey to the custodians of U.S. military power. Coming from a family whose military service extends into the mists of medieval history, I don't suggest that the U.S. military industrial complex is inherently evil, nor ruled entirely by self interest. But at the very least it requires a firm hand managing it.
It was President Eisenhower who said, "I pity anyone who ends up sitting in this chair and knows less about the military than I do."
And it was Lord Melbourne who said, "Whenever I hear someone say, 'Something must be done' I know they are preparing to do something very foolish."
George H.W. Bush understood the military establishment to some extent. He had been Director of the CIA before he was president. He is the only president in recent times who exercised judicious restraint using U.S. military power. He kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, clearly legal and in the U.S. national interest, but didn't take on the sisyphean task of reforming Iraq.
And how many imperial juggernauts have been wrecked on the mountains of Afghanistan? We were within our rights to retaliate against the Taliban for harboring and abetting Al Qaeda's attack on U.S. soil. But making them into a righteous western style democracy?
Even Lyndon Johnson, by far the most successfully Machiavellian U.S. politician of my lifetime, was convinced by the cry of "Something must be done."
Lyndon's naivete was historical, as was that of everyone who advised attacking North Vietnam. Just send our boys over for a couple of years to kick the ass of a country that had successfully resisted incorporation into the Chinese Empire for at least 450 years? "Piece of cake," the Pentagon and the CIA said.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 4 2014 0:13:28
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to guitarbuddha)
|
|
|
quote:
Gore Vidal often mocked Kennedy for being the first President gullible enough to really fall for the military's scare tactics in their attempt to maximise their budgets and influence. At least Reagan knew it was all just PR and glamour.
And whilst drones and air strike do nothing to reorganise local politics they are terrific for generating generations of hatred. Unstable regions are easier to exploit than stable ones.
Gore Vidal on Kennedy..he was not the first president to be called gullible by Gore Vidal..
I think you have it backwards. Kennedy was the showman who trotted out the space program as a way proving the "American century of air and space superiority'.
Regan was an idealist who learned about WWII as it happened by watching battle footage from the front lines. His involvement was passive rather than active. Regan's grasp on military power and understanding was created out of his time spent producing and editing battle footage for newsreels shown in movie houses. His take on war and his orentation to war is hightly theatrical and based not in combat experience but with propaganda created to show The American public how the war was being fought. He also by many personal accounts believed in what he did, he was not disengenuous in his intent. He was quite earnest, that is when he could remember what he was saying.
Kennedy by contrast was in actual combat and was a decorated Navy skipper. His view was more realistic, but as far who was proposing which programs Star Wars for Reagan, Mercury/Apollo Space program for Kennedy you can't realistically pin one glamour PR man and the other as earnest and gullible. But if anything it was the other way round. Reagan did not know squat about the military as he was commander of the Motion Picture Unit of the Air Force based in Culver City CA, Hollywood. Kennedy also had extensive combat training and became commander of a torpedo boat unit by merit of his service, Reagan by contrast was not granted a pass into active combat duty. So one president was in battle and handled personnel and military ships, while the other edited the footage Kennedy sent from his gun cameras.
Speaking of gullible, I remember when Iran Contra was happening, Ollie North sure sold a good story. I was in DC at the time and had a friend at State Dept who was telling me about the current events story boards they created for Reagan's briefings. They looked just like movie making story boards, but with characters like Noriega, Fawn Hall, and Ollie. Reagan was slipping at that point showing early signs of dementia.
Kennedy service record: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-2.htm
Reagan military service: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/military.html
_____________________________________________
As far as Isis.....drones are helpful, bombing them will forestal them. But beating them? Tell the Saudis to stop funding them to fight a proxy war that takes pressure off of the Saudi government for dealing with its own extremist groups. The Saudis are just using Isis to attract their looney toons extremists out of the country and into Isis.
Something should be done dammit! Nothing should be done except the sending of massive humanitarian aid to the people that Isis displaced. Then Isis should be told to go ahead, set up a caliphate, then give them borders. Let them do what they want. Sit back and see how long it takes them eat them selves alive. If left alone Isis will naturally fragment and have internal struggles between those who wish to be isolationist and those who wish to engage the outside world for recognition. They will internally fight one another until one wins.
What fuels them is the need for recognition and if you refuse it they will do what ever they have get political recognition. They are ego driven. The horrible thing is they displaced murdered innocent people, the Arab world and the US should provide aid to these people and ignore and seek to contain Isis. tell them do what ever you want, we don't care. Then contain them. All you can do is contain them. They can have a caliphate, just not a very big one.
Richard is right, doing stuff is way overrated.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 4 2014 6:06:59
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
Jeez, Richard.
You guys have been that indoctrinated with what thus is the fragmented, whisked and frankensteined conclusion of a mantra which you well-behaved inserted above.
In the unresistable attempt of breathing sense into it, even quoting experiences in employee-owned company as capitalist example.
If interested into realizing what of Marx´work ought to have been hypothesis and failing items to boot and what not, you must not use distorted claims and parols given out by propaganda departments, but read Marx´s work yourself, if you have the stamina ( to your average mind I would had added "and intellectual ability", because almost all essays that I have read to date in public media displayed a fundamental ignorance of Marx´s actual statement, which again may not be that surprising seeing the works and the way they have been written).
Another option to bypass the skewed economic doctrin of the west´s allmighty interpretation, for a change, is to listen to a professor of economy who has not drunk the cool-aid of fox-eating economical poultry.
His name is prof. Bernd Senf. I don´t know however whether his carryovers can be had in English.
But before your panicking into general slogan, I had only been mentioning a single item. The value that yields from a working individual´s output.
Indepedently from whether Marx, Buddha or Aristoteles ever said anything, me was pointing out one self-evident and in the same time so very disguised and banned condition, which is that the outcome of a person´s work is his primare propriety.
What is missing under given exploitative economizing is the mentioning, acknowledgement of this possession in the first place, and the leaving untouched of it in the second place.
Withouit alienation of labour surplus value you would have no overly privileged individuals in the first place who could be instructing you with why they would be needing to be swimming in milk while fellowmen be due to searching their diet on landfills.
If you leave the three monkeys patrol in their squad car, can you realize men´s productive potential as personal property, just like with men´s body or with his right to think?
Or viewed vice versa: Do you think men to be born with their productive potential as disposable to thirds?
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 4 2014 10:17:13
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
Jeez, Richard.
You guys have been that indoctrinated with what thus is the fragmented, whisked and frankensteined conclusion of a mantra which you well-behaved inserted above.
In the unresistable attempt of breathing sense into it, even quoting experiences in employee-owned company as capitalist example.
If interested into realizing what of Marx´work ought to have been hypothesis and failing items to boot and what not, you must not use distorted claims and parols given out by propaganda departments, but read Marx´s work yourself, if you have the stamina ( to your average mind I would had added "and intellectual ability", because almost all essays that I have read to date in public media displayed a fundamental ignorance of Marx´s actual statement, which again may not be that surprising seeing the works and the way they have been written).
Another option to bypass the skewed economic doctrin of the west´s allmighty interpretation, for a change, is to listen to a professor of economy who has not drunk the cool-aid of fox-eating economical poultry.
His name is prof. Bernd Senf. I don´t know however whether his carryovers can be had in English.
But before your panicking into general slogan, I had only been mentioning a single item. The value that yields from a working individual´s output.
Indepedently from whether Marx, Buddha or Aristoteles ever said anything, me was pointing out one self-evident and in the same time so very disguised and banned condition, which is that the outcome of a person´s work is his primare propriety.
What is missing under given exploitative economizing is the mentioning, acknowledgement of this possession in the first place, and the leaving untouched of it in the second place.
Withouit alienation of labour surplus value you would have no overly privileged individuals in the first place who could be instructing you with why they would be needing to be swimming in milk while fellowmen be due to searching their diet on landfills.
If you leave the three monkeys patrol in their squad car, can you realize men´s productive potential as personal property, just like with men´s body or with his right to think?
Or viewed vice versa: Do you think men to be born with their productive potential as disposable to thirds?
Ruphus
An insulting ad hominem attack which does not deserve a reply, nor could a rational reply be made to such hysterical ranting.
I should have known better than to engage in a discussion with you.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 4 2014 16:24:11
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: A reply to Ruphus (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
Huh?
I guess my writing quote:
to your average mind I would had added "and intellectual ability", because almost all essays that I have read to date in public media displayed a fundamental ignorance of Marx´s actual statement, which again may not be that surprising seeing the works and the way they have been written
must have been wrong English.
I was wanting to say that most people cannot understand what the man wrote, but that you could, if you read it yourself.
I am sorry for the wrong expression.
-
One more item, later in the day:
Somewhere in this thread it was suggested that some of destructive US policies abroad had been intended as prevention of a declining self-confidence.
Last night it was the second time that I had the pleasure of watching a major part of Ray Charles´s vita as magnificient movie. What a movie, what a soundtrack!
The USA have had genius artists like J.J.Cale, Charly Parker and Ray Charles who alone make for heritage sufficiently mesmerizing to cover glory for several of grand nations.
The people of America have no need for a nomenclatura that not only consists of industrial delegates but generates false national concerns like apparent needs to present the nation as captain of the world. There is more than enough greatness to shine on own merits / no necessity at all to present proof of a great nation. Aside from the fact that interpretations of pride and image like usually are being only disguise of foreign instigations on behalf of business for a few, and aimed at mobilizing the people for background.
America has no need to sense lack of self-confidence, nor a reason for it, other than unsocial / dubious policies conducted out of all under the people´s name. What it actually needs would be emanzipation from plutocracy and unleashing of progressive insights.
Like anywhere, the best policy would be to make country and society own. Making it of the people.
Freeing all that informs and educates and channeling people´s contribution to their very own / community´s benefit.
That is a nation´s concern. - Feeding things like pride and self-confidence just besides.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 4 2014 17:26:54
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.109375 secs.
|
Printable Version
