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.
That is what i think is the essence of freedom in a state, and why freedom is practically useless. In democratic states you have (in certain limits though) the right to express an opinion, but only if you give up any practical relevance of it.
On the contrary, in democratic states you not only have the right to express an opinion, you also have the right to attempt to persuade others to support your position, and if you have enough support, you can win elections. For example, after World War II, Winston Churchill, who was extremely popular and highly respected during the war, lost the 1945 general election to the Labor candidate Clement Attlee. Labor proceeded to nationalize much of the British economy, and Britain became, in effect, a socialist (of the social-democratic sort) state.
Fast forward 34 years to the British general election of 1979. For many reasons, the British public had tired of labor and much of the state-run and labor-dominated economy, and Margaret Thatcher won the general election and became Prime Minister. Thatcher proceeded to dismantle much of the state-owned and run economy, and she implemented much more of a private enterprise, free market system. The British economy before and after Thatcher was very different. (I'm not arguing the virtues of free enterprise vs. socialism here. I think you know my position on that issue.) My point is that when enough of the voting electorate in a state want to change political/economic direction, they can do it via the ballot box. That is the essence, and the beauty, of democracy.
Cheers,
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."
Your replies to the original post have been a most enjoyable to read. I don't have time to respond to each individual post but would like to reiterate that in America there needs to be democracy in the workplace and economy. I think that the system is stacked against the common man. With that said, individually a person has freedom of choice. What I see a lot, especially from people on the left is the victim mentality. On a personal note, 8 years ago when I was 40 I lost my job of 18 years in the newspaper business. I was pretty scared; my god I'm 40 and don't have any special skills. What am I going to do? Once I calmed down I researched various jobs that one can learn in a short period of time while earning a descent wage. Truck driving was a good match so I obtained a class A CDL in less than 3 weeks and was working roughly 3 months after I lost my job. I had a choice, I could have sat around and felt sorry for myself or get of my ass and do something. I choice the latter. Right now I'm working locally for a privately owned non-union company, the owner is extremely generous and pays well along with a good benefits package. I consider myself one of the lucky working class Americans. On another personal note, I support the Occupy Wall Street movement, their website has a personal stories section. One story that got my attention was that of a young couple struggling to pay their bills. So, what do they do? The women gets pregnant and then is complaining about not being able to support the baby. It's about choice and responsibility; What's cheaper, raising a child for 18 years or a box of condoms? With that said is society better of supporting people like the aforementioned couple or throwing them out on the streets? If we had a society where people supported each other and valued education, collectively we would be much better off. However if you have a well educated and informed populace who's going to do all those slave wage American jobs to make the one percent richer?
It's interesting how democratic ideals and capitalistic ideals sometimes tend to really contradict each other. Democracy doesn't equal efficiency and capitalism loves efficiency.
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH On the contrary, in democratic states you not only have the right to express an opinion, you also have the right to attempt to persuade others to support your position, and if you have enough support, you can win elections.
You have the right to express opinions that are in conformity with the system. For any other opinion you will be prosecuted in escalating steps (its all written in law btw) until you either give up your opinion (stop publishing), your political/economic freedom (prohibition of organizations/prison) or your existence (execution). Oh and btw i doubt that the difference between British socialists and Churchill and Thatcher and whatnot matters too much. Its not like people doubled their income or wealth after each "direction change" as you may call it. Btw the big inventions like the steam machine are what made Britain, or any other nation, wealthy.
quote:
My point is that when enough of the voting electorate in a state want to change political/economic direction, they can do it via the ballot box.
You mean every 4/5 (!) years you elect one of x whereby x is the number of parties who have proven themselves as equally incompetent, whose programs and decisions you cant influence and which nobody agrees with to 100% is a good way of political participation? I disagree because i think political decisions need to be discussed and made immediately as soon as a problem occurs, not every 4/5 years. Also selecting the personnel which then has the power to decide is not equal to selecting predefined decisions. Parties dont always stick to their programs. Most people, also in this thread, know that democracy basically sucks. But very soon after that they notice they basically cant do anything that every political activity they are allowed to take is already set in stone. That there is a power that rules them, not the other way. Now, democracy becomes "not perfect, but the best" system. This is a mental/an intellectual technique how to deal with subordination. Because now you can criticize without having to justify yourself that you wont do anthing against it. And by saying that there is no "perfect" system anyway, you can clean off any motivation to seek for other ones without feeling too guilty. On a footnote, i find it funny that for example that people would pity the slaves in feudalism in the past. As if the slaves didnt think that their system was "not perfect, but the best" available?? At least it wasnt them who abolished slavery. So in summary, all kinds of tools are available to make yourself adapt to a system, and not the other way round.
That is what i think is the essence of freedom in a state, and why freedom is practically useless. In democratic states you have (in certain limits though) the right to express an opinion, but only if you give up any practical relevance of it. This reduces all the talking and discussing in democratic regimes to mere babbling, and thats why political talkshows are so annoying. The initial motivation for people to have any opinion on society was to improve something in society (it can be any idea literally: more/less healthcare, more/less kindergardens, overthrowing the state LOL). Now they get told whether its considered an improvement or not will not be decided by them, but by the state. The idea that you could have an idea that contradicts the rules or goals of the state and simply "vote" for people to make these ideas practically come true is nuts. Even if a large percent of the population would favor that idea. Democratic states, just like other states, have been known to have a comprehensive set of tools, to render such ideas useless. They reach from values like freedom, which offer an ideally compensation, which seems to attract many people, over not permitting demonstrations or beating them down to executing the people who have such ideas. Latter is not so favorable because you cant kill all your population. People who offend the states rules are very insignificant and not executed right now, but this is only because they are insignificant. This is what it means being ruled upon.
Well said, Deniz.
I think to see typical degrees of depth with the posts.
Shallowest of them being Ricardos ( pardon me Ricardo, not intended as offence ), which is the most typical of conservative approach. Some who have had the help or chance to end up succesful with their career love to wallow in the outcome as merrits of personal talent and stamina. Which again makes the trivial watchword of alleged equal chances so attractive to them, as personally flattering vehicle. Can you say tailored choice of political adaption.
Next Bill´s example. One layer deeper in deduction. Bouncing from separate clue to clue under strict omission of a slipery base residing on. Here the exclusions being the proportion. The proportion of what will be only brushed as profits and appropriation, and of what has to stay taboo in lesser bright lights of eventually reasonable or rather excessive being. Manufacturing companies that could keep doing fine, will become "uncompetitive", "and American-made products ..." be "priced out of the market" if not shipping jobs overseas, as action of simply "economic sense". Rounding up with "vast majority of Americans who buy clothing" that "were beneficiaries of the move".
Dematerialized in such prepared view remains how manufaturing exports could have actually started from overly spoiled undertakings who recognized signifiant increase of affluent management with lower wages in Far East.
Instead in a strictly excluding wordview things have to be just "rational" the way they come industrially spoonfed, and collateral damages like the environmental and social ones in China be irrelevant before benefits like of "vast majority of Americans" buying 3 bucks T-shirts.
Exact same ways of stringence bouncing within predefined depth of layer with comapny´s "procedures in place that must be followed in order to fire someone". As if these could really prevent any chiefs from getting rid of unwanted staff, and which will only be taking place in the sense put into perspective in Richard´s following posts ( hence in certain cases with bigger companies and thus sufficient bait for lawyers).
Richard to my understanding performs steep, prepared to face things all around, including lesser embraced truth, and with the balls to stand to the low neocon-ethcis he allied with during cold war, under the premisse to prevent anything even just named "socialism". Still neglecting the disporportionate and inhumane policies he bowed to and even the infamy he agreed into of saboting where possible, robbing populations chance to democracy / installing cruel military dictatures et al. Just as his preference - suspected by me - to not consider the US policies of not only taking over Third Reich rocket engineers. And much worse even, severally contradicting sincere policies like the intention "to set western Europe back on the course of liberal democracy" ( as the US common sense´s assertion he quoted it as) by sneaking the vast of leading department´s nazis back into their seats and together with the Vatican organizing the sneaking out of the thugs who weren´t deemed able to be covered-up.
What I think to see with Richard is certain mistaking in evaluation, however not in an aftermath of intentioned blinkers and self-deception.
He shows the balls in general to face what there be / turn out, and that is what I respect primarily, and wished the same autonomous principle of seeking in life for everyone. Like with Stephen, who seems an even more dedicated follower of entity, no matter what it may ever have in the sleeves to himself.
After all, all the facts in the world are little worth if not handled with required self-respect to line them up consistently and fully.
The poster of this thread is right. One of the rights you have in the US is to perish fully disregarded in your efforts and rights. And the defenders of the alleged democracy there are ridiculing themselves when they point to the former Eastern Blocks corruption while standing in the epitome of nepotism, called upper class of the US.
Modern America has departed so much from its former times of worker´s movement and union fights, that the remains of actually democratic and humane pillars are drawn into indecipherability. The first recently referred to by a US journalist who in a German discussion summed it up to an extend like: "We are more upfront than the Europeans in that we ceased the democracy game role by removing parliamental gadgetry of parties and left only two to purport existence of different policies". The second obvious by the distortion of ethics with Hippocrates oath that has been completely thrown over board with the perverting of medical care as sheer business; allowed to be turned into a monstrous blackmailing mashine with a racketeering routine unseen in the world.
Socialism was invented in the late 18th century and capitalism sometime between the 15th - 16th centuries. It's the 21st century, we need a new system that benefits everyone, not just the 1 percent. If America was a true capitalist system the banks & corporations would not have been bailed out during the melt down of 2008. In America both banks and corporations have welfare & socialism. The rich receive far more help from the government than welfare, social security, medicare & medicaid recipients combined but yet they want to cut those programs. Goldman Sachs' CEO Lloyd Blankfein was on capital hill telling congress how recipients of social programs are going to have to take cuts. Mr. Blanfein made 16 million dollars last year and is going to have a retirement that most people only dream of yet he wants people that are barely getting by to give more. There is one word for that, obscene. America home of the free, land of the brave where poor people fight wars for the rich and then come home, if they survive, and work for the them. LOL!
If America was a true capitalist system the banks & corporations would not have been bailed out during the melt down of 2008.
Judging from your statement quoted above, you are not against capitalism at all. You seem to be saying we have strayed from classic capitalist principles. I agree with you. Capitalism involves risk. If the risk taken pays off, you gain. If it does not, you lose. What we have today, particularly among large banks and corporations, is privatized gain but socialized loss. You actually seem to argue for a more classic capitalist society.
Cheers,
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."
You have the right to express opinions that are in conformity with the system. For any other opinion you will be prosecuted in escalating steps (its all written in law btw) until you either give up your opinion (stop publishing), your political/economic freedom (prohibition of organizations/prison) or your existence (execution).
Can you give an example of this?
quote:
I disagree because i think political decisions need to be discussed and made immediately as soon as a problem occurs, not every 4/5 years.
Elections take place every 4-6 years, 'political decisions' (I'm assuming you mean legislation?) take less time. Democracy is by no means efficient (as Lenador stated above), but things do happen. Also what do you mean by 'immediately as soon as a problem occurs'? Problems occur all the time, or is it only in my life?
If you were to disperse the government and hold elections every time a mistake is made, you would be spending most of the time with powerless interim governments. Change is gradual, the administration needs time to implement it. Sure it would work faster if only one person was in charge, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Richard to my understanding performs steep, prepared to face things all around, including lesser embraced truth, and with the balls to stand to the low neocon-ethcis he allied with during cold war, under the premisse to prevent anything even just named "socialism". Still neglecting the disporportionate and inhumane policies he bowed to and even the infamy he agreed into of saboting where possible, robbing populations chance to democracy / installing cruel military dictatures et al. Just as his preference - suspected by me - to not consider the US policies of not only taking over Third Reich rocket engineers. And much worse even, severally contradicting sincere policies like the intention "to set western Europe back on the course of liberal democracy" ( as the US common sense´s assertion he quoted it as) by sneaking the vast of leading department´s nazis back into their seats and together with the Vatican organizing the sneaking out of the thugs who weren´t deemed able to be covered-up.
Ruphus
In your summary, I find it difficult to distinguish my own viewpoint from what I described as prevailing American ones, which I may or may not share.
During a long life my attitudes have altered significantly as I matured and as I acquired more information. Just yesterday I read a review of a book about life under Soviet domination in Eastern Europe. There was a passing assertion that Stalin in particular, and succeeding Soviet leadership in general, had no contingency plan for invading western Europe. Stalin, a thoroughgoing Marxist, was said to believe that war between the capitalist countries was inevitable, and that as a by-product the Soviet Union would be attacked. In addition to keeping Warsaw Pact populations in line, the Soviet military order of battle was said to be defensive.
The Soviets had massive troop and tank concentrations in eastern Europe, giving them a significant advantage over western European and American ground forces. American and western European strategy and order of battle took this into account. I find it hard to believe that in the absence of countervailing force, the Soviet Union would not have attacked the west if a war had broken out, and the Soviet Union became involved in it. But I find this an interesting topic, and I mean to try to find out more about it.
As to "setting Europe back on the path of liberal democracy" I was describing how the majority of Americans see themselves, not ascribing virtue to myself. However, when I first visited Europe in the late 1950s, and continuing at least into the 1970s, many people spontaneously expressed gratitude to America for its role in the defeat of the Nazis, and the economic effects of the Marshall Plan. More recently I have heard negative opinions of America's actions on the world stage. I share many of these opinions.
The German rocket scientists are an interesting case. I knew one of the second tier, my brother knew von Braun. Von Braun and his team were involved in the development of intermediate range ballistic missiles for the military, but then were wholly diverted to work on the NASA moon landing project. Interestingly enough, both von Braun and the American Robert Goddard testify that von Braun's work in Germany was based on Goddard's pioneering efforts.
Few doubt that von Braun was an enthusiastic German nationalist during the early stages of Hitler's regime. When he was arrested by the Gestapo and accused of communist sympathy, one suspects it may have cooled his ardor somewhat. By that time he was the leader of the German military rocket program. Hitler's personal intervention enabled him to return to that work, though von Braun was aware that he was under continual suspicion and surveillance for the rest of the time he was in Germany.
After being brought to the USA with most of his team under "Operation Paperclip" all of them carefully steered completely clear of politics, as one might have expected. Their endorsement of any political position would have been pure poison.
Von Braun's work had relatively small strategic effect. Knowledge of the crowded schedule, and the risks taken in the moon rocket project to meet that schedule, makes it clear to an experienced engineer like me that von Braun would have had no time to devote to military rocket development, which followed a totally different technical path.
I will bore you with a personal account, but its purpose is to make a larger point.
As a young man I participated in paramilitary operations in Central America, supported by the USA and said to be aimed at preventing the spread of Soviet influence among the Indians on the east coast. I was from a family with a long military tradition in America. Four of my ancestors served under General Washington. Two of my great-grandfathers fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War, the other two fought for the North. i am prouder of the service to the Union, but still, the other two were my ancestors, part of a family where loyalty to the group was highly valued. My father attained a high rank in the U.S. Air Force and served in World War II. So I thought going to Central America to fight communism was a good idea.
Once I was in Central America and involved in combat, I concluded that the operation was actually a continuation of the 4 1/2-century war of the white elite against the Indians, while the Somozas and others blew smoke up Uncle Sam's ass. I made my views clear to my superiors and resigned in disgust.
From that time forward I have not taken the American position totally at face value. During the cold war I viewed the Soviet regime as evil and corrupt. I still do. It gave socialist principles an undeserved bad name. But the Soviets gave a detailed lesson in how state ownership and central planning could be corrupted under a totalitarian regime.
I was involved in the nuclear standoff. No one was injured by nuclear weapons during the cold war. At the time I saw this as being as much due to the caution and circumpection of the Soviet leadership as it was to actions by the West--except for Khruschev's miscalculation in placing missiles in Cuba. This was seen as risky enough behavior by the Soviet leadership itself, to get rid of Khruschev as primary leader.
I strongly opposed the U.S. policy of installing or propping up right wing dictators. I spoke out about it openly, even to Richard Perle, the "Black Prince"--Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. But Perle apparently didn't see me as a threat. He could easily have removed me from critical projects I was involved in, but did not.
I opposed the Vietnam War and participated in demonstrations against it. During my career in the military industrial complex I was under constant surveillance, as was everybody else with the same access to information. I was not suspected as a traitor by the security establishment.
I bore you with this lengthy personal account to point out that people's attitudes and beliefs may change significantly from those they held at the beginning of adult life. My attitudes have changed even in the last few years on some issues.
In fact, in my experience, very few if any people ever attain the lifelong moral purity claimed by some on this forum. With age and experience, many see there was a degree of error in their youthful ways. Could the German rocket scientists have regretted their support of the Nazi regime once they became fully aware of its actions?
My experience with an employee owned company led me to believe that a just and equitable life can be led under a capitalist legal and economic system. I have no doubt that the same is true of a socialist one. I believe that the economic and political system in the USA inflicts severe inequities and injustices, and we need to do something about it. Nor am I opposed to implementation of socialism where people want to do it--though I don't think it's immune to corruption.
I like how Perle did not denounce you. It would be only too typical to do so in a mass hysterical and tempted situation, but there always come up some few of extra ordinary characters who will stay sober and considerate, abstaining from questionable honoring. - And I admire how they stick out, always wanting to know what it has been in their vita that has them root in decency. ( Just been discussing about it with a friend yesterday. An interesting topic, expecially even under the preconditon of us basically having no free will.)
Relating to the later attitude, I suppose that you mean me with "lifelong moral purity claimed by some on this forum". Rightly so. There are two things bothering me a bit in the back of my head when posting critically. One being the ordinary fact of no joy for me with pooping on parties, secondly that I do not like an apparently pretended halo sensed by who might not be knowing me enough to be aware of the given degree of self critisizm and failure.
Stumbling around myself, it is not to try illuminate others´shortcomings; and if common dealings and perceptions were only not performing like a planets evaluation without accountance of gravitation, I would definitly prefer to save energy, respectively talk about beautiful or amazing things ( like say your lobbster feeding tidbit from yesterday. Loved it!) See how I have been crashing into Bill´s parade above? I could really do without thelike disassemble; the more as I like the man and his friendly spirit.
Unable of lifelong moral purity, mistaking and erring all the time like humans ought to, I am merely driven nuts by hell on earth that I deem taken by a giant host of sleepwalkers who in the same time as individuals can solve complex tasks, demonstrating ever more from day to day why science has abstained from defining intelligence, let aside awareness. The inconsistent conditions with our grey cells as most paradox phenomenons that crossed my lifes path.
I am throwing stones from glass houses and just can´t help myself other ways with the three monkeys out there. -
Von Braun was fully informed about the Nazi regime´s actions. He has also been to several KZs and personally selecting forced workers from Buchenwald, who would be used up in his projects like fire wood.
And aisde of his whitewash, the times are long over of German public trying to picture WWII contemporarie´s ignorance about Third Reich conditions. It is for over 20 years now that it appears rather clear how common people where quite informed about what followed the deportations. All very little to do with the scene portrayed in my smudging old history school books, but a lot with the political alignment that has on the side of the equation suppressed namelessly honourable human gems who risked their lives to hide victims of persecution away from the mob.
The greatest shame of all with WWII pre to post Germany is actually that. Lesser the having been so embarrassingly corrupted in vain by a feeble-minded hollow maniac, but by the war crimes ... And most of all by the defamation and choking of the incredible secret heros in the peoples´ midst after the war, that lasts until today. Yuck!
This is at least the biggest grudge that I have with Germany as my very valued homeland. There is just way too little true about democracy there and in the rest of the world. - And whenever there may show up a potential of authentic societal development towards anything actually democratic the usual major forces will know how to sabotage it, so that there shall by no means ever come up an example of reasonable ruling and economizing.
A just society would be the biggest threat to the given plutocracies. And just see what they wouldn´t do to undermine. Look at the officially biggest thread to the USA today, and at who lurked cavemen in in the first place to pump them up from a diminishing antique to todays hosts of fanatized nutcases.
Can it really be so challenging to make out such enormously destructive powers of insanity in action since so many decades now? -
Capitalism, inherent to a method to generate from doing down, cannot allow just and equitable life. The minute you introduce wholy considering to exclude injust there will be no capitalism in the same time. It´s like water & fire without catalyst ways to help it.
Human being specifically can only be with humane being. That means with reason, empathy, sincerity, long-term and constructive approach. Whereas piling up profits makes for a detached aim on principle and a conduct contrary to humane.
-
Corruption with exemplary conditions seems an undefeatable hydra, that is right. That current condition of predominance could change dramatically however:
# The minute a sincere aim at transparency was in play, together with todays intelligence and means to support it.
# Under the natural circumstance that officials and politics were attending their positions for reason of ideal. Hence, with no more privileged class lobbyism and ordinary interests of private career, but enterings of individuals who want to organize people´s affairs actually to communitie´s benefit, self-evidently agreeing into exposure and lesser privacy for a time as controlled representative.
# And most of all in a constructive society of reason, where former plutocracy treadmills are bygone and instead the full potential of intelligence / technology engaged in easening supply and life quality. Fundamentally effecting personal life and growing up circumstances of the people.
Todays pathological vanity and restless haunt for self-confirmation would vanish in a culture of freed and customized upbringing and education. With the self-confidence and satisfactory of natural being making todays sorts of unfounded careerist and grabby a rarity.
The simplicity of a blindly accumulating personality would be standing out so much at the latest with the second-generation folks of a reasonable society, that it should have little chance of sneaking itself into leading position anyway.
I read a review of a book about life under Soviet domination in Eastern Europe. There was a passing assertion that Stalin in particular, and succeeding Soviet leadership in general, had no contingency plan for invading western Europe. Stalin, a thoroughgoing Marxist, was said to believe that war between the capitalist countries was inevitable, and that as a by-product the Soviet Union would be attacked. In addition to keeping Warsaw Pact populations in line, the Soviet military order of battle was said to be defensive.
The Soviets had massive troop and tank concentrations in eastern Europe, giving them a significant advantage over western European and American ground forces. American and western European strategy and order of battle took this into account. I find it hard to believe that in the absence of countervailing force, the Soviet Union would not have attacked the west if a war had broken out, and the Soviet Union became involved in it. But I find this an interesting topic, and I mean to try to find out more about it.
Richard,
I suspect the book review you mentioned concerned Anne Applebaum's "Iron Curtain." I highly recommend you read it if you are interested in the topic. It is about much more than just life in Eastern Europe under Soviet domination. In my opinion, the more interesting parts concern how that domination was achieved in the early days of of soviet control. Having lived for two years in Sofia, Bulgaria during the Cold War (1974-1976), under the dictatorship of Todor Zhivkov, I related very much to what Applebaum wrote, although she concentrates on Poland, East Germany, and Hungary.
The NATO alliance was prepared for a potential Soviet attack on West Germany through the Fulda Gap. Although Stalin probably never contemplated actually mobilizing for such a blatantly aggressive move, one reason he did not was because of the NATO alliance's posture. And taking it one dimension further, that posture was based on the countervailing political and military doctrine of "containment" authored by George F. Kennan. Without "containment," the Soviet Union, while not actually attacking the West, could still have accomplished many of its goals by applying pressure to Western European countries that would have resulted in much greater influence, and accommodation in Western Europe toward Soviet objectives.
One final thought on the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In my opinion, "containment," as embodied in the United States and our NATO alliance's political and military stance for 45 years, as well as the appearance of Gorbachev, who, although attempting to "save" the communist system, was enough of a realist to realize it must change, were the reasons for communism's demise. Although initially very dangerous, the Soviet Union became sclerotic and a hollowed-out system over the years, in part because the policy of containment forced it in upon itself and its contradictions.
Gorbachev's mistake was that, although a realist, he was too much a product of the system. He could not envision the fact that one cannot "change" communism by adding democratic elements and economic incentives. By doing so, one alters the system in such a way that it is no longer communism. Dubcek tried it in Czechoslavkia in 1968 with the "Prague Spring," and the result was a harsh crackdown by Soviet troops. Gorbachev tried it, and the result was he unleashed the final death throes of communism in the Soviet Union. Ironically, Marx's prediction that capitalism would collapse due to its (as Marx perceived it) "internal contradictions," actually applied to communism, which collapsed due to its internal contradictions, turning Marx on his head.
Cheers,
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."
ORIGINAL: chester Can you give an example of this?
As i said its written in law, accessible to everyone. Historical examples in Germany after WWII (im sure the same thing everywhere) extremists on the left and right side. Of course i dont advocate extremism of any sorts per se, but it should be enough to put this ideology that in democracy you could agitate for any political direction into the trash bin where it belongs. Its anti factical.
quote:
Ironically, Marx's prediction that capitalism would collapse due to its (as Marx perceived it) "internal contradictions," actually applied to communism, which collapsed due to its internal contradictions, turning Marx on his head.
If he said it then he was wrong. Theres no reason why capitalism cant last another decades. Internal contradictions only lead to suffering among those who experience them, but that doesnt mean people naturally decide against such suffering and make the system collapse. Many people, as i said earlier, have adopted to the mindset that "no system is perfect", "you cant have everything", and all kinds of techniques to "deal" with those contradictions. Regarding the downfall of the Soviet regime, which wasnt communistic in the literal sense but anyway, you said it yourself that the West, mainly the US, was more successfull in the military containment and i agree baiscally that is the reason why they won the "cold" war (not because of internal contradictions of the East, which im sure they had too). Now that there is no counterforce we seem to see one war or conflict every couple of years, in which the US are either involved themselves or claim a "regime change" and support the local para-military. Last year Lybia this time around Syria. It doesnt seem to matter that this policy causes chaos in countries and regions. The destruction of buildings, infrastructure and human life seems to be a fair price for securing the interests of democratic regimes. Luckily they are not the ones who have to pay it.
Naturally, he didn´t say what Bill is distorting there. Marx was referring to final developments in historic dimensions. Considering ways of peoples´states under undisturbed conditions. Neither taking into account random obstructions like 80 years of western instigations and sabotage, economcial burdens of maintaining imposed weapon race and what have you, nor estimating in historical glimpses to eventually accomodate current demands of superficial claiming.
He was dealing with basics, not even taking into consideration possible corruption through petty vanity. And finally his goal was the educating of the people about the powers they are subdued to, not so much about buffing glass bowls.
In fact it has been unexpected by him or any other thinker of that time, how quickly capitalism would actually be wrecking the situation on earth.
Marx would had been taken by surprise to learn about how fast deprived old-age security seeking population would explode in numbers within only a few decades. And as an intellectual briefed by historical laps of that time I am certain that he would never had expected capitalism to have run down the global situation already now. Neither would he had expected todays standard of privileged´s accumulation, nor the deserting effected already now. And had you told him of today already 1,4 billion heads ekeing out a bare existence, with 40 000 perishing of hunger daily, I suppose he would had thought such numbers impossible at all.
I am certain that in his worst scenario he would had not predicted earths ecological system at the brink already in the very first decades of the third millenium. If you could had shown him todays destruction on earths crust, he would had hardly believed it.
He accurately assessed the ethical situation, but with about 100% certainty must have been underestimating capitalist quality of physical destruction. Otherwise he would had taken such a basic factor into consideration, warning of the way of no return.
Bill,
Will you ever allow yourself to recognize how methodical cluttering / isolated focusing looks like?
Before shooting back regardless, know that this phenomenon is no personal claim of me. It is systematically implemented with todays didactics and strongly critisized by progressive professors who are despairing over clueless and dependent students who emerged from corresponding schooling.
Not only do you demonstrate isolated focus all the time, but prove immune even when pointed to with the help of your own reasonings.
From there, it stays to be sincerely respected the muse you have had for reading so many works. However, not only for a vast part of the writers being of own pseudo factous thinking school, but also for your non-stick perception of unpleasent items in remaining books of thoughtful authors: Unless you assent to wholy viewing and coherency first, whatever plethora of hoarded facts can´t do anything for bringing you closer to conclusiveness.
Besides,
According to the SPIEGEL´s reportings back then ( and to matching peripherals), Gorbatshov never intended to preserve any "communist" system ( you keep on insisting to have seen communism, don´t you. Keep on romancing bizarre if it only serves your house of cards) nor had he any business with how to do.
Instead he was fancying to switch throne from first secretary position to the one of an industrial leader in unhanded hunting grounds. The man was simply coned in the US´s traditional ways, as done countless of times before with Native Americans and later with dropped dictators. Bush and his delegates promissed Gorbatshov´s transformation into owner of industrial combine. And to have him taste some fresh air they prompted Helmut Kohl to send over whole freight trains of halved pigs for free which Gorbatshow was allowed to give out to the folk for pushing his popularity and have him fancying a coming hammock of glory provided by his new friends.
Once they had switched over to their gullible servant Yelzin, what the westerners did however was to just drop Gorbatshov in perfidious ways common. Instead of him soaring up into richness and living in a palace, he had to withdraw into his little private apartment. He had to wait until Putin´s pity who years later granted him a datsha as former statesman.
So how about resting pseudo proper farytales you have been briefed with and have a look at the actual accomplishments of your instructors, Bill?
Look at what actually serves your political fraction in the most figurative demonstration of their agenda in Russia.
Look what has become of that country that could had easily supplied all of its inhabitants so ample. Look at how the worlds greatest ressources within not even a blink have been coerced out of states property and dislodged into private hands.
THIS has been what the instigations for overtoppling of the Eastern Block, and talks behind the scene have been about. Guileful strategies as most ordinary cases of corrupting with false private promisses.
The goal: Simply ending of anything claimed left, and before all the private aquisition of the enormous wealth from states properties.
All the put-on bla bla that has been emitted to dress so sordidly trivial coups as politicians´ solicitous aiming is just so ridiculous smear. Nothing but ashaming.
A hoax that only needed press control to make a world of sleepwalkers shut, standing by the greatest stealing in human history as normal procedure. Now, go and read your Harry Potter´s Gorbatshov brooding over how to preserve the USSR.
Can´t wait to hear how he must have considered this and selflessly thought over that, all struggling with himself over the best solution for his country. And behind him the US and Germany wanting to help. Ain´t it cute?
Your screed speaks for itself, Ruphus. Anyone reading it who knows the history of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and who has read Marx's critique of capitalism, will be able to draw his own conclusions.
As to your attempt to personally malign my intellectual integrity and historical knowledge, I do not respond to "ad hominem" attacks.
Cheers,
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."
But allow me some questions. How can ever appear natural to you the ways of how in a minute giant Russian states properties ended up as belongings of a couple dozen heads and their helpers?
What have all these well-meaning, sensible and concerned people of Washington actually been engaged in? Was it not not the well-being of the Russian population? Is states property not connected to citizens´ regard and to economical situation of theirs? And how could the selfless knights of the free world as supporters of Russian people ( right?) ever slip them through the purloining that was looming in the ending USSR right away with the engaged "liberation" ( of sources); and the wholesale of the expropriation under White House protegee Yelzin?
Further, after all that had slipped them through so unforesseingly, where have the western democrats´ illumination and protestings against the looting been, at least during / after the fact?
And the very same systematic looting throughout the ending Eastern Block: All that instituting and supporting of skim by the very legislatures that your so genuine corps was at backing up without the slightest of objection ( a clearing very consciously observed by me, particularly with the utterly arrant ripping off in East Germany ) ... Will that historically unique robbing all have been to you:
# Hogwash that never occured? # Unpredictable? # Coincidence? # Crime defied by humane liberators from White House, but inevitable still?
Your answer could help understanding the functioning of undeterred belief in ethics of a brazen grand theatre. ( A functioning that really puzzles me since my early days.)
When reading Richard's and Bill's posts, both of high quality, I am struck by the flexibility of one and the rigidity of the other. It is not a matter of integrity, in my opinion, but personality. I must admit that I have little sympathy for an ideological viewpoint that admits of no exceptions. Whether it be free market fundamentalism or jihadism, to adhere to arbitrary principle would seem to cause blindness towards the gaps in the theory.
Richard once wrote of an Indian group, lower-caste, that was very hospitable to him personally. He thought of it as a great boon and an admirable characteristic. Myself, I was repulsed by what I sensed as a kind of cultural slave attitude or plantation mentality that should not be taken advantage of by someone with any sense of ethics. Nevertheless, I wasn't there. And Richard has shown himself to have a heart of gold, to care for the little people and not arbitrarily adopt the standards and mores of the elite.
It is my understanding that at the moment of the conception of the Soviet Union, capitalist Europe instantly created an embargo to the fledgling state that had just emerged from a war-torn, impoverished, starving, dictatorship. Yet I do not often hear that the West initiated aggression.
If these ramblings are ad-hominem, then so be it. It is good to have some rules of order, but all discussions do not have to be conducted according to academic principles. Plently of BS comes out of scholarly circles.
Hear, hear, however in this conversation the participants are not jockying for political position in an academic setting. Nobody here in this friendly context has a dissertation up for dispute that they must defend to the academic death.
It's just a conversation, and the only thing at stake is intellectual pride. Disagree strongly, but let's not get hasty and huffy, Ok Boys? Everyone here has a smart and personal read on history, that's all it is. A personal read on history. As much as you may disagree with another persons point of view you may learn something about your own reading of history. The other person can't have lived in your shoes, grown up in your country, worked in the jobs/positions you've worked or have inhaled the same books you have breathed in.
Arguing ideology as a game of chess is fine, but you don't have to actually kill the other guy.
Richard once wrote of an Indian group, lower-caste, that was very hospitable to him personally. He thought of it as a great boon and an admirable characteristic. Myself, I was repulsed by what I sensed as a kind of cultural slave attitude or plantation mentality that should not be taken advantage of by someone with any sense of ethics. Nevertheless, I wasn't there. And Richard has shown himself to have a heart of gold, to care for the little people and not arbitrarily adopt the standards and mores of the elite.
Hi Miguel-
I can't identify the incident among my recollections. I assure you I'm not taking offense. I am just wondering what I wrote that gave such an impression. Give me a reminder, will you?
Richard, you spoke of a group in India that had hospitality as a cultural characteristic. You might remember Michael Thames had some words about it. Does that ring a bell? It was on RMCG.
As a young man I participated in paramilitary operations in Central America, supported by the USA and said to be aimed at preventing the spread of Soviet influence among the Indians on the east coast. ... Once I was in Central America and involved in combat, I concluded that the operation was actually a continuation of the 4 1/2-century war of the white elite against the Indians, while the Somozas and others blew smoke up Uncle Sam's ass. I made my views clear to my superiors and resigned in disgust.
I'm impressed by your attitude. Sounds very clever.
I'm currently reading Chomsky's book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance. He mentions the Office of Public Diplomacy under the Reagan' Administration. Your word echoed someway with him.
He also mentionned the propaganda goal of the Committee on Public Information under Wilson, specifying that these pioneers were later imitated by the nazi regime, South Afica, USSR and the Pentagone...
I'm not interested in participed in those topics, I already stated my thoughts on propaganda and such ideologist twists on another topic. I just wanted to 1. salute RNJ' behaviour 2. recommand Chomsky' book
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
Welcome to the conversation, Miguel. Your thoughts are not ad-hominem attacks at all. They represent your ideas on the subject under discussion, not an attack on the person with whom you may disagree.
Regarding Western intervention in the fledgling Soviet Union, you are correct in stating that it occurred. But the context in which it occurred must be understood. Lenin and the Bolsheviks had made no secret, in their writings and in their overall propaganda, that in order for the Russian revolution to survive, communist revolutions must succeed in Europe. Remember also that Russia had been a member of the allied coalition against Germany in World War I, and when the Bolshevik revolution succeeded, they signed an armistice with Germany and pulled out of the war.
The allies had sent Russia a lot of equipment and war material to bolster them in fighting Germany on the Eastern front. When Russia, under the Bolsheviks pulled out of the war, American and British troops were sent to Murmansk and Archangel in the North to guard the stockpiles of equipment and prevent them from falling into German hands.
Meanwhile, some 30,000 Japanese troops were in Siberia, as Japan had designs on the Russian Far East. A contingent of American troops was sent to Siberia, not so much to fight the Bolsheviks, but to keep an eye on the Japanese and prevent the dismemberment of the portion of Siberia they coveted.
The Western intervention in Russia was originally for the above-stated reasons. There was much discussion in Western capitals concerning possible assistance to the Russian "Whites," who were fighting the "Reds." The Bolsheviks had established the Communist International (Comintern) in 1919, in order to foment revolution in the West, which Lenin was convinced was necessary in order for the Russian revolution to succeed in the long term. From the very beginning the leaders of the Russian revolution--Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, etc.--were intent on fomenting revolution in the West.
In the end, the Western intervention in Russia ended and the Soviet Union stabilized. But to accuse the West of intervention in the Russian revolution without offering context is to ignore the Bolshevik goal of fomenting revolutions in Europe from the very beginning, as well as to ignore the fear that much of the equipment and war material that the West had supplied to Russia would fall into German hands after Russia signed the armistice with Germany.
Cheers,
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."
I'm not interested in participed in those topics, I already stated my thoughts on propaganda and such ideologist twists on another topic. I just wanted to 1. salute RNJ' behaviour 2. recommand Chomsky' book
Don't mistake me for some lone hero. At least a dozen Americans at platoon and company leadership levels did the same, to my knowledge. And it wasn't some great original inspiration. The subject first came up in discussions with a good friend I had met in Ranger Instructor School. I was in the first wave of resignations...along with five others.
Thank you for enlightening me on these facts, of which I was ignorant. Still, to press the point a bit further--at the time the West controlled nearly the entire world through direct colonies or by proxy. Russia had been weak and backward even before plunged into chaos and revolution. Now, the rather wild-eyed ideology of the rebels notwithstanding, it was an unproportionally aggressive and hostile move to declare war on a new country that had just thrown off a vicious dictatorship. The dogma of anti-capitalism easily could transform into anti-Western religion* whilst under completely unprovoked attack. Communism never had a chance because it was under siege from its inception. What is remarkable is that the USSR became powerful despite these decidedly inauspicious conditions.
*which has its counterpart in the USA's anti-communist religion
Now, the rather wild-eyed ideology of the rebels notwithstanding, it was an unproportionally aggressive and hostile move to declare war on a new country that had just thrown off a vicious dictatorship. The dogma of anti-capitalism easily could transform into anti-Western religion* whilst under completely unprovoked attack.
The Western intervention was not a declaration of war on the Bolsheviks. It was initially to guard against Western equipment from falling into German hands and to keep an eye on the Japanese in Siberia. In fact, although "White" Russian forces fought the Bolsheviks (and obviously lost), the Western forces did not engage the Bolsheviks in combat.
Nevertheless, to call Western intervention "unprovoked" is to ignore the Bolsheviks' attempts to foment revolution in Europe via the Communist International (Comintern). The Comintern, from 1919 on, provided funds and personnel to advance communism in Europe. The Comintern, backed by Russia, actively worked to advance revolution and the overthrow of European governments. One cannot work to undermine systems and provoke revolutions in other countries, and then cry "foul" when those countries fight back in order to preserve their system of government from such efforts.
Cheers,
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."
Richard, you spoke of a group in India that had hospitality as a cultural characteristic. You might remember Michael Thames had some words about it. Does that ring a bell? It was on RMCG.
Yeah. One of the more malodorous threads of the RMCG barnyard. It began with a prediction that the BP oil spill would kill all the earth's oceans due to the impossibility of ever stopping it, and somehow deviated into Thames' criticism of his floridly imagined version of my behavior on a two-week trip to India. On re-reading it, I have to say I fanned the flames a bit myself. I post a lot less there nowadays, and I try to avoid setting him off. He seems to have calmed down somewhat.
The Western policy of initiating an embargo (a hostile and warlike action; to point out it was not a hot war is needless) managed to make a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps intelligent diplomacy and propaganda would have led to a different outcome than an implacably hostile and militaristic superpower driven by reasonable fear of the enemies that encircled it, and a brush with nuclear extinction of mankind. I would also point out that the actions of the Western countries obviously reflected the perceived interests of the elite (capitalists), not necessarily the exploited workers--so it is a little simple to speak of the countries acting monolithically.
Your responses are greatly appreciated. Mr. Jernigan I really enjoyed reading your posts, that's quite a resume you have there! Mr. Faulk your calming influence to this thread was a valued contribution. As a passport holder and speaker of a foreign language I really agreed with your post about Americans being sheltered. A very interesting book that some of you might enjoy is Grunch of Giants by R. Buckminster Fuller. The book can be downloaded for free on the internet. Anyways, best of luck to you all.
A personal read on history. As much as you may disagree with another persons point of view you may learn something about your own reading of history. The other person can't have lived in your shoes, grown up in your country, worked in the jobs/positions you've worked or have inhaled the same books you have breathed in.
Personal read on history? Thats not what im here for and im not interested in history either. I find the problems of our time and the future much more important and relevant. A pity that every discussion about capitalism ends in a discussion about long-dead communism. People, in general, seem to utilize any chance to escape current reality, especially in political topics. But switching topics is not how you make any theoretical progress. As to different experience would make up different knowledge I stroooongly disagree. For some reason there exists a myth that as soon as a part of human behaviour is the topic (economic, political) you cannot make any objective statement. As if everybody could create his own truth... Such thought becomes inherently ridiculous when compared to how nature scientists work. Imagine a German scientist talking to his colleague in India:"here in Germany we have a different personal experience so we like to think otherwise about the law of gravity". Sorry to be the party blooper. For me, political discussions arent fun, but a neccessary evil, so i prefer efficiency in doing them. There are much more fun things to do.
ORIGINAL: Ruphus And had you told him of today already 1,4 billion heads ekeing out a bare existence, with 40 000 perishing of hunger daily, I suppose he would had thought such numbers impossible at all.
I dont think so. His analysis, or rather, criticism of capitalism starts with the observation that the capitalistic society has produced huge amounts of wealth. Its literally the first sentece of The Capital (from which ive only read 20 pages by the way...). And imagine this was 19th century, which cannot remotely be compared to today's production capabilities. As hard as it may sound, if he lived today, it would make p e r f e c t sense to him to see high numbers of starvation and poverty, considering the extreme numbers wealth on the other side plus with that many people kept in poverty, you dont have to feed them anymore. Also they cant be used as a workforce, as they're unprofitable and we really dont like unprofitable things. And not to forget, it helps to keep wages low in such regions, which is what we like. Economically it just makes perfect sense... in capitalism that is.
Also there is this statistic that pops up every now and again in media: x% of the world population posesses y% amount of worldwide wealth, whereby y is usually much larger than x (at least by a factor 20, at most 99). At first sight, inuitively it feels like something is going wrong. It should be like factor 1 or 2 at maximum. But actually everythings all right. At least thats what the proper reaction should be, if you know about the nature of capitalism.
Printable Version
Ain´t it cute? 
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