Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#2541 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 07:15 PM

Whoes pie?
If its the Lions pie then the majority will want the ruughest knife to be used because it will cause the most crumbs, which is all they see.
Take back the power of creating money then the pie belongs to the people.
A national dividend on all that the present generation has inherited from the past development of civilization that is
incorporated in the current economy will mean everyone has a
stake up front regardless of how much work there is available,
as technology displaces man.
Thus it is possible the dividend could eventually replace wages as the main sourse of income.
No one would need live in a park or at the rubbish dumps.

The description of anarchy reminds me of Palestine and Iraq.
This is where the Lion is the least visible. But there is no shortage of catcats.

Woj, I find it difficult to understand your mentioning my belief in
the role of the individual in history and then you single out Chopin and the Moguls, on the one hand and then say you cant
go with an human ant house. Where are you?

One doesnt try to bribe a dictator like Stalin, unless one has a death wish. No surpise he was never bribed. What has bribery got to do with corrupt power. What allowed the US in Iraq?
Bribery or absolute abuse of power?

"our present will be judged rightly in the future"
What are you basing your faith on Woj? We are struggling to interpret the past and present through the garbage that the mainstream western press and the corrupt distortions of the past
and the future looks to allow far less opinions as we can see freedom starting to dis appear over the horizen.
The corporate world is just as ruthless against personal opinions
as it get less honest and brazenly ruthless in the persuit of power.
Take Dresden, who remembers that which was a real holocaust,
an experiment in mass bombing on civilians. What we never stop hearing about is highly controversial and they arent prepared to put it on the net because it would be challenged, and because they havent got the full evidence.
When you know the US helped arm Hitler and then destroyed a city like Dresden, and the truth hidden like Pear Harbour little wonder what has happened the Serbia and Iraq, not to mention Palestine.
So where is the past being judged in the present?
Soon it will be a hate crime or terrorism anywhere for free flow of information on the net to get the truth out.
  • 0

#2542 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 09:15 PM

<Whoes pie?
If its the Lions pie then the majority will want the ruughest knife to be used because it will cause the most crumbs, which is all they see.>

Howdy Bader
I mean the "power pie," which then becomes Anarchism, Dictatorship, etc. Obviously the little people got the most to benefit from a system where's no lion or fox or predators of any kind.

<The description of anarchy reminds me of Palestine and Iraq.
This is where the Lion is the least visible. But there is no shortage of catcats.>

Well, remember there two types of Anarchism...

<<<In principle, there are two kinds of anarchy. *Chaos* results when there is an unregulated fight to survive or win, with victory going to the fittest or luckiest. Almost no one advocates this as a form of society, since it is overly destructive and costly, even to the winners. *Spontaneous order*, on the other hand, is when everyone is a "self-ruler" in a smooth-running system.>>>

But we can't say there's no lion in Palestine or Iraq. Actually the wildcats appeared in response to the Big Lions. It's usually the Lion who starts the Chaos by rejecting Justice. If on the other hand, there would be Justice, chances are Spontaneous Order would follow, which is the case of Switzerland.

I admit a Good Lion--non coercive State--will be necessary to ensure Peace among wildcats, as well as for the society to have any cohesion. At that point you may choose to belong to any of the cooperatives or simply to remain outside. It's that FREEDOM OF CHOICE--so that people could walk away from the Lion--that should tame the beast.;)
  • 0

#2543 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 10:22 PM

<Wake up hidalgo!!!

We live in a perfect world now!>

Pefect for who, for the Lion?:confused:

THE HYENAS ARE NO LAUGHING MATTER

One day, before written history, a group of Hyenas got together after an unsuccessful chase, and sat down to revise their strategy... "We are a bunch of losers," said one. "The Little Animals are used to running free and we can't catch up with them," added another. "OK," said a third, "what we need is someone who keeps them obedient due to his royal manners... Have you noticed how the Lion roars and all the Little Animals tremble?"

Well, that's how the King of the Jungle and the Hyenas became the best of friends... Of course, the Hyenas became so happy when the Lion offered them his leftovers that they exploded in laughters and decided to declare the Law of the Jungle the best law there's ever been--for the Lion...

<Anarchism, Dictatorship and Aristocracy are all part of the modern Democracy!

Anarchism (order out of chaos), Dictatorship (finance, industry) and Aristocracy (what is left... great fortunes) equal DEMOCRASHIT...>

Just that the Democrisy (word for Democracy + Hypocrisy) takes the worst of all those systems. And you can even say there's "socialism between lions," since they prey in groups and share among them. But if you are talking about the little animals they must come up with a better system.

Obviously Anarchism is the best system*among the choices above* for the little animals if you believe they must be wild and free, and simply not be prey to the foxes at the service of the lion(capitalism) or live in the herd having the lion as shepherd (communism). But whatever works in other systems must be incorporated as well. Like I said, the best system is to have CHOICES.;)
  • 0

#2544 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 11:23 PM

"people are obliged to act as if they were greedy even when, in their heart of hearts, they are not."

What choice do you have in Capitalism, to choose between foxes? What about the jungle? HOW CAN YOU ESCAPE THE JUNGLE? Corporate Capitalism (or American Capitalism) does borrow from other systems, particularly Dictatorship, but basically you find yourself HAVING NO CHOICES and in dire competition to kill or be killed.:confused:

<<<1. The structural problem is not greed but obligatory greed.

That some people are greedy and don't know when to stop when they are making money, or do not know the joy of sharing, is a spiritual problem. Considered as a spiritual, or psychological, problem, it could be cured by conversion, or by therapy. The structural problem of capitalism is a problem inseparable from the social roles it forces people to play; people are obliged to act as if they were greedy even when, in their heart of hearts, they are not. As Karl Marx put it, capital must go on accumulating, and the capitalist is just the agent who helps it to do what it must do; his soul is the soul of capital. If he (or she) wants to play the game, then it is obligatory to keep costs down and profits up; it is obligatory even in those cases when to do so means keeping the workers down and tearing the environment up; it is necessary to do whatever needs to be done to keep ahead of the competition, because if you do not keep ahead of the competition then you fall behind the competition, and then you lose and you are out of the game; that is the way the game is played, and if you do not want to play the part of greedy capitalist, then someone else will, and the game will go on as before except that you will not be in it.>>>

http://www.west.net/...i/Capital1.html
  • 0

#2545 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 11:46 PM

OK, now let's turn to lesson #2, "democracy"... Pretty name and noble goal indeed. But once taken over by Big Money, what are its byproducts? Environmental catastrophe, wars over resources, injustices that lead to terror, famines in large segments of the population (Africa, etc) or all of the above?

Since democracy occurs on a spectrum though, we can say those at the bottom of the spectrum are failing miserably while those at the top--like Switzerland--are worth imitatating, is it not?

Democracy

This comes from two Greek words: demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning rule. Democracy is therefore "the rule of the people." Everyone has a vote, and the majority of any vote decides policy.

Democracy occurs on a spectrum, with direct democracy at one end, and representative democracy (or republicanism) at the other. In a direct democracy, voters vote on their laws directly, without representatives. To the extent that government officials even exist, their only function is to enact the decisions of the voters. By contrast, in a republic, citizens elect representatives, who are delegated with enough authority to run things. The representatives must remember the will of the people or risk being voted out of power.

Most scholars reject strong forms of direct democracy on the grounds that it is unworkable. Democracy only works if the people are educated, but voters would become overwhelmed trying to educate themselves on thousands of defense contracts and systems, the regulation of thousands of pollutants, and trade policies with each of 200 nations. Obviously, no system could withstand so many ignorant votes. (And at any rate, it-s impossible to build a "pure" direct democracy, since the officials who enact the voter-s decisions will still have to be delegated some degree of autonomy, like what contractors to use, what office space to buy, when to take their lunch breaks, etc.) Historically, democracies on the more direct end of the spectrum have been unstable, short-lived, and given to mob rule. When the American Founding Fathers considered what type of government to build, they rejected direct democracy. Indeed, the Founders had a white-knuckled fear that their republic would be as short-lived as the rest.

Still, there are some limited forms of direct democracy that are workable and good, like voter initiatives, referendums and recalls. Switzerland is a country that greatly relies on these methods, and its popularity and long-term success prove that more direct forms of democracy are not only feasible, but good.

Since there is no such thing as a pure direct democracy, all democracies are actually representative democracies, or republics. Even so, the spectrum remains, ranging from more "direct" forms to more "representative" forms of republicanism. A more direct form is the U.S. House of Representatives, where legislators represent small districts and serve two-year terms. A more republican form is the U.S. Senate, where legislators represent entire states and serve six-year terms. The extreme in republicanism is the U.S. Supreme Court, where judges represent the entire United States and enjoy lifetime tenure.

In designing a well-functioning republic, the main goal is to avoid making it so direct that voters become overwhelmed by its requirements, but not so republican that representatives can rule impervious to the will of the people, like dictators. Somewhere in the middle there is an optimal balance.
  • 0

#2546 observing

observing

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 11:49 PM

greed is a good thing as long as one remembers that:

pigs always get fat, but hogs get butchered.

a little greed is good for the soul (and pocketbook), too much greed causes many problems, many ethical disruptions, many ultimate failures.

We are a nation of salesmen(persons), even here with ideas and ideologies. Everyone has something to pitch. Some are more honest than others, some buy in more than they should. Simple commerce .....
  • 0

#2547 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 12:12 AM

<pigs always get fat, but hogs get butchered.

a little greed is good for the soul (and pocketbook), too much greed causes many problems, many ethical disruptions, many ultimate failures.

We are a nation of salesmen(persons), even here with ideas and ideologies. Everyone has something to pitch. Some are more honest than others, some buy in more than they should. Simple commerce ..... >

It's OK for the Big Pigs to be big and fat if the little animals (consumers) could have a choice to build own water well. They could simply ignore them.

Big Pigs like to sell stuff the little animals don't need by keeping them ignorant or by offering them no choice but their own. Either way they hate competition...;)
  • 0

#2548 observing

observing

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 12:45 AM

everone has a choice in what they consume, you either buy in or you don't....

People are not forced to consume as you use the term, they decide to.

You write as someone of learning would, those retorts don't stand up to the "smarts" to seem to have.

Think what you say through a bit more
  • 0

#2549 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 01:30 AM

<everone has a choice in what they consume, you either buy in or you don't....>

"Humm, let me see. I want to buy a car a small efficient car in America. Not many available, Peugeot, Renault, Fiat, Skoda are regulated out of the market. I got a few choices but our roads are so dangerous, anarchic I'd say, only the strong survive. What the heck, I'll buy an SUV. Hell with the Environment, hell with supporting the Saudis... But the payments, the payments, well I'll take some overtime. I'll feed the lion, but what choice do I have?"

<People are not forced to consume as you use the term, they decide to.

You write as someone of learning would, those retorts don't stand up to the "smarts" to seem to have.

Think what you say through a bit more >

Say, I'd like to decide *how I live*, something like choosing between working for the stupid hungry lion or a coop?

Look at these arguments...

Which system is best?

(snip)

(some propaganda in favor of "democracy")

Besides democracy, anarchy is the only other feasible alternative to maximizing public consent to law. Under anarchy, the only organizations that you belong to are ones that you-ve joined of your own free will. So doesn-t this achieve 100 percent consent?

[So it's either Democracy or Anarchism, but Democracy doesn't give me OPTIONS. So I'd choose CHOICES over NO CHOICES, wouldn't you?];)

No, not by a long shot. Take the example of a worker deciding to join a business firm. Anarchists claim that the worker voluntarily obeys the rules of the firm, and if the worker ever disagrees with those rules, he can leave. The problem with this reasoning is that the worker doesn-t have to agree with every rule to decide to stay. We all disagree with at least some of the rules in our workplaces. It-s only when the rules become bad enough, and our disagreement over them great enough, that we decide to leave. So anarchy doesn-t really eliminate all coercion; it only minimizes it, much like democracy.

[It's simple: Either you join the Lion's company or you join the little animals' coop. You balance it out, then take a choice. Later you can change your mind and go back to the to the competition. You know what I mean?];)

In a democracy, voters may not agree with every law that their representatives pass, even though they elected them. It is only when representatives pass too many unwanted laws that the voters will remove them from office.

[Yeah right, that's why they removed Aznar... But the powers that be--including the "free press"--are critizing Spain for taking such such democratic action. What about Blair?]:confused:

One selling point of anarchy is that individuals become "king of their own castles." No one can tell you what to do with your property. That may sound nice, until you consider that this makes dictators out of business owners and landlords, and subjects out of workers and tenants. Anarchists argue that the free market will prevent owners from abusing their power. Mistreat your underlings, they claim, and your underlings will simply move elsewhere. Unfortunately, market failures, monopolies, flukes in supply and demand and other external factors may lead to a far different result. We may decide to join a firm even though we disagree with every rule in it, because we don-t want to starve to death by being jobless. In this case, the boss-s absolute power allows him to exploit the situation, by forcing us to work for sub-poverty wages. This type of exploitation would be impossible in a democratic workplace, where an elected supervisor who exploited workers would be voted out of power. Thus, anarchy risks the abuses of dictatorship in a way that democracy inherently cannot.

["Elected supervisor" or king of the jungle? How many democratic workplaces have you seen around?]:(

And this is not to mention the other shortcomings of dictatorship: the inefficiency, the yesmanship of underlings, the limited wisdom compared to groups, and the resources wasted on maintaining the dictatorship.

[What about the resources wasted on wars, or missions to Mars or "democratic elections"?]:confused:

Even without defining the various political ideologies, these first two chapters should make clear that society needs government to provide the many goods and services that the market cannot provide well, and that this government should be democratic.

[Yeap, it needs government, but the less government the better according to the Right. Of course, unless that very government was a big Leftist government like those found in Scandinavia, which are rated among the "least corrupt in the world."];)

So everything is relative my friend. Think about it...:cool:
  • 0

#2550 observing

observing

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 01:52 AM

Valid points of view, seems you've bought in completely and don't realize it.

Of course one always has choices, either to do or not to do. The question of course is always to what degree it will be.

Instead of payments, how about a used compact car, an old vw or yugo? 3-5 hundred$ US$. Or is the status of driving a new vehicle the choice of the day. One always has a choice. Even in the corporate world one decides if this is where one wants to be, and what price is the willing price to pay. That is to take it with the rules, or walk away.

One always has a choice. One decides what they want and what price they pay. One decides what they need, and most confuse the two concepts.

One decides how complex he will view things, or how simplex things are viewed. It's all a matter of choice. Everything you've written in this topic confirms this. It is the consumer who buys, always. The salesperson sells, always. It is the way barter works, the way modern commerce works, the way people exchange ideas. Some buy in, some don't. It's their choice...........

We are in agreement, simply reading from a different book, using a different english. ....

:)
  • 0

#2551 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 02:38 AM

<Valid points of view, seems you've bought in completely and don't realize it.

Of course one always has choices, either to do or not to do. The question of course is always to what degree it will be.

Instead of payments, how about a used compact car, an old vw or yugo? 3-5 hundred$ US$. Or is the status of driving a new vehicle the choice of the day. One always has a choice. Even in the corporate world one decides if this is where one wants to be, and what price is the willing price to pay. That is to take it with the rules, or walk away.>

Let me give you an example of how my freedom is being restricted: I got a 91 Geo Metro, which is very fun to drive and I'm very happy with it. But I'm taking a chance by just being at the bottom of the food chain. Size matters on American roads.:confused:

Having an Autobahn--a real democratic choice--in America though would allow me to have fun in my vehicle without fear of SUVs or reckless drivers running over my lane. You can go 200mph without affecting me. That would be DEMOCRATIC indeed...:cool:

<<<Each year thousands of people are killed on this nation's highways--many more injured and disabled. The reason for this continued death and suffering is an attitude of ignorance and apathy that allows federal, state and corporate safety programs to be either ill-conceived, ineptly handled or nonexistant...

Most of such speed limits are set not by appropriate traffic-engineering surveys but by bureaucracies targeting motorists for profiteering and excessive taxation. The current state of affairs actually "permits" government bureaucracies and insurance companies to penalize citizens for being safe!>>>

http://www.americanautobahn.com/

I'm telling you: It's the man at the service of the system, democratic or not. Even your life is of little value so long as you feed the beast...;)

<We are in agreement, simply reading from a different book, using a different english. ....>

I'm glad to hear that. People don't have as many choices as it seems though...

Source: Talking Point, BBC News

Having lived in the US last year, I can say most of the comments here
belittling this lawsuit stem from ignorance of life in the US. People
here in the UK are MUCH more aware of what is healthy. In the US "Big
Food" dominates the airwaves and the vast majority of people are
genuinely misinformed. Americans live off processed food regularly now.
Having said that, I think the lawsuit is partially misguided because bad
food is no more than half the problem of obesity that is now coming to
the fore in the US. The other half is the lifestyle the country imposes
on people. In the US you are literally FORCED to drive everywhere - even
a 5 minute hop to a local supermarket. People live in a system where
they do everything sitting down. So it is not just that massive amounts
of calories (with little nutrition) are readily and cheaply on offer,
but that burning any of it off in the normal course of a day is near
impossible.
James, UK
  • 0

#2552 observing

observing

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 03:04 AM

I drive these highways daily, actually in the nations 2nd most accident prone area. If there was a 200 mile an hour vehicle allowed on this road I would find an alternitive route. That would be the choice I would make. You have chosen to drive a metro, which are nice cars, my daughter drives a 91 and I think for a small car it's nice. Fuel wise very good, comfortable for her and my grand-daughter. Almost 40 mpg highway..

I am one of those blue collar skilled workers, I choose to commute this very dangerious highway each day. I make my truck payment every month, and I have my monthly debt that I pay every month. My choices put me where my life style is, not anyone else.

Another choice one makes in life is where the responsibility for oneself lay. I accept mine. I am where I am because of my choices, not anyone elses.

For Russia to be number uno, the Russian people need to feel resposible for their own destiny on anindividual basis. President putkin has to lead the way and "sell" the Russian people this concept. When this concept dies in the USA, the USA will no longer be number uno..............
  • 0

#2553 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 04:04 AM

Howdy Donq:
I was meaning to say fatcats, but wildcats is ok.

Chaos= the unregulated fight to win is where Bush operates along with global corporate forces under the umbralla of the international banks.
So republicanism/democracy are political structures that have been usurped to be a means to an end.

Spontaneous order needs govt to effect the "order" which is one of the major reasons for govt to exists.

Your quotes on democracy arrives at a conclusion: " these first two chapters should make it clear that society needs govt to provide the many goods and services that the market cannot provide well."
The key factor I would expect would be "affordable" not "well".
The market will provide well made items if the public can afford them. The current finance system creates this problem.
A greater empowered consumer force would support a better
providing market although in regards health and education this may be better done nationally through govt.

Likewise the comment "The structural problems of Capitalism is a problem inseperable from the social roles it forces people to play"
- as you have said- even when it is out of character, eg greed
and selfishness at the expense of ones neighbour- jungle culture.
Thus the nature of competition and greed are not natural to most
and the general attitude regarding the market conditions people to accept the unacceptable as though it is as natural as gravity.
The origin of these structural problems of capitalism that distorts
the human economy is the finance system - direct and indiract.
Both capitalism and communism require huge forces for conditioning (propoganda) the general public the lay down and surrender to the beast.

"Anarchists argue that the freemarket will prevent owners from abusing their power."
One of the more desirable aspects of a free market= little or no regulation, to the advocates is opportunity to abuse advantage.
They think it is pure and natural competition. Jungle competition.
But what else can we expect if society believes in evolution of the animal man. The spirit of the free market is survival of the fittest
and yet "civilization" is supposed to speak of greater things from man than the animals
  • 0

#2554 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 04:09 AM

<I drive these highways daily, actually in the nations 2nd most accident prone area. If there was a 200 mile an hour vehicle allowed on this road I would find an alternitive route. That would be the choice I would make. You have chosen to drive a metro, which are nice cars, my daughter drives a 91 and I think for a small car it's nice. Fuel wise very good, comfortable for her and my grand-daughter. Almost 40 mpg highway..>

Nothing to fear about. You can drive 200mph and still don't bother others at 55mph. That's why the freeway or expressway or autobahn have lanes. It's a matter of having passing lanes on the left.

If you saw this program on the Autobahn (on History channel), you would freak out. Even computerized controls that warn you 5 miles in advance of traffic jam. Enough to apply the brakes!!!;)

<I am one of those blue collar skilled workers, I choose to commute this very dangerious highway each day. I make my truck payment every month, and I have my monthly debt that I pay every month. My choices put me where my life style is, not anyone else.

Another choice one makes in life is where the responsibility for oneself lay. I accept mine. I am where I am because of my choices, not anyone elses.

For Russia to be number uno, the Russian people need to feel resposible for their own destiny on anindividual basis. President putkin has to lead the way and "sell" the Russian people this concept. When this concept dies in the USA, the USA will no longer be number uno.............. >

We are talking about changing the world for the better. Russia, USA, whatever. For the record, I've never seen any stats where USA is #1 other than military power.

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#2555 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 04:58 AM

<I was meaning to say fatcats, but wildcats is ok.>

I see. But wildcats would refer to the little lions--or new lions--that represent a challenge to the big lion. The big lion kills them out of fear of competition. A true revolution would not need them, for the little animals would overwhelm the lion at once. It's the warning in "1984" that the Middle Class only wants to get to power to become lions themselves. The hope lies in the Proles...;)

<Chaos= the unregulated fight to win is where Bush operates along with global corporate forces under the umbralla of the international banks.
So republicanism/democracy are political structures that have been usurped to be a means to an end.

Spontaneous order needs govt to effect the "order" which is one of the major reasons for govt to exists.>

OK, remember Orwell's quote of, "All saints are guilty until proven innocent"? Well, the government (lion) will be a servant of the little animals because they need him, and until they need him. You would distrust the government until it proves to be good. It should lead the little animals to build their own water well, that's it.

<Your quotes on democracy arrives at a conclusion: " these first two chapters should make it clear that society needs govt to provide the many goods and services that the market cannot provide well."
The key factor I would expect would be "affordable" not "well".
The market will provide well made items if the public can afford them. The current finance system creates this problem.
A greater empowered consumer force would support a better
providing market although in regards health and education this may be better done nationally through govt.>

We can bring experts from all those places. Say the Canadians got the best healthcare, let's adopt it, and so on. The responsibility in Canada is not national but provincial. Perhaps Pliny can tell us the difference between them. In the case of education I think it should be national, starting with the phrase, "We believe." In other words, you can say, "We believe Man has been created by God, etc." and then the other side, "We have an hypothesis that Man evolved from this and that," and let children make their own conclusions.

<Likewise the comment "The structural problems of Capitalism is a problem inseperable from the social roles it forces people to play"
- as you have said- even when it is out of character, eg greed
and selfishness at the expense of ones neighbour- jungle culture.
Thus the nature of competition and greed are not natural to most
and the general attitude regarding the market conditions people to accept the unacceptable as though it is as natural as gravity.
The origin of these structural problems of capitalism that distorts
the human economy is the finance system - direct and indiract.
Both capitalism and communism require huge forces for conditioning (propoganda) the general public the lay down and surrender to the beast.>

Large sums were or are destined to propaganda. $500 million are currently destined to the Voice Of America but the people who most need information are ignored--right at home. THERE'S NO QUALITY OF INFORMATION AND SO NO DEMOCRACY.

"Anarchists argue that the freemarket will prevent owners from abusing their power."
<One of the more desirable aspects of a free market= little or no regulation, to the advocates is opportunity to abuse advantage.
They think it is pure and natural competition. Jungle competition.
But what else can we expect if society believes in evolution of the animal man. The spirit of the free market is survival of the fittest
and yet "civilization" is supposed to speak of greater things from man than the animals >

Remember the Law of the Jungle also says that, "species do not prey on their own species," but people should have enough common sense to "walk with their feet.";) Let common sense rule over the land. Perhaps the only one that doesn't have common sense is the lion who doesn't see his greed as the cause of his own demise.:(
  • 0

#2556 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 07:16 AM

I think Anarchism is a path worth exploring. Being skeptical is certainly an asset around camouflaged lions, isn't it?

Anarchism
from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910.
Written by Peter Kropotkin
ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

(snip)

The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and modern history (Macedonian Empire, Roman Empire, modern European states grown up on the ruins of the autonomous cities), the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction of these monopolies. The anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life - the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and so on - as also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, state-supported religions, defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism. True progress lies in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the centre to the periphery.

http://flag.blackene.../britt1910.html
  • 0

#2557 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 07:32 AM

"...you would distrust Govt until it proves to be good. It should lead the little animals to build their own waterwell, thats it."

The waterwell, the life flow, is to not controlled by govt, govts are controlled by the bankers. I agree of course that the lttle animals should have their own watersystem, thus they will be in the place of bankers, ruling over their own govt as they should.
They will then end up with their own govt as well which they will trust as those they cant trust will make the exit. If they dont chose to serve they will have voted with their feet and get emplyment elsewhere than in govt.

The Lion has not satisfied himself with controlling govt and money etc, he also controls how people think- thus through the education system, media etc.
Children can make their own choice on their beliefs but the lions sytem will get to them well before they think they need to chose
which of course will be well after the conditioning.
Beliefs are not limited to religion and fundamantal views on how life came about.

Quoting from Brian St Clair Corcoran in his book "Five Dimentional Man And The New Cosmic Civilisation"
"At this time it is important for everyone to realise that the Euckidean New World Order that is emerging is, unbeknown to its protagonists (because of their limited vision), programmed to stagnate and ultimately collapse ina manner recently exemplified by the Soviet Union. As it functions according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics it cannot do anything else but self-destruct. If the power brokers of big business and their followers continue down the road towards world hegemony they will effectively destroy the very businesses they are promoting.

Left unchecked, the programme to put all power into the hands of the non-elected elite of the scientic-industrial complex, whose thinking is based on four dimentional consciousness(materialism, can only result in world dictatorship, social and economic chaos, ecological catastrophe and ultimately the total disintergration
of civilisation. A collapse which may also herald the demise of mankind from the face of the palnet."

End of quote, the brackets were his.
The world forums have already planned for this insplosion of
civlisation, reduced population, reduced indisurtialisation etc to
more planned and simpler life style, a form of fuedalism, with land deligated to animals and to humans seperately.
They cannt see they need to change the underlying systens like money or the false education that goes with it.
We are on the Titanic and the limited number of lifeboats is part of the structural flaw of the design.
  • 0

#2558 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 08:28 AM

The logic of a state leading the little animals out of the jungle led to the biggest lion of all time. Communism/Socialism or statism of any kind can send us in the wrong path once again and people are tired of it. Only free coops can guarantee an economic success as well as a democratic and competitive environment.

The Marxist Theory of the State
Although Marx and Engels never put forward a unified presentation of the theory of the state, their conception of the state is a fundamental aspect of their outlook, and of what has since come to be called Marxism. In fact, theories of the state constitute critical facets of all totalitarian credos, not just the Marxian. After all, a given ideology may be overwhelmingly totalitarian in underlying logic, but if it lacks a focus on using the state as the means of transforming society?that is, of imposing its ideas?its totalitarianism will remain implicit. It is the same with Marxism. While Marxism contains many propositions that imply totalitarianism, it is Marx and Engels' view of the state that renders their theory totalitarian in practice. This is most evident in their argument that the state, in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is the chief weapon in the struggle to establish communism.

http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html
  • 0

#2559 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 01:29 PM

Here's Chomsky's view on anarchism. I've never seen what he proposes though. I understand is very vague. Realizing the problem is one thing; having a solution is another. I'd say providing specifics of what the future system will be like helps people visualize what's in it for them. For example, I propose "bicycle lanes on every major street." That's something we need in order to have OPTIONS and to SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT, and I have had only compliments from the little people at large--thousands of them. All that remains is a grassroots campaign...;)


Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the Future


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noam Chomsky is widely known for his critique of U.S foreign policy, and for his work as a linguist. Less well known is his ongoing support for libertarian socialist objectives. In a special interview done for Red and Black Revolution, Chomsky gives his views on anarchism and marxism, and the prospects for socialism now. The interview was conducted in May 1995 by Kevin Doyle.

RBR: First off, Noam, for quite a time now you've been an advocate for the anarchist idea. Many people are familiar with the introduction you wrote in 1970 to Daniel Guerin's Anarchism, but more recently, for instance in the film Manufacturing Consent, you took the opportunity to highlight again the potential of anarchism and the anarchist idea. What is it that attracts you to anarchism?

CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way.

Beyond such generalities, we begin to look at cases, which is where the questions of human interest and concern arise.

RBR: It's true to say that your ideas and critique are now more widely known than ever before. It should also be said that your views are widely respected. How do you think your support for anarchism is received in this context? In particular, I'm interested in the response you receive from people who are getting interested in politics for the first time and who may, perhaps, have come across your views. Are such people surprised by your support for anarchism? Are they interested?

CHOMSKY: The general intellectual culture, as you know, associates 'anarchism' with chaos, violence, bombs, disruption, and so on. So people are often surprised when I speak positively of anarchism and identify myself with leading traditions within it. But my impression is that among the general public, the basic ideas seem reasonable when the clouds are cleared away. Of course, when we turn to specific matters - say, the nature of families, or how an economy would work in a society that is more free and just - questions and controversy arise. But that is as it should be. Physics can't really explain how water flows from the tap in your sink. When we turn to vastly more complex questions of human significance, understanding is very thin, and there is plenty of room for disagreement, experimentation, both intellectual and real-life exploration of possibilities, to help us learn more.

http://flag.blackene...r/noamrbr2.html
  • 0

#2560 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 23 April 2004 - 02:11 PM

Beauty of educated dictatorship system is first base on fact that dictatorship is free of democratic president, congress and democratic and human rights foundations and organization. Human rights organizations and foundation main purpose is to override democratic legislation of the countries by special interest groups. For example when Federal law provides equality for all citizens in name of law, hate crime legislation manages to erode this principles for benefit of special interest groups etc. . Other tools are demonstrations . For example , US sponsored in Belgrade 82 days of demonstration to remove Slobodan Milososovic who lwas legitimate Yugoslavian country president. OF course Milosevic had his opposition; it is coming from definition of democracy, but antiMilosevic demonstrations were financed from foreign enemy resources and they didn
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru