What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 12 May 2004 - 12:12 PM
I assume that terrorism on the one hand and formal power structures all work against the common man is what is being said.>
Well, the man is the streets reacts to terrorism the way it reacts in one my stories when confronted with the existence of another lion: "Another one!?" Both State terror and anti-State terror work against the common man, as you well said. Terror is terror...
<I cant argue with that but would this person ban voting so no majority can over-rule any individual?>
I wouldn't think he would propose the same fake voting we suffer from today. I'd say he's talking about DIRECT DEMOCRACY, practiced within the coop.
<The two dimentional thinking of talking about workers (of the world unite) shows it just a hand (fist?) sticking up out of the ground next to some headstone. Hang on, is that a hammer or a sickle in that hand?>
Well, the main thing is NOT UNITING AGAINST SOMETHING, BUT FOR SOMETHING. I'm all for uniting for something (coops, other social projects) and stop talking about the ruling classes. Perhaps we can coexist... That's what I call TAMING THE LION. And I believe that he ultimately can be tamed, but that's absolutely up to him. It's his choice: live in fear of the violent monkey or cooperate with all the other little animals.
<I would advise them to use the word "common" rather than "collective" because you cant have non-hierachical coexisting with collective. >
I don't see any contradiction. Just do a search for "non-hierarchal collectives" and see many hits you get. Actually in a collective the main form of democracy is nonhierarchal by nature. DIRECT DEMOCRACY and JOB ROTATION are both anti-hierarchal.
But Anarchism may be great on explaining life in the jungle and on the need to get rid of the lion, but not so good at showing THE WAY OUT OF THE JUNGLE...
I favor though building upon experience. And these things are happening while we speak!
"The alternative approach that I would put forward for creating a radical visions would be put look at the existing forms of cooperative economics and social practice that have existed through out human history and around the planet, and to try to draw out their underlying logic into a more generalized pluralistic vision...
Just sit back for a second and list some of the examples of cooperative structures that you can think of: local community gardens, multitudes of cooperative an worker collectives, the Mondragon, time stores and labor exchanges, collective farms from India to Russia, the Kibbutzim, neighborhood assembleas from Argentina to New England, the ejidos and autonomous communities in Chiapas, gift economies and exchange clubs, free stores, squats, alternative currency systems, cooperative water management in Bali, communes and intentional communities, practices and concepts such as guanxi (China) and the potlatch (Kwakiutl), and so forth."
<<<Face it. Anarchists on the whole have not articulated any sort of coherent alternative vision of what a society not based on capitalism and the state might look like. We have produced copious amounts of political, economic, and social critiques v but a comparatively smaller amount of work has focused on developing alternatives to what we're critiquing. Least of all has there been any clearly sketched out version of how a liberatory economy might function. This has not to say there has not been thought or work put into these subjects, which there clearly has been. But when faced with the question "I understand what you're against, what are you for?" far too often radical activists and organizers on the whole are stymied; at best we end up mumbling something about a world of autonomous or semiautonomous communities based upon mutual aid, self-organization, and voluntary association. And those are all very well and good, and could form the basis of a liberatory society - but for many people such statements mean virtually nothing. It's one thing to say that we want a world where people manage our own lives, the environment isn't destroyed, and life is life desolate and alienating v but it's another to start talking about what such might actually look like. And starting to actually create forms of cooperative practice, to re-envision utopian thinking as lived reality, is another.
But Why Utopian Vision?
To this there will be many objections: Isn't utopian thinking just a frivolous waste of time better used with pragmatic forms of organizing and action? Isn't there a danger that one could recreate the same class based structures of power and domination in one's vision that exist now, as Foucault was fond of constantly objecting with an almost defeatist tone? Isn't it classist to be engaged in this kind of visionary thinking? These are objections with varying degrees of validity. It would be silly to say that one should be spending time coming up with utopian visions instead of engaging the day to day struggles to alleviate the wretched conditions which face large segments of the world's population. But it also equally true that when there exists a period where revolutionary change becomes possible unless one has some idea of what sort of arrangement one wants to create, it is all the more easier for such situations to recreate the same oppressive structures or become dominated by the most malicious "liberators." The Russian, Cuban, and Chinese experiences should be sufficient examples of such.
The point here is not that one should have a blueprint for exacting details of a new social order. Such would be silly and more destructive than helpful. But unless one has at least a rough idea of how such an alternative social arrangement might work it would extremely difficult to convince others that such is desirable or achievable. Marx knew that he was going to fish in the morning and hunt in the afternoon, but other than the functioning of a post-capitalist society was at best anyone's guess, at worst the decision of those with the most guns. The question then becomes how one can best approach the task of creating a utopian vision in a way that does not recreate current forms of domination and brings the utopian vision put forth into the realm of possibility in a way that show avenues for how that order can be brought into existence in the here and now. It is part of trying to sketch out the functioning of what Raoul Vaneigem described as generalized self-management, or when the logic and methods of the worker's councils could be extended over society as a liberated whole.
The alternative approach that I would put forward for creating a radical visions would be put look at the existing forms of cooperative economics and social practice that have existed through out human history and around the planet, and to try to draw out their underlying logic into a more generalized pluralistic vision. This would not be just a shift in one's approach, but the beginning notes of what very well could be an extensive and on-going project. Thus instead of asking "how can we run the economy so that it creates solidarity?" or "how can we manage individual interests and communal interests?" the question become looking at different existing forms of practice and drawing from them, rather than trying to impose upon them. The role of vision through this becomes not declaring what should be based upon utopian abstraction, but trying to figure out what could be based upon the experiences contained within existing forms of social relations.
Just sit back for a second and list some of the examples of cooperative structures that you can think of: local community gardens, multitudes of cooperative an worker collectives, the Mondragon, time stores and labor exchanges, collective farms from India to Russia, the Kibbutzim, neighborhood assembleas from Argentina to New England, the ejidos and autonomous communities in Chiapas, gift economies and exchange clubs, free stores, squats, alternative currency systems, cooperative water management in Bali, communes and intentional communities, practices and concepts such as guanxi (China) and the potlatch (Kwakiutl), and so forth.>>>
Posted 12 May 2004 - 12:33 PM
Blair is Blair
Eric Blair, was born in Bengal, India, in 1903. Educated in England at Eton, he moved to Burma in 1922 where he joined the Indian Imperial Police for five years. He eventually resigned because of his increasing disillusionment with British imperialism.
After a period doing a variety of jobs in France he returned to England where opened a village shop. Using the pseudonym, George Orwell, he began writing articles for magazines. After that ; Orwell, a committed socialist, went to Spain in December 1936 to report on the Spanish Civil War. He soon decided to join the struggle against the Nationalist Army and became a member of the Lenin Division in Barcelona, a unit under the control of the Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM).
While in hospital Orwell heard that the Workers Party of Marxist Unification had been declared an illegal organization. With the help of the British Consul in Barcelona, Orwell was able to escape to France.
When Orwell returned to England he wrote about his experiences of the Spanish Civil War , this included attacks on the Daily Worker, a paper controlled by the Communist Party. Although one of the best books ever written about war, it sold only 1,500 copies during the next twelve years.
In August 1941 Orwell began work for the Eastern Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). His main task was to write the scripts for a weekly news commentary on the Second World War. Orwell's scripts were broadcast to the people of India between the end of 1941 and early 1943. During this period Orwell also worked for the Observer newspaper. :confused:
Orwell next book, Animal Farm, was a satire in fable form of the communist revolution in Russia. The book, heavily influenced by his experiences of the way communists behaved during the Spanish Civil War, upset many of his left-wing friends and his former publisher, Victor Gollancz, rejected it. Published in 1945, Animal Farm became one of Britain's most popular books. (Not surprise. It was bad about Russia)
Novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, published in 1949, the book was a pessimistic satire about the threat of political tyranny in the future. George Orwell died of tuberculosis in 1950. http://www.britannic...ll &ct=&fuzzy=N
British colonialist schooled in Eton runs with current from right to left and right and left again. . This person with no back bone might be good leader for everybody . Like Delphic pythia he is prophet for everybody on every occasion . English oracle and divine communicator who delivers response to a petitioner's request;
Posted 12 May 2004 - 01:10 PM
(Notice we should be supporting this kind of guy, not sabotaging his moderate views.)
"I often said violence is no solution in the Middle East. The change has to come from within! Instigated by their own people."
"When I present my arguments to a Muslim public I am at risk to be considered ignorant or a CIA-agent. Don't forget that the continual application of a double morality by Western countries has made the Islamic public opinion bitter and cynical. Even the idea of human rights and of democracy is being discredited by it."
"Now liberal Muslims are only a small minority without influence in the Muslim world. But don't forget that it took the West two or three centuries to get the idea of human rights commonly accepted. I think it can be realized very fast in the Islamic world, in two or three decades, comparable with the Reformation in 16th century Europe. Thanks to globalization, political and economic integration, modern means of communication, education of the masses and a free exchange of ideas the Islamic Reformation can spread out fast."
"But Bin Laden and Bush defenitly discredited this possibility. The biggest challenge we have in the present days is the choice between the laws of the jungle and the laws of humanity. That choice presents itself to us every day again, both in our private life, as in international politics".
"Maybe I will be remembered in history as an ignorant dreamer who defended the impossible. However I can't guarantee that someday I also have to choose for the reality of the law of the jungle. To exclude that would be arrogant.
Posted 12 May 2004 - 02:25 PM
You may want to visit this interesting debate. You can even chip in...
("I often said violence is no solution in the Middle East. The change has to come from within! Instigated by their own people."*
Nobody needs to move even small finger, lion is in self destructing mood. "The whole thing is very smelly."
June 28-29 Istanbul meeting to launching a NATO operation in Iraq.
The Transatlantic Center think-tank in Brussels, said there was now no prospect of NATO taking a bigger role before November's U.S. presidential election.
" the 28-29 Istanbul June summit and allow George W. Bush to preside over the alliance as a great leader," "It is unimaginable that the Europeans will go to Istanbul and give Bush whatever he wants." Washington would like NATO to take command and confer political legitimacy on its presence in the country, which has enraged the Arab world. "The notion that NATO will be involved (in Iraq) is getting kicked further and further into touch (out of play),"
Part of the problem, diplomats say, is the timing of the summit, which will end the day before the United States hands over notional sovereignty to an Iraqi interim administration.
a NATO role would need an invitation from a "sovereign, legitimate and credible" Iraqi government and a mandate from the U.N. Security Council.
While that may be the official European line in Istanbul, analysts say their underlying reluctance stems from public unease over developments in Iraq.
Spain's new Socialist government, which came to power after a bomb attack in Madrid by suspected Islamic militants, has pulled its troops out and calls are growing for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to follow suit.
"The real problem is the whole atmosphere surrounding the Iraq mission," said the diplomat, pointing to the bloodshed and prisoner abuse scandal. "The whole thing is very smelly." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
*The biggest challenge we have in the present days is the choice between the laws of the jungle and the laws of humanity*
It is not truth , we are at present in stench of dead fish.
Posted 12 May 2004 - 03:23 PM
This implies a huge bureaucratic structure on a national level.
It feeds itself before the people.
When I am talking about government, I guess I should make myself clear, I am talking about a federal or national government.
What is successful will thrive if it thrives on force it will be challenged. Today people don't know what socialism is or don't realize they have mortgaged their children's future. When they do realize it the house of cards will tumble.
As I have stated before I don't mind the existence of "socialistic" co-ops. The term socialism means to me the centralization of control. You are therefore, as an individual subject to that. If ever you disagree, the you should have the option of being able to leave. The problem with a co-op is if it is not run correctly and people start leaving then oppression is used to prevent it, instead of a realizing that something is wrong with management.
Much like government today. They never realize anything is wrong with it other than it needs more resources to function, ie higher taxes, bigger fines, more user fees.
Posted 13 May 2004 - 01:25 AM
I request "the hope lies in the Proles." But he didn't have to say that if he was not part of them. So he must have cared about them. That's quite a long way to go even for a lion.
Posted 13 May 2004 - 01:51 AM
<This implies a huge bureaucratic structure on a national level.
It feeds itself before the people.>
You got to understand that back then "socialism" wasn't the same dirty word it has become today. He probably used it in some loose way to mean something like "a system that provides for the disadvantaged," but didn't elaborate on things like bureaucracy, etc. But him being skeptical of Big Brother, I'd say he would have been more of an Anarchist. He once said that if he knew what was going on in Spain's Civil War he would have sided with the Anarchists. He's also considered a Humanist. I personally agree with your skepticism about Big Brother if things are taken of by spontaneous cooperation or fair competition just as you propose. As for socialism, I'd never use the word...
<As I have stated before I don't mind the existence of "socialistic" co-ops. The term socialism means to me the centralization of control. You are therefore, as an individual subject to that. If ever you disagree, the you should have the option of being able to leave. >
OK, that's all we got to agree on. No need to worry about the fate of the coops. Actually the worse the coops work, the better for you, and viceversa. I'll explain, we may have internal cooperation but external competition among coops as well as with free enterprises such as yours. And competition, being a law of capitalism, must be good...
<The problem with a co-op is if it is not run correctly and people start leaving then oppression is used to prevent it, instead of a realizing that something is wrong with management.
Much like government today. They never realize anything is wrong with it other than it needs more resources to function, ie higher taxes, bigger fines, more user fees. >
OK, let this be the Law of the Land:
LET PEOPLE VOTE WITH THEIR FEET:cool:
Posted 13 May 2004 - 01:54 AM
One person with few professional advisers and responsibility for the country in one hand.
And this is what empires hate the most; the dictatorships with doors closed for corrupted manipulators. Dictatorship means low cost to run the country and big money for their citizens . >
And the example of such country is...
Did you once said Syria?:confused:
Posted 13 May 2004 - 06:11 AM
One person with few professional advisers and responsibility for the country in one hand.
And this is what empires hate the most; the dictatorships with doors closed for corrupted manipulators. Dictatorship means low cost to run the country and big money for their citizens .<<<
This is better than communism. I like "doors closed to corrupted manipulators."
A dictator would have to be awfully wise. The problem with Dictators is they need a lot of protection. There is always someone looking to seize power. National and foreign usurpers.
He/She would have to be wise and a majority of the people content.
DonQ: Spain was a dictatorship under Franco. I'm not too up on him or how Spain fared under his regime. The international bankers finally ended that but it took many years. I know they were always knocking on Franco's door.
I would just like to see a small government that does not have the mandate to intervene in the affairs of it's citizens for philanthropic purposes. It must concern itself with justice, law and justice must be seen to be done. Today they only make laws that carry fines with them or increase revenues to the public coffer. Justice is a secondary concern.
Posted 13 May 2004 - 08:16 AM
Dean couldnt become president if he was totally opposed to the war, apart from the powers that be, the majority of the
American people couldnt make that frank admission in front of
the world that the war was wrong, they are the top nation and therefore they are not wrong even when they are.
"least of all has there been any clearly sketched out version of how a liberatory economy might function."
The problem with anarchism and since is that there is much to do about what isnt good enough but very vague about what should replace it. Looking back through history is bound to provide
an education to help but I doubt that it would solve the problem of scarsity of clear alternatives. There is more information around about the last couple of hundred years than there is on the previous thousands of years and the majority of people are educated in formal institutions of education that dont tell the full story, so the result is as with a computer= garbage in-garbage out.
There are some excellent articles/book etc that decribe the symtims but few actually get into the origin of power which is abused. We had a wise statement the other day about Saudi Arabia etc which was FOLLOW THE MONEY. Yet when it comes to
the problems of humanity that is the last thing the vast majority
ever bother to think about.
Yet no one can do anything without it in the modern world. People take money for granted like gravity but if one controls
money they control govt and people and what they can do.
So we can rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic as much as we like to try get more comfortable in life but the determining factor
remains outside our control.
Why do people want a socialist society? Usually they are not well off so they want to enjoy a standard of living they are entitled to expect. The state for them will deliver what they will not otherwise afford because the system wont allow them to earn it.
Another large group, who tend to be better off and can afford more, want less govt to avoid taxes because that takes away their money. That doesnt deprive them of a higher standard of living but it will mean it may take longer or the choice not as great. So money is a common factor, representing that is, what it can aquire.
Neither capitaism nor communism will allow a fair and equitable
money system serving the people which is the most practical and direct way to empower people. If such did exist the need for a large public sector would not exist, the business world would be much more healthy and emplying more -less friction with workers, taxes if existing would be small.
"...not that one should have a blueprint for exacting details....Such
would be silly.."
Exactly. Once people are empowered by a fair and equitable money system, thus more dependant and able to vote with their feet with money in their pocket, the world/society would transform
informally at the grassroots and any structures would tend to be
cooperative and less bureaucratic and more direct democracy.
People would re-invent ordered society, thus as Pliny stipulates
bare-essential small govt.
Looking back into historical methods/systems etc wouldnt be as good as examining the present financial systems because it will
reveal how it controls and exploits, causes national and international problems. Those "levers" are the key to how one can correct the underlying dictatorship power so it serves not rules/exploits.
Posted 13 May 2004 - 08:57 AM
A coop isnt socialist because the coop shareholders are the owners. A major problem of todays world is that corporations shouldnt be legal entities. All shareholders and bureacrats should like shareholders of a coop be directly liable and responsible. The likes of Enron wouldnt happen then. I would rate these thieving corporate types and Bush is in the centre of a cabal of these types (fascists) are worse than socialism.
A dictator expected to be not expense (low cost) and beneficient towards subjects is like hiring Jackson to run a home for orphans
for their personal development.
I suspect that one of the issues behind deliberations about NATO involment in Iraq will be the future of the influence/role of the US in NATO.
The US are in no position to bargain, they are desperate to share the body toll and cost and several nation troop leaving.
The UN might hang them out to dry as well. Which ever way one looks at it they are on a hiding to nowhere. Number1? Number 1
Posted 13 May 2004 - 12:07 PM
Once the little animals blow the lion's camouflage though it's more difficult for him to eat them. Then hyenas do their job of intimidation and snakes their job of confusion. What's happening too is that in the past the little animals have been betrayed many times, always because they chose a new lion to defend them from the old one. The Last Revolution though will be owned by the little animals themselves. Owl--the one who deciphers life in the jungle--has distributed thousands of flyers and they are ready...
This is a fable of a happy ending to the jungle...
THE KING WHO RULED NOTHING
(The King Who Ruled Nothing is a whimsical parable about a cruel king who ended up a lonely pauper when his subjects stopped obeying his commands.)
Once upon a time there lived a cruel King who ruled with an iron fist. He was the most powerful King in the world, with a powerful army and an abundance of gold. One day the General of his army came to him with some rather bad news.
"Your Lordship," said the General, "my men are tired of war. They are tired of bad food and mud and blood and they wish to come home. We have already conquered half the world and the royal treasury is bursting with gold. The men think enough is enough."
"The men think?" screamed the King. "What do I care what the men think? The men do not rule this kingdom--I do. Hang the men who will not fight."
"I have, your Highness. I've executed hundreds. But they still will not fight anymore. Now the executioners are refusing to hang any more soldiers."
"Then hang the hangmen," ordered the King.
"Me personally? I'm afraid I couldn't do that. They are all close personal friends."
"Then I'll have you hung. Guards! Seize him!"
But try as he might, the King could not find anyone willing to arrest the General.
"I'll kill you myself then," screamed the furious King.
Just then a palace guard came in and announced that hundreds of women and children were gathering outside the palace gates and demanding that their men be allowed to come home from the wars.
"Tell them to go home," said the King.
"We have," said the guard. "But they won't leave."
"Have them hung then."
"We don't have enough rope."
"We don't have enough dungeon space."
"Then let them stay there until hell freezes over," shrieked the King.
"How will we get supplies into the palace, your Highness?" asked the guard.
"We have plenty of supplies for now. All this disobedience has made me hungry. Where's my lunch?"
"The cook has joined the people outside," said the guard.
"Well I still have my gold," said the King. "Have the palace treasurer give a gold coin to everyone who will obey me."
"The palace treasurer has joined the people outside as well," said the guard. "And the rest of the staff is packing their bags."
So the hapless King was forced to cook his own meals, wash his own clothes, dress himself and make his own bed. As time went by, the people surrounding the palace began to go home and resume their lives, and the soldiers straggled home from the wars. The King was forced to take all his gold and move into a small cottage that didn't require so much upkeep.
But still no one would obey him--not the neighborhood children when he told them to get out of his garden, not even his own dog. Day after day, the King would sit and count his gold that no one would accept. Sometimes one of his old subjects would come by and they would enjoy a game of chess, but unlike the old days, they wouldn't let the King win.
Meanwhile, the people in the Kingdom prospered in peace and lived happily ever after.
Posted 13 May 2004 - 12:20 PM
He/She would have to be wise and a majority of the people content.>
The question is, "Where's the good dictator?" There may be better dictators or worse dictators, but where's the good one.
<DonQ: Spain was a dictatorship under Franco. I'm not too up on him or how Spain fared under his regime. The international bankers finally ended that but it took many years. I know they were always knocking on Franco's door.>
I'm not sure life was any better under the lion than under the foxes that came later. Franco too was economically isolated until he accepted to enter game with the big lions. Now Spain is part of the lions' club...
<I would just like to see a small government that does not have the mandate to intervene in the affairs of it's citizens for philanthropic purposes. It must concern itself with justice, law and justice must be seen to be done. Today they only make laws that carry fines with them or increase revenues to the public coffer. Justice is a secondary concern. >
That's the way it is now, but if we have a government that administers JUSTICE why can't we have a government that administers SOCIAL JUSTICE? What's the difference between the two? Can there be Justice w/o Social Justice?:confused:
Posted 13 May 2004 - 01:20 PM
And the example of such country is...
Did you once said Syria? *
Yes, I did it. Still I have to reminds you that Syria hasn't colonies as most sacred democratic countries nowadays have with excluding Germany.
What you see wrong with Syria besides that she refuses to give up Golan Highs to Israel, because it is Syrian territory?
Posted 13 May 2004 - 01:29 PM
Do you imply that dictators must pay only *surprising* visit?, Don
Posted 13 May 2004 - 03:36 PM
I think this is the crux of the matter. Control of wealth is in the hands of a few. They distribute it reclaim it and re-distribute it as needed or as desired. Be late paying taxes and see how fast the warnings come.
Woj, That also applies to your question regarding protection of leaders. The reason why a "democratic" leader needs protection is because he is not a "democratic" leader.
What do you mean by social justice? That there should not be people without the basics of sustenance? Or that there should be a standard that all should be able to live under?
There are some people that little can be done for to improve their standard of living. I am not talking about the elderly or infirm. I am taliking about people who just do not want to have any sort of controls on their lives. They will not responsible for anything beyond themselves and are content to live in poverty as a trade off. They will take what is offered but not contribute.
So if you feel social justice is the equalization of a living standard.
It is not justice. It is intervention and interference in people's lives.
You say some people don't want to live the way they are living? Most of the problem is in Baders point about money but some of it is in individual choice and behavior.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users