What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 31 July 2003 - 10:08 PM
the bureaucrats and political leaders usurp what belongs to the people. Good intentions has nothing to do with it, its the dynamics and like gravity you can't fight it, it will win out in the end. So for instance if you took the basic soviet model and compared it with the Swiz canton they may both look very
pro-democracy but history and reality show that one chick grew into a domestic and desirable bird and the other a vulture that
created a lot of tyrany. Or if you don't like those descriptions
we could rather say the price of one for its good outcomes far exceeded those of the other.>
Bader, I liked the symbolism. If we accept a lion to free us from another lion we may as well end up where we were before--if we are lucky. Orwell's warning was quite clear in Animal Farm: The Pigs became another predator as the little animals remained where they were before. Do we need the Pigs? Since Orwell was in favor of Revolution--or change whatever--it must be assumed that he advanced the idea that the little animals--the "proles"--could rule themselves.
The hope lies with the proles...
<I actually don't know what the Russian "model" of today is so
I have been arguing for the principles and dynamics that would
bring the best returns without creating a monster. Doesn't matter where on earth, the core comes down to the principles and the dynamics - to build up state power or build up people power. We need a state and it is a good servant and usually a poor master. Yet on the other hand we see the state powers
being usurped by international interest to restructure the world in their interests, so today the state and the people respectively
need to be defended. They need each other. The Swiz haven't
needed a President or Prime Minister I believe. Russia needs
one or both for another generation probably. ( the US may
replace their Pres. with a Marshall yet)>
There's two major working ways--the Scandinavian and the Swiss--and some new ideas that can go far and beyond.
-The Scandinavian way would be the "Socialist way," with a benign yet costly lion. It offers though the most benefits...
-The Swiss way would be the "Libertarian way," with no expensive lion. Yet it offers good welfare.
-The new ideas like the coops would be the "anarchist way," where the people are not only politically free but also economically free. They can be combined with either of the systems above.
What's the way to go? Try the Scandinavian way and *cautiously* move in the direction of the other two.
Posted 01 August 2003 - 05:11 AM
Posted 01 August 2003 - 09:47 PM
and is thus deprived of the latest technologies,developed brands ideas etc
which the rest of the world enjoys>
***First, communists will be the first to inform you there has never been a modern, communist society. Communist parties have their hands full enough running socialism and leave it to time to tell what modern communism will be like, though there are major, incontestable features--for example, a communist society would have no state. On the other hand, what about the first bourgeois governments? Surely they at first were surrounded by hostile, feudal powers, and nowadays how many monarchies remain? An easy minority.***
A couple of points...
-If ("true") communism rejects the goverment, in what way is different from anarchism?
-If I gave you, say, a piece of a land to work it--in other words, a cooperative--would you and a group offriends show me that indeed it works?
If you do a lot of people may be converted to it, whatever the name...
***Culture should not be a commodity, as under capitalism. It should be a right.***
True. Can you elaborate some more though? Who will own the media?
Posted 02 August 2003 - 01:35 AM
Year's ago we gave some bobbles to indians living on Manhattan, and they thought we were some kinda crazy bunch of pioneers, givng them tangible goods for the intangible "land". Maybe someday, someone can bottle the stuff, but for now, culture is not for sale --- If it does become for sale, however, I would like to buy 100 shares of that company. It has a future!!
Posted 02 August 2003 - 09:01 AM
Does India have binding referendum? With the "wife-swapping"
in proportional representation at least in a country like Swiz.
the people can still blow the whistle and veto what is
It might not be just the form of government we are getting into
here but the shortcomings of party politics.
Elected representatives are voted to represent an electorate but
they in fact represent their party. Democracy then is on hold
from the day after the election until the next voting day, party
dictatorship takes over between times.
Party politics is the formal means of usurping the peoples political power in the parliament and government and they are funded
by the rich and powerful like corporations who cannot be
disappointed because when the next election comes around its
in part one party budget against another for tv time etc to get
into peoples faces and minds for the next term in office.
People only get to choose from what the parties put up. Sure there is some public influence on issues but really its about as
"canned" as the new styles in motorcars. It doesn't start with the
puble and without binding ref. it is certainly never going to end with the public. And binding ref is only one point of defence
and is no substitute in my view for a formal/practical system of
democracy which doesn't exist yet as far as I can see.
I am not discounting the good societies of Scand, and Swiz. when
I say this. There are clear signs it appears that Swiz. is starting to loose its grip- eroding.
Good one. I believe the bebt money system has to eventually
crash and those who run it know, so their best option is to choose the time and place and its replacement. The banks are
patiently waiting for the public to accept a cashless society
which will mean we will be totally electronically monetored and controlled. Reality for the individual will be determined by a computer
programme. Delete ones number (threat to nonconformity)from the master computer
you can be seen with naked eye but you do not exist and can not buy or seel or have no rights because no one can find you, you have no identification. If no one feeds you and takes you in
you will starve or go to jail as an illegal immigrant assigned a
suedo-entity number to qualify for food and drugs in a confined space to exist.
DonQ is onto it when he said we have plenty of politics but the
key to control is more so in the economic sphere. No money,
no power, no choices, no freedom, no avoiding the control systems.
T Beat is right you cannot sell culture, thats why they are giving it away free to the Iraqis.
Posted 02 August 2003 - 06:30 PM
Culture is indeed destroyed or preserved. Most of the culture of the world is under attack from American stupid shows and commercialism. I'll give you an example. When Spain adopted commecial TV all the garbage from Latin America--soup operas, cheap talk shows--and Americann TV found its way into the Spanish daily diet of stupity.
Once you do that there's no hope, for the mind of the little people is forever wasted is the pursuit of the interests of the "Rich and Famous" who own television.
BBC though held its ground and American trash TV only accounts like for 14% of programming, not a bad record for an English speaking country...
Posted 02 August 2003 - 06:53 PM
However, I have never heard of a case where the government of a country held a gun to the heads of its citizenry DEMANDING that they watch American or Latin American TV. Somebody has to turn on the TV and press the right buttons in order to watch it.
It's always up to the people to change. If they don't watch American TV, there will be no influence. If they never enter McDonalds, it will go away. The strength of said influence is directly proportional to the amount of time the citizenry spends watching the programs. It is never due to another country's DEMAND that they watch.
The US cannot hold a gun to the rest of the world and demand that they watch American TV. That's impossible.
Posted 02 August 2003 - 06:56 PM
***Ask an anarchist. Really, many anarchists came over to the side of the Bolsheviks after reading Lenin's STATE AND REVOLUTION, a work analysing the state as a result and tool of class conflict. It's one thing only to hate the state and attack it. But to know why government comes and will go is the advantage held by the thinker over the animal.***
Did the ones that buy that theory proven right? Well, that was Stalinism but it only proved that you can't make the State obsolete by making it absolute...
<<-If I gave you, say, a piece of a land to work it--in other words, a cooperative--would you and a group offriends show me that indeed it works?>>
***It happens that there are several cooperatives in my town, and before Europeans came this land was inhabited by the communal Ohlone people for a VERY LONG TIME. But now social production is nearly entirely clothed in private property relations. The commodity system and its ruling class control the state, and use the state to suppress those opposed to capitalism. Generally it is technological advancement that makes society and the form of government change; a time can come when technology is so advanced that the state is obsolete.***
The coops, I buy. I would make the cooperatives available to anyone who so *wishes* and lets see how the 'lion' (the greedy capitalist in this case) is able to woo them... Maybe the lion will die from hunger.
### ***Culture should not be a commodity, as under capitalism. It should be a right.*** ###
<<True. Can you elaborate some more though? Who will own the media?>>
***Briefly, whoever uses it. A group of artists over the ridge made it big, but now they are angry that their art is being distributed over the internet free. Technology gave them leisure, and they commodified it. Now technology is decommodifying it. Technology will continue to work against private property as production, distribution, and consumption of culture is democratized.***
I see, Internet is going to be an instrument of democratization...
But how about the *mass media*?
Posted 02 August 2003 - 06:58 PM
now that's not true. in reality-people are simply choosing to adopt american culture (or rather, bits and pieces of it).
which, i think, is what really infuriates the anti's-the fact that people are willfully choosing american culture, and doing so in large numbers.
Posted 02 August 2003 - 07:04 PM
The masses enjoyed the Roman circus...
And that's exactly why the lion supplies almost free entertainment--you pay in other ways though--so the little animals are kept from fixing their own problems and instead try to fix the problems of others in, say, cheap shows like Jerry Springer's.:confused:
Posted 02 August 2003 - 07:28 PM
I live in the US and I do not watch the TV soaps and sitcoms here. I have chosen not to. I will watch some programs on the History Channel, The Discovery Channel, and others, as well as sports and news.
But I also watch the French news nightly, Hispanic news programs, and the BBC news program. I'm also on the internet a lot. People all over the world have choices as to what they can watch. It's not the supplier's fault if the customer watches his "fugly" shows.
Sure there's trash on TV. My suggestion: Don't watch it!. My suggestion to the entire world: Don't watch fugly TV.
There, do you feel better now??
Posted 02 August 2003 - 09:06 PM
I have enjoyed the point scoring on both sides re the tv thing.
If Beat was to represent a trend in the US, then soon the junk
will start to dwindle and better quality and informative stuff
would start to take over that didnt insult ones intelligence which
few journalists seem able to avoid.
Then when it starts to become available world wide other countries will be deep into copying the US junk with their home grown junk. That's when ownership is no longer in doubt/issue.
Bright beads for land and junk for culture, same transaction.
But then no one has ever said, what the h... am I now going to do with this land, or what the h... am I supposed to do with all this profit?
Imagine if every drug pusher who supplies a willing buyer, got
off at court because he didn't force it on anyone. Responsibility
lies on both sides, if both are aware, on the side of the aware
one if the other is not.
Freedom of choice means freedom to make a mistake, like junk and make a play. We can only hope continued freedom will allow the least forceful/autocratic means of justice/balance/correction.
It's better to be able to say "well that's life" than say well thats
gov for you or thats corruption for you etc.
But don't anyone say it can't be done at the point of gun, its happening right now in IRAQ. And what was a gulag about if not
a crude means of cultural change/cleansing, self imposed.
And it's easier to avoid tv junk than political correctness-mass conditioning.
Posted 02 August 2003 - 09:26 PM
Okay, there may be a few places where one isn't allowed to watch whatever they want.
Still, the same logic is valid with the TV, as with every commodity. Shows that aren't watched, don't survive. Drugs that aren't bought, don't get peddled. Merchandise that doesn't sell, gets returned or thrown out.
In Thailand expect to see tons of Thai-boxing in your TV programming. No other country, just Thailand. In France, expect to see a panel discussion reviewing the "morals" of a movie that was just aired. Why?? I don't know, but I remember after every friggin' movie finished, there'd be a panel of "experts" discussing the "moral lesson" of the movie.
Hey, it's supposed to be entertainment, not a friggin' psychology class. But, go figure, the French love to do that.
In Mexico, prepare to watch a ton of shoot-em-up thug and cowboy movies along with a boatload of stupid TV soaps with actors that emote themselves to death.
Local tastes always dictate the programming. To run a TV station one needs money. Some countries subsidize, others allow advertisers to pay for it, but either way a show that's not watched goes off the air, period.
Posted 03 August 2003 - 11:01 AM
Was it believed from the start of the Soviet Union that it was first
to develope a socialist state and that over time and dialectic materialism that a true mature communist society (not state)
Just as an aside, why would evolution stop there and also
dialectic materalism, unless the hidden hand of history was in fact
human? It may well have been that the anachists looked forward to the end of the formal state for their party to begin to rock and roll.
I, not knowing the answer to the first question would consider that that declaration of "development" was a cover because the
communist experiement, which is how I viewed the revolution,
had failed and face needed to be saved.
It think it was evident by about 1930 when Molotov went cap in hand to the manufacturers (New York) of the product (revolution) on his state visit to the US because it had failed and got US
funding, US corps involved in five year plans and US technology
since his visit until the collapse. The agriculure reforms had failed miserably well before then (Molotov's visit).
I cannot remember anything about a belief that eventually a state would be obsolete, being a long time now since the subject was in vogue.
I would suggest that Animal Farm covered that notion by saying the Pigs would become just another predator, being mindful of the fact that once power (absolute in the Soviet Union) was enjoyed no one was going to give it up. In fact the dynamics would work the opposite, cultivate the opposite minded persons
that would be more coldblooded than those who would be human enough to consider it. In the vortex of abosolute power
they don't argue they perge, and perging precludes any real belief in dialectic materialism or evolution. It is simply might is right, just as the LION understands it.
The Soviet Union and Cuba could only have been political, social and bureacratic disasters because they were based on setting
external regimes that regulated human nature like they wer?
machines or animals (farm - apt name of the book) on the
precept that within (encapsulation) that environment a justice
and democrcatic society would develop. The same precept is the basis of the UN and the constitutions of the two read like they were both composed by the same Wall Street lawfirm.
The coop concept is based on the outworking of what commonly motivates the society individuals within them as people (individuals). The exact ooposite to a cast-iron regime dictated from some detached exalted station of political madness.
The state I believe does directly and indirectly influence culture
and the greater abuse of power the more they will try and re-create culture (revolution). Even the free market revolution has
included recreating culture as this involves internalising the values of the external regime ideology. (the first generation in a revolution are directed and their children are conditioned and educated (internalise the ideology) so become instinctive and
not only remain in submission to the external regulation but
express outward from within what has been internalised by the
education and state culture. Both the Nazi and Soviet systems did this.
This is why I advacated in an early thread that the Russian people need a cultural (including spiritual) revival to shrug off
what has been internalised by revolution and in particular what
did not originate within the Russian culture before it was captured
in 1917. The great writers and thinkers who were enemies of the
revolution were perged. There is at least one generation gap to be compensated for and that cannot be done over night.
Your thoughts please?
Posted 03 August 2003 - 05:21 PM
Good for you. Chances are that you choose to do so because either you are educated or just would like to be. The little people though don't have such a choice. You may argue that it is their choice, but they don't stand a chance, not being educated.
What I propose is to reverse the roles *free quality programming for all* and trash television available via cable. What society can't afford is to have 90% of people brainwashed, and a 10% percent taking the decision for them. You see who benefits from such arrangement? The lion of course...:confused:
Posted 03 August 2003 - 05:53 PM
"Media Imperalism" occurs when one society's media dominate another country's culture.1 The medium of television is a prime example to illustrate the effect of media imperialism. Since television production depends largely on advertising revenue, its content is determined by profits and does not necessarily promote Canadian culture or national identity. Even the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) channel relies on advertising for approximately 25% of its revenue. While the United States is the world's biggest exporter of television, it only imports 2 percent in foreign programming. The dominance of the U.S. television industry is a global phenomenon, and Canada represents an extreme example of subjection to media imperialism.1 As the average Canadian in 1993 spent 22.8 hours a week watching television, one wonders how media imperialism is affecting Canadian culture and sovereignty.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users