What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 03 August 2003 - 06:06 PM
You see more SUVs--the same that threaten nature--on nature channels' commercials than dinosaurs. And the programs are repeated every 3 hours, 8 pm and 11 pm.
You can run, but you can't hide from it...
Posted 03 August 2003 - 06:58 PM
to develope a socialist state and that over time and dialectic materialism that a true mature communist society (not state)
Life is boring out there: no beach, no hiking in the mountains, no party would match this intellectual pursuit of the truth. Or so I want to believe...:confused:
Anyways, the flaw I see with Marxism is that it didn't allow for the lion from within. It may be hiding anywhere particularly in the noblest causes. Even the popes have been notorious lions in bygone times...
This why I set out to describe exactly what a perfect society should look like. If it's drescribed you either meet the criteria or you don't. Say if you say Curitiba could be a model city, you won't want something like Miami. Besides it makes the lion absolutely obsolete because the little animals know where they are going, so they need no great leader...
<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 think they went like, "The enemies of my enemies are my friends," but they made a great mistake. I think that of all the revolutionary the anarchists have been the closest to the truth. Freedom is freedom and submission to the State. And their view of communism as state capitalism is right on the money. All that obsession with work and materialism is sick.
By the way, I see anarchism as the absence of lion, and whether we need a lion or not remains to be seen. One part of the solution is to educate the little animals in the idea that the lion is obsolete, and that some of the little animals can associate themselves into coops.
<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.>
It's even worse than that. The lion uses disguises to confuse the little animals. In that sense Stalin may have been worse than Hitler. I'll explain: Everybody knew Hitler was a lion, plain and simple, but not everybody knew Stalin was. He was notorious for claiming to defend the little animal from the capitalistic and fascist lions.:confused:
<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.>
It's the consolidation of the water well. In the coops you don't depend on the lion period. No wonder he denies it to the little animals.
<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?>
You are quite right about that. Russia must go back to her roots and revive the teachings of her greatest writers.
Here's something on Kropotkin...
Prince Peter Kropotkin
Source: book 'Great Civilizations'
[He] rejected Social Darwinian [the 'law of the jungle'] support for capitalism as a means to ensure the survival of the fittest.
However, [he] also rejected Leninist Communism which he considered was the work of 'aliens, enemies of Russia and gangsters'. In particular, he objected to the imposition of state controls after the Bolsheviks assumed power in Russia in 1917. Kropotkin felt his research proved that co-operation could arise naturally without being imposed by the state. [He advanced that] small villages and decentrilized communities could produce all their own food and material needs without relying upon landowners, big business, factory owners or governments.
Posted 03 August 2003 - 08:06 PM
I was born into poverty. I know all about living in condemned buildings. The poor don't have much of a choice, but they certainly do have one.
When I lived in Mexico I went without a phone for the entire 4 years. I got used to it. We only got 5 TV channels. I got used to it. Electricity and water would go out for 3 weeks at a time. I got used to it.
It's amazing what you can do when you are not surrounded by modern technology. I would go places and visit, check out the stark natural landscape, get to know people in town (there were always 10 children following me everywhere I went - I was the only white guy in a town of 50,000).
The phenomena that is occuring is only too natural in form and substance. Most people want OTHERS to choose for them, that way they can enjoy something without being responsible for having chosen it. Rich and poor alike, they want someone else to choose for them.
Well, the media has come to their rescue, It gives them exactly what they want, mindless TV about situations that don't exist (and they have the balls to call it "REAL TV"!!). It takes the masses away from their dull, boring, senseless life and gives them something to talk about on Monday morning.
Posted 03 August 2003 - 08:07 PM
In northern Europe one is becoming accustomed to the growing number of reports which say that the once celebrated "Scandinavian model," the social welfare state, is no longer a viable, affordable option in today's Europe. "Privatization" and commercialization of public services, including the system of state-supported broadcasting, is coming increasingly under attack by conservatives and those who no longer believe in the advantages of non-commercial broadcasting. In addition, the predominant style of conducting public discussions, specifically those broadcast on radio and television, a style which has prevailed in Europe since broadcasting began, is, we are told, hopelessly outdated and should be replaced with a form of public discourse which is more suitable to the demands of the "free market." In this particular context of "deregulation" and marketing, audiences are led to believe that the discourse style used on most American commercial radio and television stations, with its fast paced rhythm, the happy banter between anchors, is now "modern."
Advertisers and control
Persuasion is an important factor in commercial television broadcasting. Audience attention to a particular product is one among many of the raw materials needed in the manufacturing and marketing process. There must be some real demand for every product which is sold, and if there is none, demand has to be created by persuading audiences to buy the product. Television has proven to be an excellent tool for such purposes, and its existence in the United States has been defined primarily in terms of marketing.
According to Herman and Chomsky, however, advertising and commercial broadcasting serve more than the general interests of advertisers, but society's wealthy and powerful as well by censoring information and controlling public opinion. The same is true for paper journalism. In the mid-nineteenth century, Sir George Lewis, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, argued for the benefits of the free market "as a means of controlling dissident opinion" because market forces would nourish those newspapers "enjoying the preference of the advertising public." Advertising and commercial journalism, in other words, was recognized as "a means of controlling" dissident and public opinion as early as the mid-nineteenth century, which also corresponds with the beginnings of commercial journalism.
Advertising also served "as a powerful mechanism weakening the working-class press." The growth of advertising, therefore, allowed "the market to accomplish what state taxes and harassment" could not, namely the muzzling and shaping of public opinion. "Advertisers thus acquired a de facto licensing authority since, without their support, newspapers ceased to be economically viable."
Many critics point to the lack of available alternatives on American television. Viewers have no choice, it is claimed, but to turn to available TV "experts" for public information. Since public information in the United States is dominated by commercial interests, it is mostly marketable "personalities" who appear on the screen. High professional standards impart a feeling of expertise to the TV journalist's work, while the emphasis on individual personalities imparts a feeling of trust. According to Jeff Greenfield, "Audiences become involved with the personal side" of a character "and choose among the warmest, most likeable news readers who are, after all, presenting the same substantive information."
When it comes to offering proof of sponsor message control, Lee and Solomon point to what they call "discourse manipulation" in news broadcasts. "Special effects," including background music, "can manipulate people by orienting them in a certain way during a news report." In a section subtitled "Passive phrases and gloss-over euphemisms," the authors point out that passive phrases and "gloss-over euphemisms" are used by journalists when "painful" events, such as the military coup in Chile, are broadcast. For example, Allende caused "chaos," which "brought in the military," and "obscures the fact that the U.S. government and corporations like ITT were instrumental in fomenting chaos..." Also,
It was often said that Chilean President Salvador Allende 'died' in the presidential palace, when he was murdered by the armed forces...This obscures the fact that the US. government and corporations like ITT were instrumental in fomenting chaos and backing the coup.
"Media buzzwords" are also devised to manipulate the truth, say Lee and Solomon. The following is a list of examples of phrases which "diminish the truth":
bailout- taxpayer's money which is actually given to wealthy financiers
big government- regulatory agencies which try to limit corporate activities
clean up- setting right oil spills, nuclear pollution-sounds comforting
defense spending- military spending
experts- a handy word for promoting a favored point of view
extremists, fringe groups- those groups which meet with US. government and media disapproval
military leader- foreign military dictator friendly to the US.
military strongman- foreign military dictator not friendly to the US.
moderate- in domestic politics, one who does not break with the status-quo. In foreign policy it refers to a regime, such as that in Saudi Arabia, which is friendly to the US.
radicals- mostly students (at home and abroad) protesting against US. policy
senior administration officials, sources close to the investigation- those who put out the line to be followed by the media
special interest groups- at one time this phrase referred to investors and other "wheeler-dealers." Now it refers to grassroots organizations, such as those for hispanic, black or gay rights
terrorism- bombings, assassinations and kidnappings-when NOT carried out by the US. government.
Greenfield points out that the "most common misconception" about television "concerns its product. To the viewer, the product is the programming. To the television executive, the product is the audience." While commercial broadcasting exploits its audiences as commodities, public service television has a direct relationship with its audiences. In commercial television, because the audience is the product, created by the broadcaster, "The money comes from selling advertisers the right to broadcast a message to that audience."
Another misconception is that of the "sponsor-benefactor," according to which the television advertiser supposedly "donates" the capital resources used for television production and in return extracts a "tax" (in the form of higher product unit costs) from the consumer, for his "services." Commercial television could never succeed without sufficient generation of revenues through sales of its only commodity: the undivided attention of its audiences. "Audiences are private goods," says James Rosse, "once sold and used, [they] cannot be resold or reused."
The value of advertisers' goods as well is enhanced by advertising. Advertising is therefore one of many raw materials contained within a sponsor's product, a part of the commodity which is to be sold. There are not many products which could be successful in today's market were it not for the access to audiences which commercial television provides.
Posted 04 August 2003 - 07:54 AM
I enjoyed the Prince Peter Kropotkin segment. What is the Prince
I wonder if the iron curtain was as much to stop some of your great thinkers from fleeing west and upsetting the media moguls
There could be a lot of interest in Russia and the past, perhaps the more so now the west is exposed to having to accept that
some of its top leaders are not beyond lying and commiting
war crimes and using WMD, which will cause people to start rethinking what has gone before.
The Russians have a story to tell the world, much bigger than the Jewish one which would be healthy for expunging ghosts of the past and bringing a healthy balance to what the world is being exposed/ subjected to.
I have found a Ukraine site that has made a story of the past
avialable to the world, shoing which ethnic group were the most notorius at attrocities.
I agree with your comment about people who want others to make decisions for them. That's the bane of democracy, ducking the responsibility for the leaders and what they are let get away with. It's easier to give the responsibility of what to do to others
and then if it goes wrong you then use them as scapegoats and start again- going from one mess to another.
The report on Northern Europe re free-market propoganda
denegrating the social policy and public sector assets and
services, pushing for privatisation and deregulation is a
corporate revolution over government, nationalism and culture.
It is the new world order and I understand that UE requires all
countries wanting trade to commit themselves to this NWO
policies as a entry ticket.
A new world currency and central world reserve bank is just around the corner, and one will have to buy the new currency as chips to play at their tables (WTO).
You can read it in black and white that the last resort to resisting
is the US military- US National Defence Strategy.
Posted 04 August 2003 - 12:41 PM
Russia should stop cooperate on antiterrorism with West as long West openly cooperates with anti Slavs terrorism like Albanian and quietly with Chechen. . Target for the Russia, is to remove Slavic areas from American/UK influences. Country like UK who supports American staying in Kosovo shouldn-t be allowed to have business with Russia and finally with any Slavic country.
Everything else are just unimportant issues.
Posted 04 August 2003 - 04:55 PM
these days I am very busy preparing for my exams so I haven-t been able to reply u all------->
<<<<No Lion No Problem!>>>>
<I agree- great idea , but all the now existing and once exsisting systems has intoxicated the human mind so much so that -.that the ? small animals
Posted 04 August 2003 - 05:58 PM
I guess he was a prince...
<I wonder if the iron curtain was as much to stop some of your great thinkers from fleeing west and upsetting the media moguls
There could be a lot of interest in Russia and the past, perhaps the more so now the west is exposed to having to accept that
some of its top leaders are not beyond lying and commiting
war crimes and using WMD, which will cause people to start rethinking what has gone before.
The Russians have a story to tell the world, much bigger than the Jewish one which would be healthy for expunging ghosts of the past and bringing a healthy balance to what the world is being exposed/ subjected to.>
That's right. They better not count on Hollywood though...
OK, here's some info on Kropotkin...
Posted 04 August 2003 - 11:54 PM
Good luck, SB -- I too will be taking an oral exam in a few months to see if I can get into the State Department.
Unfortunately, Russia can't just "stop" doing business with other countries, even if the other ones have policies that can be deemed harmful. Even at the height of the Cold War the US and Russia were huge trading partners. I regret to say that I don't know very well what we bought from Russia, but I do remember hearing all the stories about selling our wheat to Russia as well as farming equipment and other commodities. I'm sure Russia sold many items to the US as well.
The fact that the US is meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is worng, just plain wrong. But we aren't the only ones, we're just bigger than the others and we make noise, lotsa noise, when we meddle.
I think the Chechen issue is a detriment to Russia's overall economy and should be settled as soon as possible. The wasted effort and resources, as well as international criticism, is unnecessary to the future of Russia.
The NWO right now is in two parts - very separate and distinct. The American version, with its armed-to-the-teeth posture, and the European one, with its sophisticated-cross-every-t-and-dot-every-i snail approach. To be honest, I prefer snails to terminators, but that's just my opinion.
We are still decades away from seeing any resolution, though. I can't see the world moving any faster than that.
Posted 05 August 2003 - 02:41 AM
<Is literacy not required anymore? Figures :eek:>
Now you can have a waiver by voting Republican...
But don't discourage our good friend Beat from joining the government. He may be the first honest person in the last few years to join it!
Posted 05 August 2003 - 09:59 AM
his invasion of Iraq, that should have come out, plus several European countries went with the US.
When Blair was in St Peteresburg for the cellibrations he got a bit agitated with Putin and made implied threats that it would cost Russian if it failed to cooperate with the NWO. I would expect
the press release to have clarified which NWO Blair was talking about.
Can you enlighten me further Beat on two NWOs?
Privatization and deregulation are common requirements so what
makes the difference between UE and the US? The IMF and the WTO aren't divided into two opposing camps and neither is the G8.
Europe has never wanted to carry Uncle Sams bags as John Bull
has and there is a push for a Rapid Response Force in NATO
without US forces but I have yet to come across the notion that
UE has set up its own NWO. Curent events in Africa seem to show cooperation not competition between US and Europeans in
that window of opportunity.
I would choose the tortoise over the hair as well.
I suspect Uncle
Sam is just being used to do the dirty work of bullying and invading to regulate the non-conformers and then get stabbed in the back at the crucial time when the NWO will metamorphically
turn into a world government with the UE as the dominant mass.
I would expect that the sign that US has reached his used by date will be the UK joining the Euro. If a new world central bank
formed by the US Fed, the Euro and the Yen, the IMF which is 51% US will have lost its majority. That's when the one centre of gravity will be exalted and on humbled.
Bush will be used to regiment the world for law and order sake
( Bush should be the patron saint of the Left antiwar forces who will soon likely push for world gov) as Bush has used Bin Laden to begin the destruction of US freedom and the constitution.
There could never be a world gov ruling over the US people but
for recent events (sept 11) being allowed to happen!
So I could say you are not wrong but I am not sure we are
talking about the same thing.
Regards Chechne, it would be great to see it resolved to avoid
further tragedy but I suspect it will be used by a third party to
damage Russia's stability and relationship with Islam.
Posted 05 August 2003 - 01:49 PM
Source: book 'Great Civilizations'
[He] rejected Social Darwinian [the 'law of the jungle'] support for capitalism as a means to ensure the survival of the fittest.//
Practically is no different in situations of individuals in Lenin Communism or big business environment. Lives of both are practical the same. Individuals are only are numbers pushed to work. Role of unions in both cases is practically diminished. Price of labor is under control. Invention is stopped.
To follow more on similarity for both regimes; the biggest central projects can be only performed in big business or communism environment. And individuals are in both cases are beneficiaries.
Both systems support and coordinate the central projects. To the moment when projects are in the frame of the countries general situation is stable.
Unfortunately the next step is the start of wars for colonies; neocolonialism under cover of new demagogies, protection of human rights, democracy etc.
These crashes between nations will go regardless of systems. The biggest international wars will result of visceral lust for vengeance as the main force behind national purpose to the full victory of main centralized power , and back to decentralization for small entities, competition and so on.
I agree; I don
Posted 05 August 2003 - 04:54 PM
My take on the article: The Lion and the Little Animals depend on different weapons for survival, the Lion on sharp teeth, the Little Animals on intelligence and cooperation. Yet in an overexploted--better than overpopulated--and dangerous world only the last qualities can save us...
(This essay has been written from a marxist viewpoint, so take it with a grain of salt...)
IN LATE 1909, two great men corresponded across oceans, religions, generations, and races. Leo Tolstoy, sage of Christian nonviolence in his later years, wrote to the young Mohandas Gandhi, struggling for the rights of Indian settlers in South Africa:
"God helps our dear brothers and co-workers in the Transvaal. The same struggle of the tender against the harsh, of meekness and love against pride and violence, is every year making itself more and more felt here among us also."
A year later, wearied by domestic strife, and unable to endure the contradiction of life in Christian poverty on a prosperous estate run with unwelcome income from his great novels (written before his religious conversion and published by his wife), Tolstoy fled by train for parts unknown and a simpler end to his waning days. He wrote to his wife:
My departure will distress you. I'm sorry about this, but do understand and believe that I couldn't do otherwise. My position in the house is becoming, or has become, unbearable. Apart from anything else, I can't live any longer in these conditions of luxury in which I have been living, and I'm doing what old men of my age commonly do: leaving this worldly life in order to live the last days of my life in peace and solitude.
But Tolstoy's final journey was both brief and unhappy. Less than a month later, cold and weary from numerous long rides on Russian trains in approaching winter, he contracted pneumonia and died at age eighty-two in the stationmaster's home at the railroad stop of Astapovo. Too weak to write, he dictated his last letter on November 1, 1910. Addressed to a son and daughter who did not share his views on Christian nonviolence, Tolstoy offered a last word of advice:
"The views you have acquired about Darwinism, evolution, and the struggle for existence won't explain to you the meaning of your life and won't give you guidance in your actions, and a life without an explanation of its meaning and importance, and without the unfailing guidance that stems from it is a pitiful existence. Think about it. I say it, probably on the eve of my death, because I love you."
Tolstoy's complaint has been the most common of all indictments against Darwin, from the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 to now. Darwinism, the charge contends, undermines morality by claiming that success in nature can only be measured by victory in bloody battle--the "struggle for existence" or "survival of the fittest" to cite Darwin's own choice of mottoes. If we wish "meekness and love" to triumph over "pride and violence" (as Tolstoy wrote to Gandhi), then we must repudiate Darwin's vision of nature's way--as Tolstoy stated in a final plea to his errant children.
Perhaps cooperation and mutual aid are the more common results of struggle for existence. Perhaps communion [better, cooperation] rather than combat leads to greater reproductive success in most circumstances.
The most famous expression of this third solution may be found in Mutual Aid, published in 1902 by the Russian revolutionary anarchist Petr Kropotkin. (We must shed the old stereotype of anarchists as bearded bomb throwers furtively stalking about city streets at night. Kropotkin was a genial man, almost saintly according to some, who promoted a vision of small communities setting their own standards by consensus for the benefit of all, thereby eliminating the need for most functions of a central government.) Kropotkin, a Russian nobleman, lived in English exile for political reasons. He wrote Mutual Aid (in English) as a direct response to the essay of Huxley quoted above, "The Struggle for Existence in Human Society," published in The Nineteenth Century, in February 1888. Kropotkin responded to Huxley with a series of articles, also printed in The Nineteenth Century and eventually collected together as the book Mutual Aid.
As the title suggests, Kropotkin argues, in his cardinal premise, that the struggle for existence usually leads to mutual aid rather than combat as the chief criterion of evolutionary success. Human society must therefore build upon our natural inclinations (not reverse them, as Huxley held) in formulating a moral order that will bring both peace and prosperity to our species. in a series of chapters, Kropotkin tries to illustrate continuity between natural selection for mutual aid among animals and the basis for success in increasingly progressive human social organization. His five sequential chapters address mutual aid among animals, among savages, among barbarians, in the medieval city, and amongst ourselves.
Kropotkin begins by acknowledging that struggle plays a central role in the lives of organisms and also provides the chief impetus for their evolution. But Kropotkin holds that struggle must not be viewed as a unitary phenomenon. It must be divided into two fundamentally different forms with contrary evolutionary meanings. We must recognize, first of all, the struggle of organism against organism for limited resources--the theme that Malthus imparted to Darwin and that Huxley described as gladiatorial. This form of direct struggle does lead to competition for personal benefit.
But a second form of struggle--the style that Darwin called metaphorical--pits organism against the harshness of surrounding physical environments, not against other members of the same species. Organisms must struggle to keep warm, to survive the sudden and unpredictable dangers of fire and storm, to persevere through harsh periods of drought, snow, or pestilence. These forms of struggle between organism and environment are best waged by cooperation among members of the same species-by mutual aid. If the struggle for existence pits two lions against one zebra, then we shall witness a feline battle and an equine carnage. But if lions are struggling jointly against the harshness of an inanimate environment, then lighting will not remove the common enemy--while cooperation may overcome a peril beyond the power of any single individual to surmount.
Kropotkin therefore created a dichotomy within the general notion of struggle--two forms with opposite import: (1) organism against organism of the same species for limited resources, leading to competition; and (2) organism against environment, leading to cooperation.
No naturalist will doubt that the idea of a struggle for life carried on through organic nature is the greatest generalization of our century. Life is struggle; and in that struggle the fittest survive. But the answers to the questions "by which arms is the struggle chiefly carried on!" and "who are the fittest in the struggle!" will widely differ according to the importance given to the two different aspects of the struggle: the direct one, for food and safety among separate individuals, and the struggle which Darwin described as "metaphorical"--the struggle, very often collective, against adverse circumstances.
Darwin acknowledged that both forms existed, but his loyalty to Malthus and his vision of nature chock-full of species led him to emphasize the competitive aspect. Darwin's less sophisticated votaries then exalted the competitive view to near exclusivity, and heaped a social and moral meaning upon it as well.
They came to conceive of the animal world as a world of perpetual struggle among half-starved individuals, thirsting for one another's blood. They made modern literature resound with the war-cry of woe to the vanquished, as if it were the last word of modern biology. They raised the "pitiless" struggle for personal advantages to the height of a biological principle which man must submit to as well, under the menace of otherwise succumbing in a world based upon mutual extermination.
***Kropotkin did not deny the competitive form of struggle, but he argued that the cooperative style had been underemphasized and must balance or even predominate over competition in considering nature as a whole.***
There is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species; there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defense.... Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.
As Kropotkin cranked through his selected examples, and built up steam for his own preferences, he became more and more convinced that the cooperative style, leading to mutual aid, not only predominated in general but also characterized the most advanced creatures in any group-ants among insects, mammals among vertebrates. Mutual aid therefore becomes a more important principle than competition and slaughter:
If we ... ask Nature: "who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?" we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development of intelligence and bodily organization.
(notice the reasons as to why Russia rejected Malthusianism, and thus the Law of the Jungle)
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users