What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 05 August 2003 - 11:28 PM
We kicked Spain's derriere at the turn of the century, but at a heavy cost to our own GIs, many of whom later turned on the government for lack of support after their discharge. They even marched on the White House in protest.
Europe was still considered the elite. It was only after WWII that we decided to have a permanent military force and then use it to "defend the world from Communism." Remember the famous "Domino Theory"? If one country falls to Communism they all will. We were fed that drivel up until the late 1980s.
Now the threat is gone. Europe doesn't have the Iron Curtain at its doorstep with its military weight bearing down on them. They are making great unity strides and the EU has never looked stronger. They have unified their money, the Euro, which didn't exist when I lived there.
You no longer need a passport to travel around between the various member countries. You can apply for a job in any of the countries, and trade barriers are coming down right and left. Once Europe starts spending a lot less on being different and reaping the rewards from mutual aid, they will be able to turn their focus on world events with greater vigor.
We are still decades away from seeing a major difference, but I predict that the second half of this century will see the reemergence of Europe as an equal partner to the US, if not greater.
Posted 06 August 2003 - 02:29 AM
"I'm more or less down with the idea that neither Capitalism nor State Communism will do the job of turning the economy from a political end into a social tool. I'm for the decentralization of most things...maybe not the mail. Mail might be the one honest mission of the Federal Government...but I digress. True democracy can only happen in a world of true diversity and both of the big C's, directly or indirectly, tend toward homogeneity.
Having said that, I think the co-ops have a tremendous potential for being the building blocks of genuine, grass-roots community; that is if we can ever call them back to their roots in participatory democracy. I think what we need is more cooperative members and board members getting together around the country and less looking to the management consultants to tie it all together for us. KZ and Dave, et. all could not help our co-ops be more democratic even if they wanted to. Democracy is like a muscle, you have it as a result of using it. For those of us who are struggling with issues of democracy, this is one thing for which our boards and memberships have to take full responsibility.
As for political theorists, I like Marcuse quite a bit. Have not read Kropotkin but I imagine I should check him out sometime. Kinda busy these days, though I will certainly hit the link."
Posted 06 August 2003 - 09:12 AM
Thanks DonQ for further use of your library, great stuff, I will have to go back though a second time to have another feed.
But one could wonder why Darwin got such a promotion when it is clearly narrow and biased compared to Kropotkin, obviously it
had something to do with political correctness not academic excellence and the pursuit of truth and reality. It usually takes money, as Darwins voyage of discovery, which has never been covered. Where did he get the money? By the way Darwin
who like Tolstoy converted to Christian faith late in life renounced
his theories on his deathbed.
Comparisons with animals is of little interest to me anymore than comparing us with fish. I suspect that the author of Animal Farm
has made a subtle point in that regard as well. I am not infuring
your parables DonQ are thus as they like Animal Farm are a
mere message carrier very different from trying to base life from it.
Adversity does bring people together who otherwise would tend to find some ground for conflict (not necessarily serious) and as is often put in stories and movies when push comes to shove
people realise that working together against a common adversiary is necessary for survival. The patern runs through
Churchull's series of History of The English Speaking Peoples.
During war the trash that clogs politics which in part helps get
countires into war get swept aside and a real leader emerges
until the war is over and then trash gets back into government because society drops its guard and the rot starts all over again.
There is no excuse or grounds to talk as though the modern world is about to starve when we have poverty and privation in the midst of plenty. Reason has been perverted to accept corrupt
logic. Going back is good to start a fresh to aviod the trash as
we come forward but we can't dwell in the grounds of the arguments of the past that gives more time to the Lion.
Your comments in response to KPKrop. is spot on in my view.
Suvival of the fittest is an underlying philosophy of the Free market as well. It's a bit of a giveway. It is no secret for many people that the same internationalists have promoted communism and monopolistic capitalism to achieve what you have said. Divide and rule or thesis v. antithesis if you prefer.
Beat: goodluck with your exam.
You have a lot more confidence in your countries future than I have. Not wanting to get into any argument, no point really,
but just to add to the points we are making, I don't see the world
having much say regarding trying to find/figure out this century and the future, it seems quite evident to me that it has already been done by an elite or Lion to use a couple of labels.
GIs, haven't finished protesting yet, by the time they relieve one
another over a few years in Iraq most of them will be cronically sick or dead from depleted uranium spread all over the place by
the US army. The Poms and Aussies are just starting to come on stream now. The US may look to foreign armies (already training
in the US) under blue caps to protect them. It's not normal that
the Chief of Staff have no concerns for the nations defence.
Thanks, but no thanks we don't need an adversary right now we are cooperating quite nicely on this thread without it.
You couldn't have picked a better time to chirp-in, in the midst of Tolstoy and Kropotkin, need I say more..... well you wanted a
bite, hope you got your wish.
Posted 06 August 2003 - 01:00 PM
Yes. ; But philosophy of the free market theory has luck of vision on its limitation.
Successful, well fed American society is the winner of free market but poor, hungry, homeless militant might be conqueror of the next stage of history. .
It would indicate an explosive change in the fittest standard.
Darvin noticed only continuity, when in life might prevail the jumps between maximums
Posted 06 August 2003 - 06:24 PM
unlikely as poor,hungry, and homeless typically does not lend one the abilities to support that much of a military.
Posted 06 August 2003 - 06:26 PM
Successful, well fed American society is the winner of free market but poor, hungry, homeless militant might be conqueror of the next stage of history. .
It would indicate an explosive change in the fittest standard.
Darvin noticed only continuity, when in life might prevail the jumps between maximums - Dinosaurs died when small animals survived.
I myself see it as a optimistic view of the world.>
I'd have some cautious optimism, the reason being is that something can go wrong unless we stop the lion or dominator model.
In this analysis Ms Eisler (I like what I've read from her so far) argues that the dominator can be "tamed," such as is the case in Scandinavia. Another interesting point of the article is the sex-spirituality link which I totally favor. Though I embrace Gandhi's nonviolence, I'm not enthusiastic about repressing sexuality. Perhaps the opposite is true...
LONDON: You referred to the shift that took place as we moved from a social order based on partnership and equality to one based on domination and violence. Your research suggests that this shift was one of the defining moments of our history as a species. How did you come to that realization?
EISLER: Well, it was really through the process of simple observation, free from what I think of as "the blinkers" that have impeded scientists from seeing the whole picture. My model is one that takes a dynamic view of human society and culture, and what I began to see in my historical research were patterns that had not been visible before -- connections between different elements of social systems. For example, I saw that in tribal societies and in highly advanced industrialized societies, the more that society was rigidly male-dominated, the more it went along with a strong-man-rule approach in the family and the state, and the more it accepted institutionalized social violence -- from child-beating and wife-beating to warfare -- as part of the social system.
As you move to the other side of the spectrum -- say, for example, the Scandinavian bloc countries in our time where you have a much more equal partnership between men and women -- you find a guidance-system of more stereotypically feminine values. There is funding for "women's work" -- taking care of children, caring for people's health, caring for the environment. There is economic and political democracy. It is not coincidental that the first peace academies came out of the Scandinavian bloc countries. Why? Because they are oriented more to the partnership configuration.
This model has been very useful to many people around the world for getting beyond the old categories which don't help us, such as capitalist vs. communist, the developed world and the developing world, and so on.
Posted 07 August 2003 - 01:14 AM
I am not sure what you mean by "luck" of vision on the part of the freemarket. National debt couldn't carry the expansionary
needs of the money supply to prevent the international banking system from crashing, just as Monachies reached their limit
which then gave need for national debt to take over. Beyond national debt we have international entities that carry larger debt than many countries, hence the need for boundaries and
customs regulations to be demolished bringing governemnts into
subordination to the global corporates. That wasn't luck it was planning. It didn't last long anyway already the state being in
subordination is now starting to subsidize and bail-out corporations and cleaning up their mess. That could be called luck too I guess. Noam Chomsky didn't call it luck.
There are two groups of us at least, one which sees things happening by the hidden hand of evolution or similar and those
who see the hidden hand as human. We appear to be on opp
Re well fed Americans: I think it was some decades ago the
statistics for the poor in the US was 40 million, bound to be much higher these days. I think many things can't be looked at on
just national lines, many issues cut across national boundaries.
The starving may use force to overcome their immediate needs
locally but transconinental swamming? The "next stage"
disposition is basically evolutional, a boon for the Lion. The lion
would call evolutional theory LUCK for him. That's ok, some of us are on the Lion track, and it may appear just an alternative
fantasy scapegoat to others, I can accept that, so we respectively need to support what we are saying so our arguments are logical and carry some substance. I try to do so.
And I make no inplication on your part.
What Darwin saw was what he wanted to see to support his theory, what little we had quoted from Kropotkin showed that, and I would say the same about Eisler in DonQ's post
"I saw in the tribal societies...".
The evolutional and material dialectic views are simplistic (human nature is not, human cunning is less so) and crude notions of
survival of the fittest after conflict. Rash and violent in essence
with no one to blame. We aren't anything like animals or machines, to me it smacks of the Talmudic view that the nations are mere cattle to be farmed by rash scientic formula and policy. I don't think it is unknown which ethnic group has had big influence in these philosophies.
If we want the dignity of man to flourish we need to promote it not debase our selves by narrow harsh views like Darwin or Eisler (sorry DonQ, can't go with you on that one).
Posted 07 August 2003 - 01:07 PM
unnlikely as poor, hungry, and homeless typically does not lend one the abilities to support that much of a military.//
Believe that you have it, and you have it. (Latin)
donquijote; //I'm not enthusiastic about repressing sexuality//;
repressed sexuality brings will to do it and the soul to dare ( Sir Walter Scott, but not with his intension)
Posted 07 August 2003 - 06:43 PM
who see the hidden hand as human. We appear to be on opp
Howdy Bader, Woj
I got a saying that goes: "My struggle is not against the puppet, but against the puppeteer.";) So the puppeteer better be a human, because I don't see any other manipulator, not nature, not fate, not divine, not extraterretrial... The fact that I believe in evolution or not doesn't change the outcome. We humans can change things by standing up to some human trait we can call the 'lion,' the need of some people to manipulate--the lie--and control--the power--others. The latter is common even in animals, the former only human. Pharaos, Emperors, Kings, Dictators, Presidents, Leaders, Revolutionaries and Popes alike too often fit the Dominator profile Ms Eisler was speaking about, abusing of the Power and the Lie...
So these are the solutions I see:
-Face up to the Power and the Lie.
-Promote the welfare of women and children, such as Scandinavia.
No Lion No Problem;)
Posted 07 August 2003 - 09:09 PM
The Doe and The Lion
A doe hard pressed by hunters sought refuge in a cave belonging to a Lion. The Lion concealed himself on seeing her approach, but when she was safe within the cave, sprang upon her and tore her to pieces. "Woe is me," exclaimed the Doe, "who have escaped from man, only to throw myself into the mouth of a wild beast?'
In avoiding one evil, care must be taken not to fall into another.
The Hares and The Lions
The hares harangued the assembly, and argued that all should be equal. The Lions made this reply: "Your words, O Hares! are good; but they lack both claws and teeth such as we have."
Be prepared to defend your position.
Posted 08 August 2003 - 12:27 AM
<ah, good, so if i simply believe that that bullet won't hit me then it won't
proper attitude is important, but cant overcome realities that occur in wartime.>
Exactly just like in 'The Matrix.' It takes a lot of concentration and a bit of luck though...
Posted 08 August 2003 - 12:50 AM
book 'The Tragedy of Great Power Politics'
by John J. Mearsheimer
This hardheaded book about international relations contains no comforting bromides about "peace dividends" or "the family of nations." Instead, University of Chicago professor John J. Mearsheimer posits an almost *Darwinian state of affairs*: "The great powers seek to maximize their share of world power" because "having dominant power is the best means to ensure one's own survival." Mearsheimer comes from the realist school of statecraft--he calls his own brand of thinking "offensive realism"--and he warns repeatedly against putting too much faith in the goodwill of other countries. "The sad fact is that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business," he writes. Much of the book is an attempt to show how the diplomatic and military history of the last two centuries supports his ideas. Toward the end of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, he applies his theories to the current scene: "I believe that the existing power structures in Europe in Northeast Asia are not sustainable through 2020."--John Miller
From Publishers Weekly
The central tenet of the political theory called "offensive realism" is that each state seeks to ensure its survival by maximizing its share of world power. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, sets out to explain, defend and validate offensive realism as the only theory to account for how states actually behave. He proceeds by laying out the theory and its assumptions, then extensively tests the theory against the historical record since the Age of Napoleon. He finds plenty of evidence of what the theory predicts that states seek regional dominance through military strength. Further, whenever a condition of "unbalanced multipolarity" exists (i.e., when three or more states compete in a region, and one of them has the potential to dominate the others), the likelihood of war rises dramatically. If history validates offensive realism, then the theory should yield predictions about the future of world politics and the chances of renewed global conflict. Here Mearsheimer ventures into controversial terrain. Far from seeing the end of the Cold War as ushering in an age of peace and cooperation, the author believes the next 20 years have a high potential for war.
Posted 08 August 2003 - 01:50 AM
On BBC radio today they were comparing the Near East with Europe at the turn of the 20th Century. The was the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, and WWII along with a myriad of smaller, more local squirmishes.
Now, Europe has made great strides in unifying most of the countries. Switzerland, however, can't join because they have been declared "Neutral" in the Treaty of Vienna of 1815. When I lived there they weren't part of the UN either.
They were saying that on a smaller scale, similar cutural and political forces are at work there and that in a few years, or decade or so, things will calm down.
I didn't hear what drugs they had taken prior to saying all this, however.
Posted 08 August 2003 - 09:36 AM
The Talmudic view I referred to was that all peoples not of the choosen race were deemed to be mere cattle, ie to be treated as property in service of the elite race- farmed.
Exact opposite to Tolstoy as you quoted - meaning of life is to serve. The latter relates to human dignity in its relationship and respect for others. Jesus who stridently opposed the Talmudists in his day said let those who would be the greatest among you be the greater servant. No lions in his society.
I characterised the general philosophy of evolution (history) working its way forward via dialectic materialism as being simplistic, rash, violent and dehumanising man in a reign of fate
that equates with survival of the fittest ( from state/empire down to individual level), in which no one is responsible making it
Mearsheimer, DonQ just gave us is as described "almost Darwinian state of affairs" is typical, refers to the abstract state
as though it is a living breathing organism rather than an organisation. (We are not fated to abstractions or helplessness,
we are responsible.)
This prepares humanity for service to the State or an elite as
a form of leadership/ security(Lion). In other words submission.
The philosophy that presuposes human dignity will inevitably
look for systems to serve humanity not rule, reject Lions and
anything that dehumanises and dictates choices. They will
insist on freedom.
This is what Sourabh and DonQ have expressed in wanting to see
"humanism" have its day and the end of deprivation of the many
and the abuse of power, as I read them.
We are noble ( and fallible, even disgraceful at times) and responsible, not fated to accept the rat race survival of the fittest. The simple fact is we have the means on planet earth to see that all can survive if social justice not some misty notion of evolution was allowed to operate.
The fruit of the hash, violent, debasing humanity, survival of the fittest philosophy was greatly manifested in the Soviet Union.
The Russians have to revive their own intelligencia, in particular like those who were taken out of circulation and life so they couldn't contribute to the "dialectic materialism" in the academic realm. (Those in power often never practice what they preach!)
The reference to a single item in the Talmud is also relevant for this reason: Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, in the May 15 1935 issue of
The American Bulletin said that marxism was Judaism and boasted about the Red Russian Revolution.
Henry Ford had this to say in one of his publications- "The Jewish Revolution of Russia was managed from New York. The Jewish Government of Russia was transferred almost as a unit from the lower East Side of New York"
Perhaps that's why Kropotkin called them gangsters. But lets not get sidelined into ethnicity the real issue is the battle for the minds (philosophy) of man. (Jewish disidence and protest is on the rise) And they didn't have it to themselves by a long shot.
I hope I have answered your question: do I think evolution rejects human view; as I am not quite sure what you mean.
There is change and things do evolve and what people like
Mearsheimer, Eisler and others like Marx etc see and label are
there but they are talking within a philosophical frame. I do
not acept the frame. To me it is too small, dehumanising,fatalistic
and a negative conditioning that induces submission to those
who use it on others.
Thanks for your interest, even if we don't get to agree we can better understand one another (dignity).
I have something from Malcolm Muggeridge which I appreciate
that has just come to hand, but in another post, I have taken up enough space for now.
Posted 08 August 2003 - 07:22 PM
The hungry and stupid lion threatens us all. His appetite knows no boundaries, even when it threatens him as well. He never goes like, "Hey let's do some serious saving." He just knows how to wage war and despoil the planet. Here's another way we are doomed, unless we tame him...
Salt of the Earth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Since we're stuck in Iraq indefinitely, we may as well try to learn something. But I suspect that our current leaders won't be receptive to the most important lesson of the land where cities and writing were invented: that manmade environmental damage can destroy a civilization.
When archaeologists excavated the cities of ancient Mesopotamia, they were amazed not just by what they found but by where they found it: in the middle of an unpopulated desert. In "Ur of the Chaldees," Leonard Woolley asked: "Why, if Ur was an empire's capital, if Sumer was once a vast granary, has the population dwindled to nothing, the very soil lost its virtue?"
The answer ? the reason "the very soil lost its virtue" ? is that heavy irrigation in a hot, dry climate leads to a gradual accumulation of salt in the soil. Rising salinity first forced the Sumerians to switch from wheat to barley, which can tolerate more salt; by about 1800 B.C. even barley could no longer be grown in southern Iraq, and Sumerian civilization collapsed. Later "salinity crises" took place further north. In the 19th century, when Europeans began to visit Iraq, it probably had a population less than a tenth the size of the one in the age of Gilgamesh.
Modern civilization's impact on the environment is, of course, far greater than anything the ancients could manage. We can do more damage in a decade than our ancestors could inflict in centuries. Salinization remains a big problem in today's world, but it is overshadowed by even more serious environmental threats. Moreover, in the past environmental crises were local: agriculture might collapse in Sumer, but in Egypt, where the annual flooding of the Nile replenished the soil, civilization went on. Today, problems like the thinning of the ozone layer and the accumulation of greenhouse gases affect the planet as a whole.
On the other hand, today we have the ability to understand environmental threats, and act to contain them. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1989, shows how science and policy can work hand in hand. Research showed that certain chemicals were destroying the ozone layer, which protects us from ultraviolet radiation, so governments agreed to ban the use of those chemicals, and the ban appears to be succeeding.
But would the people now running America have agreed to that protocol? Probably not. In fact, the Bush administration is trying to reinterpret the agreement to avoid phasing out the pesticide methyl bromide. And on other environmental issues ? above all, global warming ? America's ruling party is pursuing a strategy of denial and deception.
Before last year's elections Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, wrote a remarkable memo about how to neutralize public perceptions that the party was anti-environmental. Here's what it said about global warming: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed. There is still an opportunity to challenge the science." And it advised Republicans to play up the appearance of scientific uncertainty.
But as a recent article in Salon reminds us, this appearance of uncertainty is "manufactured." Very few independent experts now dispute that manmade global warming is happening, and represents a serious threat. Almost all the skeptics are directly or indirectly on the payroll of the oil, coal and auto industries. And before you accuse me of a conspiracy theory, listen to what the other side says. Here's Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma: "Could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."
The point is that when it comes to evidence of danger from emissions ? as opposed to, say, Iraqi nukes ? the people now running our country won't take yes for an answer.
Meanwhile, news reports say, President Bush will spend much of this month buffing his environmental image. No doubt he'll repeatedly be photographed amid scenes of great natural beauty, uttering stirring words about his commitment to conservation. His handlers hope that the images will protect him from awkward questions about his actual polluter-friendly policies and, most important, his refusal to face up to politically inconvenient environmental dangers.
So here's the question: will we avoid the fate of past civilizations that destroyed their environments, and hence themselves? And the answer is: not if Mr. Bush can help it.
Posted 08 August 2003 - 07:45 PM
Learning from evolution is *not* an admission of the Law of the Jungle. In reality, we may learn that there's room for the lion and for the little animals...
Are we to learn something from evolution? Well, it would probably be that *both Competition and Cooperation are necessary*... Thus only a balance of the two (which neither communism nor capitalism offers) can constitute a stable political system... This interesting article illustrates the point...
Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation
Humans, like all animals, form cooperative groups to compete for limited
resources. All life is ultimately competitive, because the natural
tendency of any population is to explode, although it is kept in check
by the limited food supply (and other factors). Because there are more
animals than food, animals must compete to survive. In situations where
the food supply is somehow sufficient, deadly competition falls.
Liberals therefore advocate the creation of a sustainable economy, where
the population is kept constant (through birth control) and resources
are used no faster than they can be replaced. The result will be a more
cooperative and civil society.
(this article ain't mine)
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users