-Caveat Lector-
>>Gross oversimpilification!
>No, it's the crux and the essence of both. Everything else is just
window dressing.
>
>>Noam teaches at a university does he not? What does that make him?
>An anomaly.
Sorry, not good enough. You made a generalisation about academics supporting
ruling class values. Perhaps you care to provide actual evidence of this
fact? Noam afterall, has plenty of backers scattered throughout the US
university system. Quite a few over here as well.
>>I encountered heaps of Marxists in my uni days. And not one
pro-capitalist...
>And from this alone you extropolate? That's sampling error. What was
your major?
I went to two universities and did a BA and a M Soc Sci. In both universities
the clear majority of the academic staff of the humanities/social science
departments held Marxist beliefs. The lecturers weren't all Australian either
and included quite a few Americans and Europeans. There were a few
iconoclasts (or deviationists), but only a few and curiously they came from
overseas.
>>How can you say this if you haven't been to college/uni?
>I went. I dropped out to feed my family. But I was there long enough
to get the gist off it.
Of course! You've got it all worked out! I should have realised!
>>That's prejudiced.
>That's observant.
That's presumptious.
>>And take your queues from the anarchist ideology... Very good.
>Anarchists think for ourselves. We pool our efforts to do so. Nobody
is smart enough to get through life with only one brain.
There's a contradiction there, but perhaps if you pool your thoughts you will
realise that whenever people gather in groups they stop thinking for
themselves... unless they are the "leader".
>>>That's a WHO stat. I'm fairly skeptical of the WHO, and their ilk,
for a variety of reasons. But, they're collecting the stats and you're
not, so I'm gonna go with them with this proviso: the real number is
probably higher.
>>That's your bias talking.
>That's extrapolation from extensive study, especially in the field.
For six years I drove truck for a non profit that gave away food. We
gave away fifteen to sixteen hundred pounds a week at our own expence
in the middle of one of the most prosperous regions on earth the Bay
Area. There was ALWAYS more hunger than food.
>>>Nobody ever goes hungry for lack of food.
>>And not because of drought, floods, shoddy state distribution systems
in the communist remnants, inept economic policies in some states,
localist corruption and thievery?
>Nope. Even in the worst food crisis, be it of whatever origin, if you
have enough money you can eat. If you do not, you starve. This is
they way of the (capitalist) world.
That misses the point Nessie of your original contention that capitalism was
the cause of food shortages.
>>How many people want to live in Nessie in an anarcho-syndicalist
states of America?
>By definition, there's no such thing as an anarcho-syndicalist STATE
of anything.
Spare me nitpicking Nessie.
>>>>plenty of food,
>>>If you have the money to pay for it.
>>Grow your own then.
>>If you have your own land or the money to buy or rent some, yeah, go
for it. I grow as much as I can, in my own tiny yard, in the back of
Bound Together Books and in a vacant lot where nobody seems to mind.
It's not enough, but it helps. I recommend it.
Your problem with the ownership thing suddenly clicked. I have a vague memory
of a guest lecturer at Uni, an anarchist, and the motto "property is theft".
>>Unfortunately, unlike Australia, in the US available land is at a
premium, particularly in the cities. There are a smattering of vacant
lots where people can grow food, but they seldom last long and most
are poluted. There's one two blocks from my house that the
(capitalist) owners have fenced in with a twelve foot fence to keep us
out.
Haven't you heard? Most of Australia is semi-arid to desert. Just about
everyone lives along the East coast.
And I'm saddened that your local capitalist owners don't want you planting
crops on their turf but I'm sure that, seeing they're probably in debt to
some bank, they'd take a dim view of anarchists asserting that property is
theft.
>>Walking is for free.
>Tell you what, dress in old clothes, leave your money and ID at home,
go for a walk at night in a rich neighborhood and then tell us that.
You've missed the point again Nessie. You can't walk anywhere you like
anywhere on this world, but you don't have to pay anybody to actually use
your own legs to get from A to B.
>>most people have money so they do watch what they want.
>Most people where? In your neighborhood maybe. In the world? No way.
Touche. You got me there. I'll be more specific, but it's hard because just
about every state on this earth has some sort of politically inspired
restrictions on what one can watch although that ranges from the draconian
(DPRK) to the merely moralistic.
>>But in DPRK and Cuba whether you have enough money or not there's
only certain things you can watch and you risk imprisonment if you
watch it. Are you more likely to be arrested for reading anarchist
literature in the US or the DPRK? Apples and Oranges, maybe, but you
said both systems were the same...
>They are. One limits what you can do by economic means. The other uses
guns. They both limit you. If you think capitalist society doesn't
persecute dissent, you're deluded. I personally have been imprisoned
for my politics right here in America. I don't need to go anywhere
else to be persecuted for my beliefs.
That's a bit rich. But what did you do? Be truthful, were you imprisoned
specifically for having anarchist views or for doing something in the name of
anarchism?
>>> If voting could change anything it would be against the law.
>>Given your revolutionary inclinations nothing would satisfy you.
>Nothing I could vote for, anyway.
What would you vote for?
>>put food on your plate
>>Joining the CPSU once meant that did happen.
>If your were permitted to join.
Hold a sec, aren't you the same Nessie trying to find exonerate communism?
Aren't you an a free-thinking anarchist?
.>>America is a one party state, the capitalist party. The Reps and the
Dems aren't even wings. Their lines are virtually identical, i.e.
they're on the side of the bosses, the landlords, and the bankers
behind them, and against tenants and workers.
>>A bit of an oversimplification Nessie.
>Like I said, everything else is window dressing. They rule; we work
and obey. What they choose tomcall themselves alters the equation not
one iota.
>>>If you suffer from the delusion that you own your house stop paying
your mortgage and see who the cops side with when the bank comes to
evict you.
>>Then don't live beyond your means....
>The question is who defines our means, us, or our masters. How much
greater would be our means if we didn't have to give up a share of the
fruits of our labor to our masters?
This is a bit silly Nessie. "Our masters" might argue that seeing that they
have ownership over the means of production, and probably large debts
themselves, they have a right to partake of the fruits of their workers
labour. And there's also shareholders out there who might take the view that
as part owners they'd like to see some return on their investment. But then I
think I'm talking another language to you, one that equates that with less
noble human attributes...
>>>>And isn't that limited to the state education system?
>>>Yes indeed. See, we do agree on something.
>>Unfortunately.
>It's not unfortunate at all. It means that if we have the maturity and
enlightened self interest to set aside for the time being our
disagreements on other issues, there is an issue around which we can
organize and work together towards goals with which we both agree.
That is indeed fortunate.
All in good time.
>>>>As Voltaire so succinctly put it, "The law, in its magnificent
equality prohibits both the rich and the poor from sleeping under
bridges and begging for bread in the streets."
>>>Ever done it? No? Then you don't know what you're talking about, do
you?
>>But I have Nessie.
>But now you've got yours so the hell with everybody else? What does
this tell us about your moral fiber?
It's as strong as ever. The sinews of your sanctimony must be of iron. A pity.
>> But where I was dishonest was my nationality
>Hey, you Australians gave up your guns! Willingly!!! You aren't
qualified to give political advice. I can imagine few stupider moves.
WHAT were you thinking!?! Look what it's done to your crime rate even
in this short time. How many robberies, rapes and murders will it take
before y'all wise up?
A gun-loving anarchist? Only in the US. But I should point out it wasn't
willingly. No one voted for that measure. Our political leaders acting on
opinion polls thought it wise or at least politically expedient ( to satiate
the fears of the city-folk) and decided on our behalf. We were indeed
grateful for their wisdom. We even agreed to a tax-increase. You need to
understand Australia used to be a penal colony and that has had certain
repurcussions on our political culture. People tend to look to the state to
protect them rather than to do it themselves.
>>We have state provided medical insurance here in Australia (surprise
I'm not a Yank!) for everybody. It sort of works, but it would be more
effective if they got the rich off it and provided more funds to it.
>Probably. Few things on earth would fail to benifit from getting rid
of the rich.
Tell that to Sweden. Their much vaunted model with its high taxes but
benefits to all has misled many people over here.
>>>Then don't put words in his mouth. It's dishonest. It's rude.
>>The point was Chomsky's reluctance to connect the words "state" and
"socialism" together. Better for him to damn capitalism than to dare
admit the statist variety of socialism did not work.
>Chomsky does not support state socialism. Neither do I. It's a sham
and a fraud.
I didn't say he did. Chomsky is supportive of socialism and has been quite
critical of the state socialist/Communist systems, but for some reason can't
bring himself to identify those systems as "state socialist" and instead
embarks upon discourses aiming to distinguish these systems from any form of
"socialism", although in an economic sense these systems did embody that and
failed accordingly.
>>>>So Soviet central-planning would have been a rip-roaring success
without this apparent embargo?
>>>We'll never know, will we?
>>Oh yes you do. What about China before Deng Xiaoping's little
experiment?
>Except for isolated parts of the hinterland during the so-called
"Great Leap," most people got enough to eat, medical care and a free
education. Personally, I don't think it was worth it. But that's easy
for me to say, I'm a Yank. We eat well here, especially by Chinese
historical standards.
So it's just "isolated parts" of China? You've got to be kidding. I didn't
see you as a revisionist. I understood that the deathtoll from the GLF
induced famine was in the tens of millions.
>>And weren't communist systems supposed to be self-sustaining?
>NATIONAL communist systems, yeah. National systems of any stripe are
unsustainable in an interdependent world.
>Real communism, Acts 2:44 communism, IS sustainable, but only if we
will it.
That requires sufficient revolutionary enthusiasm, but that goes against
human nature. So not a chance.
>>Actually there's evidence that trade between communist & capitalist
systems damaged the former as capitalist inflation upset the fixed
price system of the communist economies.
>Like I said before, the dominant feature of the history of "communist"
economies was the effect of economic warfare by the West.
Nope. Attempts by the West to limit trade merely prolonged the lifespan of
Communist systems. If they dealt with the capitalist world the fluctuations
of the capitalist economy contaminated the ordered world of central planning
sending it into disarray. It's taken a while for "our masters" to realise
this. But they're pushing for it now though, hence the CFR's endorsement of
trade with Cuba. Integration rather than exclusion is the way to smash
socialism.
>>Slave-owning was actually economically unsustainable.
>Only because it was suppressed by force of arms.
The force of arms ended it, but not absolutely, but the point is that slavery
doesn't bring out the best in people. Why should it?
>>People who work for nothing but the bare essentials & under brutal
treatment with no chance of progress or freedom tend not to work their
best unless they are completely indoctrinated
>Indeed. But they don't have to work at peak efficiency for their
masters to profit if there are a lot of them and they don't have to be
paid.
But if they don't work at the peack effciency not only does the quantity of
the product suffier, but so does the quality.
>>>They killed between twenty and fifty million people and trashed the
best part of the country. If that had happened to America, where would
we be today?
>>Probably in a lot better shape than the USSR ever was. Most of Russia
was not overrun by the Nazis.
>The good part was.
Communism still didn't work even before the Nazis started their slaughter and
destruction.
>>All of Germany was devastated.
>They had it coming.
Undeniable.
>> But even after reunification Germany is doing better than Russia.
>That's because even though Germany lost the war, the Nazis did not.
They got away with the majority of the war loot, which they
reinvested. That's the real source of the post war German prosperity.
For details see:
http://www.sfbg.com/nessie/company.html
>>>>But did not the Communists in agreement with the Nazis invade
Poland together?
>>>Irrelevant. The Nazis laid waste to the Soviet Union. They're still
rebuilding.
>>The point was one of complicity.
>It was brief. It was also understandable It was nationalism in action.
That's how nations do it. Aggression is the essence of nationalism.
War is the health of the state.It was also a case of very similar
ideologies working in concert. "National socialism" and socialism in
one country" are pretty much the same thing.
>>I'm sorry, but if the USSR saw itself as the beacon to communist
revolution around the world and the nasty capitalist US as the
greatest obstacle and armed itself accordingly, then its the CPSU
Poliburo who must shoulder the blame.
>Oh horsefeathers. The Russian government has always put Russia first,
no matter what they said they were doing. They still do. They also
tried very hard, for their own selfish reasons, to make detente work.
The West did not.
Well I'll be. You know something afterall.
>The US didn't "force" the Soviet Union to spend so much on armaments.
The US didn't force the Communist system to fail. A decision was made
in Moscow, not Washington, and the inherent weakness of the system was
revealed.
That's what the capitalist propaganda machine tells us happened. The
soviet system's primary inherent weakness was inability to either
vanquish or appease its external enemies. I'm just as glad they
didn't, but that's easy for me to say; I'm a Yank. We eat well here,
most of us anyway.
>But as you can't prove it you must admit that the Chernobyl disaster
was the responsibility and fault of the communist system which created
it.
Because I can't prove it I MUST admit nothing, at least until all the
data is in. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Without proof it
is unscientific to draw conclusions or to fail to speculate.
>Stop looking for Yanks under the bed.
I am a Yank. I look for Yanks under the bed because I live here. I'm
surrounded by them and their government. I know them really well,
particularly the depredations of their government. I personally, for
example, have been beaten, robbed and imprisoned for something I
didn't do by this government, just to shut my dissident mouth during
an unpopular war. I've been followed around, I've been photographed
from a distance without my permission, my mail has been intercepted
and I've had phone tap evidence presented against me in court. If I
DIDN'T look under the bed I'd be a class-A fool.
>Good try Nessie, but you still can't bring yourself to state
Chernobyl disaster was a symptom of the failures of central planning.
Because it's not true. If it were, the Three Mile Island disaster
wouldn't have happened. Nuclear power is inherently unsafe no matter
what the politics of the host nation. Unless fission within the
biosphere ceases, sooner or later it will be the death of us all. I
sincerely hope that doesn't happen in a month from now, but I'm not at
all reassured by the claims of the powers that be.
>>His "rhetoric," as you call it, isn't anti US, it's anti capitalist.
>No, I disagree. I've read a lot of his material. He is quick to blame
the US for every conceivable ill in the world, but strangely silent on
the sins of other countries. As an American he is as entitled as any
other American to criticise what the government does, but he can
hardly be expected to be taken seriously if he holds the US
responsible for just about everything. Some of his recent writings
about East Timor, for instance, have left me puzzled by his
willingness to decrease the responsiblity of both Jakarta and
Australia from their mutual complicity in this mess of a few months
ago but to play up the US' role to the extent that if Washington had
just given "orders" to Jakarta that the "game was up" it would have
all been resolved just like that.
This is a valid criticism with which I must agree. In a way Chomsky
reminds me of Norman Rockwell. Rockwell only tells part of the
American story. He tells it very, very, very well, but he only tells
one part. Same with Chomsky and the story of globalism. He has
America's role in the current global mess sussed out pretty well, but
his analysis is insufficiently global. There's a lot of the global
story that he simply hasn't told yet. He is, however, still evolving
so we may hope he expands his criticism in the future.
Nevertheless, as the dominant economic power on earth, America must
shoulder the lion's share of the blame for the deplorable results of
its greed on the rest of the world.
> I think there's a substantial difference between one system where
everything is supposedly publicly owned but actual control remains in
the hands of a the Party hierarchy, and another system where there is
private ownership of the means of production, and while there is
indeed a significant concentration of wealth in our system, there is
more scope for freedom because we can own things.
Are you saying that owning THINGS is freedom!?!
What bunk! Owning your own TIME is freedom. Not owning it is slavery.
>No again Nessie. You said the systems were the same.
No, I didn't. I said they were two sides of the same coin.
Perhaps a better analogy would have been dogs. A toy poodle is a dog.
A great Dane is a dog. Terriers, collies and mutts are dogs. If you
were an alien biologist visiting Earth on a survey expedition, could
you recognize that fact at first glance?
>> You're actually quite rude.
You advocate greed. What on earth is ruder than greed?
> It was you afterall who resorted to personal attacks in your first
response with your allusions to me being a "ditto head" and
"sophomoric". Charming.
Sorry if "dittohead" went over your head. It's a reference to the fans
of a popular conservative radio show here in the States.
As for "sophmoric", hey, if the shoe fits . . .
>"Frank honesty" is it? Now I've heard everything!
Stay tuned. There's more. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to
you. I've been pretty busy lately. I'll try to to get back quicker
next time.
> there is a considerable gulf between the way you live in the US and
the way people live in DPRK and Cuba.
There is a considerable MATERIAL gulf between life in the richest
place on earth and in a tiny besieged country. But material
differences matter little compared to the vast SPIRITUAL sameness. We
all are ruled by tiny, privileged elites and have to take orders in
order to eat. This is degrading and dehumanizing no matter whether the
boss's shirt is brown or white.
Your turn.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
