Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: private property?
I wrote: as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power. Dennis Rodman -- no, Redmond -- wrote: Not what the historical record says. Mao destroyed or clipped the wings of any cadre who became too threatening, from Lin Biao to Zhou Enlai. He was extraordinarily good at the political version of guerilla warfare -- striking where you least expected, killing chickens to scare monkeys, playing off factions, etc. My point is that since he used the peasants for this, what he could achieve was profoundly influenced by their interests. This can be good -- as with the Iron Rice bowl -- or bad -- as with the laws about non-peasants not holding certain offices. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
RE: RE: RE: Re: Private Property
Norm -- I wish there were more erudite conservative discussion groups. Conservatism on the web appears to be more passive -- original research done at the think tanks, often filtered through popularizers and columnists, is voluminous and available at the sites or delivered to your email. If you would like suggestions, let me know. The best I can propose is the Leo Strauss list (which you can join through Egroups). It is probably not a good example of typical conservative thought and focuses on a relatively narrow range of topics, but it is at a high level and involves academics and others who would identify themselves as conservative. David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mikalac Norman S NSSC Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:58 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:5852] RE: RE: Re: Private Property thank you for your interesting comments, david. i hope you will keep tuned to these edifying discussions at PEN-L and please comment on my amateur questions and statements because i like to check them out with the Left, Center and Right perspectives. part of the learning process, as they say. PS. i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as presented in PEN-L.* do they exist? if so, please point them out. norm * that is not a paid advertisement. -Original Message- From: David Shemano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5814] RE: Re: Private Property Thank you for your many comments to my posts. It is not my intention to get into an extended debate with any of you about socialism v. capitalism. I think such a debate is about ends and not means and this forum is not appropriate for such a debate. Let me make a suggestion. I am not an economist or any other type of academician, although I consider myself well read in a general sense. I am a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell). I deal with corporations every day, including putting them out of their misery. I am quite aware of the "external" effects of private decisions in a very practical sense. Feel free to take advantage of my perspective if you think it would be helpful to advance your own understanding. Take care, David Shemano
Re: RE: RE: Re: Private Property
At 07:58 AM 12/8/00 -0500, you wrote: i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as presented in PEN-L.* do they exist? what, the Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads don't strive for intellectual excellence? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: RE: RE: private property?
At 08:18 AM 12/7/00 -0800, you wrote: And if one person owns literally *everything*, the way that, say, Mao Zedong once owned mainland China through that Absolutist-style holding company otherwise known as the CCP? as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: private property?
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jim Devine wrote: as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power. Not what the historical record says. Mao destroyed or clipped the wings of any cadre who became too threatening, from Lin Biao to Zhou Enlai. He was extraordinarily good at the political version of guerilla warfare -- striking where you least expected, killing chickens to scare monkeys, playing off factions, etc. The really interesting question, of course, is why the agrarian-autarkic state proved to be such a good mesh with the East Asian developmental state; this suggests that a tremendous amount of modernization happened in China during the later, truly demented period of Mao's rule, beneath the surface. -- Dennis
