From the above I take it what these people really need is self reliance and control of their economy. If they are advanced enough to have curency and sell a computer to someone, and they still make equivelant to $1 a day, then I conclude that someone is rapeing them big time.
What exactly is a school success? Or to put it another way, what is the job of the school?
It seems the job of the school is to:
1. produce a productive member of society.
2. Encourage further learning and development.
I think schools for the most are failing at these two points. The real test is not a quantitative measure of a students performace, but broader questions of is our society a success? In what areas is our society failing? Because ultimately we are all a product of the system of which the schools are only a part.
Re:Open Source vs. Free Software
on
Rebel Code
·
· Score: 1
All of the above + BSD, Apache, Perl, Python...
I was talking about this Open Source movement which was started in 1998, not open source as in having the source available which has existed for as long as we have had computers. The main concentration of the "Open Source" movement apears to be to sell the Free Software movement to corporate executives.
That's crap. There is quite a big, and largely complimentary, piece on him in the book. Besides, history will take care of itself. In a hundred years time, Linux will be gone. Will students be writing papers on 'the FSF and the end of intellectual property rights'. Maybe.
I didn't read the book, I'm only commenting on the title and review, which seems to focus on the "Open Source" movement.
Open Source vs. Free Software
on
Rebel Code
·
· Score: 2
What are the actual contributions of the "Open Source" movement? Linux, GNU, Gnome are all Free Software.
I think Stallman is right that he is being written out of history. This is either sheer ignorance on the part of the author, or an attept to capitalize on hot buzzwords like "Open Source" and "Linux".
I agree this is arguable indefinitely, also I agree that words change meaning over time. In fact, on "Fresh Air" if you get public radio in your area, they have a linguist who discusses things like this, it's pretty interesting really.
Here I don't think change applies, Fascism is term that was coined by Mussolini himself. Therefore if we want clear picture of Fascism we should take the sum of Mussolini's words and actions. Trotsky's pamphlet does preciscly this.
The actual usage by Brian Behlendorf was incorrect. In essence what he is saying is an all or nothing attitude is fascist. I think something along the lines of "intolerant" would have been correct.
Anyway last message from me on subject, I promise.;)
I think you could have used a bit of your own advice.
Ah well, I suppose I should respond to some of this.
Good question. How exactly did he steal it?
I said *in essence*, Bush is just figure head after all. You can you look at many things, including Florida election policy which favored wealthier areas with voting equipment. Disenfranchisement of minority voters. The unelected right-wing majority of the supreme court which intervened to stop vote counting, and ultimately ruled against vote counting. All of this added up to in essense of a right-wing coup, and an attack on democratric rights.
If this is not enough for you, you can also look on the World Socialist Web Site. They have examined the issue in great depth. You don't have to agree with their politics, to see the reality of what happened.
What, you didn't see all the news shows with people claiming that Bush's election was a fraud? If the networks were
cooporating, or even just idly standing by, they wouldn't have gone on about it for weeks (and months, now).
As for the "pundits", I didn't see any serious dissent. There were some remarks made by timid liberals, but that's about it. As for the news media, the overwelming theme was that we should want this election to be over and accept the result no matter who was victorious. Disenfranchisement was played down, as was the decision of the supreme court.
Two things: First, Fascism was Italian nationalism. I don't see much of that here.
Fascism is not Italian nationalism, although Mussolini who coined the term was Italian and Fascism is nationalistic. I think the best definition is from Mussolini himself, you can read it here. To sum up, facism is a nationalist government with a strong dictatorial leadership in perpetual conquest.
Second, historically in our country,
it's been the left-wing group that's aligned itself with socialism. Look at the social reformers of the 1920s, specifically
the unions. While unions were necessary then, they often proclaimed socialist beliefs and intents.
I have no disagreement here, although just to note the union leadership from the 30's on have allied themselfs with the capitalist Democratic party.
The natural follower
of socialism is communism, which is simply socialism applied to politics.
The government owns everything and
decides what is right for the people. While the claims of communism are that the government will eventually dissolve
itself, I don't think that's ever happened. Communist governments just turn into dictatorships or oligarchies.
I think you have a misunderstanding of communism.
Communism is a utopian society, the modern conception hasn't yet existed. When communists talk about the disolving of the state, they are talking about a world-wide phenomenon. The beginings of this can be seen in globalization. Yes, socialism is one country has been tried (Stalin, Mao, Castro), and it has failed for the most part. However, to even attempt socialism in one state is to go against socialism, which is the international struggle for the working class.
It's funny you mention oligarchies, because that is precisly the form that our "democracy" has taken on. In essence the supreme power resides in those few who have the lion's share of wealth.
I wasn't aware Stalinist Russia had informants in that way. I seriously doubt that those who were informants did so for the good of the state, especially one that turned against its people. It's more likely they did so out of fear of Stalin, he was a pretty ruthless guy.
I think this school phenomenon is more propoganda driven by the media and caried out by paranoia on the part of the student. It should be pointed that the media and state are almost one the same here is the U.S. If Stalinist Russia had the same propoganda engine we do, there would be a very strong link. Again, I'm not aware of the curcumstances in Stalinist Russia. There are definitely similarties here to the committe on unamerican activities, which could provide for some historical perspective.
At any rate, it should at least be obvious the contry as a whole is drifting to the right, reactionary proposals like this are ample evidence. Also evidence is how our current president in essence stole the election, and life has pretty much gone on as normal as if nothing out of the ordinary just happened. This was aided in large part by the media, who acted as a pacifier for the country. If you consider fascism the most right-wing of all governments, than you can see how we are step by step becoming a fascist country.
This is yet another example how reactionaries solve problems.
When faced with a societal problem reactionaries attempt to supress the problem, never dealing with deeper issues. For to deal with the deeper issues, they would be going against their own interests.
In this case, the problem is "bad kids". Instead of atempting to solve the bigger societal problem of why so many kids are angry, depressed or alienated, they attempt to eliminate the "bad kids" using "informants".
Other examples of reactionary problem solving include the war on drugs, anti-abortion legislation, and gun control to a certain extent. These are their anwsers to drug abuse, birth control, and violence respectively.
This is just plain silly, no one is going to bargin over their personal information. I guess I should expect a piece like this from a Libertarian.
Some of the article talks about consent, which should be built into the client not the server, with the client notifying the user of the concequences of their actions. Netscape does this somewhat, but could be greatly improved.
Re:In a Corporatocracy, we're all just targets.
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
Yes,check out his bio
And you can also even read a lot of his workshere.
I'm not sure the extent he succeded in putting his theories into practice, and I'm not in the position to asses his legacy on socialism. The archives above should answer these questions to some extent.
Re:In a Corporatocracy, we're all just targets.
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
I messed up the formating, here it is again:
"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism -- from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.
"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state.
Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 5. The higher phase of Communist Society
Re:In a Corporatocracy, we're all just targets.
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
Democracy is a government of the people. Socialsm is a economic and social theory, in which democracy plays an important part.
Maybe this quote will help better explain:
"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism -- from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.
"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state.
Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 5. The higher phase of Communist Society
Re:In a Corporatocracy, we're all just targets.
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
Cunning!
It's generally pretty hard convincing non-socialist people that socialism is a step forward. And for good reason, there are many examples of repressive regimes such as China which are associated with socialism. However these are not true socialist regimes, they are "social fascism" (i.e. Stalinism), socialism in contrast is the height of democracy, and hence the height of freedom within a society. It is not enforced by a supreme dictator, as you seem to assume.
No way. Unions are evil. They dilute capitalism, the system which makes America as properous as it is.
Properous for who? You must mean the capitalists and people of upper income. When things go well in the US, not all prosper equally or proportionally for their work.
"Canada, by
contrast, is a much easier place to organize. You'll note also that Canada is generally considered to be an (ugh!)
socialist country."
Canada is a capitalist economy, I do know that for sure. I'm not sure how much your capitalists rely on the government though. You probably have a more represntive government, which allows such things as nationalized medical care.
Here in the US we have "state capitalism", where tax payer dollars fund the research of the capitalists. It is not entirely this way, but the most of the major developments have occured in public institutions and national agencies. Our government is far less representitive than yours, even though we so often champion democracy.
"Look at the automotive industry. It's full of people who do menial tasks like machining brake pistons. And yet, their
unions are so strong that they get paid $35/hr+ - for minimum wage work!"
How about the automotive CEO's that make 60-70+ million a year? Now that is wage inflation, at least the guy making pistons is producing something.
"Faced with competitive pressure from non-union workplaces (ie. Asian companies especially), with the $35/hr
trailertrash brake piston machinist, Detroit can't afford to throw out the marginal parts. It's only because of sheer
tenacity and Big Three ingenuity that Detroit has survived. United Auto Workers have become a liability to themselves
and Big Three shareholders."
Ingenuity? You mean convincing the US government to ingnore mass transit, therefore making a car a neccesary purchase for anyone with a job. The rest is just marketing and fancy electronics. The automobile has its purpose, commuting isn't it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not enlist? America is full of people like you who will terrorize the world at any cost, except at the cost of their own lives.
From the above I take it what these people really need is self reliance and control of their economy. If they are advanced enough to have curency and sell a computer to someone, and they still make equivelant to $1 a day, then I conclude that someone is rapeing them big time.
It seems the job of the school is to:
1. produce a productive member of society.
2. Encourage further learning and development.
I think schools for the most are failing at these two points. The real test is not a quantitative measure of a students performace, but broader questions of is our society a success? In what areas is our society failing? Because ultimately we are all a product of the system of which the schools are only a part.
I was talking about this Open Source movement which was started in 1998, not open source as in having the source available which has existed for as long as we have had computers. The main concentration of the "Open Source" movement apears to be to sell the Free Software movement to corporate executives.
That's crap. There is quite a big, and largely complimentary, piece on him in the book. Besides, history will take care of itself. In a hundred years time, Linux will be gone. Will students be writing papers on 'the FSF and the end of intellectual property rights'. Maybe.
I didn't read the book, I'm only commenting on the title and review, which seems to focus on the "Open Source" movement.
I think Stallman is right that he is being written out of history. This is either sheer ignorance on the part of the author, or an attept to capitalize on hot buzzwords like "Open Source" and "Linux".
Here I don't think change applies, Fascism is term that was coined by Mussolini himself. Therefore if we want clear picture of Fascism we should take the sum of Mussolini's words and actions. Trotsky's pamphlet does preciscly this.
The actual usage by Brian Behlendorf was incorrect. In essence what he is saying is an all or nothing attitude is fascist. I think something along the lines of "intolerant" would have been correct.
Anyway last message from me on subject, I promise. ;)
See also Mussolini's definition, and Trotsky's pamphlet Fascism, What is and how to fight it.
I think you could have used a bit of your own advice.
Ah well, I suppose I should respond to some of this.
Good question. How exactly did he steal it?
I said *in essence*, Bush is just figure head after all. You can you look at many things, including Florida election policy which favored wealthier areas with voting equipment. Disenfranchisement of minority voters. The unelected right-wing majority of the supreme court which intervened to stop vote counting, and ultimately ruled against vote counting. All of this added up to in essense of a right-wing coup, and an attack on democratric rights.
If this is not enough for you, you can also look on the World Socialist Web Site. They have examined the issue in great depth. You don't have to agree with their politics, to see the reality of what happened.
What, you didn't see all the news shows with people claiming that Bush's election was a fraud? If the networks were cooporating, or even just idly standing by, they wouldn't have gone on about it for weeks (and months, now).
As for the "pundits", I didn't see any serious dissent. There were some remarks made by timid liberals, but that's about it. As for the news media, the overwelming theme was that we should want this election to be over and accept the result no matter who was victorious. Disenfranchisement was played down, as was the decision of the supreme court.
Two things: First, Fascism was Italian nationalism. I don't see much of that here.
Fascism is not Italian nationalism, although Mussolini who coined the term was Italian and Fascism is nationalistic. I think the best definition is from Mussolini himself, you can read it here. To sum up, facism is a nationalist government with a strong dictatorial leadership in perpetual conquest.
Second, historically in our country, it's been the left-wing group that's aligned itself with socialism. Look at the social reformers of the 1920s, specifically the unions. While unions were necessary then, they often proclaimed socialist beliefs and intents.
I have no disagreement here, although just to note the union leadership from the 30's on have allied themselfs with the capitalist Democratic party.
The natural follower of socialism is communism, which is simply socialism applied to politics. The government owns everything and decides what is right for the people. While the claims of communism are that the government will eventually dissolve itself, I don't think that's ever happened. Communist governments just turn into dictatorships or oligarchies.
I think you have a misunderstanding of communism. Communism is a utopian society, the modern conception hasn't yet existed. When communists talk about the disolving of the state, they are talking about a world-wide phenomenon. The beginings of this can be seen in globalization. Yes, socialism is one country has been tried (Stalin, Mao, Castro), and it has failed for the most part. However, to even attempt socialism in one state is to go against socialism, which is the international struggle for the working class.
It's funny you mention oligarchies, because that is precisly the form that our "democracy" has taken on. In essence the supreme power resides in those few who have the lion's share of wealth.
I think this school phenomenon is more propoganda driven by the media and caried out by paranoia on the part of the student. It should be pointed that the media and state are almost one the same here is the U.S. If Stalinist Russia had the same propoganda engine we do, there would be a very strong link. Again, I'm not aware of the curcumstances in Stalinist Russia. There are definitely similarties here to the committe on unamerican activities, which could provide for some historical perspective.
At any rate, it should at least be obvious the contry as a whole is drifting to the right, reactionary proposals like this are ample evidence. Also evidence is how our current president in essence stole the election, and life has pretty much gone on as normal as if nothing out of the ordinary just happened. This was aided in large part by the media, who acted as a pacifier for the country. If you consider fascism the most right-wing of all governments, than you can see how we are step by step becoming a fascist country.
When faced with a societal problem reactionaries attempt to supress the problem, never dealing with deeper issues. For to deal with the deeper issues, they would be going against their own interests.
In this case, the problem is "bad kids". Instead of atempting to solve the bigger societal problem of why so many kids are angry, depressed or alienated, they attempt to eliminate the "bad kids" using "informants".
Other examples of reactionary problem solving include the war on drugs, anti-abortion legislation, and gun control to a certain extent. These are their anwsers to drug abuse, birth control, and violence respectively.
Some of the article talks about consent, which should be built into the client not the server, with the client notifying the user of the concequences of their actions. Netscape does this somewhat, but could be greatly improved.
I'm not sure the extent he succeded in putting his theories into practice, and I'm not in the position to asses his legacy on socialism. The archives above should answer these questions to some extent.
"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism -- from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away.
"Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state.
Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution
Chpt 5. The higher phase of Communist Society
Maybe this quote will help better explain:
"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism -- from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away. "Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society [Socialism] to its higher phase [Communism], and with it the complete withering away of the state. Vladimir Lenin The State and Revolution Chpt 5. The higher phase of Communist Society
Taken from the Marxists Internet Archive
Cunning! It's generally pretty hard convincing non-socialist people that socialism is a step forward. And for good reason, there are many examples of repressive regimes such as China which are associated with socialism. However these are not true socialist regimes, they are "social fascism" (i.e. Stalinism), socialism in contrast is the height of democracy, and hence the height of freedom within a society. It is not enforced by a supreme dictator, as you seem to assume.
Properous for who? You must mean the capitalists and people of upper income. When things go well in the US, not all prosper equally or proportionally for their work.
"Canada, by contrast, is a much easier place to organize. You'll note also that Canada is generally considered to be an (ugh!) socialist country."
Canada is a capitalist economy, I do know that for sure. I'm not sure how much your capitalists rely on the government though. You probably have a more represntive government, which allows such things as nationalized medical care.
Here in the US we have "state capitalism", where tax payer dollars fund the research of the capitalists. It is not entirely this way, but the most of the major developments have occured in public institutions and national agencies. Our government is far less representitive than yours, even though we so often champion democracy.
"Look at the automotive industry. It's full of people who do menial tasks like machining brake pistons. And yet, their unions are so strong that they get paid $35/hr+ - for minimum wage work!"
How about the automotive CEO's that make 60-70+ million a year? Now that is wage inflation, at least the guy making pistons is producing something.
"Faced with competitive pressure from non-union workplaces (ie. Asian companies especially), with the $35/hr trailertrash brake piston machinist, Detroit can't afford to throw out the marginal parts. It's only because of sheer tenacity and Big Three ingenuity that Detroit has survived. United Auto Workers have become a liability to themselves and Big Three shareholders."
Ingenuity? You mean convincing the US government to ingnore mass transit, therefore making a car a neccesary purchase for anyone with a job. The rest is just marketing and fancy electronics. The automobile has its purpose, commuting isn't it.