Democracy: There isn't a perfect society out there. And there isn't a perfect government, but to consider America's government "the best" is far, far from the truth -- remember that `the best' is a relative statement. While we can both agree that there are things which can be approved, if you want to argue that America is not the most democratic system going, you'll have to point me to a system which is more democratic. Can you?
State run media has the risk of being very biased, but it also has the ability, if executed correctly, to be open and free -- wow, I dare say that you're probably one of the only ones on/. who would argue in favor of the state deciding what is and isn't news. Nor do I think the examples of state media you point to back your point up very well -- this is the same BBC, after all, which has an editorial policy of not referring to Mohammad Atta as a `terrorist' because `one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' -- as if the attacks of 9/11 could be described as anything but terrorism (even OBL uses the word `terrorist', rmemeber).
I don't know what you've been taught about the goings on in Iran, but the US aided in the destruction of a democratic movement. -- actually, as the cold war is now over, and the internal CIA documentation of this period is now available, we find that the actual history was perhaps as damning of the CIA, but decidedly less sinister than you claim. The fact is that the CIA was taken by surprise in the fifties just as we were again in the seventies. But yes, we certainly did back the Shah when the alternative was Khomeini, and I'd argue that this was the right choice.
Saudi-Arabia: Once again, their was a huge democratic movement, this time in Saudi-Arabia in the 80's against the reigning monarchy. America aided the now reigning Price back into power -- with due respect, as much as we would both like there to be, there has not yet been a serious challenge to the Saudi government other than the islamist extremists. At any rate, Osama was still linked to Saudi Arabia well past the eighties. Again, I have no disagreement with you as to how nasty the house of Saud is, but as tempting as it is to blame the US for everything that goes wrong in the world, they're not our fault.
Afganistan: There has been an overwhelming amount of solid proof that the US originally aided the Taliban to gain power in Afganistan. -- sorry, this `blowback' hypothesis is a myth, and was deconstructed very well in
this article from The New Republic (hardly a conservative or pro-Bush publication). Long story short, we certainly did back some groups against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but even then the groups which became the Taliban were against us and the forces we backed.
Most first world countries enjoy the same amount of freedom that the US does. -- which ones? England, with the Official Secrets Act and prior restraint on the press? France and Germany which are constantly suing to force US ISPs to take down things which are legal here? I guess I don't buy it...
If that's the prosperity you want to be proud of, then go ahead.... Your "prosperity" only makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer. -- actually, prosperity and growth help all levels of American society. As I've mentioned before, the bottom 20% of American society in 1990 had, earned, and consumed as much as the middle 20% did in 1950 (and yes, that is after factoring in inflation). No other system on earth has provided it's citizens that much improvement in so short a time.
CNN: When I said CNN, I didn't mean that literally, it was just a mention of the mainstream media that American's listen to and believe, no matter what they say to you. -- I'd say we both agree on this. It's one reason that older media outlets have lost so much market share to CNN and MSNBC, which have in turn lost market share to Fox, as each generation of media was compelled to compete by offering a wider range of views than the competition. But alternative media sources (including the web) remain crucial.
and finally:
On a side note, I am most pleased with our debate. I truly appreciate the thought and time you've put into this. It beats the hell out of the guy that decided to call me fag ten times. Heh. Thank you.
Likewise. A reasoned debate on honest points of disagreement is always a welcome change from the run-of-the-mill flaming which often comes into these threads here. Thank you as well.
Why can you only engage in this argument in terms of cliches? Are ideas and debate too difficult for you because they challenge the simplistic sloganeering you engage in?
Where do you get this? What's `cliched' about arguing that we should learn from history's mistakes -- especially the truly bloody ones?
The market fails. Or are you saying MS should be celebrated as a great success story and simply left to get on with it?
No, I'm saying that the market will take care of MS's monopoly just as it took care of IBM's monopoly. It's not been that long since IBM was the big scary mega-monopoly, remember.
For the first time ever capitalism is a world economic system and it is failing billions of people.
Wanna back this up? Remember that billions and billions of the world's people live in totalitarian and semi-collectivist systems, and these are almost universally the most miserable nations of all...
Democrats are entitled to say that without being accused of wanting to impose a dictatorship. Have you heard of Felipe Gonzales, Willi Brandt? They'd both read and been influenced by Marx, are they/were they closet Stalinists?
No one is accusing you or them of wanting a totalitarianism. What I am suggesting is that if an idea has been tried a bunch of times and has resulted in totalitarianism every time it was tried, we should consider that before trying it again.
Every social democrat in the world today lives in the shadow of Marxian thought. Are they to be supressed as dictators in waiting?
Of course no one is talking about suppressing anyone, but surely you agree that I (and the majority of Americans, who agree with me) have just as much right to disagree with them, and to say so...
Absolutely. A shame that there is not more reasoned discussion on this possibility, due to those who run in fear when they hear the word `nuclear'
True but slightly OT anecdote: when GE was developing their MRI devices, they were still called NMRI -- Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging -- because they work by measuring the effects of magnetic fields surrounding the nuclei of molecules. In order to sell the device, though, they trimmed the name to MRI, for fear that people would hear the word `nuclear' and decide the devices were unsafe.
With due respect, while we can disagree as to whether or not the US is polluting `too much', it is certainly the case that the amount of pollution produced by the US is declining steadily, and has been for some time now.
Nor does the US pollute particularly much compared to the amount of production which goes on here -- many poorer nations which cannot afford the cleaner but more expensive generation and production technologies we use here pollute much more in proportion to their population or in proportion to their production
I'll leave my disagreements with your third paragraph for another day.:-)
Of course, it's worth mentioning that Iceland has abundant geothermal energy sources and a small population, so YMMV if you try this in a country without these two attributes...
Wait is this another Mars thread? I thought he said Marx:-P
Now, not all of the systems we have discussed called themselves Communist, but all called themselves Marxist, and assured us that they would be better than all those other Marxists.
So again, you'll just have to realize that people are rightly skeptical of further groups claiming to be the `real Marxists'. And more importantly, people are rightly skeptical of further groups calling for the `rights' of the commune to be placed above the rights of the individual.
I'm all for anyone's right to free speech, and I used to be a big ACLU fan -- until they became much more of a lobbying organization for liberal social projects then a civil rights group (nowadays I prefer the
Institute for Justice) -- but I would argue that Chomsky's support (financial and rhetorical) for Faurisson goes far beyond merely defending his rights.
Now I'm a firm believer in Faurisson's right to say whatever he wants, and of Chomsky's right to do the same. But if what Faurisson is saying is holocaust-denial, and if Chomsky is going to go on record saying that there is nothing unacceptable or ant-semitic about Faurisson's book, then of course I am not going to take either man seriously as thinkers. And that is a fact which has nothing to do with free speech.
The right to free speech isn't the right to not have people disagree with you, after all.
First off, as the first ammendment takes precedence over laws passed by the legislature, the DMCA is unlawful, it just hasn't been ruled as such by the courts (they haven't ruled otherwise, either).
Secondly, the points I made about the law hold even more surely if we are discussing ethics (and you are correct that the two are and must be separate subjects). If the purpose of making a gun is not to have the gun used for unlawful behavior, even less is it to have the gun used for unethical behavior. The argument stands.
On the contrary, I think the onus on those who would argue that we `try again' at an approach which has already killed millions to explain why we should do so.
I am very interested to hear, and to discuss, any rational argument for such an approach. I am not willing to take it as a given that Communism as tried so far is not `real Communism', and things would be different if we would just try again.
Each of these men stated clearly their thoughts on the matter. Each dismissed in their own statements the previous Marxist experiments as not `real Marxism', and each called their own tyranny Marxism.
Or are you arguing that it takes a psychic to know that these men were Communists? Really?
No, that's correct, you mentioned `Marxism', just as did any number of the last century's tyrants. In their time, any number of philosophies, Communism included, paraded themselves as the `real' Marxism, and we've seen where each of them led. So again, you'll have to forgive our skepticism.
the state is not the answer to these problems.
We agree on that, clearly.
But clearly the market isn't either - as we are having to interfere with the market all over the place, Ma Bell, Microsoft, the lsit goes on...
Of course, many would argue that it is exactly government interference with the market which creates such anomalies. Ma Bell is a perfect example -- surely you are not arguing that a company having abused a monopoly it was granted by the government is a good argument for government intervention?
You are comparing a theoretical but never realized ideal state of communism with your own views of what `total' capitalism would be. This is as pointless a political exercise as it would be for me to compare a theoretical but never realized ideal state of capitalism with the poverty and tyranny which I believe would result from a state of `total' communism.
We won't get anywhere with such hypotheticals, so we have to look at what actually happens when each system is tried. Example after example show us that when Communism is actually tried, tyranny and mass murder result. Likewise, example after example show us that capitalism provides liberty and prosperity. So I'd say the choice is clear...
Clever. Do you actually have a rational point to make? Or are you relying on the typical childish stunt of substituting insult and invective for rational discussion?
On the contrary, I understand what you are saying, and want to point out that in their time, each of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and others thought that what had been tried so far was not `real' communism, and if only given the chance they could do better. And we've all seen what happened when they were given that chance.
So again, you'll have to forgive us if we take a long hard look at the tens of millions lying in unmarked graves, and vow that we'll never again take a chance with systems which put the rights of the commune over the rights of the individual, no matter how good their proponents try to make them sound.
Yes, yes, no doubt you're better, smarter, and more moral than all the people who made the same argument in the twentieth century. And no doubt, if we just give you the reins of power, it will be different this time than all the other times, no really, you promise...
You'll have to forgive us if we don't feel like taking that chance...
Re:In past ages the philosphers...
on
Homogenized Music
·
· Score: 1
Mod, please mod parent up, insightful.
Re:a true marxist state has yet to be seen
on
Homogenized Music
·
· Score: 1
How about we start with the fact that every single Marxist state tried so far resulted in tyranny and mass murder? That certainly seems something to `have against' such a state, no?
And again, I would argue that the three factors (liberty, democracy, and prosperity) which I mentioned would tend to lead any decision of where would be preferable to live, yet were not considered (the first two) or marginally considered (the latter) in the study cited.
On to the main part of your post
I find it odd that Americans are so forthright about democracy when all they have is a two party system -- compared to where? France where a third party candidate even reaching the runoff (with no prospect of victory) brings rioters into the streets? Holland, where being a third-party candidate is apparently enough to get you shot in the street? Europe in general, where more and more decisions are being made by faceless bureaucrats of a no-party system in Brussels?
When 97% of your media is controlled by 4 corporations out to sell you things -- again, compared to where? England or France, where 50% of the media is state-run, and the rest is controlled by one or two companies? And what does this mean in the age of the internet, when a range of opinion and reporting is at my fingertips?
what happened in the 1950's in Iran -- oh yes, that nasty US, favoring imperfect secular government over theocratic totalitarianism. The nerve!
what happened in the 1980's in Saudi-Arabia -- the Saudis are thugs, but pray tell what we are alleged to have done in the 1980's?
what happened in the 1990's in Afganistan -- likewise, you can complain, if you want, that we weren't in Afghanistan in the 1990's (we weren't), but that doesn't sound like what you're complaining about. Explain?
nothing but a bunch of greedy business men, destroying democracy for their own gain. -- fine, if it's that easy, show me somewhere that's more free, that's more democratic -- or even that's more prosperous...
I'm just trying to tell you that there is more to the story than what CNN tells you. -- um yes, yes there is. Where do you get the idea that I rely on CNN that much?
What AC already saud, plus you have to keep in mind that this cuts both ways -- the article is looking at pre-tax salaries. Remember that as in many European (and all Scandinavian) countries, Sweden has a much higher tax rate than the US.
Now, if we take Mr. Chomsky's statements at face value, we are left with the fact that he is lending his name, his time, and his writing to the defense of one holocaust-denier, and giving permission for his books to be sold to fund another holocaust-denier. IMHO, this is pretty damning even if the problem stops there, but it doesn't -- again, see the links I posted above; there is a lot more to be concerned about when it comes to Chomsky and the holocaust.
It certainly doesn't hurt:-) , especially when we can do so in the most free and most democratic system in earth (two points not counted as part of the study's evaluation -- but then what do you expect from a body (the UN) whose human rights committee includes the Sudan, Syria, and China).
No, capitalism is not inherently `combative', it is inherently competitive, and this serves as a far greater engine of human achievement than empty rhetoric about the brotherhood of man ever has.
However, granting that we disagree on this does nothing to blunt the important point here, which is the comparison of what these systems actually produce in practice, and the recognition that the typical rhetorical trick of comparing communism as it `should be' to capitalism as it is now is just that -- an empty trick
Slashdot Mirror
- Democracy: There isn't a perfect society out there. And there isn't a perfect government, but to consider America's government "the best" is far, far from the truth -- remember that `the best' is a relative statement. While we can both agree that there are things which can be approved, if you want to argue that America is not the most democratic system going, you'll have to point me to a system which is more democratic. Can you?
- State run media has the risk of being very biased, but it also has the ability, if executed correctly, to be open and free -- wow, I dare say that you're probably one of the only ones on
/. who would argue in favor of the state deciding what is and isn't news. Nor do I think the examples of state media you point to back your point up very well -- this is the same BBC, after all, which has an editorial policy of not referring to Mohammad Atta as a `terrorist' because `one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' -- as if the attacks of 9/11 could be described as anything but terrorism (even OBL uses the word `terrorist', rmemeber).
- I don't know what you've been taught about the goings on in Iran, but the US aided in the destruction of a democratic movement. -- actually, as the cold war is now over, and the internal CIA documentation of this period is now available, we find that the actual history was perhaps as damning of the CIA, but decidedly less sinister than you claim. The fact is that the CIA was taken by surprise in the fifties just as we were again in the seventies. But yes, we certainly did back the Shah when the alternative was Khomeini, and I'd argue that this was the right choice.
- Saudi-Arabia: Once again, their was a huge democratic movement, this time in Saudi-Arabia in the 80's against the reigning monarchy. America aided the now reigning Price back into power -- with due respect, as much as we would both like there to be, there has not yet been a serious challenge to the Saudi government other than the islamist extremists. At any rate, Osama was still linked to Saudi Arabia well past the eighties. Again, I have no disagreement with you as to how nasty the house of Saud is, but as tempting as it is to blame the US for everything that goes wrong in the world, they're not our fault.
- Afganistan: There has been an overwhelming amount of solid proof that the US originally aided the Taliban to gain power in Afganistan. -- sorry, this `blowback' hypothesis is a myth, and was deconstructed very well in
this article from The New Republic (hardly a conservative or pro-Bush publication). Long story short, we certainly did back some groups against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but even then the groups which became the Taliban were against us and the forces we backed.
- Most first world countries enjoy the same amount of freedom that the US does. -- which ones? England, with the Official Secrets Act and prior restraint on the press? France and Germany which are constantly suing to force US ISPs to take down things which are legal here? I guess I don't buy it...
- If that's the prosperity you want to be proud of, then go ahead.
... Your "prosperity" only makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer. -- actually, prosperity and growth help all levels of American society. As I've mentioned before, the bottom 20% of American society in 1990 had, earned, and consumed as much as the middle 20% did in 1950 (and yes, that is after factoring in inflation). No other system on earth has provided it's citizens that much improvement in so short a time.
- CNN: When I said CNN, I didn't mean that literally, it was just a mention of the mainstream media that American's listen to and believe, no matter what they say to you. -- I'd say we both agree on this. It's one reason that older media outlets have lost so much market share to CNN and MSNBC, which have in turn lost market share to Fox, as each generation of media was compelled to compete by offering a wider range of views than the competition. But alternative media sources (including the web) remain crucial.
and finally:On a side note, I am most pleased with our debate. I truly appreciate the thought and time you've put into this. It beats the hell out of the guy that decided to call me fag ten times. Heh. Thank you.
Likewise. A reasoned debate on honest points of disagreement is always a welcome change from the run-of-the-mill flaming which often comes into these threads here. Thank you as well.
Why can you only engage in this argument in terms of cliches? Are ideas and debate too difficult for you because they challenge the simplistic sloganeering you engage in?
Where do you get this? What's `cliched' about arguing that we should learn from history's mistakes -- especially the truly bloody ones?
The market fails. Or are you saying MS should be celebrated as a great success story and simply left to get on with it?
No, I'm saying that the market will take care of MS's monopoly just as it took care of IBM's monopoly. It's not been that long since IBM was the big scary mega-monopoly, remember.
For the first time ever capitalism is a world economic system and it is failing billions of people.
Wanna back this up? Remember that billions and billions of the world's people live in totalitarian and semi-collectivist systems, and these are almost universally the most miserable nations of all...
Democrats are entitled to say that without being accused of wanting to impose a dictatorship. Have you heard of Felipe Gonzales, Willi Brandt? They'd both read and been influenced by Marx, are they/were they closet Stalinists?
No one is accusing you or them of wanting a totalitarianism. What I am suggesting is that if an idea has been tried a bunch of times and has resulted in totalitarianism every time it was tried, we should consider that before trying it again.
Every social democrat in the world today lives in the shadow of Marxian thought. Are they to be supressed as dictators in waiting?
Of course no one is talking about suppressing anyone, but surely you agree that I (and the majority of Americans, who agree with me) have just as much right to disagree with them, and to say so...
Absolutely. A shame that there is not more reasoned discussion on this possibility, due to those who run in fear when they hear the word `nuclear'
True but slightly OT anecdote: when GE was developing their MRI devices, they were still called NMRI -- Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging -- because they work by measuring the effects of magnetic fields surrounding the nuclei of molecules. In order to sell the device, though, they trimmed the name to MRI, for fear that people would hear the word `nuclear' and decide the devices were unsafe.
With due respect, while we can disagree as to whether or not the US is polluting `too much', it is certainly the case that the amount of pollution produced by the US is declining steadily, and has been for some time now.
Nor does the US pollute particularly much compared to the amount of production which goes on here -- many poorer nations which cannot afford the cleaner but more expensive generation and production technologies we use here pollute much more in proportion to their population or in proportion to their production
I'll leave my disagreements with your third paragraph for another day. :-)
Of course, it's worth mentioning that Iceland has abundant geothermal energy sources and a small population, so YMMV if you try this in a country without these two attributes...
Wait is this another Mars thread? I thought he said Marx :-P
Now, not all of the systems we have discussed called themselves Communist, but all called themselves Marxist, and assured us that they would be better than all those other Marxists.
So again, you'll just have to realize that people are rightly skeptical of further groups claiming to be the `real Marxists'. And more importantly, people are rightly skeptical of further groups calling for the `rights' of the commune to be placed above the rights of the individual.
I'm all for anyone's right to free speech, and I used to be a big ACLU fan -- until they became much more of a lobbying organization for liberal social projects then a civil rights group (nowadays I prefer the Institute for Justice) -- but I would argue that Chomsky's support (financial and rhetorical) for Faurisson goes far beyond merely defending his rights.
Now I'm a firm believer in Faurisson's right to say whatever he wants, and of Chomsky's right to do the same. But if what Faurisson is saying is holocaust-denial, and if Chomsky is going to go on record saying that there is nothing unacceptable or ant-semitic about Faurisson's book, then of course I am not going to take either man seriously as thinkers. And that is a fact which has nothing to do with free speech.
The right to free speech isn't the right to not have people disagree with you, after all.
First off, as the first ammendment takes precedence over laws passed by the legislature, the DMCA is unlawful, it just hasn't been ruled as such by the courts (they haven't ruled otherwise, either).
Secondly, the points I made about the law hold even more surely if we are discussing ethics (and you are correct that the two are and must be separate subjects). If the purpose of making a gun is not to have the gun used for unlawful behavior, even less is it to have the gun used for unethical behavior. The argument stands.
On the contrary, I think the onus on those who would argue that we `try again' at an approach which has already killed millions to explain why we should do so.
I am very interested to hear, and to discuss, any rational argument for such an approach. I am not willing to take it as a given that Communism as tried so far is not `real Communism', and things would be different if we would just try again.
Each of these men stated clearly their thoughts on the matter. Each dismissed in their own statements the previous Marxist experiments as not `real Marxism', and each called their own tyranny Marxism.
Or are you arguing that it takes a psychic to know that these men were Communists? Really?
Who mentioned Communism? I didn't!
No, that's correct, you mentioned `Marxism', just as did any number of the last century's tyrants. In their time, any number of philosophies, Communism included, paraded themselves as the `real' Marxism, and we've seen where each of them led. So again, you'll have to forgive our skepticism.
the state is not the answer to these problems.
We agree on that, clearly.
But clearly the market isn't either - as we are having to interfere with the market all over the place, Ma Bell, Microsoft, the lsit goes on...
Of course, many would argue that it is exactly government interference with the market which creates such anomalies. Ma Bell is a perfect example -- surely you are not arguing that a company having abused a monopoly it was granted by the government is a good argument for government intervention?
No, you are not.
You are comparing a theoretical but never realized ideal state of communism with your own views of what `total' capitalism would be. This is as pointless a political exercise as it would be for me to compare a theoretical but never realized ideal state of capitalism with the poverty and tyranny which I believe would result from a state of `total' communism.
We won't get anywhere with such hypotheticals, so we have to look at what actually happens when each system is tried. Example after example show us that when Communism is actually tried, tyranny and mass murder result. Likewise, example after example show us that capitalism provides liberty and prosperity. So I'd say the choice is clear...
Clever. Do you actually have a rational point to make? Or are you relying on the typical childish stunt of substituting insult and invective for rational discussion?
On the contrary, I understand what you are saying, and want to point out that in their time, each of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and others thought that what had been tried so far was not `real' communism, and if only given the chance they could do better. And we've all seen what happened when they were given that chance.
So again, you'll have to forgive us if we take a long hard look at the tens of millions lying in unmarked graves, and vow that we'll never again take a chance with systems which put the rights of the commune over the rights of the individual, no matter how good their proponents try to make them sound.
Yes, yes, no doubt you're better, smarter, and more moral than all the people who made the same argument in the twentieth century. And no doubt, if we just give you the reins of power, it will be different this time than all the other times, no really, you promise...
You'll have to forgive us if we don't feel like taking that chance...
Mod, please mod parent up, insightful.
How about we start with the fact that every single Marxist state tried so far resulted in tyranny and mass murder? That certainly seems something to `have against' such a state, no?
Never mind `live there', would the poster be willing to provide any example of such a thing actually existing?
No, it's why the system inherently limits monopolies Remember when IBM was the `destructive megacorp'? Sure seems to have taken care of itself...
And again, I would argue that the three factors (liberty, democracy, and prosperity) which I mentioned would tend to lead any decision of where would be preferable to live, yet were not considered (the first two) or marginally considered (the latter) in the study cited.
On to the main part of your post
What AC already saud, plus you have to keep in mind that this cuts both ways -- the article is looking at pre-tax salaries. Remember that as in many European (and all Scandinavian) countries, Sweden has a much higher tax rate than the US.
Now, if we take Mr. Chomsky's statements at face value, we are left with the fact that he is lending his name, his time, and his writing to the defense of one holocaust-denier, and giving permission for his books to be sold to fund another holocaust-denier. IMHO, this is pretty damning even if the problem stops there, but it doesn't -- again, see the links I posted above; there is a lot more to be concerned about when it comes to Chomsky and the holocaust.
Good, so where you'll get hung up is the `false' part...
It certainly doesn't hurt :-) , especially when we can do so in the most free and most democratic system in earth (two points not counted as part of the study's evaluation -- but then what do you expect from a body (the UN) whose human rights committee includes the Sudan, Syria, and China).
No, capitalism is not inherently `combative', it is inherently competitive, and this serves as a far greater engine of human achievement than empty rhetoric about the brotherhood of man ever has.
However, granting that we disagree on this does nothing to blunt the important point here, which is the comparison of what these systems actually produce in practice, and the recognition that the typical rhetorical trick of comparing communism as it `should be' to capitalism as it is now is just that -- an empty trick