 |
| |
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Apart from that we were talking about the economic situation, not the political standing of the middle class: This is different from today... how ? |
Money = buying power = influence on markets = power
Big middle class = power and spending is spread out, and not kept in the hands of a few rich, like in the 20s
quote:
A reasonable forecast based |
On speculation. 
quote:
Odd. I call that a bear market rally. |
Call it what you want. It's stabalized.
quote:
What does this mean ? |
It means that margin calls were tightened in response to the technology crash.
quote:
Germany had a contraction similar to that of the US (and it implemented similarly stupid policies, btw). In France and the UK the depression was milder. |
And all of these economies didn't have as much to work with than the US did, due to huge war debts.
quote:
I prefer a central bank that is a) independent, b) committed to free markets, and c) committed to stability. |
Central Bank does those the last 2 things. Independent from whom?
quote:
Typical Greenspan errors:
a) Pure demand side economics.
b) Demand is manageable by government. |
Demand can be subtley influenced by government by the way it regulates the money supply. (Don't most governments print all the money?) I've been a critic all along of the scope of Greenspan's rate changes, but the heart of what he has done has essentially been correct.
quote:
And entire industries that no longer exist. "Diversification" - identify quality (what is "diverse" ?) and quantity of the sectors you see as "diverse". 75 % of GDP today is services - on that level, the US economy is less diversified than in 1929. |
And again, those services are broadly diversified. And even moreso, those services are diversified globally. Back in the 20s, most of the American companies sold exlusively to domestic markets and the rest of their manufacturing going to Europe.
Back then the economy was dependent almost exclusively on manufacturing and agriculture and autos. And manufacturing demand was mainly in autos.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
"Big middle class = power and spending is spread out, and not kept in the hands of a few rich, like in the 20s"
As long as the middle class reelects incumbants almost no matter what, it is politically weak.
"On speculation."
The nature of the future. Yet compared to uncle Alan and 99 % of economists, I'm a forecasting god. Ok, doesn't say much...
"It means that margin calls were tightened in response to the technology crash."
Oh, that one. You said "investment", when talking speculation... well, that is a minor issue.
"And all of these economies didn't have as much to work with than the US did, due to huge war debts."
Work with... what ? The US repatriation of funds was a huge blow to europe.
"Central Bank does those the last 2 things."
The Fed ? 
"Independent from whom?"
From anyone with a vested special interest in the conduct of monetary policy.
"Demand can be subtley influenced by government by the way it regulates the money supply."
It needs to keep the multipliers going (risk 1), and the velocity going (risk 2). For potential negative outcome -> Japan.
"And again, those services are broadly diversified. And even moreso, those services are diversified globally."
US TOTAL service exports are small. Maybe 2-3 % of GDP. Big junk of that is tourism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"The farmers formed an organization called the Grange"
Yes, these were the people I was talking about, in association with the Progressive party and, later, the railroads themselves.
You also seem to have missed where I pointed out the government's "solution" to the problem. They raised long-haul rates. Not exactly a help to farmers.
I think you totally missed the point I was trying to make. Oh well. You're arguing econ with Roland. I'm starting to think this is a case of selective blindness.
--"Because mainly the railroads were abusing their power in rural areas where there was often one carrier."
Correct, but the "solution" was worse the disease. This monopoly would have been broken by the trucking industry anyway, and we quite likely would have had it earlier if the government hadn't stepped in.
--"The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed by a 51 - 1 vote in the Senate and by a unanimous vote by the House."
So what? Look at how the Patriot Act was passed. Just because it passes by large margins doesn't mean it's either Constitutional or a good thing.
--"Why don't you think for yourselves and can the self-righteous "theories.""
I do think for myself, which is why I ignore liberal columnists. Their "facts" rarely venture beyond the realm of massive spin, when they have any reality at all.
--"Tell me how they "gave" them monopolies."
Um... Like I said, the Interstate Commerce Commission. They did not "fix" the problem, as you seem to think. They were the ones who gave it force of law and extended it from the few areas that were only served by one railroad to the entire nation.
You even quote some of this (pre-ICC, no less) bias yourself.
quote:
In issues of safety, the law favored railroad companies, not railroad employees. |
Sounds like a government problem to me.
Wraith
Vuja De': the strange feeling you get that nothing has happened before
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
You were referring to political persection, which the hunter-gatherers do not committ, not war. |
There isn't really politics there.
Only small time conflicts for which you can be killed, eaten or what ever.
They haven't developed the idea of politics exactly, but if there is dispute between tribes, they don't exactly have a court, but rather war in a limited fashion.
Btw, aren't there "elders" in h&g societies? 
quote:
And hunter-gatherers warred very rarely relative to civilized peoples, and these wars were far more tame (until they're introduced to civilized methods, of course). |
that's cause they are not technologically developed.
quote:
It was? Perhaps Dino can clear us up on that. That ain't what he told me. |
I'm not aware of your personal dialogues. It was the point I understood from his text, but perhaps it is my point which I simply found support for in his text.
quote:
Catalonia (and other areas of Spain, such as parts of Aragon) during the war. |
And have they stayed that way?
During war extreme situations occur.
Anyway, I promise to read more about it and troll you again with facts 
quote:
What's the distinction between societal evolution and development? |
Evolution is the evolution of ideas, morality, philosophy, what ever.
Developement is more in the field of applied sciences.
Or at least that's what I meant.
quote:
By: "And a hundred years ago you could have cited many sources to "prove" that white people are inherently superior to everyone else. That many scholars defend the status quo is nothing new."
Joe is questioning the validity of social "science." I don't see how your statement refutes his. |
My point was the following:
He is questioning the validity of social science, but his statements are just the same as that social science and can be questioned the same way, therefore the questioning arguement is useless.
I can always claim about something that it's actually wrong and the mainstream simply haven't figured it out yet.
I can similarly cast doubt on my previous claim saying that the claim is wrong and the mainstream is right.
It is part of the theorem with which you work that you accept certain things.
To demonstrate:
Similarly to his claim, I could claim that world is not round but rather a 5D hexagon or something, and we've just not figured it out, just like previously we thought the world is flat and carried by giant tortuses.
By this I'm casting doubt on current theorems, but doing nothing to support my point since my base arguement for the claim is "this assumption is not necessarily true" and applies irrelevantly to the matter itself.
quote:
Bull. The epidemics assaulting Europe and China (small pox, measles, and the bubonic plague) at the time were far more disastrous to the quality of life than the breakdown of central authority (quality of life began decreasing for Europe by the end of the second century AD). And these epidemics are products of civilized life. Hell, the "Dark Ages" brought various agricultural improvements, and quality of life for Europe began increasing again by the 8th century. |
To the best of my memory it was around the 9th or 10th century that the "3 fields" method was invented and agriculture improved. This was also affected by the climate getting warmer.
However, the quality of life was largely affected by the ability of a society to organize itself, and Anarchy can't really take care of people and organize them to work for common goals like other systems can.
It is true that authoritarian systems are highly dependent of the ruler, and a bad ruler makes them collapse.
It is exactly the case with the very wicked Christian Church. Quality of life dropped because there was no powerful enough govrenment in most areas to take care of such matters. Infact, the feudal monarchy system supressed the quality of life of the simple workers. Another quite faulty system.
But under the ancient republic and democracy regeimes, city-dwelling romans and greeks prospered.
quote:
That isn't true at all. Quality of life was improving over time, overall, barring the initial step to agriculture. |
The christian church was preaching to keep life simple and basic, while it's leaders lead a quite ravish life style and so did many rulers.
The agriculture was in no way more advanced in the classical era, yet people lived better and longer lives. Because they had organized public works and some sort of sewers and baths, and roads and things.
All those things which feudalic rulers didn't care about and installed only in their palaces.
quote:
A lot of the feudalism in Spain ended a century earlier. |
But Catalonia was the most industrialized province in Spain, and Barcelona was the industrial capitol of Spain.
Yet the syndicates of Catalonia outperformed their predecessors.[/quote]
Because feudalism is quite possibly less productive than anarchy.
quote:
And it would be fair to say that a "capitalist" system was in effect there, if you consider, for example, the US economy capitalistic. Was there free-market capitalism here? No? Has it existed in non-egalitarian societies? No. |
I'll have to research more on that. Thanks.
Because it has the united power of more people who are capable of better production due to
a) being more people
b) being organized with some dealing with production and others monitoring it.
not all people can participate in matters of leadership of a group, once the group is too big. bigger groups are more powerful and therefore the leadership must be held by few organizers which get their right from the people.
quote:
I need to make a mod changing that.  |
Er... You can't 
Maybe you can in CTP but I haven't mentioned that since it's not really civ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
There isn't really politics there. |
My point exactly. People had no coercive authority over others in many cases. Therefore your assertion about civilization responsible for Joe's ability to express his ideas without fear of imprisonment is bollocks.
quote:
Btw, aren't there "elders" in h&g societies? |
Sometimes, but their authority generally was based on respect, not the police.
quote:
It was the point I understood from his text, but perhaps it is my point which I simply found support for in his text. |
I don't see that at all.
Again, this is what he wrote:
"It is the necessity in each society -if it is to be a society, not a rabble- to order the relations of men and thier institutional ways of achieving needed ends ... Organized power exists -always and everywhere, in societies large and small, primitive or modern- because it performs the necessary function of establishing and maintaining the version of order by which a given society in a given time and place lives."
I don't know where you're pulling this evolution or development or whatever from.
quote:
And have they stayed that way? |
Only because the anarchists faced attacks by the commies (with the weapons Stalin supplied 'em with), making them severely outnumbered, and severely outgunned. Furthermore, the anarchist soldiers were out fighting the Fascists during the reactionary assaults by the gov't!
quote:
Evolution is the evolution of ideas, morality, philosophy, what ever.
Developement is more in the field of applied sciences. |
You haven't explained why new science requires new morality, etc., and how this has ANYTHING to do with the seizure of power.
quote:
He is questioning the validity of social science, but his statements are just the same as that social science and can be questioned the same way, therefore the questioning arguement is useless. |
Joe isn't relying on social "scientists" to rationalize his statements, but is providing the justification himself. And again, this whole argument is based on a misunderstanding. I agree with Dino and Joe in what they both [now] intend to say.
Bah, I shouldn't have gotton into this silly argument in the first place! 
And if you want me to explain why I think calling sociology a science is bollocks, I'd happily do that.
quote:
To the best of my memory it was around the 9th or 10th century that the "3 fields" method was invented and agriculture improved. This was also affected by the climate getting warmer. |
It isn't just that. The bubonic plague began receding from Europe (with a few exceptions, such as certain places along the Mediterranean) around the 8th century.
quote:
However, the quality of life was largely affected by the ability of a society to organize itself, and Anarchy can't really take care of people and organize them to work for common goals like other systems can. |
That's bullshit. Anarchism can organize people - it's just voluntary. Spain, again, is the principle example of what an anarchist society can do.
Look, go to your library and check out a book by George Orwell called "Homage to Catalonia." Then come back and tell me what anarchism can or cannot do.
quote:
It is exactly the case with the very wicked Christian Church. |
I'm not very fond of the Christian Church either, but to blame them for the decrease of quality of life (over the Greek religion) is ludicrous.
quote:
Quality of life dropped because there was no powerful enough govrenment in most areas to take care of such matters. |
There were powerful governments all around Europe! It's just that power was more concentrated than previously. The feudal lords, in fact, were quite a bit more authoritarian, in general, than the Roman government.
quote:
Infact, the feudal monarchy system supressed the quality of life of the simple workers. Another quite faulty system. |
Yep, another authoritarian system.
quote:
But under the ancient republic and democracy regeimes, city-dwelling romans and greeks prospered. |
That's bull. The Roman Republic has been romanticized, but in reality it wasn't all that great. There were huge, huge slave populations, for instance. Midieval life, in general, was quite a bit better than Roman life.
quote:
The christian church was preaching to keep life simple and basic, while it's leaders lead a quite ravish life style and so did many rulers. |
As do all religions.
quote:
The agriculture was in no way more advanced in the classical era, yet people lived better and longer lives. |
That's not true at all. Better agriculture (make no mistake, it became infinitely better with plows, etc.) implies better and longer lives.
quote:
Because they had organized public works and some sort of sewers and baths, and roads and things. |
Which were not everywhere.
quote:
Because feudalism is quite possibly less productive than anarchy. |
I repeat, feudalism, in the literal sense, was not in effect in industrial areas, but Western "capitalism." (personally, I like to call it corporate feudalism. )
quote:
Because it has the united power of more people who are capable of better production due to |
United power for what? United power can be abused easily, and who says where this power should be directed?
quote:
a) being more people
b) being organized with some dealing with production and others monitoring it. |
a - How does the current system imply more people than anarchism, and why is that a good thing; look at South Asia or China, for instance.
b - This "organization" adds overhead, makes a system ineffecient.
quote:
I hardly think it's fair to use Catalonia as an example, seeing as how society did not last-long term, in fact it died out quickly enough. |
It didn't die out; it was assaulted by a power much, much bigger than it.
quote:
One of the more common compliants heard about anarchy is that without a government, who will protect us from brutal thugs? |
Anarchism means no authority, not no government. Most anarchists advocate "libertarian" governments, including a responsible police force.
quote:
Lo and behold, they lost their government, and they got subjected to a brutal thug. |
Which, I repeat, is due to size and firepower, not anything else. The anarchists, actually, were superior to their fascist, and liberal/Stalinist counterparts in terms of military competence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
Rechtsberater,
quote:
US TOTAL service exports are small. Maybe 2-3 % of GDP. Big junk of that is tourism. |
Seeing as how flagship, blue-chipper companies like Coca Cola (which is not service though), Mickey Dees, and IBM make most of their revenue from international markets, I find that hard to believe. Tourism?
quote:
As long as the middle class reelects incumbants almost no matter what, it is politically weak. |
You're generalising voting behavior, and looking past where dollars and cents are being spent. People didn't like the state the economy was in, and voted Bush Sr. (whether fairly or not) out of office and voted Blow Job into it. Then there was a high overturn in Congress due to the same reason when they voted all the Republicans into Congress. It was one of the highest, if not the highest, level of Congress turnover ever.
quote:
From anyone with a vested special interest in the conduct of monetary policy. |
And who exactly would that be? Buddhist Monks? Gott himself?
Wraith,
quote:
This monopoly would have been broken by the trucking industry anyway |
I'm glad the government had the foresight to look 20 years into the future and predict not only the trucking industry (which wasn't even in existance), but its dominance. ICC was establish in 1887. Munn vs. Illinois took place in 1877. And so while all everyone waiting on this crystal ball solution to appears, more and more farmers go into bankruptsy.
quote:
They raised long-haul rates. Not exactly a help to farmers. |
Farmers being hit the hardest were on the short haul routes. The ones taking advantage of the situation were distributors in bed with the railroads on their long haul routes.
The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 :
*Outlawed rebates, drawbacks, and pooling.
*Required the railroads to post the rates in every depot and station and required the rates to be "reasonable and just".
*The Act contained a Short Haul Pricing Constraint
quote:
Their "facts" rarely venture beyond the realm of massive spin, when they have any reality at all. |
That's the problem. You and berzerker have already labeled them a "they" "them" and yourselves an "us" "we". How do you know the guy was a liberal? In fact, are all the articles and studies I've mentioned by "liberals"? That automatically makes them invalid right? Conservative, liberal, who cares? The only difference is the "us" you ally associate yourselves with, has a spin that doesn't agree with "their" spin. Everybody has a spin but if you look somewhere in the middle you'll find something substantial.
quote:
Sounds like a government problem to me. |
You're right. It's a governement responsibility, just like making sure there is a supply of drinking water, safe food, and a solid infrasturcture, including freeways (and the hundreds of trillions of dollars in infrastructure associated with it), shipping docks, and rail lines.
"Common carriers exercise a sort of public office, and have duties to perform in which the public is interested.... Their business is, therefore, 'affected with a public interest.'"-- The majority opinion of Chief Justice Waite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
 |
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
That's bullshit. Anarchism can organize people - it's just voluntary. Spain, again, is the principle example of what an anarchist society can do. |
Ukraine, also (though that wasn't industrialized) and numerous hunter-gatherer & agrarian societies.
[/QUOTE] The Roman Republic has been romanticized, but in reality it wasn't all that great. There were huge, huge slave populations, for instance. [/QUOTE]
Not to mention their massive aggression against their neighbors.
quote:
Anarchism means no authority, not no government. Most anarchists advocate "libertarian" governments, including a responsible police force. |
That depends on how you define "government." I use the term to mean the same as the state - "an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence." It's a central rule making body which uses various coercive institutions (prisons, courts, police, etc.) to force people to obey it's dictates. It's a means by which a minority imposes itself on the majority. I envision an anarchist society organised around a federation of communes and community assemblies. I suppose you could call this a government, but the term becomes sort of meaningless then.
Most anarchists that I know do not advocate police, not in the modern sense anyway. Most crime is caused by poverty, poverty would be eliminated in Anarchy (since classes would be gone), therefore most crime would dissapear. A proffessional police force is unnecessary, and would be quite dangerous. What few anti-social acts remain could be taken care of without professional police by social pressure, arbitration, community meetings, isolation, removing the underlying social causes of crime, etc.
The claim about thugs taking over in Anarchy is ironic because the state is just a bunch of thugs with a monopoly over a particular area. This objection to anarchism implicitly assumes that ordinary people are somehow less moral or more prone to "thuggishness" then politicians. In practice, it's usually the other way around - power corrupts. If people are too "thuggish" to be free then they're far too "thuggish" to rule. The worst that can happen in Anarchism is that an authoritarian society would reemerge. The best that can happen in an authoritarian society is that it would become anarchist.
quote:
By any chance, are you a primitivist? |
Not really, though I do sympathise with them. I tend to view civilization as a wash - it has had many ill effects and some good ones. I usually like the label Anarchist-Communist or just plane old anarchist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--"And so while all everyone waiting on this crystal ball solution to appears, more and more farmers go into bankruptsy."
So instead the federal government butted in and the farmers went into bankruptsy anyway, and then when something came along that would have actually fixed the problem it was prevented from doing so.
--"be "reasonable and just"."
Vague enough to mean absolutely nothing, which is why those kinds of restrictions are often written into law.
That way, when the reformers move on to the next target, the vested interests (in this case the railroads) can stick around and play with the rules.
--"How do you know the guy was a liberal?"
Looking at the text in his article.
Many of these people (liberal columnists) do self-identifiy, you know. I'm willing to accept their categorizations of themselves in most cases.
--"In fact, are all the articles and studies I've mentioned by "liberals"?"
Don't know, haven't checked into them all.
--"You're right. It's a governement responsibility"
You totally missed my point again.
The only government responsibility is to protect the rights of its citizens and to apply the law impartially and equally to all. When it does not do so you get things like the railroad cartels being able to hinder the trucking industry. It takes government cooperation for any abusive monopoly to exist.
--"Their business is, therefore, 'affected with a public interest.'"
That definition is so broad it covers nearly everything. It can easily be interpreted as support for communism, since application of those loose terms would allow government control of the entire economy.
This was also said by one of the least experienced Chief Justicies in US history. One who also said this:
quote:
For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts.--Chief Justice Morrison Waite, Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 134 (1876) |
He also wrote majority opinion on a case that allowed states to impose, retroactivly, regulations on businesses located in other states. He was also the Chief Justice who effective gave corporations their legal-ficiton status as individuals (and this was in a railroad case, no less). This guy is not exactly the best model of constitutional law (or of how government protects us from "evil companies") you could have picked.
Wraith
"It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake."
-- H.L. Mencken
Last edited by Wraith on 19-01-2002 at 21:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
bah, I just wrote over 1500 words to reply to mobius, and now this.
I'll only tackle the easier things.
quote:
Sometimes, but their authority generally was based on respect, not the police. |
Because the rest of the tribe acts as police.
If you disrespect the elders, the elders make the others come and eat you (yes I know, I'm associating you anarchists with man-eaters on purpose )
quote:
I don't know where you're pulling this evolution or development or whatever from. |
Ok, what I'm saying is that you can't claim that a society that haven't evolved at all is an example of how you can evolve a different system.
The fact is, everone used to be in the primal form, but most evolved since and developed elites.
The societies you bring as examples haven't evolved at all - so they can't be an example of how evolving elites isn't natural.
quote:
You haven't explained why new science requires new morality, etc., and how this has ANYTHING to do with the seizure of power. |
Blah, it's too damn long.
quote:
Joe isn't relying on social "scientists" to rationalize his statements, but is providing the justification himself. |
But his counter arguement is a bad one.
He argued "those books mean nothing since their claims are wrong and will be refuted in the future".
I can say that same about his own claims.
quote:
And if you want me to explain why I think calling sociology a science is bollocks, I'd happily do that. |
I'm not justifying that science at all.
But still it'd be nice to hear.
quote:
It isn't just that. The bubonic plague began receding from Europe (with a few exceptions, such as certain places along the Mediterranean) around the 8th century. |
and the black plague came to take it's palce in the 14th century.
and still i'd imagine life in the 14 century was a bit better.
quote:
That's bullshit. Anarchism can organize people - it's just voluntary. Spain, again, is the principle example of what an anarchist society can do. |
Eh, I'll have to read bout that.
I still don't believe you, you communist liar
quote:
Look, go to your library and check out a book by George Orwell called "Homage to Catalonia." Then come back and tell me what anarchism can or cannot do. |
Thanks. 
quote:
I'm not very fond of the Christian Church either, but to blame them for the decrease of quality of life (over the Greek religion) is ludicrous. |
The christian church was much more than a religion and infact was a seriously strong political body, that set the agenda around europe.
The Greek religion was far less binding and gave much more personal freedom.
quote:
There were powerful governments all around Europe! It's just that power was more concentrated than previously. The feudal lords, in fact, were quite a bit more authoritarian, in general, than the Roman government. |
The difference was, that the Roman government cared in some way for it's citizens and developed things.
Feudal lords, did nothing for the people. It was an obvious abuse of power.
quote:
Yep, another authoritarian system. |
I don't suggest just any authoritarian system.
I suggest one with bounds and regulations to assure the govt. stays benevolent towards the people.
quote:
That's bull. The Roman Republic has been romanticized, but in reality it wasn't all that great. There were huge, huge slave populations, for instance. Midieval life, in general, was quite a bit better than Roman life. |
I disagree.
If anything you're romanticizing medieval life.
Medieval people had no infrastructure and were basically all slaves of their numbered masters.
During Roman time, slaves were a lesser part of population and there were ways in which slaves became citizens.
quote:
As do all religions. |
Not true.
If I had known one bit about any eastern religion i'd probably be able to tell you something
But again, Judiasm.
It mainly preached for justice and for limited morality. It's control of a person's life and goals in life was never as complete as christianity, until the Jewish counter-reformistic orthodoxism starting from the 17th century.
quote:
That's not true at all. Better agriculture (make no mistake, it became infinitely better with plows, etc.) implies better and longer lives. |
In general true, but remember that suring the classical era, people lived until the 50s and sometimes 60s as well while in the medieval era, 30-40 was the common life length IIRC.
quote:
Which were not everywhere. |
but were somewhere, as opposed to medieval days where they were nowhere.
quote:
I repeat, feudalism, in the literal sense, was not in effect in industrial areas, but Western "capitalism." (personally, I like to call it corporate feudalism. ) |
Where were there capitalist industrial areas in in the medieval days?
quote:
United power for what? United power can be abused easily, and who says where this power should be directed? |
Every good can be abused into evil. We must make boundaries against it.
Power should be directed for the good of society.
How can you build a power plant or a road if not by a centralized body?
Who says where this power is directed? In democracy the intent is for the people who choose people to lead them according to what they represent.
quote:
a - How does the current system imply more people than anarchism, and why is that a good thing; look at South Asia or China, for instance. |
In china the life quality is poor because of misorganization and because there are more people than there is food and resources.
But more people are stronger than less people, assuming they have proper organization.
quote:
b - This "organization" adds overhead, makes a system ineffecient. |
How can a system without people moniotring it be efficient?
There are people with different talents. Some are better workers, some are better organizers. A system should use it. It's true it can be misused, but I suggest to fix it. You simply suggest reverting to a simpler form of society.
quote:
It didn't die out; it was assaulted by a power much, much bigger than it. |
I don't see how such power can be achieved with Anrachism.
That's the point - anarchism can't defend itself since defense requires some sort of "elites" for planning and controlling.
And you can't claim that it's simply a numerical difference, since history is full of smaller powers who were better organized and therefore defeated stronger communities.
Take Israel for example
quote:
Anarchism means no authority, not no government. Most anarchists advocate "libertarian" governments, including a responsible police force. |
I advocate a responsible police force.
but most anrachists advocate a police force with no force.
quote:
Which, I repeat, is due to size and firepower, not anything else. The anarchists, actually, were superior to their fascist, and liberal/Stalinist counterparts in terms of military competence. |
I don't believe you
I'll read that book.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka
Ukraine, also (though that wasn't industrialized) and numerous hunter-gatherer & agrarian societies. |
And we all know how quility of life is great in ukraine 
quote:
Not to mention their massive aggression against their neighbors.
|
Which says nothing about the well-being of it's civilians. If anything they gayned from the resources and slaves captured.
quote:
That depends on how you define "government." I use the term to mean the same as the state - "an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence." It's a central rule making body which uses various coercive institutions (prisons, courts, police, etc.) to force people to obey it's dictates. |
That is what a government could be if directed towards evil.
However modern day governments observe laws which are needed to have bounds for a possible life of a society. If there is no "don't kill, don't steal" law, then people would kill and steal.
quote:
It's a means by which a minority imposes itself on the majority. I envision an anarchist society organised around a federation of communes and community assemblies. |
In which case
a) you advocate the imposing of a majority of a minority
b) you can't create a huge assembly - you have to create representatives for "bigger scale" assemblies, in which you again create elites.
quote:
I suppose you could call this a government, but the term becomes sort of meaningless then. |
No. Your problem is that you associate government with a totalitarian state.
quote:
Most anarchists that I know do not advocate police, not in the modern sense anyway. Most crime is caused by poverty, poverty would be eliminated in Anarchy (since classes would be gone), therefore most crime would dissapear. |
This is rediculous.
Crime is caused be lawlessness and lack of morals rather than poverty.
Many poor people do not crime. Yet many rich people do crime, in hope to become richer. Crime is caused by Greed and caring for oneself over another.
Furthermore, classes aren't a cause for poverty rather a result. Classes don't really exist in non-monarchic/feudal societies.
Today classes exist as a way to describe differences between professions and income, which will not go away unless you give everyone the same pay no matter what they do.
quote:
A proffessional police force is unnecessary, and would be quite dangerous. |
Incorrect, since crime is caused when people are greedy, not poor or rich.
A police is there to enforce laws which are agreed upon by society in which they serve.
quote:
What few anti-social acts remain could be taken care of without professional police by social pressure, arbitration, community meetings, isolation, removing the underlying social causes of crime, etc. |
Oh, isolating criminals would be so effective when you don't really know who they are.
And Isolation is infact prison.
social pressure is infact taxes / fines.
quote:
The claim about thugs taking over in Anarchy is ironic because the state is just a bunch of thugs with a monopoly over a particular area. |
The state has monopoly over law-enforcement, not about laws.
The state has to have monopoly over law-enforcement, otherwise, people could make up their own laws and enforce them.
quote:
This objection to anarchism implicitly assumes that ordinary people are somehow less moral or more prone to "thuggishness" then politicians. |
not at all.
But there are proper mechanisms to stop politicians from getting thuggish. There also are mechanisms to stop people from getting thuggish. There are also mechanisms to have people become politicians and politicians lose thier status.
But politicians are needed since a horde can't rule itself in a non=representative form.
quote:
In practice, it's usually the other way around - power corrupts. If people are too "thuggish" to be free then they're far too "thuggish" to rule. |
Not true.
What should be is a mechanism to filter out those who are to thuggish and prevent rulers from becoming thuggish.
quote:
The worst that can happen in Anarchism is that an authoritarian society would reemerge. |
Yes, but that authoritaran society would not be as benevolent as todays democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Many of these people (liberal columnists) do self-identifiy |
And the identification in this case would be?
quote:
So instead the federal government butted in and the farmers went into bankruptsy anyway, |
Farmers demanding a fair soltuion to short haul rates and getting them leads to them going bankrupt anyway?
quote:
then when something came along that would have actually fixed the problem it was prevented from doing so. |
"Something" being trucks? And again, that would take looking 20-30 years into the future. If you are talking about trucks, they weren't "prevented" from "fixing" the problem. Prevented how?
quote:
Don't know, haven't checked into them all. |
Way to do your research.
quote:
The only government responsibility is to protect the rights of its citizens and to apply the law impartially and equally to all. |
I don't think the citizens of this nation would all agree with you.
And that definition is so broad it covers nearly everything. It can easily be interpreted as support for communism, since application of those loose terms would allow government control of the entire economy.
quote:
That definition is so broad it covers nearly everything. |
If someone were to look at that and take it out of context, sure, that's possible.
quote:
This was also said by one of the least experienced Chief Justicies in US history. |
Who also doesn't make decisions on his own, and in this case spoke for the majority. The rest of the Court were inexperienced? The ENTIRE House? All of the Senate but one?
quote:
For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts. |
Is that not normally one of the first actions taken in the system of checks and balances? when people don't agree with their legislatures, they vote them out of office?
quote:
He was also the Chief Justice who effective gave corporations their legal-ficiton status as individuals |
Coprorations are by definition a separate legal entity, that's one of their main points.
Last edited by Ted Striker on 20-01-2002 at 04:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
|
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
And we all know how quility of life is great in ukraine
|
Modern Ukraine is ruled by nationalists and was ruled by communists before that. You can blame them for any current problems. You obviously no virtually nothing about Nestor Makhno or what I was refering to.
quote:
Which says nothing about the well-being of it's civilians. If anything they gayned from the resources and slaves captured. |
The fact that you consider a slave society prosperous says quite a bit about the kind of society you advocate.
quote:
That is what a government could be if directed towards evil. |
To varying degrees all governments are evil.
quote:
However modern day governments observe laws which are needed to have bounds for a possible life of a society. |
There are thousands of laws that are on the books which are not needed for "a possible life of a society." The fact that there have been many societies without states proves that laws are not necessary for a society to exist.
quote:
If there is no "don't kill, don't steal" law, then people would kill and steal. |
People kill and steal even with those laws. How effective.
quote:
In which case
a) you advocate the imposing of a majority of a minority |
No, not really. But majority rule would be better than minority rule, which is what we have now.
quote:
b) you can't create a huge assembly - you have to create representatives for "bigger scale" assemblies, in which you again create elites. |
We could create a huge assembly with millions of people if we wanted to, I see no reason why this is impossible. But if we didn't want to we could instead create networks between various smaller assemblies. If a bunch of groups are working together on something and a decision needs to be made each individual assembly can discuss the issue among themselves and then assign a person to contact the other assemblies and convey their ideas. They can thereby form networks between assemblies and coordinate things.
What an Anarchist society could look like - http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html
An anarchist organising manual - http://www.radio4all.org/aia/
Your claim that anarchists can't organise, and that organisation always leads to hierarchy, is proof of your ignorance of Anarchism. We have built organisations with millions of members along anarchist principles without any kind of upper caste. The CNT is one famous example. You have to be an ignorant fool to reject a philosophy despite hardly having read a word about it.
quote:
Crime is caused be lawlessness and lack of morals rather than poverty. |
Crime has a demonstrated causative relationship with poverty. Recently, as the economy has gone south and unemployment gone up, crime has also started to go up. When the economy, and unemployment, begins to improve we will eventually see a drop in crime. Countries with greater economic inequality have less crime; those with greater inequality have greater crime. And by crime I mean things like murder, muggin and the like.
quote:
Many poor people do not crime. Yet many rich people do crime, in hope to become richer. |
Far more poor people commit violent crimes then rich ones. A person not in poverty will be able to meet their needs without resorting to crime, but it is much harder for poor people to do so. Crime is one of the very few options left open for survival to those in abject poverty. Hence, when poverty & unemployment go up, crime goes up (and vice versa).
quote:
Crime is caused by Greed and caring for oneself over another. |
Greed, etc. are promoted by class society and especially capitalism.
quote:
Furthermore, classes aren't a cause for poverty rather a result. |
By definition if you have classes you have poverty. That's the meaning of the term - division of society into rich, poor, etc.
quote:
Classes don't really exist in non-monarchic/feudal societies. |
Boy is your head deep in the sand! There are most certainly types of class societies other then feudalism. Slave societies, for example, have a quite obvious stratification between slaves, masters and non-slaveowning free people. State Socialism as practised in the USSR had stratification between workers and party members. Modern Capitalism has stratification between workers, bosses, capitalists and others. All of these are class societies.
quote:
Today classes exist as a way to describe differences between professions and income, which will not go away unless you give everyone the same pay no matter what they do. |
Rubbish. Class is defined by one's relationship to the means of production as well as power & prestige. A person who makes their living primarily off of money invested in the stock market is in a different class, the capitalist class, then someone who makes their money by producing things in exchange for a wage (the working class).
People who are ignorant of anti-class critiques often blather nonsense about "giving everyone the same pay no matter what they do." Such statements completely ignore the structures of class society and the critiques of them. In capitalism one class, the capitalists, make their living primarily off their ownership of the means of production. They thus accumulate massive amounts of wealth due to this ownership. If property relations were changed this would also change. For example, syndicalists advocate the means of production (factories, mines, etc.) being owned by the people who work in them, the workers. This would greatly change the distribution of wealth since the workers would probably choose to distribute the wealth among them approximately equally (or proportional to working time), rather then giving the majority of it to some capitalist who doesn't even work there.
The structure of a company is essentially fascist in nature. There is a hierarchical power structure, with those at the top exerting almost complete control over those under them. Those on the bottom must obey those on the top, period. While there may be some amount of consultation from the top to the lower levels, the same can be said of any slave society. There are no elections, no voting. Those on top have an absolute rule. Capitalism is an economic dictatorship. The fact that one can quit a job is irrelevant - if you could immigrate from a totaltarian society that wouldn't make totaltarianism right.
quote:
Incorrect, since crime is caused when people are greedy, not poor or rich. |
Then explain why crime rises with poverty.
quote:
A police is there to enforce laws which are agreed upon by society in which they serve. |
It's the government that set's the laws, not "society." There are many laws which most people don't support.
quote:
And Isolation is infact prison.
social pressure is infact taxes / fines. |
False analogy.
quote:
The state has monopoly over law-enforcement, not about laws. |
Uh, it has both.
quote:
The state has to have monopoly over law-enforcement, otherwise, people could make up their own laws and enforce them. |
Or we could just NOT HAVE LAWS AT ALL (law = decree of a state).
quote:
But there are proper mechanisms to stop politicians from getting thuggish. |
Which don't work very well in practise.
quote:
There also are mechanisms to stop people from getting thuggish. There are also mechanisms to have people become politicians and politicians lose thier status.
But politicians are needed since a horde can't rule itself in a non=representative form. |
People are quite capable of making decisions for themselves without bosses telling us what to do. One of the problems with representative systems is that an elected representative is not tied in any substantial way to particular policies, whatever the preferences of the electorate. Influence on the politician is greatest at the time of election. Once elected, the representative is released from popular control but continues to be exposed to powerful pressure groups, especially corporations, state bureaucracies, lobbyists, and political party power brokers. Thus this "democracy" becomes little more then a fraud.
"All the methods employed -- divine consecration, selection, succession, voting and elections, assemblies, parliaments and senates -- have proved and still prove ineffective. Everybody knows that not one of these methods has succeeded either in preventing the misuse of power or in entrusting it only to immaculate men. Everybody knows on the contrary that men possessed of power -- be they emperors, ministers, chiefs of police, or policemen -- are for that very reason more apt to become demoralized (that is, to subordinate the public interest to their own) than men who do not possess power, nor can it be otherwise." - Leo Tolstoy
quote:
Yes, but that authoritaran society would not be as benevolent as todays democracy. |
That authoritarian society would probably be just like today's democracy. The worst that'll happen in anarchy is we'll end up right back where we are now.
You should really read about a philosophy before you start trying to criticise it, instead of displaying your ignorance so blatantly.
"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners." - Edward Abbey
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
|
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The societies you bring as examples haven't evolved at all |
Some have.
quote:
He argued "those books mean nothing since their claims are wrong and will be refuted in the future". |
No I didn't, your'e misinterpriting my words.
quote:
Medieval people had no infrastructure and were basically all slaves of their numbered masters. |
There were very few slaves in Europe during the middle ages. Rome's economy was largely based on slavery, though.
quote:
How can you build a power plant or a road if not by a centralized body? |
Probably The same way they built factories in the Spanish Revolution.
"If by industry is meant a group of manufacturing establishments making the same type of merchandise in a county, province, or region, then there was no optical industry in Spain before the 19th of July....
.... The greatest innovation was the construction of a new factory for optical apparatuses and instruments. The whole operation was financed by the voluntary contributions of the workers. In a short time the factory turned out opera glasses, telemeters, binoculars, surveying instruments, industrial glassware in different colors, and certain scientific instruments. (The workers presented Buenaventura Durruti with a special set of field glasses.) Another achievement was the opening of a new, up-to-date optical school.... The workers had every reason to be proud of these achievements. What private capitalists failed to do was accomplished by the creative capacity of the members of the Optical Workers' Union of the CNT." - Augustin Souchy and P. Folgare (eds.), "The Collectivization of the Optical Industry," in Sam Dolgoff (ed.), The Anarchist Collectives, ch. 7
quote:
That's the point - anarchism can't defend itself since defense requires some sort of "elites" for planning and controlling. |
Of course we can defend ourselves. Just arm the population and organise militias. That's what was done in Spain and they didn't need states or ruling classes to do that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mihai
|
|
Bucharest, Romania
Jan 2000
time: 07:17
|
|
I read only first half of this thread, but I want to say something (before I forgot )
First, I want to say something about the initial topic of this thread….
It seems that in US the police is considered more as an occupation force than a law inforcement organisation. What happen with “we serve and protect”?. I mean if you are subject of a police illegality you can sue the police force and the town. I am sure that in USA you have more chance to win that in Romania (I don’t know about the rest of Europe). What use is a weapon against the police? You will be overnumbered and outguned very fast.
I remember that in 2001 a policeman was shoot down in Timisoara (west of the country). Policemen and public opinion was outraged because that policeman died because his crappy pistol (“Carpati” model 1972) was useless against the bad guys submachine gun. Government took the decision to buy 20,000 pieces of newer and better models. Until those will arrive, the policemen were equiped with AK 47 Kalashnicov. A week after the shooting I had a little shock to see in the middle of Bucharest a road-policeman with a Kalashnicov on his back.
The police, as an institution, had a bad name (coruption and everthing), but public opinion usually take side to the police when they are wounded in confrontation with suspects. Because few civils have guns (you need a special permit to have a gun), this kind of incidents are seldom.
And now about unemployement, welfare and Co.
Those who oppose to minimum wage forgot the vicious circle : some people are in a desperate situation (no money, no house, kids, etc) and they will accept almost any wage, simply because they cannot wait at all. This way they will work up to 12-14 hours/day (if there is a limit of 8 hours/day they’ll take 2 jobs) for little money, just enough to survive he and his family. He will simply not have the time to look for a better job and he will remain prisoner in this situation. His kids won’t have posibility to learn too much and take some better jobs than their parent. Also there are some people in the middle class who had a badluck (illness, company closing etc) and little or no financial reserve (most people keep the same level of expensives when thir income decrese because they hope it’s just temporary) and they became despearate and … back to the beginning of the phrase.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-01-2002 13:36
|