Essential Political Reading

[Danish]

This is a list of readings that are crucial to a comprehensive understanding of political science. It is by no means exhaustive. Part of the purpose of this thread is to debate what should be included, what should be excluded, and under what heading each belongs. Feel encouraged to make recommendations and discuss any political material you are currently reading. Keep in mind that a number of readings on the list could easily fit into more than one category (note: I have not read everything on this list).

Preliminary Reading

Jostein Gaarder - Sophie's World

Ancient Political Theory

Thucydides - The Peloponnesian War
Sun Tzu - The Art of War
Plato - The Republic
Plato - The Last Days of Socrates
Aristotle - The Politics
Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics
Cicero - The Republic and The Laws
Machiavelli - Discourses
Machiavelli - The Prince

Modern Political Theory

Thomas More - Utopia
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
Immanuel Kant - Political Writings
John Rawls - A Theory of Justice
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Discourse on Inequality
G. W. F. Hegel - Philosophy of Right
Friedrich Nietzsche - Thus Spake Zarathustra
Friedrich Nietzsche - The Will to Power

Classical Liberalism

John Locke - Two Treatises of Government
John Locke - A Letter Concerning Toleration
Charles de Montesquieu - The Spirit of the Laws
John Stuart Mill - On Liberty
Thomas Paine - Common Sense
Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America
Jeremy Bentham - The Principles of Morals and Legislation
Alexander Hamilton et al. - The Federalist Papers

Conservatism

Edmund Burke - Reflections on the Revolution in France

Marxism/Anti-Marxism

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - The Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx - Das Capital
Karl Marx - Gründrisse
Max Weber - The Protestant Work Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism

Anarchism

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - What is Property?
Mikhail Bakunin - God and the State
Mikhail Bakunin - Statism and Anarchy
Emma Goldman - What is Anarchism?
Daniel Guerin - Anarchism: From Theory to Practice
Noam Chomsky - Chomsky on Anarchism
Murray Rothbard - The Ethics of Liberty
Peter Kropotkin - Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
Peter Kropotkin - The Conquest of Bread and
Peter Kropotkin - Fields, Factories and Workshops

Fascism

Joseph de Maistre - Considerations on France
Friedrich Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil
Thomas Malthus - An Essay on the Principle of Population
Arthur De Gobineau - The Inequality of Human Races
Georges Sorel - Reflections on Violence
Giovanni Gentile - Origins and Doctrine of Fascism
Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf

Marxism after Marx

Vladimir Lenin - The State and Revolution
Leon Trotsky - History of the Russian Revolution
Leon Trotsky - The Revolution Betrayed
Antonio Gramsci - Prison Notebooks
Rosa Luxemberg - Accumulation of Capital
Che Guevara - Guerilla Warfare
C. Wright Mills - The Power Elite

Political Economy

Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations
David Ricardo - Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
John Maynard Keynes - The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
Ludwig von Mises - Human Action

Industrial Relations and the Labour Movement

Upton Sinclair - The Jungle
Frederick Taylor - The Principles of Scientific Management
Paul LeBlanc - A Short History of the U.S. Working Class: From Colonial Times to the Twenty-First Century
Craig Heron - The Canadian Labour Movement: A Short History
Patrick Renshaw - The Wobblies
Stuart B. Kaufman - The Samuel Gompers Papers
Susan Ferriss - The Fight in the Fields
Kim Moody - Workers in a Lean World
Michael Yates - Why Unions Matter
Bob White - Hard Bargains
Leo Panitch and Donald Swartz - From Consent to Coercion: The Assault on Trade Union Freedoms

Global Politics/International Relations

Vladimir Lenin - Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism
Joseph S. Nye - Understanding International Conflicts
Joseph Nye - Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics
John A. Hobson - Imperialism: A Study
Robert Cooper - The Post-Modern State
Daniel Deudney - Bounding Power: The Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village
Immanuel Kant - Perpetual Peace
Kenneth Waltz - Man, the State, and War
Kenneth Waltz - Theory of International Politics
Hans Köchler - Democracy and the International Rule of Law
Immanuel Wallerstein - World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction.

Post-Modernism

Michel Foucault - Discipline and Punish
Michel Foucault - Madness and Civilization
Herbert Marcuse - One-Dimensional Man
Herbert Marcuse - Eros and Civilization : A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud
Theodor Adorno - Culture Industry
Michael Foucault - The Archaeology of Knowledge
Jean Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulation
Jacques Derrida - Of Grammatology
Hayden White - Metahistory
Frederic Jameson - Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic Of Late Capitalism
Jean-Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness

Feminism

Mary Wollstonecraft - The Vindication of the Rights of Women
Simone De Beauvoir - The Second Sex
Betty Friedan - The Feminine Mystique
Naomi Wolf - The Beauty Myth : How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women
Howard Zinn - Emma

Colonialism/Liberation

Franz Fanon - The Wretched of the Earth
Edward Said - Orientalism
Edward Said - Culture and Imperialism
Jean-Paul Sartre - Colonialism and Neocolonialism
Malcolm X - By Any Means Necessary
Attallah Shabazz - The Autobiography of Malcolm X
Huey P. Newton - War Against the Panthers
Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals

Environmentalism

Rachel Carson - Silent Spring
William McDonough and Michael Braungart - Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things
Richard Heinberg - The Party's Over
David Suzuki - The Sacred Balance
Paul Burkett - Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective
Rex Weyler - Greenpeace
Ronald Wright - A Short History of Progress

Liberation Theology

Oscar Romero - Voice of the Voiceless
Oscar Romero - The Violence of Love
Jon Sobrino - Jesus the Liberator

Queer Theory

Michel Foucault - The History of Sexuality
Judith Butler - Undoing Gender

Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism

Leo Strauss - Natural Right and History
Leo Strauss - On Tyranny
Henry Kissenger - Diplomacy
Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Milton Friedman - Capitalism and Freedom
Allan Bloom - The Closing of the American Mind
Francis Fukuyama - The End of History and the Last Man
Samuel P. Huntington - The Clash of Civilizations
David Horowitz - The Politics of Bad Faith
David Horowitz - Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left
David Frum and Richard Perle - An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror
Noam Chomsky - Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order
Noam Chomsky - Hegemony or Survival

Globalization

Naomi Klein - No Logo
Joseph E. Stiglitz - Globalization and its Discontents
Jagdish Bhagwati - In Defense of Globalization
Thomas Friedman - The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization
Thomas Friedman - The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

Media

Walter Lippman - Public Opinion
Edward Bernays - Propaganda
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman - Manufacturing Consent

Political History

Jared Diamond - Guns, Germs, and Steel
Howard Zinn - A People's History of the United States
Eric Hobsbawm - The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848
"""""""""""""""""""" - The Age of Capital: 1848-1875
"""""""""""""""""""" - Age of Empire: 1875-1914
"""""""""""""""""""" - The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991

Political Fiction

George Orwell - 1984
George Orwell - Animal Farm
Aldous Huxley - Brave New World
Joseph Heller - Catch 22
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
William Golding - Lord of the Flies
John Steinbeck - The Grapes of Wrath
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged

[Danish]

Thank you very much!

[MAthiAS]

As long as things like environmentalism and sexuality are included, why not include some recommendations on religion, various fors and againsts obviously.

[CabbageStabbage]

A good against for the religion idea is Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian". Reading that right now

[TheBigPK]

Wow, quite the list! Ive read a lot of them too... One thing, maybe 1984 could be in Modern Political theory? Theres the book, the 10,000 word book within a book in that which is like 10% of the entire book in print and it's all Orwell's theory, very interesting. That or some of his other works concerning language as a tool of control, sorry dont have names at the moment but they are worth a read--ill try to repost them. Anyway, very good list. Just really wanted to highlight 1984 and The Prince.

[Danish]

Wow, quite the list! Ive read a lot of them too... One thing, maybe 1984 could be in Modern Political theory? Theres the book, the 10,000 word book within a book in that which is like 10% of the entire book in print and it's all Orwell's theory, very interesting. That or some of his other works concerning language as a tool of control, sorry dont have names at the moment but they are worth a read--ill try to repost them. Anyway, very good list. Just really wanted to highlight 1984 and The Prince.

1984, in my opinion, is one of the most important political works of the 20th century. However, it is fiction and, as such, is included under fiction. Great suggestion though.

Also, about religion, I would like to add some religious works to the list. The problem is, I'm not too up on what's important besides the Bible and the Koran (sp?). I'll add those, though, under Ancient Political Theory.

[MAthiAS]

I was also thinking along the lines of say, Mere Christianity, as many on here suggest, and other modern arguments on religion.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Mere Christianity isn't essential reading

[jenyus]

Civil Disobedience Henry David Thoreau was left off the list.

[lfantwister]

If youre doing religion you could include the 95 theses, or the Quest of the Historical Jesus, by Schweitzer.

[mx]

Burke shouldn't be listed as the only conservative philosopher. In any case, only the most radical conservatives would ever agree with him -- it's a poor representation.

[Danish]

Burke shouldn't be listed as the only conservative philosopher. In any case, only the most radical conservatives would ever agree with him -- it's a poor representation.

I agree with you, but it was the only example of classical conservatism I could come up with. What should I add?

[SubtleDagger]

There really aren't that many conservative philosophers; Burke was the big one.

Confucius' Analects might be plausible but that's really not as relevant anymore. Maybe worth putting up though since some consider him a primitive conservative philosopher.

[dustindow]

under foreign policy.

Noam Chomsky- Failed States, The Abuse of Power and Assault on Democracy.




An excellent book! :thumb: Im reading it and im learning more and more why bush is more a criminal than a president.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

I say no. Chomsky is a jackass. And not essential reading.

[The_Entropic_Mind]

T
Political History

Jared Diamond - Guns, Germs, and Steel
Howard Zinn - A People's History of the United States
Eric Hobsbawm - The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848
"""""""""""""""""""" - The Age of Capital: 1848-1875
"""""""""""""""""""" - Age of Empire: 1875-1914
"""""""""""""""""""" - The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991
Thomas Friedman - The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century



Who is/are these blanked out names?

[dei]

It's telling you the books were written by the same author.

[Danish]

Who is/are these blanked out names?

As said above, the """"""""" is "Eric Hobsbawm".

under foreign policy.

Noam Chomsky- Failed States, The Abuse of Power and Assault on Democracy.




An excellent book! Im reading it and im learning more and more why bush is more a criminal than a president.

I haven't read that one, but I'm sure it's as terrific as Chomsky usually is. But I didn't feel right about loading the list with a gazillion Chomsky books (he has written like 70). Manufacturing Consent, Hegemony or Survival, and Profit Over People are all seminal works in their fields.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Manufacturing Consent, Hegemony or Survival, and Profit Over People are all seminal works in their fields.the different fields of the lunatic fringe, amirite?

[MAthiAS]

What is meant by 'preliminary reading'?

[Danish]

the different fields of the lunatic fringe, amirite?

Nope. Noam Chomsky is the most-cited living person. The importance of his work is unparalleled in academia today.

I say no. Chomsky is a jackass. And not essential reading.

Have you even read Chomsky?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Yeah, he made a great job of lying for the Khmer Rouge.

But hey, you're the guy who thinks the 30 hour week can solve all our economic problems.

[Danish]

Yeah, he made a great job of lying for the Khmer Rouge.

But hey, you're the guy who thinks the 30 hour week can solve all our economic problems.

Man, you are retarded. Prove he's an apologist for the Khmer Rouge.

[Iskandar]

What is meant by 'preliminary reading'?
Just reading as an introduction to political theory.

[Hababi]

The importance of his work is unparalleled in academia today.


In the field of linguistics, sure. CHomskey is the leading expert. But that's his niche in academia.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Man, you are retarded. Prove he's an apologist for the Khmer Rouge.sure
Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account.

the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors. The bolded words just show how much of a slave he is to his own dogma.


Oh, and here's a bonus quote. China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting and positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.

[Danish]

sure

The bolded words just show how much of a slave he is to his own dogma.


Oh, and here's a bonus quote.

First, cite the sources.

Second, the US bombing of Cambodia was a main cause of what precipitated there. I don't understand how Chomsky pointing out that obvious fact counts as an apology. You need to provide some context for those quote.

You need to provide some context for that last quote in particular.

In the field of linguistics, sure. CHomskey is the leading expert. But that's his niche in academia.

He's the most cited living person. His importance extends far beyond the field of linguistics.

[Smokey D]

Second, the US bombing of Cambodia was a main cause of what precipitated there. I don't understand how Chomsky pointing out that obvious fact counts as an apology. You need to provide some context for those quote.

I think you'll find Pol Pot and some bastard form of Maoist communism was the main cause of what happened in Cambodia.

Also, why aren't the Rights of Man I + II on the list?

[Hababi]

He's the most cited living person. His importance extends far beyond the field of linguistics.


Within the circle of academic work, where's the bulk of his citation? He's the most cited because perhaps no one else has led one field in the last half century as much as he's led linguistics. But his political work is often amateurish, paranoid, conspiratorial and non scholarly.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

First, cite the sources.
the first quote is from an article by Chomsky and Edward S Herman, "Distortions at Fourth Hand". The second is from "After the Cataclysm", Noam Chomsky, 1980.


Second, the US bombing of Cambodia was a main cause of what precipitated there. I don't understand how Chomsky pointing out that obvious fact counts as an apology. Um, no

Chomsky claims that

-- the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter by the state. That is not an obvious fact; it's a complete falsehood.
-- He also blaims the US for the deaths; while they did indirectly help the Khmer Rouge to gain power, they were not responsible for the mass-killings that happened afterwards.

Here's the second quote in contex (the commentary here (http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm) shows just how wrong his treatment of Ponchaud's book was)

Ponchaud's book is based on his own personal experiences in Cambodia from 1965 until the capture of Phnom Penh, extensive interviews with refugees and reports from the Cambodian radio. Published in France in January 1977, it has become the best-known unread book in recent history, on the basis of an account by Jean Lacouture (in the New York Review of Books), widely cited since in the press, which alleges that Ponchaud has revealed a policy of “auto-genocide” (Lacouture's term) practiced by the Communists.

Before looking more closely at Ponchaud's book and its press treatment, we would like to point out that apart from Hildebrand and Porter there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. These reports also emphasize both the extraordinary brutality on both sides during the civil war (provoked by the American attack) and repeated discoveries that massacre reports were false.

They also testify to the extreme unreliability of refugee reports, and the need to treat them with great caution, a fact that we and others have discussed elsewhere (cf. Chomsky: At War with Asia, on the problems of interpreting reports of refugees from American bombing in Laos). Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account.

You need to provide some context for that last quote in particular.This (http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm) is the discussion that it is taken from

[Smokey D]

Mary Woolstonecraft needs a listing.

[Joel_DK_Clash]

I would recommend From Naked Ape To Superspecies by David Suzuki under enviromentalism.

I havn't read the Suzuki book you already have up, but Naked Ape really puts a lot in perspective.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Hello, Danish :wave:

the first quote is from an article by Chomsky and Edward S Herman, "Distortions at Fourth Hand". The second is from "After the Cataclysm", Noam Chomsky, 1980.

Um, no

Chomsky claims that

-- the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter by the state. That is not an obvious fact; it's a complete falsehood.
-- He also blaims the US for the deaths; while they did indirectly help the Khmer Rouge to gain power, they were not responsible for the mass-killings that happened afterwards.

Here's the second quote in contex (the commentary here (http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm) shows just how wrong his treatment of Ponchaud's book was)



This (http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm) is the discussion that it is taken from

[Dave de Sylvia]

He's the most cited living person. His importance extends far beyond the field of linguistics.
It's still misleading when you state he's "the most cited living person" in a political debate when, in fact, his readership in that area is very limited.

[Substitute]

Political Fiction
William Golding - Lord of the Flies

I would say LOTF is more of a dark ideologic metaphorically genius book explaining the nature of humans and good vs. evil rather than political science. I guess Ralph and Jack kind of do resemble political parties, but if I were to say that, I would have to point out that they also resemble good and evil, christianity vs. atheism, democracy vs. anarchy, society vs. chaos.

[Smokey D]

Lord of the Flies is like a description of what happens when you don't have government. It's quite Hobbesian, really.

[Iskandar]

I would have to point out that they also resemble good and evil, christianity vs. atheism, democracy vs. anarchy, society vs. chaos.
Wait, I don't understand. Why are you associating atheism with chaos and evil?

[Reaganista]

I would recommend From Naked Ape To Superspecies by David Suzuki under enviromentalism.

I havn't read the Suzuki book you already have up, but Naked Ape really puts a lot in perspective.
I didn't read that but I'm sure The Third Chimpanzee is better

[rockinbass17]

Kafka- The Metamorphosis

I was also thinking maybe some Vonnegut. I'm kind of a Vonnegut fanboy, so forgive me if he doesn't apply, but I feel some of his works belong up there. Cat's Cradle abd Slaugher-House Five under politcal fiction.

[Danish]

Lord of the Flies is like a description of what happens when you don't have government. It's quite Hobbesian, really.

My thoughts exactly.

*********

If you guys want something included (and I've considered adding a number of things suggested), you have to make a good argument for it.

[Danish]

It's still misleading when you state he's "the most cited living person" in a political debate when, in fact, his readership in that area is very limited.

But it isn't limited. He's been on the New York Times Bestseller list numerous times (at the #1 spot no less) and is the go-to guy for critical writing on American foreign policy. That's why he's on the list. Agree with him or not, you cannot diminish the role he plays in the political discourse.

To: nowheshingsnowhesobs, Zero, etc.:

I am not going to debate with you about whether Chomsky (note the spelling, Zero) was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, a Holocaust denier, has a tail, or anything else. I don't like mudslinging contests that really have nothing to do with anything, so the point is moot. Also remember that ad hominen arguments are not allowed in this Forum.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

It is not a moot point at all. It shows what a moron he is.

edit: reading this over again, I'm not sure why you feel that his defence of Faurisson and apologetics for the Khmer Rouge are irrelevant, considering that they do show quite clearly his character as a political commentator. When you say "I don't like mudslinging contests" wouldn't it be more honest to admit that you're unable to defend him on these points so just want to stop the argument. When you consider these point along with his position on Bosnia, his constant misrepresantation of the views of others, crackpot predictions about the war in Afghanistan and his trivializing of the 9/11 attacks I think they really do have a lot to do with the issue of his status as a political commentator.

[Reaganista]

Why isn't The Chairman's little red book on there?

[Dave de Sylvia]

But it isn't limited. He's been on the New York Times Bestseller list numerous times (at the #1 spot no less) and is the go-to guy for critical writing on American foreign policy. That's why he's on the list. Agree with him or not, you cannot diminish the role he plays in the political discourse.
Actually it is limited, by definition, because he's most quoted as a linguist not a political idiot.

[Reaganista]

chomsky is an idiot, Mao is the most quoted man of the 20th century.

[Smokey D]

Weren't Stalin and Mao rivals?

And dammit Danish, add Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (both of them). Common sense simply describes why Americans shouldn't listen to the King of England -- The Rights is his fully articulated philosophy.

[FatherKeeL]

lol. danish is still around? i think the reason why i joyned this forum was becouse you said some political statements in the punkforum that pissed me off. and then you went on bashing about my spelling. and then we sorted things out and i noticed "hey. cool forum, actually"...

just amused me to see you are still around and even more that you are doing forum politics :-)

been 4 years since a last read a post by you, i think.

(sorry for the spam. but i just had to write this.)

[Iskandar]

Weren't Stalin and Mao rivals?
Sort of. Stalin perceived him as a threat because of China's breaking from the Soviet Union and its methods.

[CabbageStabbage]

Still not seeing Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" up there. All about Stalinism and the GULAG. I read the first part - scared the crap out of me. Why isn't Stalinism denounced as much as Nazism?

Also, I'm starting Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism", looks like it'll be a very interesting read.

[Smokey D]

The true excesses of Stalin's regime are not fully declassified, and it is relatively difficult for western historians to get access to those materials that are. Further, for the last 400 years, there has been the implicit assumption that Russia was a barbarian state merely masked by a 'European' veneer, and that cruelty and vice were to be expected of them -- this notion was reinforced by anti-Communist propaganda and what information we do have on the regime. On the other hand, Germany was thought to be the world'd leading intellectual and cultural nation, paving the way for a brighter future with science and the arts. For it to suddenly collapse into one of history's worst depravities rebels against European-American notions of superiority, the March of Progress and the idea of inherent justice in our governments and institutions.

[23-inch dude]

for fascisme: the books from Julius Evola

I don't know if that is known in the USA or outside Europe, but what about 'new right'(nieuw rechts). The books from 'De Benoit' etc

For conservatisme: Theodore Roszak: The making of a counter culture

And very intresting is 'the praise of folly' by Desiderius Erasmus
It isn't fully political but still very usefull

[Against Miik!]

Could somebody who actually knows what they are talking about give me a condensed list of these books? I want informative, but not to taxing. Nobody is going to sit down and read The Federalist Papers front to back.

[Danish]

It is not a moot point at all. It shows what a moron he is.

edit: reading this over again, I'm not sure why you feel that his defence of Faurisson and apologetics for the Khmer Rouge are irrelevant, considering that they do show quite clearly his character as a political commentator. When you say "I don't like mudslinging contests" wouldn't it be more honest to admit that you're unable to defend him on these points so just want to stop the argument. When you consider these point along with his position on Bosnia, his constant misrepresantation of the views of others, crackpot predictions about the war in Afghanistan and his trivializing of the 9/11 attacks I think they really do have a lot to do with the issue of his status as a political commentator.

Have you ever heard Chomsky refute these ridiculous ad hominem attacks?

With the Faurisson affair, Chomsky only defended Faurisson's freedom of speech, not his thesis. He never diminished the Cambodian genocide (but pointing out the US' role in it raise a lot of ire in the US) or 9/11 (apparently you haven't even read the book of that title). Clearly he isn't a "moron", seeing as he's an Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT, the top school in the US.

I think you're only making these accusations because you can't refute his arguments in their own right.

[Smokey D]

Re-reading the list, I disagree with placing Bentham and JS Mill under Classic Liberalism. They were utilitarians (especially Bentham) and deserve their own classification.

[Danish]

Re-reading the list, I disagree with placing Bentham and JS Mill under Classic Liberalism. They were utilitarians (especially Bentham) and deserve their own classification.

I could create a new heading called "Ethics" or something and include utilitarians under that, I suppose. I don't know much about ethical philosophy, so you'd have to help me out.

[Smokey D]

I'm not too familiar with it either. All I know is Bentham especially and Mill to a large degree based their politics on utility, not natural rights theory like Classic Liberalism.

I spose if you were going to make an Ethics listing, you'd have to move Kant as well.

[superjoe]

what is a good source for information about current events? im looking for something thats not leftist, rightist...whatever...just soemthing informative and truthful.

[Antifa]

I suggest adding Nestor Makhno's Platform under Anarchism and the Economics section is all free-market b.s. Please add Peter Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops.
Thanks.

[Antifa]

I say no. Chomsky is a jackass. And not essential reading.

We anarchist communists refer to him as the Chompsky.

[Antifa]

Nope. Noam Chomsky is the most-cited living person. The importance of his work is unparalleled in academia today.



Have you even read Chomsky?

Chomsky's work in linguistics: possibly revolutionary.

Chomsky's work in politics: Counter-productive.

He divides people over small issues like why Bush is so bad. Workers need to realize that Republicans, Democrats, etc. are different sides of the same coin.

[Smokey D]

How about you post only once in a thread? Don't jam them up with multiple posts.

[Antifa]

I would say LOTF is more of a dark ideologic metaphorically genius book explaining the nature of humans and good vs. evil rather than political science. I guess Ralph and Jack kind of do resemble political parties, but if I were to say that, I would have to point out that they also resemble good and evil, christianity vs. atheism, democracy vs. anarchy, society vs. chaos.

Pure communism = anarchy = direct democracy.

[Antifa]

Weren't Stalin and Mao rivals?

And dammit Danish, add Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (both of them). Common sense simply describes why Americans shouldn't listen to the King of England -- The Rights is his fully articulated philosophy.

His fully articulated bourgeois philosophy.

Maybe you can make a section of Bourgeois authors and books. Throw in some Hobbes, Rousseau, Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine and all those other upper classmen.

[Antifa]

what is a good source for information about current events? im looking for something thats not leftist, rightist...whatever...just soemthing informative and truthful.

Left vs. right is a false demarcation.

[Antifa]

How about you post only once in a thread? Don't jam them up with multiple posts.

Because I'm html retarded.

[Danish]

Chomsky's work in linguistics: possibly revolutionary.

Chomsky's work in politics: Counter-productive.

He divides people over small issues like why Bush is so bad. Workers need to realize that Republicans, Democrats, etc. are different sides of the same coin.

I suppose you don't read Chomsky. If you did, you would have read his analysis of the last Presidental election, when he claimed the election was nothing more than "flipping a coin to pick a king."

You're an "anarchist communist"? How's that working for you?

[Hababi]

"flipping a coin to pick a king."


Which is a silly argument. Number one, "pick a king" is a hackeyned line, because a king is by rule hereditary and not chosen by the people. The people chose the candidates, then the people chose the president.

Second, to claim that there's no difference between Kerry and Bush is to stick your head in the sand. They're not radically opposite to one another, but there are still concrete differences that would result in different policies--IE on stem cell research and the environment.

PS I recently saw a debate from late last year between Chomskey and Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz was clearly the superior, and Chomskey was called on a few blatant misrepresentations.

[Smokey D]

Which is a silly argument. Number one, "pick a king" is a hackeyned line, because a king is by rule hereditary and not chosen by the people. The people chose the candidates, then the people chose the president.

Well, that's not always true. Many European nations had a tradition of elected kings.


Maybe you can make a section of Bourgeois authors and books. Throw in some Hobbes, Rousseau, Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine and all those other upper classmen.

The failure to distinguish between various groups in the so-called bougeoisie always was a failure of Bolshevism.

[Reaganista]

um rousseau and paine bourgeois?

wow look at all that capital

[Danish]

Which is a silly argument. Number one, "pick a king" is a hackeyned line, because a king is by rule hereditary and not chosen by the people. The people chose the candidates, then the people chose the president.

Second, to claim that there's no difference between Kerry and Bush is to stick your head in the sand. They're not radically opposite to one another, but there are still concrete differences that would result in different policies--IE on stem cell research and the environment.

PS I recently saw a debate from late last year between Chomskey and Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz was clearly the superior, and Chomskey was called on a few blatant misrepresentations.

The Republicans are more regressive on social issues (ie. gay marriage), but any thinking person realizes that those issues are only window dressing. They're both right-wing economically, so no long-lasting, progressive change can come through either party (something the AFL-CIO needs to figure out fast).

Funny, I watched the same debate and thought it was quite clear that Dershowitz got his *** handed to him, as did various reviewers of the debate.

[Hababi]

The Republicans are more regressive on social issues (ie. gay marriage),


I wouldn't say regressive. Regressive entails actually regressing from something, but right now, gay marriage is law in only one state, while more than a dozen have formerly rejected it (MA voters might still yet do the same). Gay marriage is law in around four countries, world wide. So, the best you can do is say that democrats (and not that many, either) are progressive on some social issues, but then progressive itself is a loaded word--pro entails something positive, but change isn't always good. If we eliminated age of consent laws, the pedophiles would deem it "Progress", but it would be a very bad thing--change isn't always good.


but any thinking person realizes that those issues are only window dressing.


Well there sure is a very boisterous group of people in America who think that matter is hardly window dressing ;)

I don't know how you can call environmental policy 'window dressing.' There is a strong, definite, discernable difference between the two parties and the issue will have dramatic long term consequences. If the GOP remains in power and remains largely apathetic to global warming, it'll have major reprucussions in future generations. Now, that in no way is window dressing.



They're both right-wing economically, so no long-lasting, progressive change can come through either party (something the AFL-CIO needs to figure out fast).


What do you mean by 'right wing economically'? Bush isn't a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination. If you're putting it in terms of 'favoring corporations' with economic policy, then you could put Bush in the 'right' and Kerry in the center. Kerry is strongly pro union and didn't support Bush's corporate tax cuts. So, putting them in the same camp, economically is a bit misguided.

[/QUOTE]
Funny, I watched the same debate and thought it was quite clear that Dershowitz got his *** handed to him, as did various reviewers of the debate.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing various reviewers from the www.ilovechomsky.com crowd, eh? ;) :p

Now, granted, I'm hardly unbiased. I don't know of any nonbiased reviews of analysis. But Chomsky was called out on several things:

1) His statement that some fringe guy was "directly involved" with negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Not only did Bill Clinton directly tell Dershowitz otherwise, but the audience member who'd been there clarified that the guy was not. Basically, Chomsky was calling the audience member, Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, the other members directly involved with the panel, etc. liars and saying that his so called expert was directly involved.
2) Chomsky's hyperbolic comparisons of Israel to Idi Amin.
3) Chomsky's refusal to endorse a peace plan he finds fault with, even if Palestinians would support it.
4) Chomsky's paranoid "US media in cahoots with Jews and US government" bit.

Etc.

Chomsky showed himself for what he is: a paranoid, borderline skitzophrenic lunatic with a distorted perception of reality and no committment to telling the truth. He's the left wing Ann Coulter.



Well, that's not always true. Many European nations had a tradition of elected kings.


True, but Chomsky was using the term as a pejorative.

[Iskandar]

What do you mean by 'right wing economically'?
Well, as they're both capitalist parties, they can be broadly placed on the same side of the spectrum. (That's not implying their economic policies are identical; just that they're both capitalist.)

[Hababi]

Well, as they're both capitalist parties, they can be broadly placed on the same side of the spectrum. (That's not implying their economic policies are identical; just that they're both capitalist.)

But then that's implying that capitalism is inherently 'right wing', which I think is faulty reasoning. If you're talking about pure, laissez faire capitalism, then ok. But both candidates support versions of a mixed economy with capitalist and socialist tendencies mixed together. That makes them both, to degrees, centrist. Bush is more to the right, obviously, but is in no way a laissez faire candidate.

[Iskandar]

But then that's implying that capitalism is inherently 'right wing', which I think is faulty reasoning. If you're talking about pure, laissez faire capitalism, then ok. But both candidates support versions of a mixed economy with capitalist and socialist tendencies mixed together. That makes them both, to degrees, centrist. Bush is more to the right, obviously, but is in no way a laissez faire candidate.
I personally believe capitalism is always right wing, if only slightly .. but that's just me.:)

Their idea of a mixed economy is really just capitalism with progressive taxes or something anyway.

[Hababi]

Their idea of a mixed economy is really just capitalism with progressive taxes or something anyway.


Well most everything is based on some perception of enterprise and the extent to which it is free and the extent to which the individual is responsible for their own outcome (this makes me sound like a libertarian, which I'm far from)

On the far left, you have the idea of no free enterprise and communal ownership of everything. Then, on the far right, you have the idea of absolute free enterprise and no government involvement or regulation of business.

If you support social security, a 40 hour (or something like it) work week, working conditions standards, unemployment, etc. that must place you in the center, because those are all socialist ideas. Depending on how much you want nationalization of industries, that pushes you left. Depending on how far you get away from the aforementioned ideas and others like them, that pushes you right.

So basically, I'm scaling this through the prism of enterprise.

[Iskandar]

So basically, I'm scaling this through the prism of enterprise.
I agree with everything you posted (!) but don't forget I see things from a leftist perspective; so I would feel class would have to be factored in.

To me, a class distinction is inherently rightist (the ... I definitely don't want to call it "freedom" ... the ability to own the means of production privately and have others work under you is a distinct defining feature of capitalism).

[Hababi]

I agree with everything you posted (!)


:lol: Now that's a first.


To me, a class distinction is inherently rightist (the ... I definitely don't want to call it "freedom" ... the ability to own the means of production privately and have others work under you is a distinct defining feature of capitalism).


The thing is, that if we reference the political compass test, anyone at least to the right of -4, if not -7, believes in the basic tenents of private ownership of means of production--it's just a matter of 'to what degree' that separates them. It's only really when you get the most left 15% or so that there's a fundemantal problem with the very idea of ownership of means of production.

[Iskandar]

:lol: Now that's a first.



The thing is, that if we reference the political compass test, anyone at least to the right of -4, if not -7, believes in the basic tenents of private ownership of means of production--it's just a matter of 'to what degree' that separates them. It's only really when you get the most left 15% or so that there's a fundemantal problem with the very idea of ownership of means of production.
You may be on to something. It's probably just instinctive bias, a hard-wired reaction to the phrase "private ownership." :)

[griftadan]

put in road to serfdom by hayek.

[Antifa]

I suppose you don't read Chomsky. If you did, you would have read his analysis of the last Presidental election, when he claimed the election was nothing more than "flipping a coin to pick a king."

You're an "anarchist communist"? How's that working for you?

1. Then explain to me why Chomsky, a self-proclaimed "anarchist communist" asked anarchists and other leftists to vote for Kerry? Does he like Kings?

2. Would you care to elaborate on your smart *** question?

[Antifa]

The failure to distinguish between various groups in the so-called bougeoisie always was a failure of Bolshevism.

Which is why I'm an anarchist, not a Bolshevik.

um rousseau and paine bourgeois?

wow look at all that capital

They may not have been bourgeois themselves, but their notions of equality, property and such most definitely were.

[Reaganista]

what's it like to stupid?

I'd like to know how the other half lives

[Antifa]

What's it like to be unable to complete a sentence correctly?

[Reaganista]

typing succintly is far more efficient than adding completely unecessary puncuation

but as a commie you wouldnt know anything about efficiency

[Antifa]

Capitalist excess is efficient? Merely producing what is neccesary would defeat the purpose of capitalism: to make as much capital as possible.

[Reaganista]

yeah to generate wealth and raise the standard of living

[Smokey D]

Which is why I'm an anarchist, not a Bolshevik.

The 'you're either with us or against us' thing was a Bolshevik addition to revolutionary theory.

[Antifa]

You're a dumbass. Anarchism has nothing to do with Bolshevism. There's nothing revolutionary about their ideology.

[Reaganista]

hahaha

you should stick around

[Surgicalgod]

Well I read Sophie's World, it was a very good read.

P.S: Could someone fix the URL tags in the first post?

[Iskandar]

typing succintly is far more efficient than adding completely unecessary puncuation

but as a commie you wouldnt know anything about efficiency
Punctuation aids in disambiguation of meaning. You lose at orthography.

[Reaganista]

none of my meanings are ambigious
ever

[pooble]

Capitalist excess is efficient? Merely producing what is neccesary would defeat the purpose of capitalism: to make as much capital as possible.

i dont really understand that. whats "neccasary"? is there some objective level of wealth that we are to have, above which is "excess"?

and there is no "purpose" to (free market) capitalism, its just a result of individual actions.

[SubtleDagger]

none of my meanings are ambigious
ever
what do you mean

[Danish]

I wouldn't say regressive. Regressive entails actually regressing from something, but right now, gay marriage is law in only one state, while more than a dozen have formerly rejected it (MA voters might still yet do the same). Gay marriage is law in around four countries, world wide. So, the best you can do is say that democrats (and not that many, either) are progressive on some social issues, but then progressive itself is a loaded word--pro entails something positive, but change isn't always good. If we eliminated age of consent laws, the pedophiles would deem it "Progress", but it would be a very bad thing--change isn't always good.

I think any time you refuse to extend the rights of a historically disadvantaged group, be they homosexuals or slaves, it can be considered regressive, even if only on an intellectual basis.

And I'm fully aware that "progressive" is a loaded word. It's one of the few I use.

Well there sure is a very boisterous group of people in America who think that matter is hardly window dressing ;)

The "religious right"? Don't get me started on them!

I don't know how you can call environmental policy 'window dressing.' There is a strong, definite, discernable difference between the two parties and the issue will have dramatic long term consequences. If the GOP remains in power and remains largely apathetic to global warming, it'll have major reprucussions in future generations. Now, that in no way is window dressing.

You can't call environmental issues "window dressing", that's true. But environmental issues have as much to do with economics as anything else. Democrats like Al Gore (most notably) like to fight for the environment and labour when little is at stake for them (ie. getting elected), but once elected they almost always govern from the right. Democrats and so-called "progressives" love Bill Clinton, but he did nothing progressive as president. By signing and upholding NAFTA, for instance, thousands of union jobs fled the US. Any leftist president would have tore it up in two seconds.

What do you mean by 'right wing economically'? Bush isn't a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination. If you're putting it in terms of 'favoring corporations' with economic policy, then you could put Bush in the 'right' and Kerry in the center. Kerry is strongly pro union and didn't support Bush's corporate tax cuts. So, putting them in the same camp, economically is a bit misguided.

No doubt Bush isn't fiscally conservative (have you ever seen such a high deficit? I haven't.), he's a neoconservative that focuses on American strategic dominance in international relations. No doubt all American presidents since WWII have included that in their list of goals, but it's emphasized much more in neoconservative White Houses (ie. Reagan, Bush II).

Kerry may have tried to make himself look pro-labour in his campaign, but that doesn't mean he actually is when push comes to shove. Let's not forget when his class interests lie. Clinton's fiscal policy wasn't even close to even social democracy, let alone democratic socialism. The Democrats, like the Republicans, are the party of capital. Perhaps they are a little more likely to put money in certain programs, but again it's for little more than show.

Before we get into a long discussion about this (and I really would like to), I think it's important that we all understand that politics is nothing more than a circus, at least the politics we see.

[Danish]

1. Then explain to me why Chomsky, a self-proclaimed "anarchist communist" asked anarchists and other leftists to vote for Kerry? Does he like Kings?

First of all, Chomsky is a self-proclaimed "libertarian socialist", not an "anarchist communist." Second, he signed a petition that supported voting for Kerry to stop Bush's insane foreign policy.

2. Would you care to elaborate on your smart *** question?

Yes, I would.

People on the left, I think, ought to drop all the stupid arguments about "communism vs. Trotskyism vs. anarcho-feminism vs. whatever."

We all hate capitalism and think it ought to be brought to its knees. As such, we all, as a collective, need to focus on gaining power. Politics is power. Let's argue about our new society when the time comes. For now, we should focus on taking power and using it to improve the lives of working class people.

[Hababi]

I think any time you refuse to extend the rights of a historically disadvantaged group, be they homosexuals or slaves, it can be considered regressive, even if only on an intellectual basis.

But what are you regressing from?

And beyond that, it's a matter of what's a right and what isn't. The Constitution spells out specific rights, and the 'right' to marry anyone of your choosing isn't one of them.




The "religious right"? Don't get me started on them!


Actually I was thinking more of the hyperactive gay groups who consider not being able to marry a person of the same sex as worse than world poverty :p

If it's only window dressing, then groups like the Teamsters should drop all involvement with it, right?



You can't call environmental issues "window dressing", that's true. But environmental issues have as much to do with economics as anything else. Democrats like Al Gore (most notably) like to fight for the environment and labour when little is at stake for them (ie. getting elected),


Well that's dismissing the idea that Gore is using his involvement in An Inconvenient Truth to kickstart a 2008 presidential campaign.


but once elected they almost always govern from the right. Democrats and so-called "progressives" love Bill Clinton, but he did nothing progressive as president. By signing and upholding NAFTA, for instance, thousands of union jobs fled the US. Any leftist president would have tore it up in two seconds.


Oh, I agree about Clinton, in that he was not in any way a progressive, but he also was not 'right'. He was a centrist democrat. On the political compass, he'd probably score a -.5 or so, economically, and a -1 to -2 socially. Basically, left-center (as opposed to center-left).

As for NAFTA, it was voted through by the senate 61-38. Ironically, some of the senators who opposed the measure were conservative stallworths like Strom Thurman, Ted Stevens and Jesse Helms. Some of the most liberal senators, including Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman voted for it (although Paul Wellstone did vote against it). http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395#name

What was wrong with union jobs leaving the US? Those jobs in turn went to citizens in other countries who otherwise wouldn't have a job. It improved the lives of many people. What prevented those union workers from getting other jobs? Isn't it more important for a family in Mexico to be able to put food on their table than for Joe Union guy to have a job paying three dollars an hour more?

And I say this as a somewhat pro-Union person. Speaking of unions, the SEIU (or at least I assume it's them) has been picketing a local grocery store for several months, bemoaning the store being a non union store. The employers don't like this any more than the managers do, and it makes the union look like they're more interested in their own power than the employees (also they're wasting union dues paying the picketers, who are accomplishing jack squat).



No doubt Bush isn't fiscally conservative (have you ever seen such a high deficit? I haven't.), he's a neoconservative that focuses on American strategic dominance in international relations. No doubt all American presidents since WWII have included that in their list of goals, but it's emphasized much more in neoconservative White Houses (ie. Reagan, Bush II).


I actually don't disagree with all of that, but I do disagree with the strategic dominance part. He's been virtually subservant to China, refusing to take a hard line against their currency manipulation and giving merely tepid, mealy-mouthed support to Taiwan in their struggle for independence. He's pushed through CAFTA and has the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (http://spp.gov/), which many on the right simply deplore, and suggest that he's much more interested in regional and global partnership than simple American domination--if he wanted that, he could enact rigidly anti-trade policies. It seems you desire an isolationist president, which ironically puts you more in line with Pat Buchanon than many liberals.




Kerry may have tried to make himself look pro-labour in his campaign, but that doesn't mean he actually is when push comes to shove. Let's not forget when his class interests lie. Clinton's fiscal policy wasn't even close to even social democracy, let alone democratic socialism.


Where do you put 'social democracy' on the political compass (yeah, I can't help but keep on referencing it)? If Communism ranges from roughly -8 to -10, Socialism ranges from -5 to -7.99, and I'd place social democracy in the -2 to -4.99 area.

I think you're still missing the concept of the center. Instead, you're having the "progressive" label and then everything to the right of that is termed 'right.' You're still fundamentally describing the range of idealogies on the left, whereas Clinton (and Kerry) was in the center.


The Democrats, like the Republicans, are the party of capital.


But as I discussed with Dropper, the only idealogies absolutely opposed to the very idea of capital are on the far left. 85% or so accept some form of capital idealogy, to varying degrees. So, you can't label 85% of idealogies "rightist."


Perhaps they are a little more likely to put money in certain programs, but again it's for little more than show.


You're trying to ascribe motive and I don't think that's wise to do--how can you say they're doing it "only for show?" That's assuming to know their conscience, and is ignoring the concrete differences between the two parties.

It reminds me of the rabid war hawks on the right who use the same type of rhetoric to castigate Bush because he hasn't attacked Iran, North Korea, Syria, France and Canada. Because he doesn't follow their line, he's automatically 'no different than the other guys', and the two parties are but one.




Before we get into a long discussion about this (and I really would like to), I think it's important that we all understand that politics is nothing more than a circus, at least the politics we see.

Meh I have a slightly more optomistic outlook on the political system than you, I suppose :p

That kind of goes back to a previous discussion we had about the political parties in America, where, if I remember correctly, you said that you wished we had more...erm, polarized parties (for lack of a better term)?

I think that our system of relative moderation is healthiest for a nation--it's why our elections don't have violent protests (well besides the 1968 Democratic convention), and we haven't had a civil war in 150 years. Compare that to nations where there are more polarized parties, and you'll find many, many more violent protests, uprisings, civil wars and civil unrest, and so on. I sure don't want that.

[Iskandar]

People on the left, I think, ought to drop all the stupid arguments about "communism vs. Trotskyism vs. anarcho-feminism vs. whatever."

We all hate capitalism and think it ought to be brought to its knees. As such, we all, as a collective, need to focus on gaining power. Politics is power. Let's argue about our new society when the time comes. For now, we should focus on taking power and using it to improve the lives of working class people.
Although I agree, I can see why there is conflict and division. Would you agree with a Stalinist (!) who wanted to install a one-party state, ban unions and institute forced collectivization?

On the flip side, there are a plethora of "separate" ideologies (particularly in anarchism) which are really not that different at all, fundamentally, and which could easily be synthesized. The only differences are petty variations in methods. The end goal is the same.

[Smokey D]

You can't call environmental issues "window dressing", that's true. But environmental issues have as much to do with economics as anything else. Democrats like Al Gore (most notably) like to fight for the environment and labour when little is at stake for them (ie. getting elected), but once elected they almost always govern from the right. Democrats and so-called "progressives" love Bill Clinton, but he did nothing progressive as president. By signing and upholding NAFTA, for instance, thousands of union jobs fled the US. Any leftist president would have tore it up in two seconds.

Since when do we concern ourselves with these constructed entities called nations, comrade? Capital must be globalised for a workers' revolution to have even the remotest chance of success. Fortunately for everyone involved, it's a process which eventually results in an rise in the standard of living making sustainable any shift towards socialism.



People on the left, I think, ought to drop all the stupid arguments about "communism vs. Trotskyism vs. anarcho-feminism vs. whatever."

We all hate capitalism and think it ought to be brought to its knees. As such, we all, as a collective, need to focus on gaining power. Politics is power. Let's argue about our new society when the time comes. For now, we should focus on taking power and using it to improve the lives of working class people.[/

First of all, I align myself with the left in that I do not consider myself part of the right, but I certainly don't desire the destruction of capitalism.

Secondly, the various revolutionary groups of Imperial Russia uniting without paying heed to ideology is one of the reasons the Bolsheviks came to power and formed the Soviet Union, and was certainly one of the key reasons in the failure of Anarchic Spain. Some new world order we got there, huh?

[Iskandar]

Secondly, the various revolutionary groups of Imperial Russia uniting without paying heed to ideology is one of the reasons the Bolsheviks came to power and formed the Soviet Union, and was certainly one of the key reasons in the failure of Anarchic Spain. Some new world order we got there, huh?
Anarchic Spain failed because of many reasons, including division among the leftist factions, a lack of foreign support and the corruption of the republican (government) politicians. Read Homage to Catalonia for an anarchist-biased but factual report.

I fail to see how simply uniting caused the failure of Spain. Are you suggesting the division could have been anticipated?

[Reaganista]

to stop Bush's insane foreign policy.
insanely awesome

[Volumnius Flush]

Marvin Olasky ~ Compassionate Conservatism

[pooble]

i must recommend Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. an economic treatise. despite how unpopular the subject seems to be here.. (economics)

[Smokey D]

I'm saying that whatever caused it, faliure to put aside differences in ideology fatally undermined the cause when it was faced with a concerted and international effort on the part of the Nationalists. Whatever can be said about Fascists, they know how to get things done.

[Reaganista]

Whatever can be said about Fascists, they know how to get things done.
especially how to get their country divided in half and occupied by foreign powers for 50 years

[Smokey D]

I believe they preformed that task with incredible efficiency.

[Antifa]

First of all, Chomsky is a self-proclaimed "libertarian socialist", not an "anarchist communist." Second, he signed a petition that supported voting for Kerry to stop Bush's insane foreign policy.


Newsflash: Libertarian socialism IS anarchist communism. The two phrases are synonymous.



Yes, I would.

People on the left, I think, ought to drop all the stupid arguments about "communism vs. Trotskyism vs. anarcho-feminism vs. whatever."

We all hate capitalism and think it ought to be brought to its knees. As such, we all, as a collective, need to focus on gaining power. Politics is power. Let's argue about our new society when the time comes. For now, we should focus on taking power and using it to improve the lives of working class people.

We already have seen what happens when we do that: Spain, 1936. No Maoist is sacrificing my revolution.

How is that even remotely plausible if we all have dramatically different ideologies?

[Iskandar]

We already have seen what happens when we do that: Spain, 1936. No Maoist is sacrificing my revolution.

How is that even remotely plausible if we all have dramatically different ideologies?
That's very true, yeah; but there is also pointless debate over ideologies which are really quite similiar. There are many supposed "schools" of anarchism that all have exactly the same goal.

[Danish]

Newsflash: Libertarian socialism IS anarchist communism. The two phrases are synonymous.

We already have seen what happens when we do that: Spain, 1936. No Maoist is sacrificing my revolution.

How is that even remotely plausible if we all have dramatically different ideologies?

Dude, without solidarity we'll never get anywhere.

[Danish]

Although I agree, I can see why there is conflict and division. Would you agree with a Stalinist (!) who wanted to install a one-party state, ban unions and institute forced collectivization?

On the flip side, there are a plethora of "separate" ideologies (particularly in anarchism) which are really not that different at all, fundamentally, and which could easily be synthesized. The only differences are petty variations in methods. The end goal is the same.

Oh no doubt, but I don't think Stalinists make up a very large portion of the radical left anymore. That's why any movement must be based on democratic principles. Anyone on the left with the exception of Stalinists and perhaps the odd Leninist is in favour of extending democracy to all aspects of public life, including the workplace and the economic sphere as a whole.

I was mainly talking about those leftists. Democratic socialists, anarchists, Trotskyists, all of us need to focus on building an egalitarian society within our lifetimes.

(I've been doing some thinking this summer, and I think I'm starting to embrace democratic socialism with more vigor than before. I used to consider it too reformist, but I don't think that matters so much now. We need to improve things now.)

[StreetlightRock]

Heh, this all reminds me of the Defiance, Ohio song "I don't want solidarity if it means holding hands with you"

let's stop this talk of privilage because the songs that we sing are as much a product of our privilage as the clothes on my back and the phone call i made to my mom last night. let's stop this talk of action because action comes easy it's the moments just before that are hard, when i've got to get my voice and my fist on the same page as my heart. let's stop this talk of them because the things we find deplorable in politicians, ceos and cops are the same things that will tear ourselves apart. and let's stop this talk of words because words like dishonesty selfishness and greed aren't as distanced to us as we'd like to believe.

so please, the next time you're smashing the state, don't go breaking my heart. because i know that when we pick up the pieces, the only thing left will be the same empty rubble that's made up every revolution that i've ever known to make me believe and lose faith in humanity in the same empty breath of hot air.

they say that the beauty's in the streets. but when i look around, it seems more like defeat. i'm afraid that this fight that we're all caught up in will make us the same as that which we oppose.

I love D,O

[Antifa]

There are two other "ideologies" that are nearly synonymous with anarchist communism. They are council communism and libertarian Marxism. Anarchism is not Maoism, or Trotskyism or Leninist vanguardism.

[Antifa]

Dude, without solidarity we'll never get anywhere.


Right, solidarity with 80 year old men who teach at MIT and preach for the poor but don't live like it.

[Smokey D]

I'm sorry -- I didn't realise someone living in a first world country using first world technology really counted as poor. Hypocrisy is not becoming.

Making some people better off is always better than making no people better off.

[Hababi]

I'm sorry -- I didn't realise someone living in a first world country using first world technology really counted as poor. Hypocrisy is not becoming.

Making some people better off is always better than making no people better off.

I'm pretty sure Chomsky has a nice house in a nice, lillywhite area. Even more certain about Zinn. They're like the hypocritical leaders of leftist revolutions who always end up swindling the people--'power to the working man...excuse me while I buy my private mansion'. If they believed their crap, they should live like the common man--or at least like Warren Buffet :p

[pooble]

im no socialist, but the other day i gave a homeless guy (actually just a poor guy sitting on the sidewalk) a microwaved lasagna. hows that?! free market libertarians stealing the socialist cause!

[Iskandar]

I was mainly talking about those leftists. Democratic socialists, anarchists, Trotskyists, all of us need to focus on building an egalitarian society within our lifetimes.
Now you've really hit the nail on the head here. There really isn't as much difference between those schools of thought as their more fervant proponents would want you to believe.
(I've been doing some thinking this summer, and I think I'm starting to embrace democratic socialism with more vigor than before. I used to consider it too reformist, but I don't think that matters so much now. We need to improve things now.)
Whatever solutions are practical work for me. I personally would prefer to work on building classless society before attempting a stateless society, since that's far more important to me (I feel states are merely an extension of class).

In any event, democracy must be retained (and improved) in order to make any progress at all.

[Antifa]

Oh no doubt, but I don't think Stalinists make up a very large portion of the radical left anymore. That's why any movement must be based on democratic principles. Anyone on the left with the exception of Stalinists and perhaps the odd Leninist is in favour of extending democracy to all aspects of public life, including the workplace and the economic sphere as a whole.

I was mainly talking about those leftists. Democratic socialists, anarchists, Trotskyists, all of us need to focus on building an egalitarian society within our lifetimes.

(I've been doing some thinking this summer, and I think I'm starting to embrace democratic socialism with more vigor than before. I used to consider it too reformist, but I don't think that matters so much now. We need to improve things now.)

Trotskyists are statists.
Democratic socialists are statists.
Anarchism is non-statist.

What's so hard to understand about that?

I'm not a fan of the butcher of Kronstadt and I'm not a fan of fake reform. I'm a proponent of radical change.

[Antifa]

Making some people better off is always better than making no people better off.

But at what cost?

[Reaganista]

um
the cost would be forgoing the ability to make no one better off

[Danish]

Right, solidarity with 80 year old men who teach at MIT and preach for the poor but don't live like it.

Well, if you knew anything about leftist politics, you'd know that class is not determined by income, but by an objective relationship with the means of production. Professors, while generally well paid, are still technically working class because they sell their labour to the owners of capital. In fact, most professors at Canadian universities belong to unions.

In other words, yes, solidarity with 80-year-old men who teach at MIT and preach for the poor but live according to their means.

No working class person (or any person, for that matter) can be faulted for making money from their labour. You don't have to be poor (or live poor) to identify with the working class. An 80-year-old professor at MIT (I assume you're referring to Noam Chomsky) may have been poor until s/he finished university. I know that's true of Chomsky, and it's true of many professors, especially those on the left.

[Danish]

Trotskyists are statists.
Democratic socialists are statists.
Anarchism is non-statist.

What's so hard to understand about that?

I'm not a fan of the butcher of Kronstadt and I'm not a fan of fake reform. I'm a proponent of radical change.

Statist or not, we all agree that capitalism is Public Enemy #1. We have to transcend ideology.

[Volumnius Flush]

I thought Osama Bin Laden was public enemy #1?

cite:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm

[Danish]

I thought Osama Bin Laden was public enemy #1?

cite:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm

lol Touche!

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Well, if you knew anything about leftist politics, you'd know that class is not determined by income, but by an objective relationship with the means of production. Professors, while generally well paid, are still technically working class because they sell their labour to the owners of capital. In fact, most professors at Canadian universities belong to unions.
When did marxism become the only valid form of leftist politics?

[Danish]

When did marxism become the only valid form of leftist politics?

It isn't. That's basically how class is defined. It has little to do with money and everything to do with power. Even an anarchist (the chief traditional opponents of Marx) would agree.

[Iskandar]

Higher and lower incomes are a result of class, not the other way around.

[Antifa]

Statist or not, we all agree that capitalism is Public Enemy #1. We have to transcend ideology.

No, hierarchy in any way, shape or form is public enemy #1.

[Antifa]

It isn't. That's basically how class is defined. It has little to do with money and everything to do with power. Even an anarchist (the chief traditional opponents of Marx) would agree.

Bakunin and Marx split at the 1st International. Since then, the majority of valid anarchist thought is libertarian Marxism.
Marxism's real enemy is the vanguardist parties you think I should fight next to.

[Antifa]

um
the cost would be forgoing the ability to make no one better off

Right, because the ends always justify the means.

[Danish]

Bakunin and Marx split at the 1st International. Since then, the majority of valid anarchist thought is libertarian Marxism.
Marxism's real enemy is the vanguardist parties you think I should fight next to.

Dude, a revolution isn't going to do us much good if conditions deteriorate much more.

[Reaganista]

Right, because the ends always justify the means.
they do
not that that's really relevant to what I was explaining to you

[Antifa]

Dude, a revolution isn't going to do us much good if conditions deteriorate much more.

Dude, a revolution isn't going to do us much good if we revolt just for the hell of it.

I'm beginning to wonder about your motives for revolution.

[Antifa]

they do
not that that's really relevant to what I was explaining to you

Maoist.

[Reaganista]

more like neoliberal
but you were only about as wrong as possible, so good guess

[Smokey D]

It isn't. That's basically how class is defined. It has little to do with money and everything to do with power. Even an anarchist (the chief traditional opponents of Marx) would agree.

Since when was leftist politics restricted to 19th Century Revolutionary theory?

[Antifa]

Since when was leftist politics restricted to 19th Century Revolutionary theory?

Since individualism starting sucking...always.

[Iskandar]

Bakunin and Marx split at the 1st International. Since then, the majority of valid anarchist thought is libertarian Marxism.
Marxism's real enemy is the vanguardist parties you think I should fight next to.
Not at all. I think you should read some more of Danish's posts before making a statement like that. I have read many of his in the time I've been here, and I can tell you he's no Leninist. I don't think anyone here supports the idea of a vanguard party.

We support political means as simply another tool to be used for the benefit of the working class. Because we far outnumber any other group of society, we can elect political parties whose rule will be more palatible, and conducive to attaining our goals. We're not placing blind faith in a revolutionary dictatorship or anything.

[Smokey D]

Since individualism starting sucking...always.

You've either never read Marx or you're terminally stupid.

[Antifa]

You've either never read Marx or you're terminally stupid.

Actually, I am terminally stupid.

[Antifa]

Not at all. I think you should read some more of Danish's posts before making a statement like that. I have read many of his in the time I've been here, and I can tell you he's no Leninist. I don't think anyone here supports the idea of a vanguard party.

We (anarcho-syndicalists) support political means as simply another tool to be used for the benefit of the working class. Because we far outnumber any other group of society, we can elect political parties whose rule will be more palatible, and conducive to attaining our goals. We're not placing blind faith in a revolutionary dictatorship or anything.

Whether he supports a vanguard party or not is isn't the issue. He calls for completely different ideologies to align into one.

I know this is off-topic but syndicalism is a flawed copncept. It is defeatist in nature. Since unions aren't revolutionary, and the ideology is not very polulated, there are 2 options for the syndicate.

1.) The union can recruit as many people as possible, leaving the syndicalists a small, disenfranchised fraction of the union.

2.) The union can only recruit syndicalists, leaving it a small union size, losing power to bargain collectively, or gain any ground at all.

[Iskandar]

Whether he supports a vanguard party or not is isn't the issue. He calls for completely different ideologies to align into one.
They aren't as different as you think.

The difference between Trotsky and Proudhon isn't nearly as vast as the difference between Marx and Smith.

I know this is off-topic but syndicalism is a flawed copncept. It is defeatist in nature. Since unions aren't revolutionary, and the ideology is not very polulated, there are 2 options for the syndicate.

1.) The union can recruit as many people as possible, leaving the syndicalists a small, disenfranchised fraction of the union.

2.) The union can only recruit syndicalists, leaving it a small union size, losing power to bargain collectively, or gain any ground at all.
Socialism in general isn't prominent. That's why the idea is to spread awareness of it.

Any halfway intelligent worker would realize that it's in his or her interest to support unionization in general.

[Antifa]

They aren't as different as you think.

The difference between Trotsky and Proudhon isn't nearly as vast as the difference between Marx and Smith.


Socialism in general isn't prominent. That's why the idea is to spread awareness of it.

Any halfway intelligent worker would realize that it's in his or her interest to support unionization in general.

I wouldn't use Proudhon as an example, but you're missing the point. There are major differences between Trotsykism and anarchism. They are both socialist, but nevertheless, there are major differences between the two. By asking me, an anarchist, to unite with the right-socialists, you're asking me to completely sacrficice my beliefs.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
**** off! We're the People's Front of Judea

[Antifa]

Sorry, that doesn't apply here.

[Iskandar]

I wouldn't use Proudhon as an example, but you're missing the point. There are major differences between Trotsykism and anarchism. They are both socialist, but nevertheless, there are major differences between the two. By asking me, an anarchist, to unite with the right-socialists, you're asking me to completely sacrficice my beliefs.
You can't expect every other leftist (and leftist is an extremely broad term, same as rightism) to share your exact beliefs. We have to compromise in order to get something done now.

[Danish]

Whether he supports a vanguard party or not is isn't the issue. He calls for completely different ideologies to align into one.

I don't think that's what I said. I called for solidarity between likeminded people. An anarchist like you should know the importance of solidarity and the difference between what I said and what you said.

I know this is off-topic but syndicalism is a flawed copncept. It is defeatist in nature. Since unions aren't revolutionary, and the ideology is not very polulated, there are 2 options for the syndicate.

1.) The union can recruit as many people as possible, leaving the syndicalists a small, disenfranchised fraction of the union.

2.) The union can only recruit syndicalists, leaving it a small union size, losing power to bargain collectively, or gain any ground at all.

Maybe unions like the UAW or the Teamsters aren't revolutionary, but that doesn't mean they can't be. Look at the IWW (again, I shouldn't have to tell this to an anarchist). Or look at syndicalists in 1930s Spain.

As an anarcho-syndicalist, I recognize that unions aren't able to carry the entire burden of reshaping society (even the social-movement unions we have in Canada). Not all people work (nor should they). Since paid employment is the basis of membership in most unions, it would be highly undemocratic to give unions that sort of power or social role. Rather, a functioning anarcho-syndicalist society would include other democratic associations like community assemblies. It would be based on solidarity (again, a concept I shouldn't have to explain to an anarchist such as yourself).

I wouldn't use Proudhon as an example, but you're missing the point. There are major differences between Trotsykism and anarchism. They are both socialist, but nevertheless, there are major differences between the two. By asking me, an anarchist, to unite with the right-socialists, you're asking me to completely sacrficice my beliefs.

See, this is the problem on the left. People so hard headed they can't even agree or compromise (or even work) with other leftists who support other ideologies.

By not working with others on the left, you are also violating your anarchist beliefs.

[Reaganista]

As much as I probably disagree with Antifa on everything else, I agree with them here
in principle

[Danish]

As much as I probably disagree with Antifa on everything else, I agree with them here
in principle

Of course you do. Capitalists have no conception of solidarity or working together, only working for one's own benefit.

[Smokey D]

Now that's just stupid. In a vague sense (that is, in that I'm not a card carrying left wing revolutionary), I could be called a capitalist, but I certainly recognise the power of collective bargaining. Quit spewing false rhetoric.

[Hababi]

Yeah and I'm absolutely pro capitalist and pro CB (even though it screwed a year of hockey :().

[Reaganista]

Of course you do. Capitalists have no conception of solidarity or working together, only working for one's own benefit.
go protest the liberations of Iraq and Afghanistan
or the movement of western jobs and technology to asia
or whatever other superhelpful things you commies have done for everybody

[Danish]

Now that's just stupid. In a vague sense (that is, in that I'm not a card carrying left wing revolutionary), I could be called a capitalist, but I certainly recognise the power of collective bargaining. Quit spewing false rhetoric.

"Could be called" and self-identifying as 'capitalist' are two different things.

go protest the liberations of Iraq and Afghanistan
or the movement of western jobs and technology to asia
or whatever other superhelpful things you commies have done for everybody

Sour grapes!

[Smokey D]

When I say 'could be called' I actually mean 'would call myself'. Unless you mean capitalist in the specific sense of one who owns significant capital, but I don't know how you know Tway fits under that definition.

[Hababi]

"Could be called" and self-identifying as 'capitalist' are two different things.


Even ignoring Smokey D's response, that's where I come into play ;)

You need to realize that your narrow Marxist classifications of all remotely capitalist mindsets just doesn't work.

[Reaganista]

Sour grapes!
the opening of one factory in malaysia will improve more people's lives in more meaningful ways than the sourest commie grapes ever could.

but keep chaining yourself to the student center, my horribly oppressed first world comrade

[Iskandar]

You need to realize that your narrow Marxist classifications of all remotely capitalist mindsets just doesn't work.
You need to stop immediately disregarding something because it's Marxist.:p

Hey, it's not like I don't see any variation in capitalist thought. There's just as much as there is in socialist thought, and that's not even including mixed economies.
the opening of one factory in malaysia will improve more people's lives in more meaningful ways than the sourest commie grapes ever could.

but keep chaining yourself to the student center, my horribly oppressed first world comrade
1) Sure it will ... unless one works there.

2) So because other people have it far worse than me, I should accept the status quo where I live? That lacks logical sense, but ok.

[Reaganista]

You should do things to help them
like participate in the capitalist system which raises the standard of living whereever the government is enlightened enough to allow it

rather than bemoan your horrible, oppressed existance as canadian college students and stand in the way of developments that will make things better for everyone

[Iskandar]

You should do things to help them
like participate in the capitalist system
I kind of have little choice but to participate in it, unless I want to be Thoreau.
which raises the standard of living whereever the government is enlightened enough to allow it
By that you mean it raises the GDP, which of course instantly means a better life for all, especially the working class.
rather than bemoan your horrible, oppressed existance as canadian college students and stand in the way of developments that will make things better for everyone
Y'know, I realized this today: Capitalism reminds me quite a bit of the infamous "little cell" or Auschwitz.

[Smokey D]

Increased GDPs associated with the adoption of capitalist or pseudo-capitalist policies are historically linked with a rise in the standard of living for any given society. There's a reason we live better and longer now than people did in the middle ages.

[Reaganista]

By that you mean it raises the GDP, which of course instantly means a better life for all
Yes

Y'know, I realized this today: Capitalism reminds me quite a bit of the infamous "little cell" or Auschwitz.
Yeah capitalism is the holocaust
that's a super comparison

[Iskandar]

Yes
Yeah, sewing shirts for $1.72 an hour with the bonus of being raped by your supervisor is definitely an improvement.
?

[Danish]

Increased GDPs associated with the adoption of capitalist or pseudo-capitalist policies are historically linked with a rise in the standard of living for any given society. There's a reason we live better and longer now than people did in the middle ages.

GDP is flawed as an economic indicator because it doesn't necessarily measure "good" growth. Every case of cancer, every divorce, every hurricane increases the GDP, but all of those things are clearly horrible. It counts negatives as positives, thus creating a distorted image of economic progress. Remember, economic progress necessarily means regression in some other form, particularly environmental destruction and other externalities.

Conventional liberal economics are just as ideological as any other economic or political theory.

[Reaganista]

Yeah, sewing shirts for $1.72 an hour with the bonus of being raped by your supervisor is definitely an improvement.
yeah because nobody was ever raped before capitalism and nobody will be in our future syndaclist rice-paddies

I said it reminded me of the Little Cell of Auschwitz
you said the 'little cell' or auschwitz
and I'm not particularly interested in hearing commie fables about genocide

[Danish]

yeah because nobody was ever raped before capitalism and nobody will be in our future syndaclist rice-paddies

I have a question for you:

Who has more power in the workplace, the worker or the employer?

[Reaganista]

it depends
usually the employer
but so what
the strong attacker has power over the small woman no matter what economic system she lives under

[Danish]

it depends
usually the employer
but so what

Do you think democracy is a good idea?

[Reaganista]

I think democracy in it's current form is a tolerably effective way of perserving freedom

and I think that when it fails to be such it must be discarded

[Danish]

I think democracy in it's current form is a tolerably effective way of perserving freedom

and I think that when it fails to be such it must be discarded

What system of political relations would you find more "tolerable"?

[Smokey D]

GDP is flawed as an economic indicator because it doesn't necessarily measure "good" growth. Every case of cancer, every divorce, every hurricane increases the GDP, but all of those things are clearly horrible. It counts negatives as positives, thus creating a distorted image of economic progress. Remember, economic progress necessarily means regression in some other form, particularly environmental destruction and other externalities.

Conventional liberal economics are just as ideological as any other economic or political theory.

What are you talking about? It is clearly better to spend on cancer, hurricane damage etc than it is not to, unless you're all good with letting victims sort it out themselves without any money.

And go read up on cash injection and multiplication theory.

[Reaganista]

What system of political relations would you find more "tolerable"?
the means of achieving freedom aren't of particular consequence so long as it is achieved

[Danish]

the means of achieving freedom aren't of particular consequence so long as it is achieved

That isn't what I asked you, smart guy.

Wow, you really do need a reading comprehension class. What are you, 12?

[Crazy and Stupid]

Sup Danish my old buddy?

[Danish]

Sup Danish my old buddy?

Trying to cope with this forum. No one here knows how to have anything close to a decent discussion.

[Crazy and Stupid]

Aww that's too bad.

[Smokey D]

Trying to cope with this forum. No one here knows how to have anything close to a decent discussion.

Piffle, you never even try and engage me in discussion.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Trying to cope with this forum. No one here knows how to have anything close to a decent discussion.
That's because you bugger off whenever any serious discussion gets underway.

[Danish]

What are you talking about? It is clearly better to spend on cancer, hurricane damage etc than it is not to, unless you're all good with letting victims sort it out themselves without any money.

And go read up on cash injection and multiplication theory.

Think about it for a second and read my post again. Did I even suggest that we shouldn't spend money on hurricane victims or cancer patients? I think you can answer that.

The GDP goes up when bad things happen. As such, it is not a measure of progress. It's a flawed indicator not only for the reasons laid out above, but it makes a clear distinction about what we consider "valuable" and what we consider "invaluable". For instance, unpaid domestic labour isn't calculated into GDP, but I can guarantee you it is genuine labour.

And how dare you say I don't try to engage you in discussion. I wrote a longish, thought-out post on the flaws of using GDP as a socio-economic indicator and you totally misunderstood what I wrote. That's why I'm getting frustrated. It's like you guys purposely misread what I've wrote in order to gain some kind of upper hand.

[Smokey D]

The GDP goes up when bad things happen. As such, it is not a measure of progress.

In general, and given that GDP is a macroeconomic indicator that's the best we should hope for, a rise in GDP roughly correlates a rise in standard of living. Of course, this isn't always true and we need to be careful when making broad generalisations. This, however, applies to all economics and to any other study of self-determining/-regulating systems

It's a flawed indicator not only for the reasons laid out above, but it makes a clear distinction about what we consider "valuable" and what we consider "invaluable". For instance, unpaid domestic labour isn't calculated into GDP, but I can guarantee you it is genuine labour.

I don't think anyone would dispute the limitations of GDP measurement. Along with the problem you outlined, it rarely accounts for black market activity despite the obvious role this has in society. However, given that trained economists and other relevant policy makers are familiar with these limitations and that GDP functions as the best, but by no means perfect, indicator of output in a society, it is not something you should so lightly abandon.

And how dare you say I don't try to engage you in discussion. I wrote a longish, thought-out post on the flaws of using GDP as a socio-economic indicator and you totally misunderstood what I wrote. That's why I'm getting frustrated. It's like you guys purposely misread what I've wrote in order to gain some kind of upper hand.

I have presented points to you many times and not got a response. Of course I am not familiar with your life nor the constraints on your time, and it would be somewhat far reaching for me to say you deliberately avoid discussion with me, but it does sometimes feel that way.

[Hababi]

In general, and given that GDP is a macroeconomic indicator that's the best we should hope for, a rise in GDP roughly correlates a rise in standard of living. Of course, this isn't always true and we need to be careful when making broad generalisations. This, however, applies to all economics and to any other study of self-determining/-regulating systems



I don't think anyone would dispute the limitations of GDP measurement. Along with the problem you outlined, it rarely accounts for black market activity despite the obvious role this has in society. However, given that trained economists and other relevant policy makers are familiar with these limitations and that GDP functions as the best, but by no means perfect, indicator of output in a society, it is not something you should so lightly abandon.



I have presented points to you many times and not got a response. Of course I am not familiar with your life nor the constraints on your time, and it would be somewhat far reaching for me to say you deliberately avoid discussion with me, but it does sometimes feel that way.

Hey step in line I still want an answer on how any business ever gets started in Danish's model--There's no one to invest capital and be rewarded, only a bunch of marginally skilled workers.

[Reaganista]

That isn't what I asked you, smart guy.

Wow, you really do need a reading comprehension class. What are you, 12?
that's the only answer there is
I couldn't give a rat's *** about the specifics of a political system, so long as it's free of oppression
now go try to troll somebody else

[Danish]

that's the only answer there is
I couldn't give a rat's *** about the specifics of a political system, so long as it's free of oppression
now go try to troll somebody else

Troll? I'm the longest-serving member here.

And capitalism is clearly not free of oppression.

[Hababi]

Troll? I'm the longest-serving member here.


<-----:smash: :smash:

[Danish]

<-----:smash: :smash:

:amaze: Cheater!

[Hababi]

:amaze: Cheater!

Man you ain't even close just admit defeat:smoke: ;)

In real time though I do tie you :cool:

[Danish]

Man you ain't even close just admit defeat:smoke: ;)

In real time though I do tie you :cool:

Yep, there are still a few of us May 01ers left.

[Iskandar]

it depends
usually the employer
but so what
Who has more power in a dictatorship, the government or the people?

Usually the government; but so what?

[Reaganista]

Troll? I'm the longest-serving member here.
And capitalism is clearly not free of oppression.
Yeah it is
freedom is free agency, not entitlement

Who has more power in a dictatorship, the government or the people?

Usually the government; but so what?
The government always has power over the people
that's what government is

[Iskandar]

The government always has power over the people
that's what government is
Governments can either be democratic or tyrannical. The hierarchy of labour can be either democratic or tyrannical.

To date, I don't see much democracy in the workplace.

[Reaganista]

that's an example of a place where democracy would contradict freedom

[Iskandar]

that's an example of a place where democracy would contradict freedom
You yourself once said something that I've always remembered:

"Increasing freedom is not necessarily a good thing."

When Lincoln abolished slavery, he contradicted freedom. Freedom is simply the ability to do something with sanction, whether good or bad.

I personally don't see how one can support a democratic government but not a democratic economy.

[Reaganista]

I don't recall saying that but if I did you've totally taken it out of context
I certainly have said that increasing democracy is not necessarily a good thing

and slavery is contrary to freedom
this is plainly obvious

[Iskandar]

I don't recall saying that but if I did you've totally taken it out of context
I certainly have said that increasing democracy is not necessarily a good thing
I quoted it as close to verbatim as possible. I can envision the words in my mind. It was definitely "increasing freedom."
and slavery is contrary to freedom
this is plainly obvious
So is giving my employer absolute power over me.

[Reaganista]

I quoted it as close to verbatim as possible. I can envision the words in my mind. It was definitely "increasing freedom."

w/e


So is giving my employer absolute power over me.
good thing you don't do that then

[griftadan]

1) The Little Cell existed.
2) It was a room which was stuffed over its capacity with prisoners, who were left overnight; in the morning half of them were expected to be dead of aphyxiation or physical struggle.
3) I used it as a METAPHOR for the social-Darwinistic model of capitalism.

thats a pretty bad metaphore.

Who has more power in a dictatorship, the government or the people?

Usually the government; but so what?

governments always have more power than the individual. i'm guessing you're not all that concerned with the individual.

[Danish]

good thing you don't do that then

The workplace is a dictatorship. Seems you know about as much about the realities of working life as you do labour market policy!

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

The workplace is a dictatorship. Seems you know about as much about the realities of working life as you do labour market policy!
Employers do not have "absolute power" over their employees.

[Reaganista]

The workplace is a dictatorship. Seems you know about as much about the realities of working life as you do labour market policy!
I've been working off and on since I was 14
no employer has had absolute power over me
or even a lot of power

[croniun]

What's so bad about having authority over you anyways?

I'll tell you one thing. I'll always have much more respect for the hard-working man who spends his days working hard for his family without concern about his freedom or absolute freedom from whoever rather then the "revolutionary" guy who spends his days trying to get people to revolt against the establishment in the name of freedom. Laziness if you ask me.

And anyways, a revolution is exactly that; a revolution. It revolves in a circle, ending where it began. Seems like that's usually been the case with "revolutions" throughout history.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

And anyways, a revolution is exactly that; a revolution. It revolves in a circle, ending where it began.
You're trying too hard.

[gregulus]

Yeah it is
freedom is free agency, not entitlement


The government always has power over the people
that's what government is
Actually, democratically, people (as a collective unit) have power over their government. It is the people who allow those in charge to do their bidding. If the people are unhappy with the job being done, the people have the power to remove them..

[Reaganista]

the people get to pick the people who have power over them
that's what democratic government is

[Iskandar]

Employers do not have "absolute power" over their employees.
The only reason they don't in the West is because of the accomplishments of the labour movement. In developing nations which haven't had a chance to develop labour movements, they have much more power over workers.

[Hababi]

The workplace is a dictatorship.

Not really because you have the freedom to quit. And to not have taken the job to begin with. When you take the job, you agree to follow orders; if you don't like the orders, don't work the job :p If you don't like the way the company is run, start your own.

[Iskandar]

Not really because you have the freedom to quit. And to not have taken the job to begin with.
In many dictatorships, immigration was possible; in some others, the government was elected democratically.

[Hababi]

In many dictatorships, immigration was possible; in some others, the government was elected democratically.

I don't follow your second point; a dictatorship can not be democratically elected--if it was, it wouldn't be a dictatorship :p

They had sham elections, sure--Saddam was "elected"; Mousolini was "elected", but they were frauds.

Immigration being allowed isn't really that comparable either, methinks, because in the business world, you can create your own business and go your own way; you can't very well create your own country ;)

[Iskandar]

I don't follow your second point; a dictatorship can not be democratically elected--if it was, it wouldn't be a dictatorship :p

Immigration being allowed isn't really that comparable either, methinks, because in the business world, you can create your own business and go your own way; you can't very well create your own country ;)
1) A democratically elected government can turn into a dictatorship. That's what checks and balances are for.
2) Sure you can create your own country.

[Hababi]

1) A democratically elected government can turn into a dictatorship. That's what checks and balances are for.

But then it's no longer a democracy :p


2) Sure you can create your own country.

Please tell me where (no, not on nationstates :p) because I need to create the nation of Stevedome.

[Iskandar]

But then it's no longer a democracy :p
Yeah, but it'd still be a dictatorship being created democratically.

The 1979 revolution in Iran was approved by referendum.
Please tell me where (no, not on nationstates :p) because I need to create the nation of Stevedome.
Oh. OH NO. Remind me to not visit.:p

If you wanted to create a nation, you'd need to seize land by force and gain international recognition, methinks.

[Hababi]

Yeah, but it'd still be a dictatorship being created democratically.

This is getting into semantics some, but the democracy didn't really create the dictatorship; the leaders created it. The people didn't elect tyrants thus when the leaders became authoritarian, they ceased being democratically chosen.


The 1979 revolution in Iran was approved by referendum.

I never trust referendums of crazy guys who basically have a one word vocabulary: jihad.


Oh. OH NO. Remind me to not visit.:p

You'd be allowed in. The secret police might tail you, though--don't want any commie rhetoric spreading.


If you wanted to create a nation, you'd need to seize land by force and gain international recognition, methinks.

Oh well if that's all it takes :p

[Iskandar]

This is getting into semantics some, but the democracy didn't really create the dictatorship; the leaders created it. The people didn't elect tyrants thus when the leaders became authoritarian, they ceased being democratically chosen.
No, they were always chosen democratically.
I never trust referendums of crazy guys who basically have a one word vocabulary: jihad.
It was still a democratic referendum.
You'd be allowed in. The secret police might tail you, though--don't want any commie rhetoric spreading.
So it's a dictatorship, too.

Hey, Syndicalist Front allows reactionaries like you to promulgate your imperialist cultural decadence. We just think it's bs.:)

[Hababi]

It was still a democratic referendum.


I'm pretty sure that only a small number of Iranians supported the Ayotollah. The Shah just didn't have their support either; he was weak.


No, they were always chosen democratically.


Yes, but they weren't chosen to be tyrants.

[Iskandar]

I'm pretty sure that only a small number of Iranians supported the Ayotollah. The Shah just didn't have their support either; he was weak.
No, a majority did approve the revolution and the creation of an theocratic state.
Yes, but they weren't chosen to be tyrants.
Hey, that sort of thing happens in representative democracy. You get screwed by false promises.

[Hababi]

No, a majority did approve the revolution and the creation of an theocratic state.

Hmmm you sure about that?


Hey, that sort of thing happens in representative democracy. You get screwed by false promises.

Yeah but those promises usually don't involve the principles of democracy :p

[croniun]

You're trying too hard.

Considering that the majority of revolutions in history have ended where they began, I'd say I'm right on the money. French Revolution...American Revolution...just a couple of examples. Revolutions are for the naive.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

French Revolution...American Revolution...just a couple of examples.
no they didn't.

[Iskandar]

Hmmm you sure about that?
I got this from encarta.msn.com:
Khomeini returned to Iran on February 1, 1979. ... In a late March referendum Iranians voted on a new form of government, and in April, with overwhelming public approval, Khomeini declared the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[croniun]

no they didn't.

French Revolution: Started out as a call for freedom, equality, all that typical stuff. Result: Chaos, Reign of Terror, White Terror, Napoleon.

In other words...

Beginning of FR, 1789: Absolute Monarchy

Cause of the FR: A call for freedom, equality, etc.; a republic

End of FR, 1799: Dictatorship.

That's the epitome of a failure.

American Revolution: Started out with colonists wanting freedom from Britain, freedom from colonialism. Ended with America being its own country that would later have its own colonies. Manifest Destiny, imperialism, etc.

[Hababi]

I got this from encarta.msn.com:

Yeah but I doubt the honesty of the Iranian reporting. My guess is force and coercion were involved. Today, if the people had a chance, they'd kick the old Mullah's out and elect secular leaders--that's why they disqualified everyone left of Ahmidenijad from running.

[Smokey D]

French Revolution: Started out as a call for freedom, equality, all that typical stuff. Result: Chaos, Reign of Terror, White Terror, Napoleon.

In other words...

Beginning of FR, 1789: Absolute Monarchy

Cause of the FR: A call for freedom, equality, etc.; a republic

End of FR, 1799: Dictatorship.

That's the epitome of a failure.


The French Revolution may have consumed itself, but it fundementally changed the way politics operated. It didn't merely return to the ancien regime.

American Revolution: Started out with colonists wanting freedom from Britain, freedom from colonialism. Ended with America being its own country that would later have its own colonies. Manifest Destiny, imperialism, etc.

You missed democracy and the lack of kingship.

[Iskandar]

French Revolution: Started out as a call for freedom, equality, all that typical stuff. Result: Chaos, Reign of Terror, White Terror, Napoleon.
It ultimately achieved its goal. Today France has a democracy.
Yeah but I doubt the honesty of the Iranian reporting. My guess is force and coercion were involved.
Y'know, not everybody votes for Truth, Justice and the American Way.

A primarily Islamic nation was offered an Islamic republic. They took it, and not all of them are unhappy with the result.
Today, if the people had a chance, they'd kick the old Mullah's out and elect secular leaders.
Maybe. Remember that while plenty of Iran's citizens (mainly the younger generations) hate the regime, not all of them do. The more conservative (or fanatical) might want to retain it.

[Reaganista]

It ultimately achieved its goal. Today France has a democracy.
that was installed by the united states
I guess what goes around comes around :/

Maybe. Remember that while plenty of Iran's citizens (mainly the younger generations) hate the regime, not all of them do. The more conservative (or fanatical) might want to retain it.
and of course this means they should get to

[Danish]

French Revolution: Started out as a call for freedom, equality, all that typical stuff. Result: Chaos, Reign of Terror, White Terror, Napoleon.

In other words...

Beginning of FR, 1789: Absolute Monarchy

Cause of the FR: A call for freedom, equality, etc.; a republic

End of FR, 1799: Dictatorship.

That's the epitome of a failure.

American Revolution: Started out with colonists wanting freedom from Britain, freedom from colonialism. Ended with America being its own country that would later have its own colonies. Manifest Destiny, imperialism, etc.


These things don't have nearly as much to do with "democracy" as they do with the political-economic context of the time.

[croniun]

The French Revolution may have consumed itself, but it fundementally changed the way politics operated. It didn't merely return to the ancien regime.

No it didn't return to the exactlythe way it was and that's not the point. Of course there were differences but for the most part, it was certainly a "revolution" when you look at the larger picture.

You missed democracy and the lack of kingship.

Again, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING went back to exactly the way it was before. Only in the broader sense did things "return" to the way they were. We were at first 13 colonies fighting for freedom only to later become an imperialist country with its own colonies.

It ultimately achieved its goal. Today France has a democracy.

The French Revolution is not what brought about France's democracy. I don't see how you can say that an event as pathetic as the French Revolution is to be thanked for the democracy in France today despite the fact that the FR is what directlybrought about a dictatorship in France.

Anyways, there must be a system of authority. There must be a system of punishment even if the punishment may be cruel sometimes. It may not be pretty but accepting that is just a process of maturity. Even the idea of "democracy" is somewhat naive. Placing authority in the hands of the majority, people who seem to me to be shallow and petty for the most part, is a rather dangerous idea. The majority cares about nothing more then vanity, and reading the newspaper. The majority believes in nothing.

[Iskandar]

The French Revolution is not what brought about France's democracy. I don't see how you can say that an event as pathetic as the French Revolution is to be thanked for the democracy in France today despite the fact that the FR is what directlybrought about a dictatorship in France.
It started the process of ending feudalism and entering a long, bloody and difficult transition to democracy. Major transitions between the stages of history don't happen quickly or easily.
Even the idea of "democracy" is somewhat naive. Placing authority in the hands of the majority, people who seem to me to be shallow and petty for the most part, is a rather dangerous idea. The majority cares about nothing more then vanity, and reading the newspaper. The majority believes in nothing.
You're part of the majority, believe it or not; and all alternatives to democracy have failed in recent history. What alternatives are there? Max Mad style chaos? A vanguard Bolshevik party? Fundamentalist theocracy?

[Reaganista]

Philosophers should be kings

[Smokey D]

No it didn't return to the exactlythe way it was and that's not the point. Of course there were differences but for the most part, it was certainly a "revolution" when you look at the larger picture.

Well, very little returned to the ancien regime or even something closely resembling it. The French Revolution reordered politics at a fundemental level, and if you don't acknowledge that, I would advise you to take a history class.

Even when the Bourbon monarchy was re-installed after Napoleon it was under the title King of the French, not King of France.

Again, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING went back to exactly the way it was before. Only in the broader sense did things "return" to the way they were. We were at first 13 colonies fighting for freedom only to later become an imperialist country with its own colonies.

Well, that's such an exceptionally broad statement it doesn't really even bear introducing into the argument.


The French Revolution is not what brought about France's democracy. I don't see how you can say that an event as pathetic as the French Revolution is to be thanked for the democracy in France today despite the fact that the FR is what directlybrought about a dictatorship in France.

The French Revolution while at the same time devolving into a dictatorship and then a succession of monarchies laid the groundwork for the introduction of popular opinion and the concept of nationhood into European politics.

Anyways, there must be a system of authority. There must be a system of punishment even if the punishment may be cruel sometimes. It may not be pretty but accepting that is just a process of maturity. Even the idea of "democracy" is somewhat naive. Placing authority in the hands of the majority, people who seem to me to be shallow and petty for the most part, is a rather dangerous idea. The majority cares about nothing more then vanity, and reading the newspaper. The majority believes in nothing.

I'm glad to learn you support totalitarianism. It means I don't have to take you seriously anymore. This extraordinarily nihilistic view of the majority is a)somewhat baffling, considering your commitment to Christianity, and b) the exact logic used to justify the establishment of Fascist regimes in the middle of the 20th Century.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

he's a christofascist

[croniun]

It started the process of ending feudalism and entering a long, bloody and difficult transition to democracy. Major transitions between the stages of history don't happen quickly or easily.

No, they don't happen quickly or easily. My point is that the French Revolution, while it may have been the the spark of the development of democracy, was a revolution that was anything but what its cause was. It was a nightmare. The revolution itself was a ten year period of chaos and murder. You cannot tell me that the revolution was a goodthing. If so, then I might as well say that the holocaust was a good thing because it helped put an end to the great depression (as in it created war which enabled the US to "revive" itself).

You're part of the majority, believe it or not

The day that I start caring about how my house is decorated or making it a priority that my clothes are always matching no matter what is the day that I'll be a part of the majority.

I'm not saying that those things are bad in and of themselves but it seems that our society has made those kind of things the most important things in their lives.

and all alternatives to democracy have failed in recent history.

Let me try to explain a little better what I mean...I'm not an all out opponent of democracy. What I am an opponent of is authority resting in the hands of shallow people who care nothing for philosophy. Our society seems to be that way. I’m ok with democracy if the people aren’t caught up in their own vanity.

So what I’m getting at is that I’m not necessarily against democracy itself; just the people that are under it (shallow people).

And just for the record, I would never support a fundamentalist theocracy. I believe in separation of church and state.

Philosophers should be kings

That's sort of what I'm getting at...kind of.

Well, very little returned to the ancien regime or even something closely resembling it.

My point isn't that the dictatorship did or did not resemble the old regime. My point is that the beginning of the FR revolution called for freedom/democracy as opposed to the lack of freedom that they had and it ended in, once more, a lack of freedom. Yes, the ripple effect of the FR may have caused good to come in the future but the revolution itself was something out of a nightmare.

The French Revolution reordered politics at a fundemental level, and if you don't acknowledge that, I would advise you to take a history class.

I agree that it did but I'm not one to say that it's ok to do evil with the intention that your evil may bring about good in the future. It's easy for us to sit here in 2006 and say "Oh yea the French Revolution was good because of how it reordered politics" because we're looking at the whole picture with 200 years to seperate us from the revolution. I'm glad that good did eventually come as a result of the ripple effect of the revolution but that does not mean that the revolution itself was a good thing. I mean, lets say that you're married to someone and that person dies. While at first you are devastated, you eventually meet someone else that you fall in love with and marry. Would you say that you were glad that your first wife died?

I'm glad to learn you support totalitarianism.

I'm not an advocate of totalitarianism. I'm also not an advocate of authority in the hands of shallow people. We have to find some middle ground. I mean, maybe I'm wrong? Maybe a middle ground isn't possible and we just have to stick with one or the other but I'm going to stand my ground on the fact that authority being placed in the hands of a shallow majority is a stupid idea.

This extraordinarily nihilistic view of the majority

I'd say they're the nihilists...but if you want to get down to technicalities, sure I guess it's a "nihilistic" view.

somewhat baffling, considering your commitment to Christianity,

Christianity is utterly opposed to people being caught up in material possessions and the things of this world. I'm opposed to authority being in the hands of our society because our society is caught up in material possessions and the things of this world so I'd say my view is right in line with the Christian view.

the exact logic used to justify the establishment of Fascist regimes in the middle of the 20th Century.

I'll admit that I shouldn't have use the word 'cruel' when I said that punishment is necessary but other then that, I don't see how what I said in that statement is a promotion of fascism. I said that punishment is necessary and by "cruel" I guess I meant that we have to be strong about that; we can't let up. We can't give in to weakness. And I said that I don't want a shallow people to be in control and I'm sure that 10 out of 10 people on these forums would agree with me on that. I guess I'm kind of with Machiavelli on this...a leader should be feared but not hated. Feared and loved if he can. Never hated.

[Reaganista]

That's sort of what I'm getting at...kind of.

when I say that what I mean is that merit is the only fair criterion by which to judge a potential ruler

[Iskandar]

You cannot tell me that the revolution was a goodthing.
In the short term, of course not. In the long term, it has ultimately benefitted humanity. Let's hope we won't need a similarly violent transition to the next stage of history.
The day that I start caring about how my house is decorated or making it a priority that my clothes are always matching no matter what is the day that I'll be a part of the majority.
You're part of the majority when it comes to the political process, anyway.
Maybe a middle ground isn't possible and we just have to stick with one or the other but I'm going to stand my ground on the fact that authority being placed in the hands of a shallow majority is a stupid idea.
It's definitely better than being placed in any minority.
a leader should be feared but not hated. Feared and loved if he can. Never hated.
Why should we fear our leaders? They're there to serve us.

[Smokey D]

My point isn't that the dictatorship did or did not resemble the old regime. My point is that the beginning of the FR revolution called for freedom/democracy as opposed to the lack of freedom that they had and it ended in, once more, a lack of freedom. Yes, the ripple effect of the FR may have caused good to come in the future but the revolution itself was something out of a nightmare.

I agree that it did but I'm not one to say that it's ok to do evil with the intention that your evil may bring about good in the future. It's easy for us to sit here in 2006 and say "Oh yea the French Revolution was good because of how it reordered politics" because we're looking at the whole picture with 200 years to seperate us from the revolution. I'm glad that good did eventually come as a result of the ripple effect of the revolution but that does not mean that the revolution itself was a good thing. I mean, lets say that you're married to someone and that person dies. While at first you are devastated, you eventually meet someone else that you fall in love with and marry. Would you say that you were glad that your first wife died?

The way the Revolution progressed didn't create democracy, and was clearly a tragedy for France and most of Europe but it changed the way politics were conducted, which was my point.


I'm not an advocate of totalitarianism. I'm also not an advocate of authority in the hands of shallow people. We have to find some middle ground. I mean, maybe I'm wrong? Maybe a middle ground isn't possible and we just have to stick with one or the other but I'm going to stand my ground on the fact that authority being placed in the hands of a shallow majority is a stupid idea.

So like representative democracy then?


Christianity is utterly opposed to people being caught up in material possessions and the things of this world. I'm opposed to authority being in the hands of our society because our society is caught up in material possessions and the things of this world so I'd say my view is right in line with the Christian view.

This entire argument runs counter to the message of hope and love which underpins Christianity.


I'll admit that I shouldn't have use the word 'cruel' when I said that punishment is necessary but other then that, I don't see how what I said in that statement is a promotion of fascism. I said that punishment is necessary and by "cruel" I guess I meant that we have to be strong about that; we can't let up. We can't give in to weakness. And I said that I don't want a shallow people to be in control and I'm sure that 10 out of 10 people on these forums would agree with me on that. I guess I'm kind of with Machiavelli on this...a leader should be feared but not hated. Feared and loved if he can. Never hated.

The position that majority are to stupid and vapid to truly appreciate power, and that we need a caste of 'supermen' who have over come their baser natures to lead sounds very much like a fascist argument.

[croniun]

It's definitely better than being placed in any minority.

An intelligent minority with better judgment then the rest?

Why should we fear our leaders? They're there to serve us

Note that I said fear, not hate. A leader whose foundation of authority is simply love will not remain a leader for long because people are deceitful. They take advantage of each other. A leader who depends on the love of the people will be taken advantage of easily. However, a leader who is feared by the people has a stronger foundation for his leadership. The people will think twice before trying to take advantage of them. Furthermore, it's a sign of respect. He shouldn't be unjust and brutal to the people in order to be feared, but he should be strong in will and confidence.

The way the Revolution progressed didn't create democracy, and was clearly a tragedy for France and most of Europe but it changed the way politics were conducted, which was my point.

You're right. I agree with you. However, my point is that the fact that things turned out better then they could have turned out does not justify the French Revolution just like the revitalization of the American economy does not justify Hitler's decision to start a war and to systematically kill 11 million people.

So like representative democracy then?

I guess. To be honest, I'm not unhappy with America's democracy. It just seems that the influence of shallow people has had way too much success in this country.

This entire argument runs counter to the message of hope and love which underpins Christianity.

Christianity isn't simply a message of hope and love. Christ, for example, was not an advocate of peacefulness and nothing else. Christ showed that He did in fact have a violent temper and a justified temper at that. He was not anti-authority. He was not anti-rank. He wasn't some hippy of the first century AD like some liberals would have us believe.

The position that majority are to stupid and vapid to truly appreciate power, and that we need a caste of 'supermen' who have over come their baser natures to lead sounds very much like a fascist argument.

It's a fascist argument to call for strong, intelligent leaders who don't allow themselves to be pushed around by shallow people? If so then fascism isn't such a bad thing is it?

[Iskandar]

An intelligent minority with better judgment then the rest?
It's morally wrong, not to mention dangerous, to put power in the hands of any minority. Look at the Soviet Union - the Party was composed of intelligent, dedicated men and yet their minority-rule structure was their downfall.
A leader whose foundation of authority is simply love will not remain a leader for long because people are deceitful.
He will be a leader as long as his term is, and re-elected if his citizens approve of his performance.
However, my point is that the fact that things turned out better then they could have turned out does not justify the French Revolution just like the revitalization of the American economy does not justify Hitler's decision to start a war and to systematically kill 11 million people.
The American economy would have picked up again sooner or later. Economies are cyclical. But without the French Revolution or a major event similar to it, feudalism would never have ended and we'd still be living in an even more unjust society.

[Reaganista]

It's morally wrong, not to mention dangerous, to put power in the hands of any minority
that's a strikingly stupid thing to say

[Iskandar]

that's a strikingly stupid thing to say
It strikes me as stupid to contradict the principle of majority rule which is the foundation of democracy.

[Smokey D]

You're right. I agree with you. However, my point is that the fact that things turned out better then they could have turned out does not justify the French Revolution just like the revitalization of the American economy does not justify Hitler's decision to start a war and to systematically kill 11 million people.

Glancing back over the thread, it appears that it wasn't the original point. You initially said the French Revolution reverted to a dictatorship without achieving anything. I disagreed. The thing about democracy was an argument you were having with the Dropper.

I guess. To be honest, I'm not unhappy with America's democracy. It just seems that the influence of shallow people has had way too much success in this country.


To be honest, and I'm not trying to sound rude, but that strikes me as being jealous. You'll find the vast majority of successful people are incredibly hardworking and intelligent.

Christianity isn't simply a message of hope and love. Christ, for example, was not an advocate of peacefulness and nothing else. Christ showed that He did in fact have a violent temper and a justified temper at that. He was not anti-authority. He was not anti-rank. He wasn't some hippy of the first century AD like some liberals would have us believe.


First of all, don't associate me with 'those liberals', as you've put it, for saying Christianity is about hope and love. Secondly, whether Jesus was anti-authority or anti-rank has no bearing on this discussion. Finally, while Jesus did clearly show that He was a man of righteous anger, the core message of Christianity is to love your God and your neighbour. Anger, righteous or no, comes second to that.

It's a fascist argument to call for strong, intelligent leaders who don't allow themselves to be pushed around by shallow people? If so then fascism isn't such a bad thing is it?

It's a fascist line of argument to say the shallow (so called by you, a subjective person) should have no say in their government, yes.


The American economy would have picked up again sooner or later. Economies are cyclical. But without the French Revolution or a major event similar to it, feudalism would never have ended and we'd still be living in an even more unjust society.

Er, feudalism was long dead in western Europe by the French Revolution.

that's a strikingly stupid thing to say

Why are you still equating intelligence with goodness?

[Iskandar]

Er, feudalism was long dead in western Europe by the French Revolution.
I'm not a history expert, but I believe at the time of the Revolution, government was by monarchy and an aristocracy still owned nearly all land. These were vestiges of feudalism.

It depends how loosely one wants to define "feudalism." I'd say a mode of production in which peasants are owned by landowners suffices.

[Reaganista]

It strikes me as stupid to contradict the principle of majority rule which is the foundation of democracy.
majority rule is not the foundation of democracy

Why are you still equating intelligence with goodness?
um why are you dragging **** from completely unrelated threads into this one
and I explained that to you several times in that thread
and got no response

in this thread I never equated anything with goodness

[Iskandar]

majority rule is not the foundation of democracy
Um, please explain to me how a democracy can function without it.
in this thread I never equated anything with goodness
You assume that intelligent rulers are necessarily good rulers in stating "philosophers should be kings."

[Reaganista]

when I say that what I mean is that merit is the only fair criterion by which to judge a potential ruler
oh ok.

[Iskandar]

oh ok.

Go on, explain to me how democracy can function without majority rule.

[Reaganista]

I'm not aware of any democracy anywhere in which the minority does not have power

[Smokey D]

I'm not a history expert, but I believe at the time of the Revolution, government was by monarchy and an aristocracy still owned nearly all land. These were vestiges of feudalism.

The emergence of the new bougeoisie and the concentration of power at Versailles in a new absolutist monarchy destroyed the underlying structures of feudalism. It's these forces which unleashed the Revolution.

It depends how loosely one wants to define "feudalism." I'd say a mode of production in which peasants are owned by landowners suffices.

First of all, that's a ridiculously broad definition of feudalism. Secondly, peasants were never owned by their feudal lords. That would be slavery.

um why are you dragging **** from completely unrelated threads into this one

Because even different threads show a commonality of purpose and ideas.

and I explained that to you several times in that thread
and got no response

I don't recall being given an adequate response. And intellectual merit is different from moral merit, and repeating Plato's maxim is not going to solve that dilemna.

[Reaganista]

Because even different threads show a commonality of purpose and ideas.
who says I have to be arguing from the same perspectives or to the same ends from thread to thread


I don't recall being given an adequate response
well you were

itt you're creating a distinction that doesn't exist
if morality is an important trait in a leader
then the person(s) most capable of leading will be moral

and plato made it clear that the ruler caste would be raised in an environment designed to foster morality
the limited knowledge of human minds and socialization would be the only limiting factor

[Smokey D]

who says I have to be arguing from the same perspectives or to the same ends from thread to thread

When you're arguing essentially the same point, it's a fairly natural conclusion.

well you were

Elaborate.

[Reaganista]

I did

but if you want to talk about that thread you should
you know
post in it

[Iskandar]

I'm not aware of any democracy anywhere in which the minority does not have power
Elected by the majority in order to enforce the will of the majority.
First of all, that's a ridiculously broad definition of feudalism. Secondly, peasants were never owned by their feudal lords. That would be slavery.
Give me a better definition, then.

Peasants, although they were not technically "owned" like capital, lived on and worked the land of their masters with no opportunity for betterment. The only difference between that and slavery was that peasants were free to leave if they wanted. I call it ownership, even if they weren't bought: their land was and they were inextricably tied to their land.

[Reaganista]

Elected by the majority in order to enforce the will of the majority.
most of them are
the rest are elected by the minority

[Volumnius Flush]

most of them are
the rest are elected by the minority

Bush said yesterday at the UN GA:

"Democracy cannot be imposed."

He is wrong. He is very wrong. Democracy can, and must be imposed.