RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 2:40:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

MC, I didn't want to focus on the international use and abuse of capitalism. Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that this quote, regarding the situation of your father:
quote:

As my father kept telling us through our childhood, he and his brother got their first new boots in the army and only then to fight for a country that was happy to see them starve when there wasn't a war to fight. It was nothing to do with being anti-American but anti-capitalist because it was capitalism that kept them in poverty.



My father was from a poor family, well almost everyone was poor in the 30s. No jobs and too many workers mean that those that do work get monkey nuts and no education to equipe them to seek out an alternative lively hood. Educated unemployed are dangerous so it is in capitalism's interest to keep people dumb. The family could only afford to send the oldest son to a grammar school because they could only afford one school uniform, the rest of the family had to leave school as early as possible in order to work which was 14 then. 14 year olds were cheaper to employ than adults. Anyway, the war happened so he and his elder brothers had to join up, that is when he and his elder brother got their new boots and his eldest brother who went to grammar school, which was their hope to get the family out of poverty got killed in Africa. His other brother got his legs blown off in Holland.



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 2:44:56 PM)

quote:

Educated unemployed are dangerous so it is in capitalism's interest to keep people dumb.
Would that mean that you don't believe the USA to be a bastion of capitalism since it requires everyone to attend school? Once again, it is access and opportunity. If a person or a group decides not to be educated you can't believe that was caused by capitalism.

Sorry to hear your family shared the same war casualties as did mine and many others from both sides of the pond.



meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 2:58:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Educated unemployed are dangerous so it is in capitalism's interest to keep people dumb.
Would that mean that you don't believe the USA to be a bastion of capitalism since it requires everyone to attend school? Once again, it is access and opportunity. If a person or a group decides not to be educated you can't believe that was caused by capitalism.

Sorry to hear your family shared the same war casualties as did mine and many others from both sides of the pond.


Capitalism does keep people dumb. Unfortunately most people seem happier with the idiot eye in the corner of the room than to think about what their government does in their name and prefer not to think as to why everything is so cheap. People just prefer not to think that their material welfare is based on modern day slavery and exploitation.

It isn't a matter of my family sharing casualties that other familiers shared. It is the fact it was a war caused by capitalism or the failure of it. Other people might like to believe it was a war about freedom and that the victims in their family actually died for something more meaningful than the rich. I don't. Wars aren't fought for freedom.

As Bertrand Russell said, people appear to prefer to die than to think.



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 3:25:31 PM)

quote:

Capitalism does keep people dumb.
How exactly does it manage to do that?

quote:

 Unfortunately most people seem happier with the idiot eye in the corner of the room than to think about what their government does in their name and prefer not to think as to why everything is so cheap.
Yes, it is unfortunate that, to some, opportunity is wasted. That wasted is perpetrated by the people though not capitalism.
quote:

People just prefer not to think that their material welfare is based on modern day slavery and exploitation.
I'll take it further. People want and desire to be modern day "slaves"; taken care of by a benevolent "master" or with childlike vision, a "nanny". Hell it is a much easier life to blame you plight on someone else. More each day use that concept to become accustomed to accepting "slave wages" and eating fat laden "slave food" (aka 'fast-food'). After all a "slave" is too stupid to appreciate that eating at McDonald's twice a day 5 days a week is bad for you. It requires a "master" to not allow the slave access by preventing McDonald's from selling, or the TV from showing ads. A "slave" just isn't capable of making those decisions on their own.

Modern day "slaves" want more restrictions and want the government to provide it all, and limit what they can do, see, and in turn, think. The alternative option requires work, self determination, and taking advantage of the opportunities to advance, such as school, provided by the capitalist system.



meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 4:20:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
How exactly does it manage to do that?

 

To quote Noam Chomsky who puts it far more succinctly than I can put it.

“The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control / ''indoctrination',' we might say / exercised through the mass media.”

“Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
I'll take it further. People want and desire to be modern day "slaves"; taken care of by a benevolent "master" or with childlike vision, a "nanny". Hell it is a much easier life to blame you plight on someone else. More each day use that concept to become accustomed to accepting "slave wages" and eating fat laden "slave food" (aka 'fast-food'). After all a "slave" is too stupid to appreciate that eating at McDonald's twice a day 5 days a week is bad for you. It requires a "master" to not allow the slave access by preventing McDonald's from selling, or the TV from showing ads. A "slave" just isn't capable of making those decisions on their own.

Modern day "slaves" want more restrictions and want the government to provide it all, and limit what they can do, see, and in turn, think. The alternative option requires work, self determination, and taking advantage of the opportunities to advance, such as school, provided by the capitalist system.


Actually Merc when I was referring to modern day slaves I was thinking of the people who man the sweat shops of the third world and are exploited by western companies and thus putting cheap products on our shelves. If people had to pay proper prices to be materially indulged they might start thinking about them and what it all costs. As it stand at the moment, we in the west do not have to look at the human cost of our life style. But getting back to the dreary slaves that sloch on the couch watching the latest soap while eating their Big Mac, I have little sympathy for them. Losing their jobs to third world labour might do them a favour because they might then wake up and look at how the world really works.



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 4:41:50 PM)

Meat,
Neither you or Noam Chomsky provided an answer as to how capitalism, specifically in the US where education is mandated through HS, keeps its citizens dumb. The "media" is a product of capitalism, however it is not capitalism and does not prevent access to information or knowledge. Should there be a time when propaganda was expressed by there being only one source of information Mr. Chomsky may have a case. The very fact that he, you, me, and anyone else can be read indicates that "dumbness" is a result of not taking advantage of what is offered in a capitalist society and versus using what is.

quote:

Actually Merc when I was referring to modern day slaves I was thinking of the people who man the sweat shops of the third world and are exploited by western companies and thus putting cheap products on our shelves.
Once again you've changed the focus from the impact and result of capitalism within a society, the USA in particular, to respond with its application to the third world. I've avoided any outside reference, because any and all sovereign nations should be, like people, responsible for themselves. I won't assume you can't make a case for internal negative consequences to capitalism, but I won't let you lose focus on the original position which started our discussion; negative consequences of capitalism within a capitalist society.

However, we are in agreement in our opinion of "doing a favor" by having no sympathy and not supporting those losing their jobs due to not taking advantage of opportunities of capitalism. I see the social safety nets put up as counter productive to improving their position. As example, unemployed on the government payroll, you and your children can get free health care in the USA. Get a job at, say Walmart, and you lose that perk or have to pay for it. Furthermore, as a recipient of government social programs, unless on parole for some reason, you are not subject to any drug testing; get a job and you may be subject to testing. How silly it that? To use tax money you don't need to pass a drug test - To pay taxes by being employed at many jobs you must pass a drug test.  Seems totally illogical, but that's a tangent for another thread.



meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 4:57:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Meat,
Neither you or Noam Chomsky provided an answer as to how capitalism, specifically in the US where education is mandated through HS, keeps its citizens dumb. The "media" is a product of capitalism, however it is not capitalism and does not prevent access to information or knowledge. Should there be a time when propaganda was expressed by there being only one source of information Mr. Chomsky may have a case. The very fact that he, you, me, and anyone else can be read indicates that "dumbness" is a result of not taking advantage of what is offered in a capitalist society and versus using what is.



One has to exist in the society one finds oneself in. Belief in that society and its values are instilled in one from the word go. If I am correct, US school children have to take the pledge of allegience everyday, that is a form of brainwashing, as is the national history one learns at school. Other countries have their equivalents. No national myth I know is based on reality. Jesuits spring to mind, give me the child until he is seven and I'll give you the man. To question the orthodox thinking of a society takes a lot of will, to act against it even more. The whole system is set up to reward those that acquiesque to the system and penalise those that question it. Most people will vote for reward and do and will rarely question or want to think about the quality of their life depending on the poverty and enslavement of others but that is the reality of our world.



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 5:49:44 PM)

But meat ... are you ever going to address the topic of the thread, and give me so concrete examples of the "new establishment" that you wish to bring into the world to address all the apparent injustices of the "capitalist, democratic" West?

Or are you just a gadfly?

FirmKY



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/16/2007 6:17:21 PM)


Short reply to just this one point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Evening Firmhand,

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Your assumptions that I disagree with:

1.  The US is evil



There are two things I have a problem with, and neither of them amount to "the US being evil".

1) The US government is denying people their self-determination.
2) US market dominated values are not values I would like to see spread outside of US borders. If a nation such as Iraq wants to build their society around these values, then that's their call, and I wouldn't object to that, but I do object to a nation with a huge amount of military power imposing their market values in foreign nations - by force/coercion.

I don't deal in "good" and "evil", there are ideas, some of which I think are better ideas than others. If you automatically jump to the conclusion that I think the US is "evil" simply because I don't agree with you, or the market dominated values held by the neo-conservatives, then you'll simply be putting a shutter up which will close down the discussion. Do me a favour, until you see the phrase "the US is evil" in one of my posts, keep an open mind on the situation.


Which meaning of the word would you not apply to the US?

Evil:
  • morally bad or wrong
  • morally objectionable behavior
  • having the nature of vice
  • that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune
  • tending to cause great harm
  • the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

You are making moral judgements.  Your moral judgement is that the US is the antithesis of everything "good" hence "evil".

Play with it how you will, and dance around the issue.  You words show a moral belief that the US is indeed evil.

FirmKY



NorthernGent -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 12:21:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Short reply to just this one point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Evening Firmhand,

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Your assumptions that I disagree with:

1.  The US is evil



There are two things I have a problem with, and neither of them amount to "the US being evil".

1) The US government is denying people their self-determination.
2) US market dominated values are not values I would like to see spread outside of US borders. If a nation such as Iraq wants to build their society around these values, then that's their call, and I wouldn't object to that, but I do object to a nation with a huge amount of military power imposing their market values in foreign nations - by force/coercion.

I don't deal in "good" and "evil", there are ideas, some of which I think are better ideas than others. If you automatically jump to the conclusion that I think the US is "evil" simply because I don't agree with you, or the market dominated values held by the neo-conservatives, then you'll simply be putting a shutter up which will close down the discussion. Do me a favour, until you see the phrase "the US is evil" in one of my posts, keep an open mind on the situation.


Which meaning of the word would you not apply to the US?

Evil:
  • morally bad or wrong
  • morally objectionable behavior
  • having the nature of vice
  • that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune
  • tending to cause great harm
  • the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice


You are making moral judgements.  Your moral judgement is that the US is the antithesis of everything "good" hence "evil".

Play with it how you will, and dance around the issue.  You words show a moral belief that the US is indeed evil.

FirmKY


I suppose you're supporting the point I made on an earlier post: behind the facade of wanting open discussion, you want to close down ideas, tell people how they think, regardless of how they respond.

In the same way you have posted you think it's fine to use violence to impose your ideas, you also think it's fine to speak for other people.

To be frank Firmhand, you can understand my post in whatever way you like, whatever way your mind wants to take you. The more I chat with you, the more I see a person unable and unwilling to step out of your background and look at an idea from a different angle. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that a chat with you is fruitless because it's all about you attempting to impose your ideas. I had an indication when I read one of your early posts along the lines of "Europe is being taken over by Islam". I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but what I've read on this thread is consistent with a mind that could come to the conclusion that "Europe is being taken over by Islam".



NeedToUseYou -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 1:04:33 AM)

quote:



To be frank Firmhand, you can understand my post in whatever way you like, whatever way your mind wants to take you. The more I chat with you, the more I see a person unable and unwilling to step out of your background and look at an idea from a different angle. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that a chat with you is fruitless because it's all about you attempting to impose your ideas. I had an indication when I read one of your early posts along the lines of "Europe is being taken over by Islam". I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but what I've read on this thread is consistent with a mind that could come to the conclusion that "Europe is being taken over by Islam".


To be quite Frank myself, I read nearly all of these political debates, and I'd say FirmHand appears just as closed minded as NorthernGent, who is just as closed minded as MeatCleaver, who is just as closed minded as Julia, and synergy, or MercAndBeth, or Popeye, and whoever else participating in these threads. And I'm just as close-minded as anyone else. My guess is the open-minded people are those who read these and judge your perceptive versus others.

I've not seen yet one person waiver in any substantial view that posts a lot. 

People are People. LOL. They all think they are enlightened. LOL. ROFLMAO[:D]

But it's true. At this point I just want a spaceship a couple hot slaves and a one way ticket to the nearest Class M planet.


edited to add: I got my colors swapped in here somewhere, but the drift is pretty obvious.

This is how it goes:
Poster 1;I think pink is prettier than purple.
Poster 2:Pink clashes with black and everyone knows black is in style so you must be insane to like Pink.
Poster 1:Well that is because you are brainwashed by the media/propaganda machine to buy into the stereotypes.
Poster 2:I read a book written by some guy I agree with that confirms purple is prettier than pink.
Poster 1: That source is unreliable obviously it was written by a Purple loving ingrate, their is no objectivity at all, here are some objective books you can read.
Poster 2. The book I suggested was completely legitimate, and those books you suggested are biased, I'm not talking to you anymore, your mind is closed.
Poster 1: Ahhhhh, You can't handle the truth, good I don't want to talk to you either.


LOL, now all of you can be united against a common enemy. I think everyone on this forum is closed minded at least the active political ones. Peace at LAST!!!! Or almost.


Runs to find another forum. Cheeers from all. LOL.



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 2:22:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Which meaning of the word would you not apply to the US?

Evil:
  • morally bad or wrong
  • morally objectionable behavior
  • having the nature of vice
  • that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune
  • tending to cause great harm
  • the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

You are making moral judgements.  Your moral judgement is that the US is the antithesis of everything "good" hence "evil".

Play with it how you will, and dance around the issue.  You words show a moral belief that the US is indeed evil.


I suppose you're supporting the point I made on an earlier post: behind the facade of wanting open discussion, you want to close down ideas, tell people how they think, regardless of how they respond.

In the same way you have posted you think it's fine to use violence to impose your ideas, you also think it's fine to speak for other people.

To be frank Firmhand, you can understand my post in whatever way you like, whatever way your mind wants to take you. The more I chat with you, the more I see a person unable and unwilling to step out of your background and look at an idea from a different angle. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that a chat with you is fruitless because it's all about you attempting to impose your ideas. I had an indication when I read one of your early posts along the lines of "Europe is being taken over by Islam". I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but what I've read on this thread is consistent with a mind that could come to the conclusion that "Europe is being taken over by Islam".


NG,

I do like a good debate.  I try hard to give the same level of courtesy and respect back to any poster that  give me, for my ideas.

I do not take any offense at an attack on my ideas, or my logic.  I actually enjoy them, if they are backed up by a semblence of logical thought.

Likewise, I will "attack" someone's logic and beliefs with counter examples and points of discordance that occur to me.

One of the biggest problems is that all too often, many posters have this "script" of beliefs in their head, and key words and concepts that they see in someone else's words, almost automatically sets them off on a tirade and a rant about what they think someone is saying.  Even if the words on the page are saying something else entirely.

I started this thread in an attempt to actually get a discussion about the model of society that people who share many of your common beliefs envision, in as concrete manner as possible.  There have been many good posts in general, but few have really made an effort to answer all my points.  You did, and have my respect for that.

I don't think I've been belittling or dismissive at all to you.  I don't think you have to me.  We have both put a lot of effort into our discussion.

My point about you seeing the US as "evil" isn't a condemnation.  I understand that such a claim may be used to deflect a discussion into purely emotional paths.  But, based on our level of discussion, I believed (and still do) that you can see beyond the automatic reaction that such a word brings.

The core of what the majority of posters have written is centered around "morality".  Go back and re-read the first couple of pages, and see if that doesn't jump out at you.

Many on the left see claims about morality, and "right and wrong" as being judgemental in a bad way.  I do not.  Having judgement, and taking stances based on morality is actually the only way that most people decide on courses of action.

Your judgements about the actions of the US are - in the final analysis - moral judgements.  That is really the only point I was trying to make.

As for your other assumptions about the use of force, and your incorrect apprehension about my comments in the a thread about Islam and Europe - I think that these are examples of your "automatic reaction" to your own memes, and not really based on my beliefs.  If you don't leave the field, and maintain a calm and open mind, you might just discover that sometimes what I say is based on deep and thoughtful reflections, albeit occasionally couched in terms that intentionally jar people.  I do it for a very good reason.

So ... my point is ... I'm not attempting to "set you up" or simply "pick a fight".  I don't expect you to change your opinions, even.  But I do find that having such discussions with persons of intellect, willing to give as well as take, will often solidify and change my reasons or points of view over time.  I suspect they may contribute to your growth as well.

If nothing else, they allow me (and may allow you) to gain a greater appreciation and self-knowledge of why we believe what we do, and how we can operationalize those beliefs in the "real world" when we have the opportunity.

Isn't that worth the effort to understand, rather than simply condemn?

FirmKY



LadyEllen -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 4:13:28 AM)

The dichotomy of human behaviour lies in our willingness to co-operate in order to fulfil our urge to compete with one another.

From that position, it becomes clear that we cannot have contentment either through total co-operation or total competition, but that we might produce contentment through the right balance of fulfilment of these two urges.

When it comes to competition, whilst we can fulfill our urge on a one to one basis, it generally works best for us when the odds are (or appear to be) stacked against us, motivating us to compete on a higher level.

When it comes to cooperation, again we can fulfill this urge on a one to one basis, though it seems to work best when we have a smaller group. A larger cooperative requires strict hierarchy and common ideology to function it seems, which then results in the negation of our own contribution and individuality.

Its often said that Britain was at its best during WWII; a situation where the odds were stacked against it and the whole country was united by one goal under an extensive hierarchy which reached into all aspects of life.

What this indicates to me, is that it is not so much about capitalism/communism, left/right or any other distinction, but rather than for a better society, which surely would produce better alternative establishments, we need to recognise these two urges in mankind and define our society in terms of common identity which is under such threat from outside that strict controls must be put in place to ensure its survival.

Christianity + Free Market Economy + Representative Democracy (packaged as "our free way of life in the west")
vs
Fundamentalist Islam + Dictatorship (packaged as "the threat")
with
The Terrorism Act / Patriot Act (as "the control")

I am now off to request medication, since it seems I am thinking along the lines of our two Great Leaders and their cohorts it seems.

E



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 6:15:40 AM)

Intense, Lady E.

And excellent.

FirmKY



Mercnbeth -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 7:07:43 AM)

quote:

If I am correct, US school children have to take the pledge of allegiance everyday, that is a form of brainwashing, as is the national history one learns at school.
MC,
The Supreme Court of the USA decided that children do not have to say the pledge each day in USA public schools.
I won't press you any further on the questions I posed. 



FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 7:49:53 AM)

NG,

In the rest of your two posts to me, I see several basic philosophical differences from me - which lead you to conclusions I would contest - along with a streak of unwillingness to credit my words with what they mean.

You seem to wish to paint me as a bloodthirsty, tyrannt supporting ideologue simply because I am willing to support my own way of life, and beliefs.  You seem to misunderstand and then mistate those very beliefs to support your position:

NG:

6. Is your personal wealth more important than the life of an Iraqi? i.e. on another thread you said US foreign policy should serve Americans, regardless of the consequences. Why do you believe you should not respect the wishes of sovereign nations, and what exactly is it that makes your interests more important than life?

FirmKY

Here, I believe we are walking into deep moral issues, and some requirements to see a larger picture that some people do not wish to address for reasons of moral blindness or fear.

I don't see the US's action in Iraq as primarily one of financial considerations.  If it were, we could have approached it much differently, and at much less cost to ourselves in money, and in lost human lives.  Your (and others) belief is a function of a will to believe and a skewed understanding of a lot of issues, that I don't think you can address in one simple post, or even a thread.


I quite plainly say that I do not see the driving force for our involvement in Iraq as one due to financial considerations, which is a cornerstone of your belief system.

I think this highlights a basic differences in our two belief systems, and why you seem so comfortable in your attempts to paint me (and the US) in such dark fashions.

This is actually not uncommon with many people who see the world in terms of a stark difference in economic terms of "haves" and "have nots".

I don't remember if you have said this, but many others have, and Lady E touched upon it in her post about the definition of "quality of life":  Economics isn't everything.  Important, certainly, but not necessarily determinative.  There is a moral or spiritual component to life that is difficult to measure, but nonetheless factors into the equation.

Often the same people who claim that economic factors are so important to "equality" and "true freedom" and discount other factors such as morality, spirituality and culture then use their own morality as the basis for their claims of "fairness" and what is right and wrong, and attempt to force their beliefs on people who do not see the world the same way.

It's a blindness I think I've said.  They are guilty - in my mind - of doing the very thing that they accuse me and Americans of doing, (imposing our beliefs on others) yet they fail to see it in themselves.

I've said plainly that I believe that a liberal economic system and what is commonly called "democracy" (actually, a increase in individual freedoms and rights) are intrinsically related.  The concept is that inherent in the belief in "free markets" is a social drive to property rights and the rule of law that are conducive to establishing and generally reinforcing of  the very concept of an autonomous individual imbued with "rights" that extend beyond simply the ownership of property.

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with this point, because while you "accept" a liberal economic system as a prerequisite to a "democractic society", you then go to great lengths to redefine it in such a way that denies the very concept. 

It really comes out in your refusal to credit either the US or myself with anything other than base financial motives for our actions, when to me, economic activity and beliefs are a part - but not necessarily the primary or even driving - factor in those actions.  You are displaying "absolutist" thinking.


NG:

The reason I asked this question was because on another thread you said foreign policy was simply a means of satsifying your interests:

1) US foreign policy includes killing people in Iraq.
2) It is serving your interests - whether financial or some other real or perceived interest.
3) Does it follow that you believe your interests are worth more than others' lives?

I don't see the US's action in Iraq as primarily one of financial considerations.
 
In terms of your quote above that I've placed in italics, I'm curious, what do you see as the primary consideration?
...

a) There are more ideas in the world than capitalism. You make it sound like it is the world against the Middle East, and this is a nonsense view.
...

b) You appear to be saying they are free to determine their way of life providing they agree with your way of life. In other words, agree with you and the US system, or face armed violence and suppression.
...

This was my worry with you, Firmhand. You're going to show them how they should lead their lives. You believe you have the one true answer, and consequently no sacrifice is too great for it.

...

In other words, you're going to make them better people - measured according to your ideals - by killing some of them.
...

For example, I think your idea of imposing your idea around the world is stark raving mad, but I'm not going to suppress your ideas, nor try to kill you or members of your family to bring you 'round to my way of thinking.
...

Basically, you want to close down ideas that are opposed to yours. The very antithesis of democracy i.e. mass participation. You're not democratic, Firmhand - you're a supporter of tryanny.
...

The righteousness of your idea is so blinding for you that you can not get your head around the obvious - your views on Iraq are akin to tyranny, they are nothing to do with democracy.


All of these above quotes flow from your basic misunderstanding (or lack of desire) to understand my clear words:

1.  "Freedom" and "capitalism" are intertwined.

2.  A world system which embraces capitalism will favor other systems which you can largely group under an umbrella of "democracy" - increased individual freedoms.

3.  The first order of business for capitalism is order, and an adherence to the rule of law.

4.  Middle Eastern societies, overall, are not based on the rule of law, but on strong men, tribes, and religious beliefs that do not favor the type of order that is conducive to greater individual freedom and the reinforcing capitalist system.

5.  However, until those societies actually threatened the stability of the world capitalist system, they were "free" to work out their own destiny, culture and society.

6.  As part of their "freedom of cultural choice", a certain active portion of that culture has choosen to oppose the basics of the Western world i.e. secularism, democracy and capitalism through death, destruction, terrorism etc.

7.  The US's actions in Iraq are an attempt to reorder the basis of Middle Eastern society, by demonstrating that a capitalistic, non-religious-based, rule-of-law-based society can exist and prosper in their culture milieu.

8.  The US (and all other Western capitalistic democracies) will benefit from such a successful change, by removing one of the fundamental issues that drives the Islamic terrorists and increasing global markets.

9.  The reording of a society in such a drastic way is rarely done without opposition.  The tools and methods required, therefore, will (and do) require force and the short-term unhappiness of some people.

You read the words only in order to find fault, not to understand.

Since you reveal in your words that you have a moral repugnance for everything that the US is built on, and espouses (which was my reason for exposing your belief in the "evil" of the US), your reactions to my words aren't rational: they are emotional.

No where did I say that I think violence is the best, or even sole preferred method to increase (impose?) "freedom".  It's just that sometimes it is a required method to defend yourself.

No where did I say that other countries, cultures and societies must adhere to US beliefs.  Simply that when they use unacceptable methods in an attempt to destroy or alter my society, that the use of force can be an appropriate tool to convince them of the error of their ways:
However, until those societies actually threatened the stability of the world capitalist system, they were "free" to work out their own destiny, culture and society.
The issue of "re-ordering" a Arabic Middle Eastern society to something approaching Western systems of government - a liberal economic system, and the belief in the rule of law - isn't simply a crass attempt to impose "the best" system because we are cultural imperialist.  It's an attempt to change the dynamic of the overall culture by growing the institutions that will support a peaceful culture no longer interested in the death and destruction of my family, my friends, my countrymen, and my fellow Westerners.

It's a protective measure (although I'm sure you'll disagree).  The use of force to protect yourself is a valid moral option.  The fact that it will likely increase the level of and encourage personal freedom for the members of that society is simply a large "plus" side effect.

The fact that it will increase the global market for US and other capitalistic nations is another plus.

Another important factor that you confuse is the particular for the general i.e you wish to condemn all US policy for all time based on specific incidents of foreign policy that you disagree with such as the replacement of some hostile governments. 

The problem with this is a failure to appreciate the messy aspect of human nature, and the wider conflicts and issues surrounding those decisions.  Plus the fact that not all decisions and actions do indeed fit the moral framework that the US generally espouses.

Yes, sometimes we fail to live up to our rhetoric.  It happens.  But you wish to throw out the baby with the bath water.  I don't.

Lots of issues not covered.  I'm particularly interested in your 6 pillars of democracy, because I disagree with some of them, and your beliefs about "equal opportunity" and "wealth distribution", but I think I'll wait for a while.

FirmKY



meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 9:04:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY



1.  "Freedom" and "capitalism" are intertwined.

Capitalism has nothing to do with democracy. Capitalism would never allow an alternative economic system to be voted in by the people. Capitalism is an economic system which it places a monetary value on everything that can be bought and sold. It would charge for the oxygen we breath if it could. One of the first requisites for Capitalism was the appropriation of land and the forced removal of collective peoples because with land collective peoples are not trapped within the capitalist economic system.

2.  A world system which embraces capitalism will favor other systems which you can largely group under an umbrella of "democracy" - increased individual freedoms.

Capitalism cannot tolerate competing systems which is why it cannot tolerate democratically elected communism or any other collective form of living such as tribal peoples who live on land that has a monetary value to be realised and certainly not if their land contains minerals.

3.  The first order of business for capitalism is order, and an adherence to the rule of law.

Not true. Though capitalism does use law as an excuse to impose its will. Look how many treaties and laws have been broken in order to gain minerals and rob and exploit tribal peoples. In fact, the appropriation of land and thus making it a bankable asset and the removal of people was one of the first requirements of capitalism. In Britain this was done by laws which enabled a few people to create a surplus wealth which could not be realised while land belonged to the collective. What happened to these people that were removed from their land? Their choice was to starve or earn slave wages of capitalists. In fact the first great capitalists of Britain were nothing but gangsters, like many American capitalist dynasties, dirty money made honest is the term I believe.


4.  Middle Eastern societies, overall, are not based on the rule of law, but on strong men, tribes, and religious beliefs that do not favor the type of order that is conducive to greater individual freedom and the reinforcing capitalist system.

Usury is seen as dishonest and immoral in the middle east so capitalism with it culture of everything has a price is seen as barbaric

5.  However, until those societies actually threatened the stability of the world capitalist system, they were "free" to work out their own destiny, culture and society.


Not true at all. It was capitalism that went round the world imposing its values on other peoples and still does. It is capitalism that threatens other societies, especially if they have assets that can be realised.

6.  As part of their "freedom of cultural choice", a certain active portion of that culture has choosen to oppose the basics of the Western world i.e. secularism, democracy and capitalism through death, destruction, terrorism etc.

It is capitalism that gave the world destruction and terrorism. Where did the transatlantic slave trade come from? Who robbed and exploited countries around the world and still does? A rejection of western capitalism is a direct reaction to western exploitation and violence.

7.  The US's actions in Iraq are an attempt to reorder the basis of Middle Eastern society, by demonstrating that a capitalistic, non-religious-based, rule-of-law-based society can exist and prosper in their culture milieu.

Iraq had a none relgious based government. The US rejected democracy in Iran for a strongman that was friendly towards its interests. It now wants to impose democracy on its neighbour and bomb the democracy (Iran) next door because it doesn't believe in the moral values of the US.

8.  The US (and all other Western capitalistic democracies) will benefit from such a successful change, by removing one of the fundamental issues that drives the Islamic terrorists and increasing global markets.

The west created Islamic terrorism with its policies and it does not benefit from the US and its poodle creating more terrorism in the middle east. There was no need for this war to increase global markets.

9.  The reording of a society in such a drastic way is rarely done without opposition.  The tools and methods required, therefore, will (and do) require force and the short-term unhappiness of some people.

It requires killing thousands of people and what right has the US to impose its will on people that never asked the US for help and never did the US any harm? Arrogance, total and utter arrogance.


What makes you think that US values are the best values for other people to have? It is so 19th century. If anyone should modernise their thinking, it is the current US administration.




FirmhandKY -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 9:36:35 AM)

So Marxism is the answer?  That's your response to the question I posed at the beginning of this thread?

Meat, you still won't even try to attempt to give an explanation - even in the most roundabout way - of what the system is that you wish to see as the "new establishment".

Tearing down is all well and good, but how about putting something positive out there, that we can analyze with the same ... feverent emotionalism ... that you exhibit here?

You've mentioned before some kind of semi-feudal system ... or was that a communist based collective?

How do you envision getting from "here" to "there"?

FirmKY



meatcleaver -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 10:08:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So Marxism is the answer?  That's your response to the question I posed at the beginning of this thread?

Meat, you still won't even try to attempt to give an explanation - even in the most roundabout way - of what the system is that you wish to see as the "new establishment".



I've got nothing against free enterprise. I have however, got something against imposing a market on people who don't want it or exploiting people because they have resources. Capitalism has imposed itself on the world, the world never asked for it.

If the world had limitless resources I might be won round to capitalism but it hasn't. The world's resources are finite and we are living beyond our means and yet the markets don't respond to this very important fact or won't until it is far too late. The west over consumes and causes much of the planet to live in poverty by destroying indigenous cultures by forcing the markets on people. We subsize our agriculture and then dump the surplus on the third world destroying their market.

Somewhere along the line, there has to be some international control on the exploitation of the poor by powerful countries, there has to be some respect given to the cultures of other peoples. Sometimes it is these indigenous cultures that stop the people involved living in poverty. You said that life has more than just financial value, yet you offer an economic system that puts financial value on everything. As the apocryphal eskimo said, we didn't know we werre poor until we were told we were poor. I propose a little more respect for indigenous peoiple around the world and not ruining their lives because they have something we in the west want.



luckydog1 -> RE: "Better alternative establishments" and the Left. (4/17/2007 10:11:38 AM)

Firmhand, I will draw your attention to a brand of Sexiness, That may help you understand..." Rebel Without a Cause".  It has been pushed by the Corparations/media since the 1950's.  It's a cheap and easy way to manufature "passion", that is far more fun than the actuall hard work of finding/implementing changes in the world for the better. 



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875