To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Iraq's Election

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Iraq's Election

By Noam Chomsky at Feb 07, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
In many respects, the elections were successful. The main success, however, is being mentioned only marginally, by a few reporters: the US was compelled to allow them to take place. That is a real triumph of non-violent resistance, for which Sistani has been the symbol. The US sought in every possible way to avoid elections, but has been compelled to back down, step-by-step. First, it tried to ram through a US-written constitution. That was barred by a Sistani fatwa. Then it tried to impose one or another device (caucuses, etc.) that could be controlled completely. Also blocked by non-violent resistance. It continued until finally the US (and UK, trailing obediently behind) had no recourse but to allow an election -- and of course, the doctrinal system went into high gear to present it as a US initiative, once it could no longer be avoided. The US also sought to undermine it as much as possible, e.g., by driving independent media out of the country (notably al-Jazeera, the most important), by ensuring that its own candidates, particularly Allawi, would be the only ones to have access to state resources to reach the public (most candidates had to remain unidentified), etc. But the US-UK couldn't block the elections, greatly to the distress of Washington and London. The question now is whether they can be compelled to accept the outcome. There's little doubt, even from the more serious mainstream press as well as from polls and from properly hawkish experts (like Anthony Cordesman) that people voted with the hope that it would end the occupation. Blair announced at once, loud and clear, that the prospect is not even being contemplated, clearly articulating his usual contempt for democracy. Washington also announced that the US military forces would stay at least into 2007, whatever Iraqis want. The more serious press, like the Wall St Journal, is reporting that the US is attempting to secure some kind of agreement on a "vague promise" to withdraw eventually. Other issues will be whether the US can pressure the elected officials to keep to the occupation-imposed legal structure to open up the economy to US takeover. The oil minister of the interim (effectively, US-appointed) government has already announced his intention to open up the oil industry to foreign (meaning primarily US) takeover. And so on. There are sure to be continuing struggles over these matters, and what happens here can have a significant outcome. There will be a major effort to project the required imagery about how the "free" and "sovereign" government wants the US to keep a long-term military presence, to take over a commanding role in the economy, etc. But that's normal, as in Indochina, Central America, etc. It's routine, not just in the US, of course. I don't think comparisons to 1984 in ES [El Salvador] or 1990 in NIcaragua are very useful. In those cases, the US was eager to have an election in the hope that it would ratify Washington's resort to violence to undermine any prospect of democracy. This case is different. Whether it will be good for the people of Iraq is, in large measure, up to us.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (247)

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Blindhomer692000, Blindhomer at Sep 06, 2005 09:28 AM
For Mr. Chomsky I have infinite respect and gratitude.Is to consider him a true paragon of dissidence an overstatement?Hiis name ,and fame,generate credibility,and an audience,for his(my,our?)views.And I am also appreciative that opinions of dissention can still be heard over,under,or through,the all powerful corporate media monsters.To the masses(yes,they're asses),the notion of the U.S. being an imperialist-terrorist state,or un(anti)democratic causes rage,mockery,dismissal,and confusion.But mostly,people are completely oblivious,totally numb to reality. That America's increasingly blatant decent into totalitarianism has been accelerated by the current administration is an inconceivable idea to the majority,yet a given to a minority,illustrates both the effectiveness of the elite's policy's of marginilization,but also, the conviction of the opposition.My challenge has been popularizing the excellent books and docs. while they're still available.Along with Chomsk's Manufacturing Consent,and Distorted Morality,I love The Corporation,In Plane Site,and Orwell Spins In His Grave.There is no lack of substantial dissenting views and opinions....but for how long? The Internet is a haven for freedom of speech,but it too requieres vigilent defence from the capacious appetite of those who seek to control all. So please,keep up the fight.Pass a book or a file of Noam's to five,or more,people.Please.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 20, 2005 07:13 AM
Bwong, Here is the troll in ? taking a swing at me in the comments following an earlier post from Prof. C.: "Robert Allen: Have you ever thought that Cuba's problems may be because Castro is a psychopath and has created one of the best examples of obedience through coercion (CDR's and the like)?" Here is my response: "The fact is, Castro has made Cuba much better for the Cuban people. Had he been left alone by the US, which does not want a successful socialist state to exist (esp. one 90 miles from FL) and the Cuban oligarchs, who wanted to continue exploiting Cuban workers, there would have been little or no violence in the wake of the revolution. I do not condone the execution of the Batista loyalists, but it's not as if they did not have blood on their hands. Again, where is your proof that Fidel is a "psychopath": are you a psychologist? No, just a moron with a big mouth." If he gets back up, I'll knock him down again.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 20, 2005 06:47 AM
"Your point it taken Robert, but isn't it possible that r4d20 was speaking 'off the cuff,' as it were, and offering an opinion (rather than a well thought-out argument) when he made that comment about professors?" Graeme, It's the clicheness and anti-intellectualism that are telling.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 20, 2005 00:19 AM
Hi, Robert, I would like to alert you to another person who is a lot more deserving of your wrath than r4d20 and realpc combined and multiplied by 1000. Check out the posts of wtgn on various recent blogs. Now this is a facist who comes here for no purpose other than to pick a fight. I think he deserves some real good arse kicking only you can deliver!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 19, 2005 23:43 PM
"There is nothing more pathetic than a professor pissed because he never got tenure." r4 Now I would like to show those posting to this blog- that includes you bwong- why we should not take seriously this person's comments. Imagine what it would take to confirm this generalization. First, you would have to define 'patheticness', no mean mean feat. (Consider the philosophical debate over what it means to be happy.) Then you would have to find a way of measuring it, again, no mean feat. Lastly, you would have to measure the patheticness in untenured professors (as defined) to see whether or not they were indeed more pathetic than pathetic firemen, pathetic rocket scientists, pathetic doctors, etc. etc. etc.. Safe to say that r4 has not undertaken this enormous task. So why make the assertion? Small minds like cliches. He's just repeating without critical reflection what he's heard from other small minds. Until he acknowledges and agrees to break this bad habit, he's not worth talking to.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 19, 2005 09:00 AM
"Actually, Robert, I simply expressed amazement at your ignorance of ASIAN philosophy. I figured that a PhD in Philosophy would at least have had to learn about the basics of Taoist, Buddhist, and Confusion philosophy. The arguments I was making would have at least been recognisable to anyone who did have a working knowledge of these philosophical traditions, but you acted as if I was making it all up" rd Your sentence would have been accepted without clarification by no philosopher worth his/her salt no matter what school of thought he/she belonged to.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 19, 2005 06:20 AM
"When people hear about some new "potential" cure, even for non-fatal things like baldness or impotency, they sometimes are desperate enough, emotionally, to try it without really considering the risks. " If you think cures for baldness and impotency are odd lately I heard there is a cure for shyness. Go figure.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 05:57 AM
The Pharm-Industry is pretty shady, but people also want to have their cake and eat it too. When people hear about some new "potential" cure, even for non-fatal things like baldness or impotency, they sometimes are desperate enough, emotionally, to try it without really considering the risks. So, there is a "pull" effect too, wherein the population demands access to these drugs faster and faster, and is often impatient to wait for "proof".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 19, 2005 05:48 AM
"Yes, but I was postulating a more "popular" and direct control over public funding the sciences that the current US system has. One whol thinks the capitalists dominate the gov't would, I assume, also think that the current "public" funding system is probably corrupt to." I don't know about others here, but I have never advocate any form of "direct control". In fact I think the way to remedy the "corruption" you speak of is too make sure enough safegurad be put in place that funding to research should be administered through some kind of arms length mechanism, as far as possible. Scientific research should not be driven by big money or popular fads.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 05:47 AM
bwong, I totally agree with you. My point isn't that private funding isn't biases and social funding is. My point is that private companies can pursue more radical lines of research because they don't have to worry as much about the effects. Social funding, however, is often "paralyzed" from doing much by the varied and competiting agendas of different factions of "society" who can't reach a majority consensus on an issue. I am currently reading a good book on AIDS research that shows how different groups took an interest in the process and how each had their own agenda. Every side had legitimate arguments and positions, but the existence of so many, sometimes contradictory, inputs slowed progress. An example was the, legitimate and self-interested, push by AIDs activists for access to "experimental" drugs that seemed to have promise, and the, also legitimate and self-interested, push by researchers not to jump the gun before the treatments had been fully tested and vetted.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 19, 2005 05:36 AM
"The Feudal Lord may look like a Parasite, and have ended up as a parasite, but he was born out of urgent necessity. When my ancestors rolled up in their longboats to rape, murder, and pillage, that Feudal Lord and his posse of trained killers became the only think around that could keep the peasants alive" The Feudal lords themselves no doubt had their share of looting and pillaging. Was that the Lords who protect the peasants or was it the other way around? The rank of the soldiers was not exactly filled with blue blood aristocrats, you know. I cannot think of any defence function which could not have been fulfilled by peasant militia, and in fact it was often the case when the "official armies" fled with the first sight of the barabarians. Here is what a Chinese writer observed:" When the bandits came, they slaughtered the peasants and robbed them. Then the soldiers arrived to drive out the bandits. The peasants were killed and robbed again, this time because they were alledged to have been sympathetic to the bandits."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 05:36 AM
"You must be aware there was a lot more to it than that. It's not like peasants had much of an option to choose anything other than a parasite to rule them." Actually, they could have done what the swiss ended up doing and organise for common defense. The "reason" Feudal Lords were able to rule as long as they did was because, for the most part, a small force of trained and equippend men at arms could decisively whoop the asses of many times their number in untrained and illequipped peasants. The Swiss Cantons, the Hussites, the Scots (at various times) etc. are some of the exceptions that prove the rule. These groups of peasants learned how to fight, trained themselves in tactics appropriate to their circumstances and conditions, and were able to successfully fight off the knightly armies of those who wanted to rule them. It had nothing to do with money either, the much richer armies of France and Germany were beaten routinely by lightly armored Swiss pikemen possessed of little more than excellent training and discipline, which shows that, in war, moral factors are often more important and decisive than disparities in wealth or armaments.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 19, 2005 05:25 AM
Private fundings always come with strings. Often this takes the form of some clauses which restrict what the researchers can publish. In light of the bad pr the universities now claim that they would no longer accept that kind of "donations". But then why would the companies want to "donate" if they cannot control the agenda?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 19, 2005 05:25 AM
"Private companies rarely research technologies that would destroy the need for their services - but have no problem researching technologies that will put other people out of work. Truely social funding would have to take effects into account for ALL people. " Conflict of interest can arise in other ways if private fundings become the main source of financing research. Private "donors" often seek to control the research agenda using public money no less(the "donations" are tax deductible) Let me give you a concrete example. Due to cut back in public fundings for univesrities private contributions have take on a bigger role in funding research in Canada. Some areas that recieve a lot of private fundings are bio tech and pharmacheuticals. Recently a few very distinctiguished pharmachologists were fired from their university positions because they published results that shed some of the products manufactured by the donars in bad light. Some of the whistle blowers who lost their jobs prompty sued the universities. During the trial it was revealed that universities researchers are rotunely under pressure to censor themselves from powerful donars.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 05:19 AM
" In a society where losing one's job didn't mean facing possible starvation and radical social displacement, there would be no impetus to oppose advancements in society" Graeme, This is a whole other can of beans right there. But you are right, I never did consider the possibility that losing a job would be "no big deal" to these people. It just seems to me that postulating such a society is not a simple thing - but I really don't want to go into another "feasibility of socialism" debate. So, yes, I will agree that my argument would be considerably weakened IF, and its a big IF, you had a society in which welfare was assured to all people.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 05:10 AM
"assuming they really are advancements - your comments about GM crops, which are currently being opposed for all sorts of very legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with your thesis, raise some questions about both your sincerity and accuracy" 1) I never meant to imply that the objections to GM foods were "illegitimate". What I meant is that GM foods, like ALL new technologies, have potential advantages and potential disadvantages. The objections to the GM foods ARE legitimate, as were the objections to a lot of other modern technologies that many now regard as "essential" to modern society. I'm not sticking up for GM crops as much as I am saying they are an example of a radical new tech with potential for great good and great harm. Surely you can agree with that.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 04:46 AM
"If I may clarify, according to Robert(and Marx)the Capitalist is a parasite in the same way that the Fedual Lord was. " Don't go there Girl!!! The Feudal Lord may look like a Parasite, and have ended up as a parasite, but he was born out of urgent necessity. When my ancestors rolled up in their longboats to rape, murder, and pillage, that Feudal Lord and his posse of trained killers became the only think around that could keep the peasants alive. Feudalism in Europe was the result of barabarian raids (Vikings, Avars, Magyars) that forced people to turn to local strongmen for protection. You say he was a leech because he didn't provide anything to the people, but I say the service he provided (protection) was (at least initially) so in demand that he was able to get away with an extremely lopsided deal.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 04:38 AM
"He's not learn to philosophy, as you are, he's here to tell philosophers that they don't know philosophy." Actually, Robert, I simply expressed amazement at your ignorance of ASIAN philosophy. I figured that a PhD in Philosophy would at least have had to learn about the basics of Taoist, Buddhist, and Confusion philosophy. The arguments I was making would have at least been recognisable to anyone who did have a working knowledge of these philosophical traditions, but you acted as if I was making it all up.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 04:34 AM
"Neither does he possess eloquence. Compare his grammar to that of a prose stylist such as Prof. C" Oh my GOD! Are you saying that I am not as good a writer as Chomsky, a man who has spent his ENTIRE LIFE studying language? My dreams are ruined!! I mean, if an untrained amateur like myself cannot even write as well as the father of modern linguistics, what do I have to live for? "Words can be likened to a finger, and the Truth can be likened to the moon. I can use my finger to point to the moon, but my finger itself is not the moon, and once you have seen the moon there is no need to dwell on the finger". Keep staring at your finger man.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 04:26 AM
"If we lived in a society thats economic and political functions were run democratically people would support the invention of things like computers (as they do now) out of the desire to discover new things and create a better world (not out of profit)" The people who were going to lose their jobs would not consider it a "better" world. The more people who will lose their job, the less of a "better" world it becomes. New technology is ALWAYS being fought. The Hand-weavers fought against the first automatic looms, and even resorted to sabotage sometimes. Look at the fight over GM crops today. It is exactly what I am talking about - there is MASSIVE opposition for all sorts of "social" reason about their "potential effects". Of course not ALL science will be halted, but the most important advances have ALWAYS been controverisal. There importance means that they impact the economy and society in MANY ways. How can you pretend that this won't happen, when it is happening right now?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 04:15 AM
"They are not working on a cure for cancer, we know the causes of cancer. They are tring to create a profitable treatment for cancer.... The goal in medicine these days is not to prevent... only to treat.." Because, in the words of Chris Rock "They still mad at all the money they lost on Polio!!!!".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 04:14 AM
"Hi, I don't really understand your point. Are you suggesting private patrons don't have conflict of interest?" Private companies rarely research technologies that would destroy the need for their services - but have no problem researching technologies that will put other people out of work. Truely social funding would have to take effects into account for ALL people. The PC and Email destroyed the jobs of tens of thousands of people, in offices around the country, who used to employeed just to deal with the volumes of paperwork big corporations generate. It also essentially destroyed the Mainfram computer business. The PC was developed by IBM, who were intially laughed at by the "giants" of the time, like DEC, who manufactured giant expensive mainframes. What I am saying is that If the mailroom employees union, and the Mainframe workers union, had been excersising "worker control" of the means of production, IBM would never have been allowed to make PCs. They would have seen the threat to their jobs and reacted to stifle research on the grounds that the perceived beenfits of the PC would not justify putting them all out of work.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 19, 2005 04:04 AM
""Society" supporting scientific research is not as complicated as you suggest. That is called public funding. Researchers recieving fundings from the NSF are being patronized by "the society", for example." Yes, but I was postulating a more "popular" and direct control over public funding the sciences that the current US system has. One whol thinks the capitalists dominate the gov't would, I assume, also think that the current "public" funding system is probably corrupt to. I don't know all the ins and outs of the NSF, but I do know that they don't fund all disciplines, and all research programs, equally. I know for a fact now that, when writing NSF proposals, research with potential "homeland security" applications are MUCH more likely to get funded.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 18, 2005 23:34 PM
Ok, Robert Allen, I wil seriously consider this: "I would think long and hard about your decision to endorse capitalism. Because, if I am right, you are not only going to wind up on the wrong side of history, but, what is far worse, stading before God almighty trying to explain why your awareness of the suffering of millions of people did not move you to exercise the intellect He gave you to challenge those living in luxury." I must sleep now as it is 530am. But, in 2 days or so I will try to reply to the comments. To be clear, I do not assert what I do out of blindness but out of a belief that the market is the best way to pull the majority out of poverty. Initally, I only wanted to take on the claim that Capitalist steal but it appears that I have a days works ahead of me. Sleep first, replies later. Gimmie some time.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 18, 2005 19:15 PM
contd. To BJ it should be pointed out that just because an interlocutor is willing to be civil in tone does not mean he/she is reasonable. Frankly, I would rather deal with an impolite but reasonable person than someone who is civil but thick-headed. I would think long and hard about your decision to endorse capitalism. Because, if I am right, you are not only going to wind up on the wrong side of history, but, what is far worse, stading before God almighty trying to explain why your awareness of the suffering of millions of people did not move you to exercise the intellect He gave you to challenge those living in luxury. "When I was hungry ...."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 18, 2005 18:58 PM
contd. That should be 'unwillingly' in the penultimate sentence

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 18, 2005 18:55 PM
contd. For all of his factoids about capitalism, BJ just doesn't seem to get- or want to get-how the system really works: the capitalists cannot profit from our labor unless its value is greater than the value of its compensation, however you want to measure it. Forcing a worker to accept such terms amounts to theft, which is what happens since they are the only terms available. (That is the force of my slave analogy.) The only concession I MIGHT make here is to those who maintain that it's not the capitalists themselves who steal but the economic system in which they are involved, because it's the latter applying the force. But, either way, the worker is being ripped off. Imagine I told my neighbor, off to the links one fine Sat. morning, that he is going to mow my lawn instead. Incredulously, he asks why. I tell him that I've found out that he is having an affair and unless he wants his lovely wife to find out to he'd better start mowing. If this is not a case of forcing someone to unwilling spend their time on a task, then the concept has no meaning. The worker's situation is no different, except that the "alternative" is, as you point out, starvation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 18, 2005 17:32 PM
Graeme, You don't need me to tell you this, but I want to say it anyway: you have done a superb job trying to enlighten a misguided individual, showing a lot more patience with him than I could have. All for naught, apparently. But there's not much anyone can do for him until he realizes that it is "always about being right or wrong"- the truth.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 18, 2005 07:43 AM
I have one last point of contention… "People generally don't accept being owned by others, unless they have been conditioned over a long period of time to accept their own inherent inferiority (and even this is usually impossible to maintain forever)." Why do you assume that it is me who has been conditioned into what I believe and not yourself? Why does every lefty communist/socialist/anarchist think that they have uncovered the Wizard of OZ, standing behind a curtain running the world - and the rest of us are simply brainwashed by media or whatever into subservience? You understand, of course, that we are aware who pays us, and also, who owns our house? You are suggesting the largest conspiracy theory since, well, a long time. Anyhow, thanks for your very challenging reply (lets be civil in the replies, shall we?)…

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 18, 2005 07:40 AM
In the end, I will be the one to paint a big bulls-eye on my chest. Capitalism is responsible for the greatest rise in the average standard of living of the average citizen of the average Capitalist nation in the history of the world. Communism/socialism, even the anarchist form in Spain, has been a total, disgusting failure. It may seem like a Right-wing joke to you, but in the attempt to free the Capitalist slave from her chains what was really created was one of the greatest experiments in slavery in the history of humanity. Continued…

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 18, 2005 07:38 AM
Lastly, I do not agree with you that we are all “owned” by others. I am able to understand the difference between an African slave in present day Sudan who is bought and sold like a cow and myself who must work to support my life. There is not only a logical difference here, but also a moral one. Are you using this for shock value, or do you actually think of yourself as a victim morally comparable to a Slave from American times? Do you look at yourself in the mirror and see a slave comparable to those who lived in the South? Ours are societies so fantastically wealthy, with such amazing average standards of living that perhaps a real slave might be slightly insulted that you compare our luxurious, decedent existence with their subsistence-supporting toiling. And even if we were poor, they were treated like cattle, while we are granted sovereignty. I own my emotional, physical and intellectual productive capacities. And it is because I own them that I may reject ‘from each according to ability to each according to his need' and the slavery that that idea created. Continued…

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 18, 2005 07:37 AM
I believe the thrust of the criticism is this “You're merely describing the working of capitalism but Robert Allen is questioning the moral basis of the system.” OK, no. I am questioning the assertion that ‘Capitalists steal'. If indeed, as I suggested, Capitalists are simply compensated for the function that they preformed, then they do not steal. If they do not steal, then a chunk (but not all) of ‘questioning the moral basis of the system' is quite simply negated. Allen wanted someone to challenge his three assertions posted long ago, and that is what I have done. I challenged that Capitalists steal (or enforce wage-slavery or whatever). Continued…

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 18, 2005 07:36 AM
On to the critique itself… First, I would like to talk of Japan, as it is a place I been to a few times and know a bit of. Currently, I live in Seoul, South Korea and the social order here is quite similar to what you have described in Japan. The Japanese have built an amazing country, as have the South Koreans, in a very short amount of time. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong are examples to be contrasted with Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea and China. The first four choose, to a varying degree, capitalism while the others listened to the Slave argument and in response created Slave-states. In the event that you are unclear, the majority of the sweat-shops on earth today exist in Communist countries (China, Vietnam and Cambodia) while the Capitalist nations were able to raise worker productivity so high that sweatshops have been eliminated. How is it that the Asian Capitalist economies are working and the communist economies in the region working only when the institute Capitalist reforms? What we believe must not only past the test of philosophical debate and reasoning but also of reality of application. Continued…

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 18, 2005 07:35 AM
Thanks for the long responses, As I am sure that you know, that argument that I posted is the standard refutation of Marxist theory. The Capitalist does not steal but is paid for his labor. It is how Classical Liberals, and more specifically the Austrian Economists have been discussing Marxism for quite some time (late 1890's), and I do believe that there is some merit to the argument. So, I will not concede that I am wrong as I don't think that 2 replies are sufficient to ‘prove' wrongness and also because much more intelligent men then I have discussed and continue to discuss this today. I will accept that it is not the end all and be all of theories, but again, I wrote it to demonstrate that the assumption that theft is the only action of the Capitalist is vulnerable to attack from a few different angles. It isn't always about being right or wrong. I am often wrong about a great many things, and have never been the type whose pride won't let him admit that. It seems we hold different assumptions and have thus arrived at different conclusions. Continued…

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 18, 2005 00:58 AM
BJWD, Now show us that you are reasonable, unlike others whose names I won't mention, and concede that you were wrong. There really is no shame in that; in fact, after a few times you will get to liking philosophy so much that it won't bother you at all. What is disgusting is the obstinance displayed by the aforeunmentioned individuals.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 18, 2005 00:27 AM
In return for employee loyalty the company offers good wages, nice benifit packages and life time employment. Employees live in company provided hosuing compounds which are almost like self contained little towns. Employees meet their mates in company arranged events. They go on company organized trips on their off days. The companies provides daycare for the children.. "The company" is "the family" and the CEO acts like (and be regarded as) the patriach of the family.The company manages every espect of the employee's lives and socialization. It is almost like a more begign version of Soviet Communism. I find this rather horribly distressing but the Japanese don't seem to mind "being owned" at all. The Japansese model has been steadily eroding since the 1990s and it is replaced by a more North American style model which relies on a contingent, disposable workforce. Many Japanese workers appear to miss the lost paradise of the old way.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 18, 2005 00:27 AM
" People generally don't accept being owned by others, unless they have been conditioned over a long period of time to accept their own inherent inferiority (and even this is usually impossible to maintain forever)." But if the "slaves" were able to choose the plantation then they were not "owned" in a technical sense. I agree with you that it is disturbing to contemplate the possibility that some people may think it is acceptible to be owned. But consider this. In the Japanese model of capitalism the company comes pretty close to owning the workers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 17, 2005 22:28 PM
However, I think a valid point can be made that if the "slaves" were able to choose the planations and have the power to negotiatie with the owners of the terms of working, it does take a lot of sting off slavery even though it does not mediate the basic injustice of the instuition that basically treat people as tools.In that case "slavery" may be even accpetible to the "slaves" I am not sure if most people are motivated by abstract theories of justice. All revolutions happen because lives become unbearable rather that intellecrtual queries. Mordern workers would rather get a well paid union job than to start a revolution. (I know I will be blasted for this).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 17, 2005 22:16 PM
"your premise that Capitalists steal is illogical as theft requires that *the* individual being stolen from does not agree to the transaction. " "Agreement" can be the result of lack of choice as Grame pointed out. But here is another example. Loan sharking is illegal even though the person trying to get the loan does agree to the term of of the loan.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 17, 2005 22:06 PM
Following this line of thinking the capitalist "steals" from the worker in the same way the lord stole from the peasants. The Capitalist's ability to steal stems from the legal fiction that allows private owenship of the MOP(and therefore the cocerive power of depriving others of the right to make a living in the same way the Lord can kick the peasant out of "his " land) Personally I think perhaps "theft" is an unfortunate terminology(because "surplus value' is empirically impossible to measured and therefore does not have an operational definition) but the meaning of his basic point is clear.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 17, 2005 22:03 PM
BJWD, You're merely describing the working of capitalism but Robert Allen is questioning the moral basis of the system. To appreciate his point(though you may still disagree with him) you need to look at the problem at the fundamental level. If I may clarify, according to Robert(and Marx)the Capitalist is a parasite in the same way that the Fedual Lord was. The fact that you "need" the capitalist to "invest" is the result of the peculiar way the system is set up rather than some laws of physics. In the same way reactionaries before the French revolution could argue that the Lords were necessary for the peasants' survival because he permitted the peasant to work on "his" land. But the question is, of course, why the hell was the Lord owning all the land (MOP) in the first place?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 17, 2005 17:48 PM
oops! said that your premise that Capitalists steal is illogical as theft requires that *the* individual being stolen from does not agree to the transaction.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 17, 2005 17:41 PM
So, as time goes on, the product being produced will likely fall victim to competition and the price of the product must fall, while quality improving. To maintain competitiveness, the Capitalist must both raise the wages of the workers to 1) retain them and 2) to attract the best and brightest new employees from her competitors. Eventually, some of the producers must either innovate (which requires an additional investment), change what is being produced in the factory (which also requires additional investment) or go under, in which case the Capitalist ceases to be rewarded for her risks, Capital investment and for holding off personal consumption. Now, I do not write this assuming that I have “proved” anything besides the complexity of responses that can be produced. I accept this theory to be largely accurate, but not perfect.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 17, 2005 17:40 PM
For a (for example) factory to be built capital must be invested. Our average worker does not have the finances to build a factory, but a wealthier person may. So, those who can afford to build and start a business do, and those who can't work in the business that was built with the money of another. So the worker agrees to work for the owner in exchange for a profit, or, a return on the initial investment. Of course, you will argue that the owner will reap more that he has invested and thus exploitation has occurred. But, as I see it, the profits over and above the initial capital investment are interest on initial investment. The profits above what is invested are a payment from the worker to the Capitalist for 1) risking her or his money and 2) holding off on his or her personal consumption until the initial capital has been returned and 3) taking the time and labor to put the company together. In other words, it is the salary of the employer for labor, risk and capital invested. (continued)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 17, 2005 17:40 PM
Ok, I simply wanted to demonstrate that it may not be a clear an answer as was insinuated. I really didn't want to get into a complex discussion, but it appears we must. Now, I didn't say that a worker not receiving the sum-total of the value of her wages wasn't wrong; I said that your premise that Capitalists steal is illogical as theft requires that individual being stolen from does not agree to the transaction. Of course, as a worker, I feel that all workers are entitled to the profits of their labor. To suggest otherwise would require me to ‘vote' in opposition to my interests. That being said, when you are considering the relationship between wages and profits you must be careful to consider both what you can see obviously, the salary, and that which you cannot see as easily. (continued)

Reply this comment

Person

By Allen, Robert at Feb 17, 2005 16:33 PM
I'm sorry that should be 'plantation'.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 17, 2005 16:32 PM
BTWD, Would an American slave have been enslaved less had he been able to choose the planatation on which he worked?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 17, 2005 16:29 PM
"My assumption differs from yours. I do not believe that theft or slavery is taking place. I make a choice of where to work, and may quit if I dislike it. My ability to choose, in my mind, negates theft or slavery. I know that this is something that may be considered 'pop philosophy' but in the end, I believe it to be true." BTWD, You can go on "believing" it "in your mind" all you want that won't make it true. You are a slave, my friend, and the sooner you accept that fact the sooner you will begin figuring out what to do about it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 17, 2005 10:50 AM
Right, anyhow, My assumption differs from yours. I do not believe that theft or slavery is taking place. I make a choice of where to work, and may quit if I dislike it. My ability to choose, in my mind, negates theft or slavery. I know that this is something that may be considered 'pop philosophy' but in the end, I believe it to be true.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 17, 2005 10:49 AM
Right, Anyhow, My assumption differs from yours. I do not believe that theft or slavery is taking place. I make a choice of where to work, and may quit if I dislike it. My ability to choose, in my mind, negates theft or slavery. I know that this is something that may be considered 'pop philosophy' but in the end, I believe it to be true.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 17, 2005 07:09 AM
"I will address the rest of your reply when I get home from exploiting my students." That shows how little you know: as has been made perfectly clear on this blog, one cannot exploit anyone, in the relevant sense of the term, unless one owns a MOP operated by employees, which you don't. You can't exploit students only your workers. Also, if you haven't figured out by now that I don't care about your standards of good behavior, you need a remedial reading course. I am here to end slavery, not win your approval.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 17, 2005 05:00 AM
Interesting reply Robbie! "So, to begin with, take your advice and shove it up your rectum where your brains must be located. Are you that stupid to think that..." My 11 year old students are more well behaved than you. Again, calm down, and act your age. And yes, I am so stupid to think that blah blah blah. Yes. It could be my False consciousness acting up as I haven't taken my Revolutionary Medication today. But, your wonderful responses and behaviour on this site really, Really make me want to become a radical! The conventions must be so interesting!!! I will address the rest of your reply when I get home from exploiting my students.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 17, 2005 03:36 AM
"Neither does he possess eloquence. Compare his grammar to that of a prose stylist such as Prof. C. ." Well, Robert, I won't be the one to criticize others on grammar and spelling as mine are pretty atrocious. "Here's the thing about r4: he's out of his league. He thinks that because he is an expert on some science; he can come to a philosophy discussion and dominate it. He's not learn to philosophy, as you are, he's here to tell philosophers that they don't know philosophy" I would not pass judgement on that either, because, you see, I haven't studied philosphy myself. My education background is actually very similar to r4d20(math and physics)I tried a philosophy coures years ago but ended up dropping the course because the prof absolutely hated my paper on the mind body problem(?)I was supposed to take a side but instead I argued the problem was ill posed :)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Pgomez, Euskadiko at Feb 17, 2005 02:22 AM
The fact is that the US has now created exactly what it has claimed to want prevent: a theocratic leaning,insurgent plagued, women hating failed state. Sadaam Hussein was indeed a "bad guy". His regime was cruel, deprived individuals of basic civil political rights and at one time long ago was a destabilyzing force in the region. During his regime, however, the status of women was much better than their future seems to promise.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 17, 2005 01:15 AM
That 3rd sentence should read 'He's not here to learn philosophy ....'

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 17, 2005 01:13 AM
bwong, Here's the thing about r4: he's out of his league. He thinks that because he is an expert on some science; he can come to a philosophy discussion and dominate it. He's not learn to philosophy, as you are, he's here to tell philosophers that they don't know philosophy. And that's just plain arrogant. If he were discussing whatever science on which he is supposed to be an expert, I would keep my mouth shut and try to learn something. That's the difference between him and me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 23:35 PM
"Actually I think r4d20 is very intelligent and eloquent. I enjoy discussing with him. realpc is getting really repetitive and is quite irrational when comes to Chomsky. But I will not classify either as "fascist" or "evil". Honest people do disagree." By this logic, you should be unwilling to label Nazis, slaveholders, or their defenders 'evil'. But some views are beyond the pale and if you don't hold them and others do, your disagreement warrants labeling them evil. As for intelligence, I have read your exchanges with r4 and his tactics are only a cut above the other fellow's. Neither does he possess eloquence. Compare his grammar to that of a prose stylist such as Prof. C.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 16, 2005 22:52 PM
"Why would a laborer agree to research that threatens his job? It's not that I'm saying everyone is "selfish", but people have a remarkable way of convincing themselves that what is best for them is also best for everybody. Tupee manufacturers would obviously yell about the "health effect" of baldness cures." r4d20 That is because our system operates like a zero sum game. But this does not have to be the case. The Luddites probably would not be smashing machines if the machines were not used to turn them into paupers. The conflict between labour and technology arises only becuase people are treated as tools in our society and are compelled to compete with machines. There is no god given reason why this has to be the case. If you can make widgets more efficiently with a smaller workforce then people should be able to work less without a loss of living standard. There is no reason why the workers who were making widgets should be laid off and hung out to dry. Labour will not oppose technology if technology were not used against them in the first place, and it shouldn't be.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 16, 2005 22:21 PM
Actually I think r4d20 is very intelligent and eloquent. I enjoy discussing with him. realpc is getting really repetitive and is quite irrational when comes to Chomsky. But I will not classify either as "fascist" or "evil". Honest people do disagree. There are others who do deserve to be blasted. For example, WGTN(?) who obviously get a kick out off coming here to piss all over people(the guy's handle link to some Ayn Rand site), or Yakov Bok. Now Bok is a Fascist.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 16, 2005 22:07 PM
And oh, to add one more point to my last post. The most important reason for the existence for private tutors is massive government cut back on education. Students are not getting enough help and attentions from the universities(Canadian universities are publicly funded). There should be no/little demand for private tutors if the system is properly funded and run.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 16, 2005 21:56 PM
In the end maybe I was the one ripping off my students because that sort of service has no intrinsic value. I had a market(actualluy I was in great demand) simply because of certain defects in the education system which should be rectified. Mainly that boil down to 1)Students have to write stupid exams. 2) There are really horrible university professors who cannot teach.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 21:56 PM
"Joking aside, I've seen boards deteriorate before, and hope this one doesn't because of the likes of realpc. " Player And yes, I agree that so much is at stake. It is for this reason that responding to ad hominem attacks with ad hominem attacks is not productive. Zim "You can make excellent points with out starting or ending them with 'idiot!'. At the same time i can appreciate the frustration that leads to this as well, so i am sympathetic. I just don't think its is the most productive way to engage people with this mind set." damp Ok, no more name-calling.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 16, 2005 21:55 PM
"Obviously, the wage that I am paid is a market determined amount. I am not sure how one would calculate the 'use value' of exam preparation. "BJWD The anwswer is none, zero. There is no "use value" for exam preparations whatsoever because exams themselves are worhless rituals which have nothing to do with real learning. I worked as a private tutor before. Still do from time to time when I need some cash. Well, I try to teach something important and interesting as long as the student would tolerate but that is not what the business is about. The students(not all, but mostly are lazy but well off kids) want easy, ready made exam notes. The exercise is pointless.Basically I get paid (quite well I should add) coaching people to be really good at playing some silly game which is devoid of any true intellectual, educational or social value. I was depressed. I felt like a whore..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 16, 2005 21:15 PM
To Robert Allen Continued, And yes, I agree that so much is at stake. It is for this reason that responding to ad hominem attacks with ad hominem attacks is not productive. We on the Left already have enough problems communicating our ideas clearly and concisely and with great rigor without making our interlocuters feel intimidated, offended, etc. I do expect you to 'let things go' at times, especially when responding to a charlatan like RealPC. Our energies could be invested constructively elsewhere. I look forward to future discussions, and I do appreciate your comments. By the way, your 'sandwich anyone' interjection was hilarious. CMZ

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 16, 2005 21:14 PM
Dear Robert Allen, "'Ad hominem arguments all around. This is childish, intellectually irresponsible, and extremely disappointing.'" 'Do you really expect me not to respond in kind to vicious ad hominen attacks? I have enough respect for you to abide by your decision. But try to see things from my perspective: my (our?) opponents, when they lose an argument, which is often- in fact, they have not won one yet, resort to saying nasty things not just about me but also about Prof. Chomsky. I have a hard time letting such things go, especially when so much is at stake.' Although I question your tone and rhetorical strategies at times, I think that you can safely assume that we are 'fighting on the same side' so to speak. We also share similar intellectual backgrounds.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 16, 2005 21:06 PM
"My wife tells me the same thing; but I don't accept it: righteous indignation is becoming of me. But thanks for your concern, I know it's well intended." (Robert Allen) --- Actually, the remark was intended to be malicious. :0P Joking aside, I've seen boards deteriorate before, and hope this one doesn't because of the likes of realpc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 20:52 PM
"You have not defined workers, or MOPs, and you have not explained who provides the workers (whoever they are) with MOPs, or how any of these decisions would be made." realdishonest Yes I have, you scumbag; you are only trying to muddy the waters: Worker =df. Anyone who must sell his/her labor to a capitalist (someone who owns a MOP, see below) to make a living. MOP =df. Any mechanism used to produce either marketable goods or services. People here have already told you that the MOP owned by the capitalists were built from time and treasure expropriated first from peasants and now workers. This is a well-documented historical fact, which was detailed recently in a book discussed at Counterpunch. And you know fully well what we want: an end to exploitation, achieved through democratic control of the MOP.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 20:37 PM
Player, Anger, as Aristotle noted, is not all bad, if you can control it. It's actually served me well at times. After all, if I wasn't so angry at having my time stolen by the capitalists, I would not be so committed to destroying capitalism. What is unbecoming and detrimental to clear thinking is frustration, but pea brains like real can't arouse that in me. Crying babies waking me up in the middle of the night, that's another story.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 16, 2005 20:15 PM
BJWD, It is not that you are stealing from your student or that they are stealing from you. My point is that in the process of converting everything to market derieved value, someone is making money off the process. The simplist way to put it is that it is a big Pyrimid scheme, where the people on the lower end pay up and the people on the top live off the work of the lower people. This is the invisable hand of the market, and it keeps takeing a small percentage of our added "labor value" and moving it upwards. As for a way our of the conundrum of capitalism, what if the value of our services or products was created by their "use" or worth to society or need. Instead of being based on an arbitrary system of imposed pricing, which results in attempts to cut expenses and exturnalize costs when ever possible.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 20:01 PM
"I should have been more precise: it's when realpc makes a provocation that you need to ignore him. No one looks good when they are angry; realpc, of all people, knows this. If he can find the right buttons to push, he's in control." Player, My wife tells me the same thing; but I don't accept it: righteous indignation is becoming of me. But thanks for your concern, I know it's well intended.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 16, 2005 19:48 PM
As for preaching to the choir, something you mentioned. Tens years ago I would have been one of those defending the invasion of Iraq, ignoring the brutality of the occupation, and brainwashed into believing a new democracy had been born amid a "war on terrorism". I was younger and more ignorant then - not crueler! There wasn't the Internet in those days, either - it existed, but it wasn't affordable to me at the time. I wasn't naive over domestic issues, just foreign policy. Since then, I've made the effort to find out what America and Britain have been doing abroad - and it's a rather ugly story, I've discovered.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 16, 2005 19:46 PM
"Player, But if you'll notice, I'm no longer debating pc or r4- haven't been for a long time" (Robert Allen) --- True, you did say in a previous post that you were only responding to realpc so that others didn't get tricked into believing his lies. I thought, that is fair enough. And it did result in some good posts. I should have been more precise: it's when realpc makes a provocation that you need to ignore him. No one looks good when they are angry; realpc, of all people, knows this. If he can find the right buttons to push, he's in control. He wants us to lash out at him, so that what we write is borne out of anger, rather than reflection. He wants to discredit us entirely, to say, "Look! These are the maniacs that listen to what Noam Chomsky is saying." Save your energy, Robert. Realpc doesn't do any work - he merely criticizes others, while defending the status quo. I would love to do that, because it's such an easy thing to do - and a hell of a lot less stressful than making the effort to find out - and remember! - the facts. (continued...)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 16, 2005 18:45 PM
"the capitalist pigs who make all of us work longer than we would have to were the MOPs used to provide workers with what they need" You have not defined workers, or MOPs, and you have not explained who provides the workers (whoever they are) with MOPs, or how any of these decisions would be made.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 17:31 PM
"I've met your sort before, and my advice to those who engage in a debate with him is to cease and desist. realpc has no regard for life - in whatever form it takes - save his own. Some people are like that. There's nothing you can do to change them. They are cowards to the end - defending the status quo, not because it's worth defending, but because they are doing all right by it. Treat realpc in the same way he treats others: as invisible!" Player, What brilliance! But if you'll notice, I'm no longer debating pc or r4- haven't been for a long time- but heaping scorn upon them every chance I get. I see that as one way of advancing the cause of workers. They are here to spoil this blog and defame Prof. Chomsky, as others have noted. So I spit on them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 17:22 PM
"Dude, stop calling people you don't agree with "stupid" and "moron". You are 100% what I expect from "higher education". Calm down. Act your age." BJWD, My reply will not be friendly because I don't like the tone of yours. So, to begin with, take your advice and shove it up your rectum where your brains must be located. Are you that stupid to think that, as MTbrad- now there is a smart young man, put it, "the relationship (between you and your students-God help them) is (not) distorted by the presence of the market"? The thieves are not the poor students, but the capitalist pigs who make all of us work longer than we would have to were the MOPs used to provide workers with what they need, instead of to generate profits. No one here is saying people are forced to work by these bloodsuckers- nature takes care of that- rather we are maintaining that workers are forced to spend a significant amount of time working to create wealth that they will never enjoy, the capitalists' profit.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 16, 2005 16:10 PM
I've met your sort before, and my advice to those who engage in a debate with him is to cease and desist. realpc has no regard for life - in whatever form it takes - save his own. Some people are like that. There's nothing you can do to change them. They are cowards to the end - defending the status quo, not because it's worth defending, but because they are doing all right by it. Treat realpc in the same way he treats others: as invisible!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 16, 2005 16:09 PM
"Sorry, I am not posting my personal info on a radical Marxist web site." (realpc) It'd be safer than posting your info. to a radical neo-Stalinist Web site - such as www.GeorgeBush.com - that you normally frequent. Say one word against Bush Almighty, and you'll be on a hit list - and taken out if you threaten his reign or attempt to stop him from butchering innocent Iraqis. realpc, why do you bother? Noam Chomsky isn't a Marxist, I'm not a Marxist, and the majority of people around the world who are angry at how their lives are being controlled by a few powerful individuals and corporations aren't Marxist. Most people aren't even capitalists. We were brought into this world without being asked, and we have no say over how it's run. People just get on with life the best they can. Many people would love to change the system, if they could. (continued...)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 16, 2005 10:35 AM
MTbrad, Obviously, the wage that I am paid is a market determined amount. I am not sure how one would calculate the 'use value' of exam preparation. Even if I am to accept the assumption that I am earning less (in any way 'earned' can be quantified) than I could in a non-market situation, I still do not see evidence that either 1) I am stealing from my students or 2) that my students are stealing from me. My original claim, in my eyes, stands. Of course, I do understand what the critique of my assumption is. The argument of 'wage slavery' is likely where this discussion will head. I work not because I want to, but because I have to and thus I am not free but the victim of an 'evil' institution. With this I both agree and disagree, but I honestly believe that there may be no way around this conundrum. Thanks for the friendly reply...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 16, 2005 09:57 AM
Even if we developed a final cure for cancer, do you think all the Oncologists would just switch to other fields of medicine? -------------------------------------------- They are not working on a cure for cancer, we know the causes of cancer. They are tring to create a profitable treatment for cancer.... The goal in medicine these days is not to prevent... only to treat.. -------------------------------------------- BJWD, Do your students pay you your "use value" or your "exchange value". Meaning do they pay you based on what you provide them in a way the allows you to use that payment for comensorate goods? Or, is the relationship distorted by the presence of the market?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davis_brock, Bjwd at Feb 16, 2005 08:43 AM
OK Robert, here goes. Your question, 1. Theft is evil. 2. Capitalists steal their worker's time. 3. Therefore, capitalists are evil." I am one clone who will try. Now, I am a teacher, a private tutor, and I have a variety different clients. In a variety of ways, my students benefit from my labour and obviously accept that they gain more utility from my teaching than they do the money that they pay me or they would not continue with me. Neither I, nor them are being coerced into our transactions. My time is not being stolen (stolen being defined as taken without my consent) as I willingly sell it to them and they willingly exchange their money for my talents. What I have tried to do is show that "Capitalists steal their worker's time" is not a statement that one can make 100% of the time, thus rendering it invalid as a Truth. Dude, stop calling people you don't agree with "stupid" and "moron". You are 100% what I expect from "higher education". Calm down. Act your age.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 16, 2005 08:15 AM
I meant the NSF(national Science foundation)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 16, 2005 08:09 AM
"The patron funds work that is in the patrons interest. If "society" was a patron though, what is in the interest of society must be decided in a popular fashion. The problem with this is that almost every technical advancement (distinct from theoretical work) threatens somebodys job or livelihood. The greater the advancement, the more widespread the threat. " Hi, I don't really understand your point. Are you suggesting private patrons don't have conflict of interest? How about big pharm funding medical research? "Society" supporting scientific research is not as complicated as you suggest. That is called public funding. Researchers recieving fundings from the NFS are being patronized by "the society", for example.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 07:43 AM
"Sorry, I am not posting my personal info on a radical Marxist web site." realslimy Don't worry my friend. When we take over we are not going to march you off to the Gulag or anything like that. On the contrary, we are going to want to keep you on public display so that we can show all the schoolchildren what stupidity looks like. Kinda like the way plantation owners are portrayed in their textbooks today.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 07:21 AM
d juri asked: "I must 've missed it... Just curious, has realpc proven his credentials as requested by certain forum members, or he is still officially considered a fraud?" d juri, He's still the same lying, cowardly piece of excrement that he always was. "Radical Marxist website," gimme a break.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 07:11 AM
r4stupidity, I blame my mother for my baldness, who do you blame for your low IQ? You're in over your head, boy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 16, 2005 07:05 AM
"Even if we developed a final cure for cancer, do you think all the Oncologists would just switch to other fields of medicine? No way. They would find some other "urgent" and "necessary" reason to lobby for continued funding into cancer research." r4stupidity This statement is so asinine I can't hardly believe someone would make it. But, then, it's what we've come to expect from this fool. Am I right bwong?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 16, 2005 04:13 AM
It's well known how the Church opposed science that threatened it's hold on the people and, hence, source of wealth. Why would a laborer agree to research that threatens his job? It's not that I'm saying everyone is "selfish", but people have a remarkable way of convincing themselves that what is best for them is also best for everybody. Tupee manufacturers would obviously yell about the "health effect" of baldness cures. Even if we developed a final cure for cancer, do you think all the Oncologists would just switch to other fields of medicine? No way. They would find some other "urgent" and "necessary" reason to lobby for continued funding into cancer research. Scientific development never would have happened if the needs and desires of "everybody" was taken into account. It happened because individuals saw the beenfit of the results for themselves, privately, and didn't stop to worry about the social implications. Besides, there will always be guys like me building Doomsday machines for kicks.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 16, 2005 04:05 AM
The personal computer, and its effect of business, is a perfect example. Before the PC companies had many more employees devoted to simple paperwork and record keeping. When the PC exploded into the businessplace in the 80's many of those people lost their jobs and had to find new ones. IBM, a private party, developed the PC because it saw a market for them - they were the patron and they had an interest in developing the PC. The workers, however, had an interest in keeping their jobs. If they were in control of technical devleopment funding, I doubt they would have funded a program which was going to make their jobs obsolete. Since every good innovation threatens SOMEONES job, there will always been opposition to any research with productive implications. If the public was in charge they would want to investigate "interesting" ideas with no practical value (ESP, biofield therapy), or flawed theories based on social values and not science (ie. lysenko's "socialist genetics").

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 16, 2005 04:04 AM
bwong, You are right in that Science always needs a patron. There are problems with making "society" a patron, though, which are not present in a private patron. The patron funds work that is in the patrons interest. If "society" was a patron though, what is in the interest of society must be decided in a popular fashion. The problem with this is that almost every technical advancement (distinct from theoretical work) threatens somebodys job or livelihood. The greater the advancement, the more widespread the threat.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 16, 2005 03:46 AM
Sorry, I am not posting my personal info on a radical Marxist web site. And how much do you think I care whether you believe I have the education I claimed to have?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By D_juri, D_juri at Feb 16, 2005 03:45 AM
I must 've missed it... Just curious, has realpc proven his credentials as requested by certain forum members, or he is still officially considered a fraud?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 16, 2005 03:42 AM
There are points of view you are not willing to consider, because they do not fit your habitual way of seeing. For example, you have been convinced that the most serious problems of the world result from the actions of people who are defective in morality and/or intelligence. Suppose that most of the world's problems are in fact inherent in nature and in human nature. The problems would then be harder to define and solve. Your 4-hour work day may not be around the corner after all. Peace, prosperity and a clean environment may turn out to be mutually conflicting goals.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By D_juri, D_juri at Feb 16, 2005 03:38 AM
I must've missed it... Just curious, has realpc proven his credencials as requested by some members or he is still considered a fraud?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 16, 2005 02:41 AM
To the zeolots: If your goal here is to win converts and verbal battles, then you are not especially concerned with truth.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 15, 2005 22:40 PM
"I work in the microbiology field, but I won't take the time to set the idiot straight that rants about "natural water" whatever the hell that means. I guess as opposed to synthetic water."? I'm sorry for using reglur languge. "Natural Water" means drinkable water as it is found in "nature" (ie. in streams, rivers, underground wells, and lakes). Nearly every stream, river, well, and lake is filled with dangerous microorganisms and parasites. Fish, animals, and people all live, bathe, or shit in these waters. Drinkning out of them means you are drinking fish shit.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Joshkan1, Dj_menno at Feb 15, 2005 18:46 PM
Robert Allen, My point in saying no one is keeping score is that in this forum we are either preaching to the choir or the folks like realpc that simply wish to play devil's advocate (poorly at that). THe real battle in my mind is out in the world, thats all. I say that not to take away from what you and Bwong and others have written here, but simply to point it out. I enjoy your posts and often agree, and I am glad you take it seriously. My only point was as we migrate off point in an attempt to belittle those that clearly need no belittling--they do a fine job themselves, we lose focus on the matter at hand. I work in the microbiology field, but I won't take the time to set the idiot straight that rants about "natural water" whatever the hell that means. I guess as opposed to synthetic water....Is there a hydrologist in the house? Your strength appears to be sound logical arguements; mine may be simply whispering focus. It takes people playing all the positions to win.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 15, 2005 14:30 PM
An excellent site on the power of corporations is this one: http://reclaimdemocracy.org Vital information about these concentrations of private power can be found here: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/primers.html "Corporate History Primer" and "Inherent Rules of Corporate Behavior" cover the fundamentals. Perhaps, the first article to read, though, is this one: "Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States" http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html For those who think corporations have always existed in their current form - with the rights of an individual enshrined in law - this article will make you realize how much you've been taken for a sucker. "Capitalism" can function without them!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 15, 2005 14:29 PM
Robert Allen's comment that: "Capitalism is not just a market, but a way of organising society which comes with its own set of values and ideologies. "Capitalism...enshrines GREED AS A VIRTUE." --- The centerpiece of Anglo-American capitalism being, of course, the corporation, that artificial entity with all the rights of an individual and none of the responsibility. I remember seeing a program on television, in which kids were being taught all about democracy. Part of their lesson was to visit the headquarters of a large corporation. As soon as the camera crew got within a few feet of the entrance, a guy came out and told them, in no uncertain terms, to stay away, that no filming was allowed inside. So the kids went in, and we got to see the facade of a rather dull building. I think that's the best lesson a kid can get about how our democracy works - namely, the power wielded by corporations. For as long as corporations remain undemocratic institutions, accountable to no one (often, not even to their investors), there is no possibility of changing the self-destructive course society has NOT chosen for itself. (continued...)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 06:48 AM
Woops, I should have quoted the first 6 paragraphs in my last post.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 06:45 AM
"The point about the Buddha was to show that even in 500 BC India, greed was a problem that was visible to all.." But that is obvious. I don't know about the other participants here, I think it would be stupid to suggest that everyone was saintly before capitalism. However, I doubt that in the Buddha's time greed was CELEBRATED. Capitalism is not just a market, but a way of organising society which comes with its own set of values and ideologies. Capitalism is the first and only system that actually enshrines GREED AS A VIRTUE. I think this fact has some significance. PS Given the recklesss way we are squandering our natural capital Capitalism is probably the last system that exists. That would be a rather ironic twist to the end of history thesis, though we won't be around to laugh. bwong you are so good that if I wasn't having so much fun beating up the likes of r4, I would leave it up to you to defend Prof. C's blog.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 15, 2005 06:34 AM
Scientists today need to get paid by companies but this is just the result of the way the economy is organised. In the medieval time scientists(and artists)were patronized by the Church and the Aristocrats. It would be an error to read medieval history and conclude that "the Church gave us the arts and sciences". The arts and sciences flourished elsewhere where no one even heard of Christ. On the other hand the pollution is the direct result of the profit motive.This is not the inevitable result of the advance of science as your formulation suggests because we do have the knowhow to handle waste. Companies are not doing that because they want to cut corners.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 15, 2005 06:33 AM
"Before I lost my cool I was simply pointing out that this is not true and that capitalists give as well as take. The system that pollutes our rivers is the one that is responsbile for water purification that makes it drinking for millions." I have a bit of problem with this formulation because the two situations are not symmetric. The system responsible for water purification is science. Science bears no particular connection to the profit motive. Scientists(and most creative people) are not motivated by money as you yourself has argued so eloquently before.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 06:31 AM
Desire does not end when our basic needs are satisfied. People often think they "need" their desires and will be happy if only they got them, but then they get them and are only happy for a little while before there is something else they "need". and will be happy if only they got them, but then they get them and are only happy for a little while before there is something else they "need"." Why should we take someone seriously who does not know that people do not need their desires but the objects of them? I do not need, e.g., my desire for food, but food, its object. This person does not know how to use our language.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 15, 2005 06:11 AM
"The point about the Buddha was to show that even in 500 BC India, greed was a problem that was visible to all.." But that is obvious. I don't know about the other participants here, I think it would be stupid to suggest that everyone was saintly before capitalism. However, I doubt that in the Buddha's time greed was CELEBRATED. Capitalism is not just a market, but a way of organising society which comes with its own set of values and ideologies. Capitalism is the first and only system that actually enshrines GREED AS A VIRTUE. I think this fact has some significance. PS Given the recklesss way we are squandering our natural capital Capitalism is probably the last system that exists. That would be a rather ironic twist to the end of history thesis, though we won't be around to laugh.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 15, 2005 05:52 AM
The point about the Buddha was to show that even in 500 BC India, greed was a problem that was visible to all. And while I am not a "Buddhist" in any sense, I do believe that Sidhartha Gautama (the historical buddha, and as real a man as Socrates) was onto a point. Desire does not end when our basic needs are satisfied. People often think they "need" their desires and will be happy if only they got them, but then they get them and are only happy for a little while before there is something else they "need". Yes, we can do more to improve the lot of the desperately poor, but thats not what this whole thing started as. It started with a claim that "capitalists" are useless and do nothing, and that all human want and suffering is a product of their greedy designs. Before I lost my cool I was simply pointing out that this is not true and that capitalists give as well as take. The system that pollutes our rivers is the one that is responsbile for water purification that makes it drinking for millions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 15, 2005 05:45 AM
". Modern chemicals can pollute, but it is only modern chemicals that kill the microbes enough to have safe drinking water for millions of people. It is only modern science the ideantified the source of diseases and figured out how to kill them and make water safe to drink. " Sorry, I don't see the point of your rejoiner. Obviously you are not confusing industrial waste with disinfectant! While I am not a doctor I would doubt that oil spill, and murcury poisioning (from eating fish in polluted water, e,g)and dumping other industrial toxins in the water have anything to do with making water safe to drink. I am not against mordern science. You should address your last comment to realpc. BTW, as a side remark, boiling the water would kill all the microbes. You don't need chemicals to do that.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 15, 2005 05:17 AM
"Really? Who put all the pollutants into the water? Was it 20 years ago that a chemical leak in india killed 10,000+ people in India? The Buddah ain't see nothing." Natural, "unpolluted", water is filled with various microbes and bacteria and can often be very unsafe to drink - especially as the population increases and more people use it and pollute it with natural waste. Modern chemicals can pollute, but it is only modern chemicals that kill the microbes enough to have safe drinking water for millions of people. It is only modern science the ideantified the source of diseases and figured out how to kill them and make water safe to drink.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 15, 2005 02:24 AM
"Player Piano, Welcome to Prof. Chomsky's blog" (Robert Allen) Thanks Robert! I've read a lot of your comments - particularly in one specific thread, in which you were talking about worker productivity having doubled and still we are forced to slave away all the hours God sends to keep CEOs in the lifestyle they are accustomed to.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 02:15 AM
"Ad hominem arguments all around. This is childish, intellectually irresponsible, and extremely disappointing.' Zim., Do you really expect me not to respond in kind to vicious ad hominen attacks? I have enough respect for you to abide by your decision. But try to see things from my perspective: my (our?) opponents, when they lose an argument, which is often- in fact, they have not won one yet, resort to saying nasty things not just about me but also about Prof. Chomsky. I have a hard time letting such things go, especially when so much is at stake.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 15, 2005 01:58 AM
"If you want to blame someone for pollution, it should be the scientists." (realpc) And if you want someone to blame for a stabbing, blame the manufacturer of the knife that was used. realpc, we all know about the danger that global warming poses, but what is Bush doing about it? I'll tell you what he's doing: he's ignoring the predictions of the scientists, ignoring the wishes of the public, ignoring international agreements, and killing people. Is this what you call democracy, realpc? Bush, and those at the top of the capitalist system, riding rough shod over the rest of the world, deciding what's important and what isn't; who lives and who dies? This isn't even anything to do with capitalism per se - it's about concentration of power - pure and simple.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 01:51 AM
"And yes, it is ironic that he despises the US for its world domination while he himself is obviously a bully." Bullies are like GWB- they pick fights with people who can't defend themselves. I did not start this fight- again I invite the reader to determine this for himself/herself- but I do enjoy nailing folks like you who think they know more than they do. You just don't like getting the hell beat out of you, which is understandable. My advice, then, is to back down.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 15, 2005 01:47 AM
"Capitalism without advanced technology would not have damaged the environment to this extent.." This is a very ingenuis way to try to get capitalism off the hook. Now I believe realpc does have a Ph.D in linguistics. This is a masterful word game he plays! Suppose a bully beats a guy into a pulp. The bully is arrested. The bully's lawyer, Mr. realpc tells the court that it is not the fault of the bully that Mr. X is lying in a coma. That tragedy would not have happened if the bully weren't so strong and fit. So it was the bully's personal trainer and dieting guru who should stand trial. Dear readers of this blog, what do you think the verdict of any sane jury would be upon hearing Mr. realpc's South Parkish defence?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 01:45 AM
"All your talk of helping is a lie. You are as much as lacky in service of capitalists as anyone here. You are not working class & you are not oppressed: you are another poseur intellectual with an inflated sense of self-worth. ... Prof. Allen's wonderful credentials show that he is a miserable pathetic adjunct teacher. No surprise he has gone insane with rage at the system that rejected him." r4 Every single sentence here is false and the product of his ill will being aroused by my unmasking of his shallowness. Instead of learning from someone who know more about the subject at hand than he does, he becomes resentful over the fact that he cannot dominate the proceedings.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 01:32 AM
bwong, realpc is not someone to let the facts get in the way of achieving his goal: defecating on the good Prof.'s blog.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 01:28 AM
Player Piano, Welcome to Prof. Chomsky's blog.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 15, 2005 01:26 AM
"If you want to blame someone for pollution, it should be the scientists.." How so? Do scientists advise governments to relax enviromntal regulations so that corporations can increase their bottomline? Do scientists tell CEOs to cut corners by dumping industrial waste all over the places? Do scientists lobby themselves to be fired by telling governments to cut the budgets for enviromental ministries? Almost all credible scientists have issued dire warnings about global warming. What does the Bush administration does about Kyoto, for example?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 01:12 AM
"If you want to blame someone for pollution, it should be the scientists. Capitalism without advanced technology would not have damaged the environment to this extent. Likewise, blame the current level of violence in the world on science and the weapons it made possible. So much for progress." Technology and science could exist without evil; capitalism could not, as it entails theft and oppression. You are wrong as usual.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 15, 2005 01:10 AM
"Nothing will be solved here, no one is keeping score outside of the game's players, and none of this matters in the grand scheme of "there is no grand scheme." Life is a game, relax, play it." I sincerely hope that you enjoy Prof. Chomsky's blog. But I'm playing here to win; there are hearts and minds out there that need to be convinced that capitalism and its defenders are evil. This is no academic exercise to me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 15, 2005 01:05 AM
If you want to blame someone for pollution, it should be the scientists. Capitalism without advanced technology would not have damaged the environment to this extent. Likewise, blame the current level of violence in the world on science and the weapons it made possible. So much for progress.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Playerpiano555, Playerpiano at Feb 15, 2005 01:02 AM
Realpc seems to get a kick out of winding people up. I've met his sort before. I've also read a number of his comments, and he's not someone who leaves a lasting impression on me. In one ear, out the other. My user name, incidentally, is taken from a title of a book by Kurt Vonnegut, called "Player Piano". It was written in 1952. I recommend getting hold of a copy while you still can, as it's now out of print. Check the reviews on Amazon - UK and US sites. Unlike Realpc, "Player Piano" HAS left a lasting impression on me. I was so glad I found this book - and it's indirectly thanks to Noam Chomsky, who recommended reading "Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation", which talks about Kurt Vonnegut's book in an appendix at the back. Now that I've joined this blog, I hope I have time to make a contribution.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Joshkan1, Dj_menno at Feb 15, 2005 00:23 AM
I am glad this can be so productive. Thank god (or buddha) that we can blog about topics that impact the lives of innocents all over the world that were simply born into bombs or bonds or bongs or whatever. Nothing will be solved here, no one is keeping score outside of the game's players, and none of this matters in the grand scheme of "there is no grand scheme." Life is a game, relax, play it. I hoped these blog forums would be rich and full of good debate with plenty of room for disagreement, instead it looks like a pissing match breaking out before a beauty pageant. How about putting aside spell checking so we can create a forum of use? Lots of people are hungry, but they don't all have to eat pizza to get full. Sweet fancy moses, you people are so off topic.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 14, 2005 23:10 PM
I meant Buddhism, Buddhist etc. I must have been thinking about buddies or a bud somehow. :(

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 14, 2005 22:58 PM
"Your observation that 'they' never had clean water in the first place is also fallacious. Perhaps 'they' previously did not have water filtration systems, but 'they' also did not have the chemicals and pollutants found in their water sources. Whose chemicals and pollutants are these?" Opps, I just read this. CMZ has made my point already(better than I did)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 14, 2005 22:47 PM
Buddism is spirtual lobotomy. To use the Marxist formulation, it is the most potent strand of opia for the people from the land where the opium trade originated. At least Christianity can make you angry(perhaps more like crack?) Have you heard of any liberation theology or social justice movement coming from Buddishm? None. In the Buddist universe there is no such thing as "injustice" as everything is determined by "karma". If you are murdered that is because you have killed someone else or something else in your past incarnations and so on.There is a word for this: blaming the victims. I have actually heard a very respectible Buddist monk who claimed that the Holocaust was the result of our collective karma of meat eating. This is downright obscene.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 22:42 PM
Oh, r4, 1 more thing, that's 'remarkably', not 'remarkable'. I'm telling you, these grammatical errors show either a weak mind or a lack of concern over the quality of this blog.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 22:38 PM
"I dare anyone to try to explain this slop to me." me "For a philosphy professor you are remarkable ignorant about philosophy." You see, he post sentences ("Egalitarianism is not a system, it is a principle. Furthermore, like all abstract principles, like "smallness" or "hardness", it is a relative term that has no fixed meaning outside of time or place." r4) that cry out for an explanation- any philosopher would request one- and instead of providing it he chooses to attack my credibility. But, then, what can I expect: he's still groggy from all the other punches I've landed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 14, 2005 22:28 PM
"Buddha made this observation in a world whose suffering dwarfs anythign seen today." I hope you're not trying to make a serious argument along this line. The Buddah was about as "real" as Jesus(perhaps even less). Let's get this straight. This guy had not an idea of sickness and old age and he freaked out when he saw a sick person and an old man? What was he? An idiot?!! A sheltered upbringing could not even begin to explain such cluelessness. When he finally saw a death he went into some cave for 20 years according to legend. We called this post tramatic depression these days. If the Buddah was so fragile he wouldn't be able to survive for a day in our mordern jungle with nukes all over the places. The Buddah knew nothing about enlightenment, what he needed was prosac. Well at least I am saying sometyhing good about the big Pharm for once.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 22:26 PM
bwong, You are so right on.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 14, 2005 22:14 PM
"Clean Water is not a right - it is a luxury that was out of the reach of people for almost all of our existance. To blame "capitalism" for the lack of clean water in the third world, when we all know very well that they NEVERchad clean water EVER in their entire history, is laughable" Really? Who put all the pollutants into the water? Was it 20 years ago that a chemical leak in india killed 10,000+ people in India? The Buddah ain't see nothing.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 21:43 PM
"Robert Allen, you correctly point out that 'nitpicking' is often a strategy used by capitalists, especially faced with systematic and sound argumentation. Unfortunately, you then go on to 'nitpick' at r4D20's spelling and grammar." I can't refute their arguments, because they do not offer any. I am not, in my nitpicking, attempting to refute a position but to call into question the intelligence of those making certain mistakes ('sandwhich', anyone?). I want to discredit those who have responded unfairly to my argument against capitalism, not their arguments, because, again, they have not offered any. They, on the other hand, think that they have rebutted every reason given against capitalism simply because they have pointed out one infelicitous expression.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 14, 2005 21:40 PM
R2D2, Your comments about intelligence and having advanced degrees in philosophy and the humanities is typical and reflects a great deal about your intellectual experiences and commitments. Have you ever undertaken a serious, committed, and prolonged study of philosophy? I could equally say that having an advanced degree in the hard sciences is as much a sign of being a responsible, well-rounded citizen, having moral and ethical commitments, and being intellectually curious as Adolf Eichmann.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 21:31 PM
"I have (a Ph.D.), from a respectable university ...." realmeanspiritedcrybaby Prove it, boy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 14, 2005 21:30 PM
r4d20, 'Clean Water is not a right - it is a luxury that was out of the reach of people for almost all of our existance.' You are missing the point here. With our current technology and knowledge, everyone could and should have access to clean water. The point is that the capitalist system, not only allows for incredible pollution to contaminate the environment, but makes it undesirable for those in power to provide clean water to the 3rd world. In addition to this, there is a long history of exploitation and plundering of resources in the 3rd World. Clean water should certainly be a right today. According to your argument, any of the basic rights that we have today, e.g. voting, free speech, etc. are not rights at all because we did not have them for most of our history. Your observation that 'they' never had clean water in the first place is also fallacious. Perhaps 'they' previously did not have water filtration systems, but 'they' also did not have the chemicals and pollutants found in their water sources. Whose chemicals and pollutants are these?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 21:29 PM
"Lastly, “Prof.” Allen, Sir, please save your brilliant intellect to bully someone else and don't bother to answer this post (or “to kick my ass”, to use your own distasteful vocabulary). There is no point as I have had quite enough of reading your rather unpleasant diatribes and I will not read anymore." I am going to honor this person's request. I just hope he is man enough to keep his promise.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 14, 2005 21:22 PM
"RealPC's soft ideas, lack of sound argumentative rigor, and inability to see beyond his own ideological framework" I have been arguing against ideological frameworks, but I guess you weren't paying attention.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 21:17 PM
"Robert Allen is the reason many of us in the hard sciences consider a PhD in the humanities to be about as much of a sign of intelligence as a degree from Subway-University of sandwhich making." I am humble enough to realize that my liberal arts education does not qualify me to dispute scientists on ?s of science. You, on the other hand, presume to know more about philosophy than someone with a Ph.D in that subject. If you were really smart, like bwong, you would listen to me when I tell you that you are violating the rules of logic in defending your views. Instead, you resort to ad hominens, which only goes to show what I have been saying all along: I have knocked you out, boy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 14, 2005 21:13 PM
Ad hominem arguments all around. This is childish, intellectually irresponsible, and extremely disappointing. Robert Allen, you correctly point out that 'nitpicking' is often a strategy used by capitalists, especially faced with systematic and sound argumentation. Unfortunately, you then go on to 'nitpick' at r4D20's spelling and grammar. Irrespective of RealPC's soft ideas, lack of sound argumentative rigor, and inability to see beyond his own ideological framework, such bullying is not appropriate nor appreciated. The discussion has been completely dissolved and replaced by the din of a bunch of wailing children. Bravi. Continued...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 20:14 PM
"Prof. Allen's wonderful credentials show that he is a miserable pathetic adjunct teacher. No surprise he has gone insane with rage at the system that rejected him." There is nothing more pathetic than a professor pissed because he never got tenure.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 20:14 PM
And I find all this talk of "oppresion" odd from someone who makes their living being paid by the parents of rich kids to educate their spoiled little brats. All your talk of helping is a lie. You are as much as lacky in service of capitalists as anyone here. You are not working class & you are not oppressed: you are another poseur intellectual with an inflated sense of self-worth.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 14, 2005 20:11 PM
I don't know why Maurice assumes Allen is a brilliant scholar just because he has a Ph.D. In the US many arrogant self-important morons have Ph.Ds. I have one, from a respectable university, but people like Allen confirm that it's nothing to be proud of these days. Furthermore, Prof. Allen's wonderful credentials show that he is a miserable pathetic adjunct teacher. No surprise he has gone insane with rage at the system that rejected him. And yes, it is ironic that he despises the US for its world domination while he himself is obviously a bully.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 20:10 PM
Robert Allen is the reason many of us in the hard sciences consider a PhD in the humanities to be about as much of a sign of intelligence as a degree from Subway-University of sandwhich making. My B.S. in Physics took more brain power and hard work than any philosphy degree. My PhD in Comp Sci probably would have killed him.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 20:03 PM
"I dare anyone to try to explain this slop to me." For a philosphy professor you are remarkable ignorant about philosophy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 20:02 PM
""People don't suffer because they lack things. They suffer because they desire things that they lack.." You are in a very privileged position to make such an observartion. For many people suffering is real, not just a mindset." Bwong, Buddha made this observation in a world whose suffering dwarfs anythign seen today. Clean Water is not a right - it is a luxury that was out of the reach of people for almost all of our existance. To blame "capitalism" for the lack of clean water in the third world, when we all know very well that they NEVERchad clean water EVER in their entire history, is laughable. Capitlaism didn't take clean water from the third world- it gave clean water to the rest of us.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 07:46 AM
"Well I agree your last statement. The most intelligent thing we can do is recognize that only God has the intelligence needed to solve our problems." realtwisted I need you agreeing with me like I need a billy club in my rectum. What I'd prefer you doing is learning to argue or leaving us alone.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 07:44 AM
And then they wonder why the rest of the world hates us.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 06:44 AM
"People don't suffer because they lack things. They suffer because they desire things that they lack.." r4whatever "You are in a very privileged position to make such an observartion. For many people suffering is real, not just a mindset." bwong bwong, This oversight is typical of ugly Americans- the rest of humanity does not matter to them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 06:41 AM
"Well I agree your last statement. The most intelligent thing we can do is recognize that only God has the intelligence needed to solve our problems." realtwisted This is no excuse for what you are doing- defending evil and allowing your pride to get in the way of seeing and accepting that someone has ideas about justice that are more rational than yours. The Lord helps those who help themselves.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 06:26 AM
"Egalitarianism is not a system, it is a principle. Furthermore, like all abstract principles, like "smallness" or "hardness", it is a relative term that has no fixed meaning outside of time or place." r4whocares I dare anyone to try to explain this slop to me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 06:23 AM
"I don't think the use of foul and abusive language does anything to strengthen a weak argument." realcowardly Anyone interested in the truth can go back and see who started it. As my mother, God bless her, used to say, you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 14, 2005 05:37 AM
I meant "3000 Americans" and "25000 die DAILY" I wish they have an edit feature on this blog.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 14, 2005 05:35 AM
"People don't suffer because they lack things. They suffer because they desire things that they lack.." You are in a very privileged position to make such an observartion. For many people suffering is real, not just a mindset. Consider the following. About 3000 American died on 9/11,2001. It is estimated that about 25000 dies DAILY worldwide from water contamination alone. This is not counting those who die as a result of easily preventable diseases, starvation etc. The three richest men in the world(all Americans bTW) have the combined assets of the poorest 48 countries. Poverty and inequality are very real.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 14, 2005 05:30 AM
You are right, r4d20. As long as we have desires we will suffer and cause others to suffer. But I think we can to some extent get our unruly human nature under control. I think some degree of happiness is possible, and freeing our minds from rigid ideologies may be a step in that direction.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 05:13 AM
"Well I agree your last statement. The most intelligent thing we can do is recognize that only God has the intelligence needed to solve our problems." Our problems will never be "solved". People don't suffer because they lack things. They suffer because they desire things that they lack. Since there is always more to want, there is no way to alleviate suffering and unhappiness by acquiring things. Poor men want to be rich, but rich men want to be richer. This isn't limited to material wealth alone. Desire for abstract concepts causes as much, if not more, suffering. In fact, even the desire to be without desire is a form of desire. Where does this lead us? I don't know.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 05:03 AM
"Are you that stupid that you have not heard of egalitarianism?" Are you that stupid that you speak of abstract philisophical ideas as though they were tangible realities? Egalitarianism is not a system, it is a principle. Furthermore, like all abstract principles, like "smallness" or "hardness", it is a relative term that has no fixed meaning outside of time or place.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 14, 2005 05:01 AM
And by the way, I think God would like us to treat others with respect, whether they agree with us or not.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 04:59 AM
"Professor Robert Allen must be a very passionate teacher.Wonder what his lectures are like" bwong "People like Robert Allen are the only reason David Horowitz gets any attention." r4whatever I've managed to interest a fine mind- which is a lot more than you have to show for your meanspirited posts.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 14, 2005 04:58 AM
Well I agree your last statement. The most intelligent thing we can do is recognize that only God has the intelligence needed to solve our problems.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 04:53 AM
"Show me a system that doesn't end up with economic inequality." r4whatever Are you that stupid that you have not heard of egalitarianism?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 04:21 AM
"You piece of shit, "middle class prosperity," such as it was, is fast becoming a thing of the past. You have now in the US a society made up a few plutocrats and millions of desperate, overworked workers, some of whom are foolish enough to think that someday they will hit it big in the stockmarket." Robert Allen I would be remiss if I did not recommend the Gospels to those who feel this way. They, not "better markets," are the only things that will "alleviate" the suffering capitalists visit upon workers. "Come to me , all you who labor and are burdened and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew, 11: 28-30)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 04:09 AM
"The alternatives are ownership by aristocrats, or else by the government. Everyone else becomes a dependent." No, asshole, the alternative is worker control of the MOP sans exploitation, which is impossible under capitalism, since to succeed against exploiters one must exploit oneself. Again, I slap the shit out of you.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 14, 2005 04:06 AM
"I read "nickled and dimed" too. Thisis a problem that can be alleviated through better markets, not by eleminiating (sic) them. Eliminating markets is (sic) impossible anyways. They will always find a way to spring up." Look at the poor grammar and spelling here. This is a sign of a weak mind.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 14, 2005 02:04 AM
I don't think the use of foul and abusive language does anything to strengthen a weak argument. Marx was a fallible human being and wrong about many things. I have no use for blind faith in Marxist ideology, or any other ideology. Capitalism is not easy to define, but in general it refers to a system that allows private ownership. The alternatives are ownership by aristocrats, or else by the government. Everyone else becomes a dependent. Nothing in our capitalist system prevents cooperative ownership by workers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 01:25 AM
"You have now in the US a society made up a few plutocrats and millions of desperate, overworked workers, some of whom are foolish enough to think that someday they will hit it big in the stockmarket." Those poor, desperate Philosophy Professors. Will their plight never end? I read "nickled and dimed" too. Thisis a problem that can be alleviated through better markets, not by eleminiating them. Eliminating markets is impossible anyways. They will always find a way to spring up.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 01:21 AM
"Professor Robert Allen must be a very passionate teacher.Wonder what his lectures are like" People like Robert Allen are the only reason David Horowitz gets any attention.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 14, 2005 01:19 AM
"this arrangement further disempowers the worker in a system of unequal economic and social relations in which the capitalist exerts a hugely disproportionate influence over the means of production" Show me a system that doesn't end up with economic inequality.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 14, 2005 00:09 AM
"I have never said capitalism is perfect. But we just don't have a clear case of rich vs poor in the advanced nations." -------------------------------------------- What about... The economies of poor nations vs. the economies of rich nations..... Marx has gone global...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 13, 2005 22:03 PM
"Because of your inflexible and one-sided political views." You see, you pick out one sentence, which I knew you would would do, and type out a one sentence response, which is false anyway, as if it refutes EVERYTHING I said. But what about the rest of my remarks? What do you have to say about my description of your non-sequitor, e.g., you asshole you? My friends this sort of nitpicking is typical of defenders of capitalism, which you probably know yourselves from your own frustrating experiences with such apologists for evil. Find one teeny weeny sentence to carp about and you have refuted your opponent, never mind the rest of what has been said. Moreover, why should I change my views? You surely have not said anything to refute them. Why shouldn't I be "inflexible" if I have been given no reason to believe I am wrong? I would be a fool were I to adopt another view without a reason to. You have become a caricature of yourself- the defender of the status quo who uses cliches to defend his views. And, lest anyone forget, you are a poseur. Real linguists would laugh at your claim to be one. At bottom, you are a mediocrity.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 13, 2005 21:25 PM
Because of your inflexible and one-sided political views.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 13, 2005 19:46 PM
For those readers interested in the finer points of logic, I should point out that the original fallacy is an enthymeme- the conclusion, that I am wrong, is left unstated. My example is not; otherwise they are analogous. Also, notice that I am called an 'indoctrinator', not a 'teacher', because of my political views.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 13, 2005 18:53 PM
"No matter how passionately you strive to indoctrinate your students, most of them will eventually go for middle class prosperity." Suppose this were true, which, as usual, you have no way of knowing, but suppose it were- it would not make a single one of my claims false. Here is an argument analogous to yours: 1. realpc, a dogfucker himself, taught many capitalists and capitalist lackeys to fuck dogs. 2. Thus, the people who say that dogfucking is perverse are wrong.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 13, 2005 18:29 PM
"I have never said capitalism is perfect. But we just don't have a clear case of rich vs poor in the advanced nations. No matter how passionately you strive to indoctrinate your students, most of them will eventually go for middle class prosperity." You piece of shit, "middle class prosperity," such as it was, is fast becoming a thing of the past. You have now in the US a society made up a few plutocrats and millions of desperate, overworked workers, some of whom are foolish enough to think that someday they will hit it big in the stockmarket.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 13, 2005 17:39 PM
Most of the middle class invests in the stock market now. This is not the 19th century, and capitalism is very different from what Marx observed. I have never said capitalism is perfect. But we just don't have a clear case of rich vs poor in the advanced nations. No matter how passionately you strive to indoctrinate your students, most of them will eventually go for middle class prosperity.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 13, 2005 08:29 AM
"Factories are too expenssive (sic) to be built by people without vast amounts of money. Maybe a few factories have been funded & built by groups of workers, but the vast majority are funded and built by investors (aka. capitalists). If workers make the factory and buy the equipment themselves, they I support them in whatever decision they make in running the plant. However, if someone else put up the money to build the plant then it is also theft to take it away from him without compensation." r4 vs. "You have not engaged with my point. The large sums of capital investors find themselves in possession of is accumulated in an economic system in which they or their ancestors have profited from the work of many. Besides perpetrating the moral crime of theft, this arrangement further disempowers the worker in a system of unequal economic and social relations in which the capitalist exerts a hugely disproportionate influence over the means of production." r4, Joe kicked your ass- what do you have to say in response?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 13, 2005 08:26 AM
"Consider Robert Allen, for example. He can't tolerate it when anyone strays from a certain narrow ideological perspective. He seeths with hatred for those with different views. That is an example of human nature at its worst." Here is someone who does not know how to lose gracefully. But now he has been exposed as a FRAUD; he is simply lying about being a linguist. Thus, I am calling on all my friends here to ignore his posts. I know that this was suggested before and I didn't go along. But my blood was up- yes, bwong, I am a passionate teacher- and I wanted to discredit him first, for the benefit of those readers still trying to decide which side of history they want to be on.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 13, 2005 04:47 AM
While I would not say I buy "Parecon" I would say I think the idea of "balanced job complexes" has a grain of good sense to it. It is true that many managers are disconnected from their employees because they have never doen the same work as the employee. It is ancient wisdom from the military world that "you have to follow before you can lead", but in the MBA world there is little sense of this. I do think it may benefit all if the managers knew a little of what the work was like first hand.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 13, 2005 04:40 AM
"It is workers who build factories and make the tools, and provide the surplus the capitalist uses to finance the project. Why bother with the capitalist" Factories are too expenssive to be built by people without vast amounts of money. Maybe a few factories have been funded & built by groups of workers, but the vast majority are funded and built by investors (aka. capitalists). If workers make the factory and buy the equipment themselves, they I support them in whatever decision they make in running the plant. However, if someone else put up the money to build the plant then it is also theft to take it away from him without compensation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Feb 12, 2005 22:36 PM
Chomsky's entirely unsubstantiated optimism makes me sick. It's fully evident that society has decayed since the 1960's not to mention before then. OK there are more protests, so what they're mostly of the million man march variety and in my case this makes me reactively nostalgic. Global Exchange (of San Francisco) has not stopped ONE trade agreement, the anti-war protesters have not stopped ONE recent conflict. I don't think anything can happen that will stop Chomsky's monotonic threnody on endless progress. While the business class pretty much embodies the thin skinned, multiculturally feminist, secular equilibrium that the Cambridge elite liberals have long sought after.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 12, 2005 18:57 PM
Professor Robert Allen must be a very passionate teacher.Wonder what his lectures are like:)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 12, 2005 18:53 PM
"So you are going to dismiss an argument due to one spelling error? Classic!" WTGN, That's no mere spelling mistake; you did not simply misspell 'pray' thinking that it's supposed to be 'pray tell'- you are dumb enough to think that it's 'prey tell' instead of 'pray tell'. I beat the piss out of you, boy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 12, 2005 18:50 PM
"He can't tolerate it when anyone strays from a certain narrow ideological perspective. He seeths with hatred for those with different views. That is an example of human nature at its worst. This is why we must find better ways to control and balance power in our society and in the world." All you can do is advance one ad hominen after another. But, for the record, I do not hate anyone. But I do hate your ideas and the slimy way you attempt to defend them. You are an apologist for evil. Moreover, everyone can now see that you are a liar.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 12, 2005 18:46 PM
"..management becomes essential. Someone has to organize the efforts at a higher level.." Who is saying that there is no need for management? You are once again setting up a strawman. The question really who does management work for? Does it work for the workers(which the management itself is a part)or on behave of capital to CONTROL the workers. In our current system typically senior executives get paid a lot more than the workers because senior management is an extenison of capital while the workers are mere tools.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 12, 2005 18:42 PM
realjerk, "You are not in charge here and you can't decide what people can say." You are a FRAUD for not complying with my request. You are no linguist; you have no expertise on that subject or the one at hand. You and your minions can continue to make one idiotic post after another; you are right about one thing: I can't stop you. But, God willing, I will continue using all of my intellectual skills to humiliate you. And guess what- YOU ARE LOSING here.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 12, 2005 18:32 PM
realpc, All you have done is DESCRIBE an economic system that resembles capitalism as it is practiced in the US. You have done nothing to DEFEND it. In particular, you have not shown that it is morally permissible for a capitalist to PROFIT from her worker's labor. Further: "Paying everyone equally and giving everyone an equal say in business decisions would not lead to success." How do you know this, you moron you?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 12, 2005 17:29 PM
I think we need more creative insights in the field of economics so that the existing system can evolve into something relatively stable. We need ways of keeping things in balance, and ways controling the natural human tendency to take advantage. Consider Robert Allen, for example. He can't tolerate it when anyone strays from a certain narrow ideological perspective. He seeths with hatred for those with different views. That is an example of human nature at its worst. This is why we must find better ways to control and balance power in our society and in the world.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 12, 2005 17:23 PM
Giant corporations cause many problems in the world. They are not under any real control, as far as I know. In nature, eco-systems stay in balance for long periods without one species killing off the rest. The exception is our own species, which is of course dominating the earth with its technology. In capitalism, things do not remain in balance. This was not foreseen by the early economists.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 12, 2005 17:19 PM
The compensation of various kinds of workers corresponds roughly to how much responsibility they have, how much of a risk they have taken with their own resources, and how much expertise they need for their job. Paying everyone equally and giving everyone an equal say in business decisions would not lead to success. Capitalism does result in extreme degrees of success for some businesses and individuals. For example, Bill Gates' good luck, good timing and good sense resulted in his complete dominance of an industry. The laws preventing monopolies were not effective in giving others a fair chance. Capitalism has improved greatly since Marx -- for example, in some countries at least child labor is illegal. In the US, as in Western Europe, we spend a lot on social programs. We really have a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Maybe capitalism can continue to evolve.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 12, 2005 17:11 PM
Let's say they are successful and their business expands -- they will have to hire more "workers" with various levels and kinds of skills. Some will specialize in sales, some in accounting, etc., some will just sweep the floor. And, once it attains a certain level of size and complexity, management becomes essential. Someone has to organize the efforts at a higher level.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 12, 2005 17:07 PM
You are not in charge here and you can't decide what people can say. Capitalism takes different forms. An individual can decide to work on his own, catching fish, painting houses, fixing cars, whatever. Businesses range from one person to giant corporations and everything in between. As a business grows and becomes more complex some kind of management becomes necessary. A group of "workers" could get together and contribute money and start, let's say, an auto repair shop. If they all contributed about the same amount of money, time and expertise they would be equal partners and get equal shares of the profit. They would also be taking an equal risk, since the business might fail.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 12, 2005 07:08 AM
"If the capitalist built the factory shouldn't he be able to claim some of the surplus over what the worker COULD have made on his own without the factory to use?" Answer: "It is workers who build factories and make the tools, and provide the surplus the capitalist uses to finance the project. Why bother with the capitalist?" rd: He has successfully rebutted your claim. You must not say another word in defense of capitalism until you show joeblog is wrong in what he is maintaining: capitalists are parasites; to use your example, fishermen do not need capitalists to teach them how to fish, nor do the capitalists have any right to the fishing poles.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 12, 2005 06:57 AM
"in realpc's defense, i don't believe he has to be "published" or even have a degree in lingutics to have an opinion on it." damphous, You don't get it: he claims to be a linguist; but if he does not have the required expertise, that is like me claiming to be a physicist because I have read a few books on the subject. He is suggesting that other experts on linguistics regard him as an authority on the subject, not just someone with a few opinions. If they do not, he deserves to be exposed as a charlatan.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 12, 2005 05:56 AM
*soory* ... that the worker would have able to sell get the same compensation as the capitalist got.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 12, 2005 05:18 AM
"Workers create surplus value to raw materials through their labor. Capitalist owners of industry take that surplus value and keep the vast majority of it for themselves(ie. steal it)." Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems to me that you are assuming that the worker would have been able. But what if the capitalist supplies the necessary tools for the labor. A factory worker would not be able to do the same amount of work without the factory. If the capitalist built the factory shouldn't he be able to claim some of the surplus over what the worker COULD have made on his own without the factory to use. If I teach you how to fish, is it stealing to take a few of the fish you catch later? You wouldn't have caught any if it weren't for me? The guy who did the labor is not always the only one deserving of credit.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Malatesta, Errico at Feb 12, 2005 03:38 AM
I cannot believe that the zmag ppl has fallen for the corporate propaganda. Why exactly was this "election" a "success"? Was it because some ppl actually got out and voted at all? The voting % is down to 25%, whats so great about that? This was nothing but a farce...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 12, 2005 00:53 AM
REALPC, That last post was intended for you. You are a fraud unless you respond to my requests.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 12, 2005 00:47 AM
"I am sure Allen will contemptuously accuse me of being an ignoramous who knows nothing about linguistics, even though I am a linguist." Your shallow-minded appraisal of Prof. Chomsky's work, as noted by Zim., makes me doubt your claim to be linguist. Prove to me that you are not a poseur. What are your credentails? Where did you receive your degree and under whom did you study? What have you published? Do you have an article somewhere PROVING that "many of his other ideas about language have considered (sic) doubtful"? You want my vita, here it is http://home.twmi.rr.com/robertallen/vita.htm Let's see yours.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Odixux, Odix at Feb 12, 2005 00:05 AM
I can not remember when Chomsky wrote something and he did not include the facts. (newspape, news, etc.). This is one of my main appreciation for his writings, the dedication and research. I do not always agree with him but he gives you the chance to go and check it out for yourself.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 11, 2005 21:14 PM
"Workers create surplus value to raw materials through their labor. Capitalist owners of industry take that surplus value and keep the vast majority of it for themselves(ie. steal it). Put more simply, even though the workers do the work,the CEO's live in big houses and the workers live in trailers. Put anouther way the whole thing is a big pyramid scheme, were the people on the bottom get scraps and the people on top take all of the wealth created by the people on the bottom." realfoolish, Is that good enough for you? Now the ball is in your court- you must refute premise 2 in my argument or SHUT UP.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 11, 2005 21:10 PM
"Workers create surplus value to raw materials through their labor. Capitalist owners of industry take that surplus value and keep the vast majority of it for themselves(ie. steal it). Put more simply, even though the workers do the work,the CEO's live in big houses and the workers live in trailers. Put anouther way the whole thing is a big pyramid scheme, were the people on the bottom get scraps and the people on top take all of the wealth created by the people on the bottom." Thank you, MTbrad for fleshing out my premise. Although, he knows darn well what I mean; he's just obfuscating as usual.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 11, 2005 21:05 PM
"Someone posted that I must respect Chomsky's political theories because he's a great scholar. My point is that his ability as a linguist is entirely irrelevant to his ability as a political scientist. I believe his enormous academic fame is largely personality-based, but that is besides the point I was trying to make." If you are talking about me, moron, I did not say that because the good Prof. is a great linguist his politics are beyond reproach. I said that, unlike the ugly radio talk show host to whom you comared him, Prof. Chomsky's political views must be respected because they are supported by a tremendous amount of research and impeccable logic.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 20:58 PM
I should not have criticized Chomsky's linguistic work in this context. Even if everyone agreed on his greatness as a linguist, that would in know way suggest that his political ideas have any academic value. Someone posted that I must respect Chomsky's political theories because he's a great scholar. My point is that his ability as a linguist is entirely irrelevant to his ability as a political scientist. I believe his enormous academic fame is largely personality-based, but that is besides the point I was trying to make.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 20:54 PM
Primitive tribes lived in small cooperative groups that competed for resources with neighboring groups. This is true for social animals in general.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 11, 2005 20:51 PM
RealPC, Your comment that 'Marxism seeks to eliminate economics from society'. This is simply wrong. This points to the fact that your understanding of Marxism is entirely misguided. The economic aspect to Marxism is central and enormous; it is an attempt to reorganize human economic relations, organizations, and society. In what way is 'capitalism' natural? Capitalism is a human construct and cannot anthropomorphically be applied to 'non-human societies'. Your notion of capitalism seems to be entirely too broad so that every instance of competition is considered capitalist, which in turn has absolutely no explanatory or theoretical power. Your comment that all primitive societies are and were capitalist is purely speculative and is not held to be true by a great deal of ethnological and anthropological studies and literature.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Feb 11, 2005 20:30 PM
RealPC, I have refrained from commenting on your various observations owing to their non-sensical and either mis-informed or uniformed nature, but this is too much. You have written off Chomsky's vitally important work in generative grammar and linguistics in general because some of his ideas are considered doubtful? What theory or theoretical perspective is not doubtful. A structuralist certainly thinks that Chomsky's linguistics are doubtful (and vice versa), but in no way does this minimize the importance, creativity, and revelatory nature of these theories. The entire project of Western scientific discourse is 'doubtful'. Doubt is built into the entire philosophical tradition. A theory is not rendered irrelevant because we doubt certain aspects of it, rather the strength of an idea is seen in how we interact with that idea, how it generates further inquiry and discussion, and how it opens the possibility for thinking about our condition in new and different ways.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 19:53 PM
Depending on how you define and analzye the concept "capitalism," all non-human societies are capitalist, as are all primitive human societies that ever existed. That is to say, capitalism is not new. It is the original and natural economic state of social animals, in which competition and cooperation are balanced.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 19:49 PM
Marxism seeks to elimiate economics from society. People should not have to compete for money. That is like saying plants should not be forced to grow in dirt. There is something in the human spirit that despises the natural world it depends on for survival. Marxism, Buddhism and Christianity all express that in various ways. And yes, I am saying that capitalism is natural. Abuses of the current capitalist system, on the other hand, are despicable and should be punished.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 11, 2005 18:57 PM
This is when you start to see people attmpting to square-up our society with our economic system. In true backwards thinking, normally smart people spend their lives trying to artificially set economic terms onto social systems. This is where people start to talk about "rational" thinking, and competion as being good for production, they claim that the lack of competion would lead to lazyness. These are all signs of a comodity or market fetishism, these people are attempting to make sense of the social by applying the reasoning of the markets. They realy think that they have no options, because they are not cognizant of their fetishism and the backward nature of their logic. You cannot simply reduce human and social behaviour to supply and demand terms no matter how easy it would be to manage if it were true.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 11, 2005 18:50 PM
From a sociological point of view, capitalism creates discordence within society in a couple of ways; First it pits worker (vast majority of the populace) against fellow worker. This creates an individual, competition based society which fractures the social cohesion. Put simply, workers must compete for the jobs (prostitute themselves to the capitalist), this stresses community ties. This is what is causing the breakdown of communties and families, it is also creating a society of individualistic and selfish citizens. Second it causes self alienation, by constructing imiges of selfworth through monitary devices, the individual is alienated from his tue self. Put simply, the real creative, self thinking you is discoureged and the complacient, obediant, value through money you is over emphasised.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 11, 2005 18:40 PM
Workers create surplus value to raw materials through their labor. Capitalist owners of industry take that surplus value and keep the vast majority of it for themselves(ie. steal it). Put more simply, even though the workers do the work,the CEO's live in big houses and the workers live in trailers. Put anouther way the whole thing is a big pyramid scheme, were the people on the bottom get scraps and the people on top take all of the wealth created by the people on the bottom.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 18:08 PM
"Capitalists steal their worker's time." It is not possible to evaluate your syllogism unless you define "capitalists," and "workers," and clarify what you mean by "steal." And you would have to provide evidence for the claim that "capitalists steal their worker's time."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 11, 2005 17:52 PM
"Chomsky and Limbaugh are on opposite sides of the fence but their techniques are similar. Both are sincere and believe their own one-sided propoganda." realstupid, Gimme a break, you complete moron. Chomsky argues and supports his premises with facts, unlike the other ugly fellow. This piece of nonsense alone shows you are beyond hope. And why should anyone accepts your pronouncements on "human nature"- who are you to make sweeping generalizations about our entire species? Where is YOUR support for these claims? What expertise do you have here? Neither you nor any of your clones here, in defending the US and capitalism, have yet to respond to my basic argument, posed at the beginning of this "debate": 1. Theft is evil. 2. Capitalists steal their worker's time. 3. Therefore, capitalists are evil. The argument is obviously valid, so if you disagree with its conclusion you MUST show that one of its premises are false. Your refusal to come to grips with this fact is what has earned you my scorn and that of others.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 11, 2005 17:19 PM
"I am sure Allen will contemptuously accuse me of being an ignoramous who knows nothing about linguistics, even though I am a linguist." realpc, No, I would contemptuously accuse you of being a heartles jerk who refuses to follow the rules of rational discourse. Why should I care what you know or don't know about linguistics, since it is not the subject at hand, oh master of the red herring. Sounds like you have yourself a good case of a persecution complex.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 15:21 PM
Chomsky and Limbaugh are on opposite sides of the fence but their techniques are similar. Both are sincere and believe their own one-sided propoganda.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 15:18 PM
Chomsky dominated American linguistics, and this was more political than intellectual. He became famous for defeating Skinner's obviously wrong idea that humans are not genetically programmed to learn a certain type of language. Yes Chomsky was right about that, but many of his other ideas about language have considered doubtful This is not the place to go into controversies about linguistics. (I am sure Allen will contemptuously accuse me of being an ignoramous who knows nothing about linguistics, even though I am a linguist.) After becoming famous and taking American linguistics down an unfortunate path, Chomsky has devoted many years to anti-American propoganda, while on salary at MIT.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 11, 2005 06:55 AM
realpc "(In England I met a girl who made fun of Bush for believing in "good and evil", but then went on about how "evil" US capitalism is - and she used the word several times - as if she forgot that she had previously said she didn't believe in good and evil.) This is exactly what I have been talking about. If I disagree with any aspect of the left's agenda, even slightly, I am called a radical right-winger. ... The same goes for Chomsky." How can you equate such shallowness with the work of one of the finest scholars of the 20th century? This only betrays your shallow-mindedness and smear Chomsky agenda. You are simply jealous of people whose work is taken SERIOUSLY by scholars.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 11, 2005 06:51 AM
realpc and rd, How do you KNOW that the WTC workers in ? were unaware of the "genocidal effects of the world market" and US foreign policy? Further ignorance of the harmful effects of one's action is not always exculpating: there are some things that one should know, like the effects one's employer's policies are having on people's lives. If this were not so, it would be possible to avoid being responsible for the misdeeds of those with whom one interacts by 'burying one's head in the sand'. Thus, if one works for a company or govt. agency whose actions are harmful, one shares in the blame for them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 04:59 AM
I had listened to Rush Limbaugh years ago and was amazed at his lack of perspective. He reported any dumb thing done by a liberal and every smart thing done by a conservative -- never the reverse. It was an obvious propoganda technique and his listeners fell for it. I thought it was their lack of education. But progressives do exactly the same thing. Education has no relationship to common sense or wisdom. I think intelligent people are just as likely to lose perspective as the uneducated people they look down on. Maybe moreso.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 04:50 AM
I am not saying conservatives are any better than progressives (or whatever labels are preferred). Becoming a committed follower of any ideology causes a loss of perspective and open-mindedness. The need to be right overwhelms the desire to understand.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 11, 2005 04:40 AM
"This is exactly what I have been talking about. If I disagree with any aspect of the left's agenda, even slightly, I am called a radical right-winger" Same is true for the other side. Go to ProtestWarrior and see the level of debate there. It's a feast of groupthink and mob mentality. Dialogue on the level of "why liberals should be shot for treason". Chat groups are prone to this - its hard to make nuanced points so its easy to sound simplistic and dogmatic. Who wants to spend 20 minutes crafting an argument when you can spend 30 seconds are just call the person a "facist"?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 11, 2005 04:14 AM
"I have been exposed to very reasonable and logical critiques of US policy, but not as often as I am exposed to knee-jerk judgements seemingly made because the person in question viewed EVERY action the US takes as bad." This is exactly what I have been talking about. If I disagree with any aspect of the left's agenda, even slightly, I am called a radical right-winger. And yes, Ward Churchill is typical in his complete lack of perspective. The same goes for Chomsky. I have always been very willing to consider alternative points of view, and that's why I used to like reading Chomsky. But alternative points of view can be just as ridiculous as the official dogma. You have to be skeptical of the skeptics.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 11, 2005 02:50 AM
Thomas Merton has a brilliant insight in his intro to his book "The Way of Chuang Tzu". He mentions how every political philosophy starts out merely being a means to and end - a way to make society better and achieve "goodness". However, over time, people start treating the philosophy not as a means, but as an end it itself. Eventually simply following the philosophy, regardless of effects, comes to be seen a "good", and the original intent of the philosophy is forgotten or discarded. Opposition to the US is no different. I have been exposed to very reasonable and logical critiques of US policy, but not as often as I am exposed to knee-jerk judgements seemingly made because the person in question viewed EVERY action the US takes as bad. In England I met a girl who made fun of Bush for believing in "good and evil", but then went on about how "evil" US capitalism is - and she used the word several times - as if she forgot that she had previously said she didn't believe in good and evil. Of course, this is true of the right as well - this happens to all political philosophies, not just those of a certain stripe.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 11, 2005 02:33 AM
"It is *not* fallacious to focus on the US in that case, particularly if one is honest enough and retains the critical thought to accept the limitations of the approach and keep them in perspective." If I may interject... I would say "prospective" is a very easy thing to lose, and we can find plenty of examples of those who lost it. Take the flavor-of-the-month scandal that the rightwing press found in Ward Churchill. Ward called the technicians in the towers "little Eichmanns" because they helped a system that he find to be genocidal. However, what Ward failed to even pay attention to (where he lost perspective) is that Eichmann KNEW that he was working on genocide, INTENDED to work on genocide, and simply didn't care. I seriously doubt many trade center workers believed that they were commiting genocide, or would have continued their jobs if they had felt it to be so. Now, we can argue about the "genocidal" effects of the world market all we want, but even if you consider it to be genocidal, it takes a certain lack of perspective to equate people who are blind to the effects of their work with a man who intentionally supervised the extermination of millions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Garrett, Dana at Feb 10, 2005 21:47 PM
One could view the outcome of the Iraqi election as a colossal debacle for USA regional strategy. Whatever buffer Iraq provided to Iranian regional hegemony while Saddam was in power has been nearly completely removed now that the Shiites will hold the preponderance of political power in Iraq. If anything, the USA has enhanced Iran's standing in the region. That's really an amazing accomplishment if you think about it. The USA goes into debt for hundreds of billions of dollars only to transform Iraq into an important ally of Iran. No one wonder the USA is hot under the collar about Iran now. The only way they can reverse their blunder in Iraq is by effecting regime change in Iran.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 10, 2005 15:42 PM
The desire to feel superior is a major driving force in human nature. Feeling you belong to the group that has the answers, the group that is not being fooled, is of great value. We have to give that up to some extent, a major sacrifice, if our understanding is to evolve.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 10, 2005 15:38 PM
If you belong to one party or organization, do not assume everything anyone in the opposing parties and organizations says or does is either stupid,evil or crazy. Partisan, ideology-based thinking is getting to be a real problem in the US. It is not a sign of intelligence and sophistication to automatically assume every single thing the US gov does is based in greed and/or malice. That is just as naive as thinking every thing the US has ever done is benevolent. It is easier to take a side and stick with it no matter what. You can always select and distort the evidence. It is intellectually more challenging -- and more useful -- to continually renew your perspective and your self-doubt.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Odixux, Odix at Feb 10, 2005 00:00 AM
I did not mean the elites, I mean the people not having these problems, the elites included. Sadly in our society the public is not getting all the news or the right news to solve any problem. The greatest part of the public is still being run by propaganda, coming from the government. And who controls the government, the BIG corporations (the elites included). Did you believe that Saddam can attack the UK with WMD within 45 minutes? This is what the media was saying and the public believed it. The public (the elites included) can solve the problems of this world, however the public is not getting a fair chance.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Odixux, Odix at Feb 09, 2005 23:41 PM
Realpc has a point!. There will always be a problem in this world, with Capitalism, Marxism every ism you can define because they will all lead to a group of people having power and power sadly corrupts human beings. Solution?.... But the problems in this world are very clear. The main issue is that the group of people having these problems is not the same as the group of people that has the power to solve them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 09, 2005 23:31 PM
I can understand why some people are frustrated and angry, as the world becomes ever more terrifying. But I believe the US and capitalism -- bad as they can be -- are not at the root of our problems. I think our problems originate mostly in nature, human nature, and most of all in technological progress. I am not against science and technology -- just the opposite -- but they have disrupted our relationship with nature since civilization began. I think human reason is limited and will not lead us to any permanent solutions. Every solution will have unwanted side-effects. I am not advocating despair, but I am warning against over-simplification and misdirected action.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 09, 2005 23:24 PM
As I have said repeatedly, I do not agree that getting rid of capitalism would solve the problems Chomsky is concerned about. I think blaming capitalism makes the problems seem manageable and comprehensible. People naturally want to think they know what's wrong and how to fix it, but you are making the same kind of mistake as the Marxists. No one has clearly defined the problems, so no one one has even the start of a solution. My point is that an attempt must be made to define and understand the problems and their causes before working towards solutions can proceed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 09, 2005 20:50 PM
"Well, it's my country, so it must be right. After all, I live in it, and everyone I know has always told me it's always right. When it's not, therefore, it must be because a mistake was made." Actually, for a long time I believed the US was most often wrong, as did everyone around me. But as I learned more about history and human nature, I began to see that the US is right about half the time, or at least as often as any other big powerful establishment. I also began to see that there is about as much idealism as there is cynicism in most human endeavors, whether they succeed or fail. The bigger, the more powerful the establishment, the greater the potential for real evil. Individuals at the top of powerful organizations have a great deal of freedom, and human nature being what it is -- tormented by fears and desires -- too much freedom is dangerous.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Jautter, Mind at Feb 09, 2005 18:13 PM
"Insurgent"-One who rebels against an established authority.The U.S. has been calling Iraqi freedom fighters insurgents since the end of "Shock and Awe",but when was an authority ever established? Now that the elections have occured and it appears a legitimate government will be established , what misnomer will the U.S. ascribe this government when they resort to arms to throw us out?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Odixux, Odix at Feb 09, 2005 16:33 PM
The US is just looking for control on the Middle East (the main energy source), starting with the weakest 'IRAQ' . US had control with Saddam for a while and during that period it did not matter if Saddam was killing his own people. Since the Saddam method backfired, US lost the control they desperately wanted. So now the US is looking for control by bombing a nation into submission with the gesture, all in the name of 'democracy'. War will always mean innocent people dying, so looking for an alternative is always necessary. If the American people (like Bush and Rumsfeld) really care for the Iraquis let them test the so-called 'intelligent' missiles in NY before using them in Iraq. ;)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 09, 2005 03:57 AM
"I think the US wants peace in the Middle East more than it wants anything else right now." But that is obvious. Everybody including Hitler wants "peace". The question is really peace under whose terms.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 09, 2005 02:49 AM
In no way will the current gov't allow peace in the mideast. We would lose one of our biggest arms buyers and our reason to attack Iran(terror supporters). The situation is so out of control. There will be token movements toward peace that will end with some so called attack by "terrorists" and isreal will crush some more houses and shoot some more kids. There is no way to tell who is really behind the "terrorist" bombings, could be CIA paid thugs meant to disrupt the peace process. This is why it is futile to hope for a US brokered peace plan. If you want peace in the mideast, leave them alone ( this means no gun sales).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 09, 2005 02:31 AM
Democracy imposed by an outside force is not democracy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 09, 2005 02:29 AM
ap2k, How is it good that the "election" took place? Two reasons why "election" was a farce: 1)From how I see it only certain people were allowed to vote. The undisirable people were held back by violence that the us should have had a handle on months ago. Certain areas had more U.S. and Iraqi protection for voting. 2) No body knew who or what they were voting for. Alot of people thought that they were voting to remove US troops. Which we will never let happen, at least not entirely. The candidates that were running that we did not like were just left unprotected and ended up dead. This is not democracy. It is the bastard child of a qusi-democratic country hell bent on global domination.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Feb 08, 2005 23:34 PM
The triumph is a double sided coin though - yes it's great that the elections took place, despite strong (but subtle) US-UK opposition. But if the result of the election is installing a leader who favors western businesses over the Iraqi people, then there is nothing to be triumphant about. If the new government comes in only to ratify the laws imposed by the CPA, then what's the use? If the new government rewrites laws to favor Iraqis, then it will indeed be a triumph! I am very curious to watch the next play at hand - both from the new Iraqi government and from the CPA.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davidberge, Daveos at Feb 08, 2005 20:30 PM
While there is a huge PR job in the works by the White House to portray the Iraqi elections in a favorable light and as if it was their plan all along, we shouldn't lose sight of what Noam points out about the initial US aversion to free elections in Iraq. If you go to the website of The Coalition Provisional Authority http://www.cpa-iraq.org/ and review the Documents section, the US concerns to achieve land ownership in Iraq are pretty plain. My understanding is that as an occupying force the US is prohibited from land ownership under international law. Even so, the CPA made all sorts of provisions for it before being dissolved. As Noam points out, there was a triumph in the non-violent resistance led by Sistani to force the elections. But now we have to watch for the next play at hand to achieve the level of control the Bushies wish for.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Vekey, Tvekey at Feb 08, 2005 20:07 PM
I agree and it is important to remind us, (as prof. Chomsky does) that the US has neither initiated nor encouraged the notion of election at earlier time in the ocupation. However the situation in the meantime became nearly intolerable to the US, due to the succes of armed resistance to the occupation. The main goal of the invasion ie. consolidation and the undisturbed extraction and export of Iraqi oil has not been accomplished. The stretch of US conventional military resources has been revealed as well. In this environment it will serve the interest of the US elite if they can manage to make an Entente Cordiale with a majority Shiite government, if it is functions better than the US selected old 'Interim' one.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Odixux, Odix at Feb 08, 2005 18:33 PM
US has a history of non democratical behaviour that it seems to me a joke that the US wants to promote democracy in a country like Iraq. Democracy has become a media tool the US uses to achieve its own foreign policy goals. Let's forget democracy for a minute and look at this situation as caring human beings. Would you like to switch places with another human being living in Baghdad at this moment? Would you care about democracy in Iraq if it meant losing a loved one?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 08, 2005 10:41 AM
Now immediatly after the election we are told this is another "historical moment". It is intriguing that many so called liberal pundits suck it all up without even a hint of normal skepticism even though we have been lied to so many times so recently! A well respected idiot from our local wishy washy liberal newspaper wrote "Admit it, Bush was right"(he originally opposed the war). I then saw him on TV lecturing Naomi Klein that she should be more constructive! He is not alone. I can't believe people can be that naive. It seems that stupidity is a major asset for a political commentator.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 08, 2005 10:38 AM
Nobody even know how many people actually participated in the election.I heard that the initial report of big turn out was greatly exaggerated. The updated figure is about 57% of eligible voters. And the actual proportion is probably much smaller simply because a lot of people were not even on the voter list(there was none). This reminds me another media con job. Remember the "historical moment" we were showed repeatedly on TV when Saddam's statue was toppled? It looks like there was a big crowd from the close up shots on the TV footage. But actually there were only about a hundred people in that huge Baghdad square and it was surrounded by American tanks. Many of these people were "paid extras" the U.S bused in from other cities.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davidberge, Daveos at Feb 08, 2005 03:23 AM
I'm all for a push on US troop withdrawal, if only because it's one of the few ways I see of calling the Bush bluff. But I have no illusions about the reality of this in the context of of the US economic situation. With all the detail emerging on the unsustainable fiscal policies driving the current agenda, I think Noam's postings of Jan 19 (see "American Empire from the 1940's to today" and "Control of Oil & World Power") speak to the unfortunate realities of why we are in Iraq. Given what's driven us there (benevolent desire to bestow deocracy; NOT) it's hard to imagine a withdrawal without achieving the "objective". But this is all unspoken, so engaging on the terms that were originally set - WMD, thwarting terrorism - I vote pushing for withdrawal on the basis of "mission accomplished."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 08, 2005 01:46 AM
I thought that Chomsky's argument takes too much credit away from the US being able to control over the situation in Iraq - with elections, for example - I thought that the US would have the power to postpone them indefinitely if it really wanted to, and then forcing its choice of a candidate down the throat of the Iraqi people via manipulation and deception. I suppose that if he is right, then the situation in Iraq is more grave than I thought, and the US had to allow elections to take place (while claiming that it wanted to do so all along).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Feb 08, 2005 01:03 AM
I don't know too much about the "elected" Iraqi PM, but from what I do know, it seems that the US IS quite comfortable with him, which is why they allowed the election to take place. I believe that he held the position of Minister of Finance or something like that in the Interim Government and he arrived in Washington about a month before the election and assured the US Congress that he intended to open the Iraqi economy to foreign investment (obviously refering to the oil industry). Given that he represents the largest Shiia group in Iraq (Shiias being the majority) and given that the Sunni groups were threatening a boycot of the election, it was quite easy to predict who would win the election. With the Sunnis abstaining and the Kurds reviving their dreams of independence, it's also quite obvious that the security situation is not likely to improve after the election, giving the US government the ultimate excuse NOT to pull out. Therefore, we got OUR man in THEIR office and we're sure to stay to make sure he does what he promised (to us, not the Iraqis of course).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Allen, Robert at Feb 08, 2005 00:10 AM
realpc In case you don't realize it, you have been thoroughly discredited here due to your failure to acknowledge the obvious error you made in a previous posting. Can't you tell that readers think you are a joke?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Davidberge, Daveos at Feb 07, 2005 23:47 PM
In addition to the issues to observe unfold is how the Sunni's abstainance from the vote will impact stabilization. While the vote is good for all the reasons Chomsky notes, with the Sunni's abstaining, the instability of the outcome provides advantages to the US realizing the dream of the laws outlined by the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority affording US land ownership). The spin has now shifted to "we won't leave until the objectives have been accomplished" and the objective of stabilizing democracy is subjective enough as to leave an open checkbook. With the potential for civil war conflict to arise, the US stands to play mediator for a long time to come. Such a shame we can't readily impart the faith in the golden calf so that the fundamental belief systems become the adornment they are in the US.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq's Election

By Yurallnuts, Realpc at Feb 07, 2005 21:47 PM
I think the US wants peace in the Middle East more than it wants anything else right now. The best thing that could happen for the Bush administration is an outcome the Iraqis approve of. The US has to show that its interventions are meant to help, not harm, or the world will not forgive us. I sincerely hope the US will take this chance to prove we care about human rights and peace, that access to oil is not the sole reason behind all our foreign policies.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (247)

Loading_border