ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (05/17/84)
--
The rather consistent opinion about Tim Maroney and the net--
net use is a right, not a privilege, and he broke the rules, so he's
just a cry-baby--makes me wonder about this fixation so many
high-tech types have with order, apparently for its own sake.
Yes, Tim did get what was coming to him. So too, and for much the
same reasons of flouting privilege, did Galileo. Is this justice?
There are rules, and not only don't you break them, you don't question
them either. The "if you don't like it, go someplace else" argument
is thus another popular netlandism. And indeed, most people engaged in
intricate technology have very traditional lifestyles. Why?
The other side of this question is:
Why have recent movements for social and political change in America
consistently failed to attract followers with technological expertise?
Let me anticipate a few counter-examples. Although much more in the
30's than recently, the Communist Party has attracted scientists.
And there is a sort-of commune, "The Farm" in Tennessee, which is very
technically advanced. (Indeed, they made a bundle on an idiot's guide
to CB radio.) Both organizations (honest, no comparison really intended)
however, adopted extremely traditional lifestyles. Hierarchical,
sexist, very neat and organized--here's your job, go do it.
So I've been on both sides of the tribal-technological fence, and I've
felt like an alien either way. As Gertrude Stein said (reportedly her
last words), "What's the answer? On the other hand, what's the question?"
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 17 May 84 [28 Floreal An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***parnass@ihuxf.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (05/17/84)
> ..... Although much more in the > 30's than recently, the Communist Party has attracted scientists. > And there is a sort-of commune, "The Farm" in Tennessee, which is very > technically advanced. (Indeed, they made a bundle on an idiot's guide > to CB radio.) > -- > *** *** > JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** > ****** ****** 17 May 84 [28 Floreal An CXCII] > ken perlow ***** ***** > (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** > ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** *** > How does writing "an idiot's guide to CB radio" serve as supporting evidence that this group of communist farmers is technically advanced? P.S.: The ".signature" is getting a bit stale. -- ========================================================================== Bob Parnass, AT&T Bell Laboratories - ihnp4!ihuxf!parnass - (312)979-5414
lynnef@teklabs.UUCP (Lynne Fitzsimmons ) (05/21/84)
About The Farm in Tennessee --
It was founded by a group led by Steven Gaskin and a lot of people from
somewhere in California (Berkeley springs to mind). Lots of these people
had advanced degrees. They are hardly dummies. My father's comment on the
whole thing was "Sure, they aren't dummies, but all they give their kids is
an 8th grade education. Where does that leave them (the kids)?".
{Background -- my cousin Steven (not Steven Gaskin!) lived there. I met him
and his wife at the impressionable age of 16 and had visions of moving there.
Now my cousin Steven is out in the real world putting his engineering degree
to good use, or so my grandfather tells me]
--
Lynne Fitzsimmons
UUCP: {allegra, decvax, ihnp4, orstcs, ucbvax, zehntel, ogcvax, reed,
uw-beaver, hplabs}!tektronix!teklabs!lynnef
CSnet: lynnef@tek ARPAnet: lynnef.tek@rand-relaydyer@dec-vaxuum.UUCP (06/05/84)
Re: Whither Are We Drifting?___________________________________________________ Well, it looks like this note's going over like a lead balloon, Ken. I guess I'll throw some comments in. To summarize, Ken (Perlow) was wondering "about this fixation so many high-tech types have with order, apparently for its own sake." As Ken put it: > There are rules, and not only don't you break them, you don't question them > either. The "if you don't like it, go someplace else" argument is thus > another popular netlandism. And indeed, most people engaged in intricate > technology have very traditional lifestyles. Why? Funny, not much response on this! I wonder why? I'm wondering if it doesn't have something to do with the popular conception among technologists that science and reason are reality itself. If one's Weltanschuaung is made with the hierarchies and classifying and specialization that one finds in sci- entific thought, no wonder these people's lives are so orderly. Another thought on this: these professions seem to attract a fair number of libertarians. I guess one could blame Robert Heinlein. (I made a nasty comment about Heinlein in net.flame and got a delightful letter from someone who was grateful that he gave up on Heinlein and didn't end up "ano- ther goose-stepping libertarian.") One wonders why anyone would embrace a philosophy that ignores at least half of human reality. (Note that just a few days ago, somebody posted an article about being impressed by an Ayn Rand book.) Two possibilities spring to mind: (1) We high-techers usually get here from financially-secure back- grounds. (There are exceptions. I'm one of them.) Libertarian politics ap- pear as the simplest and most straightforward system for the well-off to remain that way. Attendant philosophical overtones (or, in the case of Objectivism, a philosophical emphasis) offer a coherent view of reality and ethics - and it also happens to be consistent with the technological approach. (2) Perhaps a number of us who can deal with machines so well cannot deal with people with as much success. Thus subjective reality is ignored or mistrusted while the objective reality takes the place of it all. Any other thoughts? I hope so. <_Jym_> ._________________________________________________________. .__! Jym Dyer <> Digital Equipment Corporation <> Nashua, NH !__. .__! Arpanet: dyer%vaxuum.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA <> E-Net: VAXUUM::DYER !__. __! Usenet: ...{allegra|decvax|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer !__
larry@grkermit.UUCP (06/05/84)
Re: Frequent libertarianism among high tech types. I have this theory that high tech types being libertarian is related to their frequent social ostracism. They felt left out in high school perhaps and even now feel unable to relate to the rest of society. THus, they have no sense of community with the rest of the world and really couldn't care less if it went to pieces. Their world view is one of introspection and self-satisfaction, rather than interaction with others.
mike@hpfclk.UUCP (06/09/84)
>> No, the Nazi economy was a capitalist economy whose biggest wheels >> have been doing "business as usual" come hell or high water. Ken, I may of misinterpreted what you said but you seem to be implying that it was Capitalism that helped bring about the Nazi regime. I totally disagree with this. Goods and services produced by slave labor is not Capitalism; it's slavery and barbarism. Capitalism cannot exist in a totalitarian, fascist, or slave labor state. If there is no political freedom, there can be no economic freedom for Capitalism to function. The Nazi regime was built on loot and slavery by people in the government and other thugs whose main desire was controlling the lives of other people and eventually ruling the world. When force comes in, Capitalism goes out. If you *want* to control the lives of other individuals, you are not a Capitalist, you are a slave driver. Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!hpfclk!mike
neal@denelcor.UUCP (06/10/84)
************************************************************************** > One wonders why anyone would embrace a philosophy that ignores at >least half of human reality. (Note that just a few days ago, somebody posted >an article about being impressed by an Ayn Rand book.) Which half, the implied threat that if I don't willingly give all my money to the poor, that they'll "rise up", murder me, and take it anyway? > Two possibilities spring to mind: > (1) We high-techers usually get here from financially-secure back- >grounds. (There are exceptions. I'm one of them.) Libertarian politics ap- >pear as the simplest and most straightforward system for the well-off to remain >that way. Attendant philosophical overtones (or, in the case of Objectivism, >a philosophical emphasis) offer a coherent view of reality and ethics - and it >also happens to be consistent with the technological approach. > (2) Perhaps a number of us who can deal with machines so well cannot >deal with people with as much success. Thus subjective reality is ignored or >mistrusted while the objective reality takes the place of it all. > > <_Jym_> Speaking for myself as a libertarian: There's probably a germ of truth to both of these assertions but there are two (very closely connected) reasons that I'm a libertarian. 1. I think I can do a better job of running my life than some Washington bureaucrat. 2. As a productive member of society, I very much resent the government(s) punishing productivity and rewarding non-productivity (or even bad luck). Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Nothin' ain't worth nothin' Denelcor, Inc. but it's free" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (06/12/84)
>From: neal@denelcor.UUCP Sat Jun 9 15:49:17 1984 ... >there are two (very closely connected) reasons that I'm a libertarian. > > 1. I think I can do a better job of running my life than some >Washington bureaucrat. > > 2. As a productive member of society, I very much resent the >government(s) punishing productivity and rewarding non-productivity (or >even bad luck). I'd call myself a 'Libertarian' except that Libertarians focus on the evils of government the way some religious conservatives latch onto sex. It is certainly true that the government can inhibit my liberty, but it is also true that my freedom is endangered by labor unions, businesses, and even public attitudes. I don't restrict myself to matters of physical force (almost all Libertarians contend the government at least should prevent criminal use of force). The 64 Civil Rights Act, for example, was a case of government intervention that increased my liberty. So is this state's Right to Work Law that prohibits 'union shops'. You can probably think of other examples. Something that can inhibit my liberty is 'bad luck' and it seems rather cold to me to suggest that people suffering through no fault of their own should be allowed to starve. My grandmother may have been 'unproductive' in her declining years, but she needed the government assistance she received. The rest of the family was 'productive' but could not spare enough extra to help her out. If your family or friends have never had a similar experience, you have been fortunate, indeed. In connection with another posting on the same subject: I'm surprised that people take seriously the 'philosophy' of Any Rand. It seems to me any serious adherent of libertarian thought would strive to vigorously disassociate him/herself from Rand's writing. But, then again, there are people who take Scientology very seriously, too... (Any Velikovskians out there??) :-) :-) :-) :-) D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
mwm@ea.UUCP (06/13/84)
#R:decwrl:-109900:ea:9800006:000:744 ea!mwm Jun 13 15:13:00 1984 Since we're throwing out hypotheses with out any evidence, let me throw out mine: High-tech types tend to be libertarians because high-tech work tends to be work that require you to think logically. Yes, you can partly blame Heinlein, as he encourages people to think for themselves. Which brings to mind a marvelous quote from the latest Analog (from memory, so it won't be perfect): "Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein are a good counter to the peer pressure against learning that starts in the third grade." BTW, "goose-stepping libertarians" is a false picture. The country with the goose-stepping army was run by *socialists*, remember? The libertarian army had the ungentlemanly habit of hiding behind trees to shoot at redcoats. <mike
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/15/84)
-- >> Since we're throwing out hypotheses with out any evidence, let >> me throw out mine: >> High-tech types tend to be libertarians because high-tech work >> tends to be work that require you to think logically. Yes, you >> can partly blame Heinlein, as he encourages people to think for >> themselves... >> BTW, "goose-stepping libertarians" is a false picture. The country >> with the goose-stepping army was run by *socialists*, remember? >> The libertarian army had the ungentlemanly habit of hiding behind >> trees to shoot at redcoats. >> <mike Are you calling the Nazis socialists???? They may have called themselves socialists, but they were, of course, fascists, and habitual liars at that. I'm trying to resist the temptation to say "THINK LOGICALLY FERCHRISSAKES!" But I can't. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 15 Jun 84 [27 Prairial An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
mwm@ea.UUCP (06/18/84)
#R:ihuxq:-100500:ea:9800007:000:1553 ea!mwm Jun 18 00:35:00 1984 /***** ea:net.philosophy / ihuxq!ken / 6:38 pm Jun 15, 1984 */ Are you calling the Nazis socialists???? They may have called themselves socialists, but they were, of course, fascists, and habitual liars at that. I'm trying to resist the temptation to say "THINK LOGICALLY FERCHRISSAKES!" But I can't. -- ken perlow ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken /* ---------- */ I am. I find two definitions of Fascism in the dictionary, both of which indicate a belief in a strong, centralized dictatorship. The closest either one of them comes to making a Fascist Socialism self-contradictory is "stands for a ... severe economic and social regimentation ... ." This *does not* indicate that a fascist government couldn't be socialist, but it *does* indicate that a fascist government couldn't live with a free enterprise system (not that I'm saying it's impossible, mind you). Fascism is a form of *government*, and socialism a form for an *economy*. You can have a Republican Socialism (where America appears to be drifting), a Fascist Socialism (where the USSR seems to be drifting), you can even have a Libertarian Socialism. Whether or not the National Socialists are socialists: They called themselves socialists, and the German government apparently controlled the means of production, and ran it "for the good of the people" (isn't that what socialism's all about?). If these statements are true, then the Nazis were socialists; if they are false, then the Nazis aren't socialists. Someone want to let me know how the Nazis really behaved about property? <mike
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/22/84)
-- >> Whether or not the National Socialists are socialists: They >> called themselves socialists, and the German government >> apparently controlled the means of production, and ran it >> "for the good of the people" (isn't that what socialism's all >> about?). If these statements are true, then the Nazis >> were socialists; if they are false, then the Nazis aren't >> socialists. Someone want to let me know how the Nazis really >> behaved about property? >> <mike The Nazi government did not control private enterprise, although it did provide plenty of slave labor. It was industrial giants like Krupp, Fritz Thissen, and I G Farben who bankrolled Hitler from the beginning (how do you think they got those snazzy uniforms and awe-inspiring rallies during the worst days of the depression?) and who ran their companies completely unmolested, before, during, and after the war. Thissen wrote a book, "I Paid Hitler," if you're interested in his perspective. No, the Nazi economy was a capitalist economy whose biggest wheels have been doing "business as usual" come hell or high water. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 22 Jun 84 [4 Messidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (06/23/84)
From: mwm@ea.UUCP: Whether or not the National Socialists are socialists: They called themselves socialists, and the German government apparently controlled the means of production, and ran it "for the good of the people" (isn't that what socialism's all about?). If these statements are true, then the Nazis were socialists; if they are false, then the Nazis aren't socialists. Someone want to let me know how the Nazis really behaved about property? -------- Not entirely correct. The Nazis didn't run their govt. "for the good of the people" as much as "the good of the fatherland". This was nationalism, the state for its own sake. In this respect, Stalinist Russia was Fascist too, in that all personal rights were subjugated in the name of the state. (This is not neccesary for a Marxist state, but happened to be true in the case of Russia, which had a long tradition of autocracy.) Socialism, as defined by the vast majority of socialists in the west, is "popular control of the means of production". If an unpopular govt. controls the means of production, that is no more socialism than any other oligarchy.
judy@ism780.UUCP (06/23/84)
#R:decwrl:-109900:ism780:20200005:000:1221 ism780!judy Jun 19 15:20:00 1984 Well, I will not make uneducated generalizations as some have (oooh, what a nasty cut :-) ). But I can only assume that the person who said that libertarians are wealthy and trying to hold on to it is a democrat. That is usually the complaint about republicans. So, I will tell you why I, personally, am a registered libertarian (which means nothing much). And it is NOT becuase I am ostracized from society. I cannot be a democrat because I do not beleive in a welfare state. I cannot be a republican because I do not beleive in legislating morality. Therefore, I am a libertarian. I consider it economically conservative and morally liberal. Now, I may differ some from the "Libertarian Platform" but it is the closest middle of the road party around. And as far as focusing on the evils of government, again I think you are a democrat. This is the focus of the republican party and less centralized government has been part of the republican platform since Thomas Jefferson. I guess I am a republican who believes in drugs, sex among consenting adults, and abortion. I thought there were other libertarians like me. I didn't know we had to step around geese, though. Why? What happens if I step on one?
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (06/25/84)
mit-eddie!lkk says: >The Nazis didn't run their govt. "for the good of >the people" as much as "the good of the fatherland". This was >nationalism, the state for its own sake. -- Good point. But recognize that by 'the state', it refers only to the particular state one considers his fatherland. E.g. a German nationalist believes that even 'the good of Americans' is below 'the good of Germany'; but 'the good of America' doesn't enter into it. > In this respect, >Stalinist Russia was Fascist too, in that all personal rights were >subjugated in the name of the state. (This is not neccesary for a >Marxist state, but happened to be true in the case of Russia, which had >a long tradition of autocracy.) -- As i see it, it was/is the other way around. Remember that according to Leninism, individuals are completely subservient to the state; the state has all the rights; the individual, none. Stalin was not a nationalist (in the political sense of the word), which is easy to recognize when you realize that he was Georgian. But he was a Leninist. The point i am trying to make (this is not one of my clearest letters) is that it is more natural to think of the NAZIs as having elements of Leninism in them, then to think of Stalinist Russia as having parts of Nationalism in it. This helps to explain why the National Socialists were Socialists, rather than Stalinist Russia being Fascist. BTW, llk remarks that Socialism is when there is popular control of the means of production, and refers to unpopular govns as not being Socialist. I might remind him that this defn makes America and NAZI Germany socialist states, but excludes the United Soviet Socialist Republics. Alan Algustyniak (sdccsu3!sdcrdcf!alan) (ucbvax!ucla-vax!sdcrdcf!alan) (allegra!sdcrdcf!alan) (decvax!trw-unix!sdcrdcf!alan) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!alan) P.S. Does anyone out there know where nations get there names? Why does the West call it USSR, if we don't believe it's Socialistic? Why call the Democratic Republics if they correspond to our defn of Democracy?
mwm@ea.UUCP (06/26/84)
#R:ihuxq:-100500:ea:9800008:000:1676 ea!mwm Jun 25 17:31:00 1984 /***** ea:net.philosophy / mit-eddi!lkk / 11:01 pm Jun 22, 1984 */ Not entirely correct. The Nazis didn't run their govt. "for the good of the people" as much as "the good of the fatherland". Socialism, as defined by the vast majority of socialists in the west, is "popular control of the means of production". If an unpopular govt. controls the means of production, that is no more socialism than any other oligarchy. /* ---------- */ You're right, the Nazis did claim they were running the production of Germany "for the good of the fatherland." However, they had popular support at least until WWII started. Pulling your country out of a recession is good for your public image. Since this was good for much of the populace, the Nazi party at least started out as socialists. (Side thought - does this make pre-WWII Germany another socialist success story. :-) Your definition of socialism has a serious deficiency. The term "popular control" is vague. Do you mean elected officials? A benevolent dictator? How about voting on what is done with the production? Say, by buying the product produced? No? Could you tell me what you think it should be? I'm not sure I see the difference between "popular control of the means of production" as opposed to "running the production facilities for the good of the people", except that 1) popular control leave who decides vague, as opposed to unspecified; and 2) in the latter case the people get what's really good for them, as opposed to what they think is good for them (if these things happen to be different, of course). <mike "I assure that I am a reverend recognized by the state. Now, does anybody have a beer?"
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (06/26/84)
> From: judy@ism780.UUCP Sat Jun 23 00:41:17 1984 ... > I cannot be a democrat because I do not believe in a welfare state. I > cannot be a republican because I do not believe in legislating morality. > Therefore, I am a libertarian. I consider it economically conservative > and morally liberal. Now, I may differ some from the "Libertarian Platform" > but it is the closest middle of the road party around. ... > I guess I am a republican who believes in drugs, sex among consenting > adults, and abortion. If I assume that being opposed to a "welfare state" does not extend to opposing all government aid to the needy, this sounds very much like my philosophy. In fact, it sounds like the philosophy of a lot of people. So howcome we don't have a party? The Democrats love compulsory unionism and are about to nominate someone whose opposition to scientific research and other forward-looking matters is notorious. The Republicans talk a good talk for small government but want the FBI in our mailboxes, tv sets, and bedrooms. The Libertarians looked like a good alternative, until I probed their thinking more deeply and discovered that the official party is (in my estimation, anyway) ideologically purist to the point of begin downright silly. Dismantling the defense establishment and the space program along with the income tax, antitrust laws, etc. etc. strikes me as a bit much. Their error, it seems to me, is their obsession with government as The Root of All Evil. I don't want my freedom restricted by Big Government, but I don't want it restricted by Big Business, popular prejudice (presumably the Civil Rights Act would be repealed by the Libertarians) or anything else. We need a decent-sized government to prevent something else from moving into the power vacuum. So, I repeat, why don't us Radical Centrist (as Bob Vardeman and presumably other people used to call us) have a party? But not at my place until I get it cleaned up... D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (06/27/84)
[Honor this line - it had to fight to get here!] > The Libertarians looked like a good alternative, until I probed > their thinking more deeply and discovered that the official party is > (in my estimation, anyway) ideologically purist to the point of > begin downright silly. This is a characteristic of all small splinter parties. As long as they remain small, their membership will tend to be made up of very ideologically pure people. If their general position should catch on, however, there will inevitably be a broader spectrum of opinion within the party, and the purists will be outvoted. I also find much to admire in *some* Libertarian positions, and I wouldn't mind seeing them catch on if watered down a bit. Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barry
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (07/02/84)
From: mike@hpfclk.UUCP: Goods and services produced by slave labor is not Capitalism; it's slavery and barbarism. Capitalism cannot exist in a totalitarian, fascist, or slave labor state. If there is no political freedom, there can be no economic freedom for Capitalism to function. _____________ You're forgetting one very vital aspect of capitalism, namely IMPERIALISM. There may indeed be political freedoms in the advanced industrial capitalist countries, but we are only able to maintain our high standards of living by keeping the third world in the state of fascist slave labor that you claim to detest [viz. Central America, South Africa]. These countries supply us with raw materials and cheap labor, while we supply them with weapons so that their governments may continue to keep their populations docile in the face of widespread hunger and poverty. You also ignore the role of economic coercion in capitalist societies. Certainly in the US, nobody is physically forced to work behind a McDonalds grill for $3.35 an hour, or walk the streets for lack of adequate low income housing, but people do it anyway. Do you think they LIKE doing that? (Just contemplate for a second the idea of spending the rest of your life working at McDonalds, or some equally vile job). Of course not, but they are forced into that situation by circumstance, by the system which locks them into a dim future merely because of where and to whom they were born [the one out of a thousand who make it like horatio alger notwithstanding]. This kind of coercion is JUST as powerful as explicit physical force, and is more insidious since it is not as easy to realize even its existence.
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (07/02/84)
-- >> >> No, the Nazi economy was a capitalist economy whose biggest wheels >> >> have been doing "business as usual" come hell or high water. >> I may of misinterpreted what you said but you seem to be implying that >> it was Capitalism that helped bring about the Nazi regime. I totally >> disagree with this. Goods and services produced by slave labor is not >> Capitalism; it's slavery and barbarism. Capitalism cannot exist in a >> totalitarian, fascist, or slave labor state... >> Michael Bishop If not capitalISM, capitalISTS certainly brought about the Nazi regime. Germany was going to hell in a handbasket, and they thought they'd maximize their profits by bankrolling that weird Hitler fellow. Without substantial donations from rich capitalists, the Nazis could not have pulled it off. Of course, these sorcerer's apprentices had no idea what they were setting in motion, nor could they control it once the Nazis came to power. CapitalISM, though, is an economic system that can fit into almost any political framework--from ruthless totalitarian through utopian democratic. Even both at once--consider the various imperialist empires that have existed over the past 3 centuries, all in the name of profit. The home country would bask in a fairly enlightened political climate while the colonies were bled dry. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 01 Jul 84 [13 Messidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
mwm@ea.UUCP (07/04/84)
#R:ames-lm:-37000:ea:9800010:000:935
ea!mwm Jul 3 16:03:00 1984
/***** ea:net.philosophy / ames-lm!barry / 10:44 pm Jun 28, 1984 */
This is a characteristic of all small splinter parties. As long
as they remain small, their membership will tend to be made up of very
ideologically pure people. If their general position should catch on,
however, there will inevitably be a broader spectrum of opinion within
the party, and the purists will be outvoted.
Kenn Barry
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barry
/* ---------- */
Another affect of a splinter party catching on is that the Big Two start
picking up the less ludicrous planks in the small party. This is why I
vote libertarian (when possible. In OK, as in the Soviet Union, we can
only vote for state approved people.), not because I expect them to win,
but because I'd like to see some of the libertarian appear in the Demo/Repo
platform (sic).
<mikebarry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (07/06/84)
[Help! Help! Help!]{{ { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { {(burp)
> You're forgetting one very vital aspect of capitalism, namely IMPERIALISM.
> There may indeed be political freedoms in the advanced industrial
> capitalist countries, but we are only able to maintain our high
> standards of living by keeping the third world in the state of fascist
> slave labor that you claim to detest [viz. Central America, South
> Africa].
> These countries supply us with raw materials and cheap labor,
> while we supply them with weapons so that their governments may continue
> to keep their populations docile in the face of widespread hunger and
> poverty.
While I would not disagree that the US has been (and is still)
guilty of the sort of economic imperialism you describe, I would argue
that it is not a necessary component of capitalism any longer. Just as
slavery (literal slavery, not the economic kind) disappeared when slave
labor was no longer competitive with machine labor, so, too, is the subtler
kind of 'slave labor' you describe becoming obsolete. If political/
economic/military domination of the rest of the world is so rewarding,
why are Japan and W. Germany outcompeting the US? The fact is, our attempts
to bully small countries costs us more than it gains us. A few industries
that are still heavily dependent on unskilled labor (e.g. fruit companies)
may still benefit from this, but it's no longer the basis of the wealth
of nations.
Fact is the big competition now is for markets. Automation of
production makes it ever cheaper to make things, and the more of 'em
you make, the cheaper it gets. Far from needing a cheap labor pool overseas,
the present need is for an ever larger middle class who can afford to
buy our goods. We pay stiff prices for our overseas purchases of things
like oil, but we can well afford to do so, as long as the folks we buy
from are also buying from us in like quantity.
Closing complaint: yeah, we're screwing up Central America, but
blaming us for South Africa is absurd. Whatever its faults, South Africa
has a modern industrial economy, and is not dependent on our support
for their repressive regime. If they can't get weapons from us, they
can buy 'em elsewhere, or build their own. Whatever the faults of our
foreign policy (which is often not only immoral, but stupidly counter
to our own best interests, as well), blaming all the world's problems
on it is at least as silly as blaming every evil thing in the world on
Soviet Communism.
[The opinions expressed herein are my own foolishness, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of anyone that matters.]
Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barrylaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (07/06/84)
I used to work at Baskin Robbins. Of course I liked to -- or at least I liked making the money enough to keep working there. I also wanted to do other things, but I was not deluded into thinking that I did not have to earn my right to do them. And at that point in time I had not earned them. So I kept working there until I knew enough to get a job as a computer saleman. Which was much better than Baskin Robbins, but still not good enough -- so I went through more than 5 different types of jobs before I ended up with ``Unix System Programmer'' which I have right now. It is ludicrous, however, to think that I could or should have been Unix System programmer while I was the same person that was ice cream scooper. I simply wasn't qualified for the job. And the world is full of ``ice cream scooper'' types instead of ``system programmer'' types. And the system programmers make more money. Now, either you believe that you should get paid for something other than your worth, or you think that the unix system programmers are worth as much as the ice cream scoopers or you accept that there will be disparities. If you think that the unix system programmers are worth as much as the ice cream scoopers then I have no idea how you expect people to strive to improve themselves. If you accept that the more worthy should be making more money than the less worthy, but don't like the disparities, then you need some way of making the ice cream scoopers more worthy. Unfortunately, you can't do that for somebody else. You may want to improve your life, but if your neighbour does not want to then there is little that you can do. And a lot of people want their life improved BY SOMEBODY ELSE, but don't want to do any of that improving themselves. At that point, there is nothing that anybody can do. No movement of social change is going to help the basic problem of people who want the undeserved. It may be that better education of the young might help, but I have no great hopes for that. BUT AS LONG AS PEOPLE GO AROUND PROMISING THAT THEY WILL RESCUE OTHER PEOPLE LITTLE IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN. It is hard work to work your way up from ice cream scooper to systems programmer. It is a lot easier to take the programmer's salary away from him and give it to 40 ice cream scoopers. and 1 programmer has one vote and 40 scoopers have 40... When you look at a lot of political movements you find that many of them have one charismatic leader and a lot of ``cannon fodder''. These are people who take up space but don't really do much else. And the reason that a lot of them join the movement is because they believe the slogans of the leaders (historically ``make the rich pay!'' has been very popular) which often promise them unearned wealth, or convince them that in some way they have already earned the wealth that they desire. So you get a large turnout, and get recognised as ``a bona-fide political movement'' and frequently cause a revoltion. This, of course, influences what other people will *call* a ``political movement''. Is the L5 society a political movement? Do you need an economic platform to be a political movement? is Punk rock a political movement? I was talking to a Marxist I know the other day, and he brought up ``how come there aren't any technical people involved in political movements?'' As time wore on, I got him to admit that ``If it isn't Marxst then it isn't a political movement''. So, his question was ``how come there aren't very many technical people who are also Marxists?'' which is rather different from the way he phrased it the first time. It also presumes its own answer: since anybody who is not a Marxist is, by this definition `a decadent bourgeoisie' then techies are all decadent bourgeoisie. it is a little difficult to do anything with this argument. ``But I *LIKE* being a decadent bourgeoisie!'' just doesn't seem to cut it. so: what are you willing to accept as a political movement? are you willing to accept total apathy towards politics as a political movement? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
jim@ism780b.UUCP (07/14/84)
#R:utzoo:-403300:ism780b:27500006:000:2602 ism780b!jim Jul 9 10:17:00 1984 > If you think that the unix system programmers are worth as much as the > ice cream scoopers then I have no idea how you expect people to strive to > improve themselves. If you accept that the more worthy should be making > more money than the less worthy, but don't like the disparities, then you > need some way of making the ice cream scoopers more worthy. In what way is being a Unix Systems programmer an improvement over being an ice cream scooper? Most Unix System programmers I know are more arrogant, offensive, and selfish than most ice cream scoopers I know. > At that point, there is nothing that anybody can do. No movement of > social change is going to help the basic problem of people who want the > undeserved. It may be that better education of the young might help, but > I have no great hopes for that. BUT AS LONG AS PEOPLE GO AROUND PROMISING > THAT THEY WILL RESCUE OTHER PEOPLE LITTLE IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN. It is hard > work to work your way up from ice cream scooper to systems programmer. It > is a lot easier to take the programmer's salary away from him and give it > to 40 ice cream scoopers. and 1 programmer has one vote and 40 scoopers have > 40... You see, I like people who are into social change more than I like people like you. I like people who have some humility, and who realize that just because they worked hard and it got them somewhere, that doesn't mean there aren't others who work hard and don't get somewhere. That because someone else's goals and interests aren't high-tech, that doesn't mean they should have hard lives. I like people who like to give to other people; I don't care so much for people who are constantly trying to explain how they earned everything they have. This just is not a matter of which politics is right and which politics is wrong. I don't like the kind of world you seem to like, and I will continue to try to change it. All your ad hominem crap about the nature of political movements, charismatic leaders vs. ``cannon fodder'' who take up space, large turnouts frequently causing revolutions, etc. are not going to change the reality of popularist political movements and revolution. Most of my technical friends have naive views about politics because of their backgrounds, social position, and education (non-liberal arts), but if you are looking for large concentrations of Marxists and other people with "funny" social theories, try post-graduate economics and history types. It is amazing what an education will do for you that merely being intelligent won't. -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)
rcc@imsvax.UUCP (07/17/84)
>Capitalism cannot fit into any political framework, at least not the way >I define Capitalism. Economic systems deal with the subject of how >goods and services are produced and distributed. If the goods are >produced by and taken from coerced individuals, then the economic system >is slavery, national boundries notwithstanding. Arrgh. Slavery is NOT an economic system. Slavery is regarding human beings primarily as an resource to be controlled and distributed just like any other resource. Slavery stems from what I consider to be the ultimate evil, regarding another human being as a thing. You can fit slavery just fine into a capitalistic economy by not considering slaves to be "individuals". The Old South did a grand job of that. >The reason why Capitalism cannot exist except in a politically free >climate is because the producers (that is, individuals) must be free to >choose what it is that they wish to produce, and they must own the >product of their work, which they can sell for a fair price. If you do >not own the product of your work, then you do not own your life. If you >hold a human life as a standard of value, a standard from which all >other values are based, then True Capitalism (that is, laissez-faire >Capitalism) is the only moral economic system available to mankind. >When political freedom goes out the door, so does Capitalism, and any >buying, selling, or owning that occurs thereafter is based on an immoral >system of producing goods. If entities in the US (or anywhere else) buy >or sell goods produced by slaves, or goods produced by people who were >not compensated for their work, then those entities are guilty of >supporting slavery, socialism, communism, or whatever. More ideological raving. There is no reason why socialism or communism can't exist in a free society. What if the people CHOSE another economic system? While some give individuals less economic freedom than capitalism, (such as socialism), others such as communism give more. (The USSR does NOT practice communism, it has a directed economy and practices totalitarianism) The last sentence doesn't even make sense. Even in slavery, people are getting "compensated" for their work. If the work is adequate, they live and get fed. If not, ... Economic and political systems are NOT tied together. -- The preceding message was brought to you by -- Ray Chen UUCP: {umcp-cs!eneevax || elsie}!imsvax!rcc
mike@hpfclk.UUCP (07/18/84)
Ken Perlow writes: >> CapitalISM, though, is an economic system that can fit into almost any >> political framework--from ruthless totalitarian through utopian >> democratic. Even both at once--consider the various imperialist >> empires that have existed over the past 3 centuries, all in the name >> of profit. The home country would bask in a fairly enlightened >> political climate while the colonies were bled dry. Capitalism cannot fit into any political framework, at least not the way I define Capitalism. Economic systems deal with the subject of how goods and services are produced and distributed. If the goods are produced by and taken from coerced individuals, then the economic system is slavery, national boundries notwithstanding. If the goods are produced by free individuals and those goods are traded on the open market for a competitive price such that the producer is compensated for his or her work, then the system is Capitalism. If an individual, corporation, or government buys and sells (or deals in any way with) products produced by slaves, then they are not participating in Capitalism, nor are they Capitalists; instead, they are condoning slavery as an economic system. The reason why Capitalism cannot exist except in a politically free climate is because the producers (that is, individuals) must be free to choose what it is that they wish to produce, and they must own the product of their work, which they can sell for a fair price. If you do not own the product of your work, then you do not own your life. If you hold a human life as a standard of value, a standard from which all other values are based, then True Capitalism (that is, laissez-faire Capitalism) is the only moral economic system available to mankind. When political freedom goes out the door, so does Capitalism, and any buying, selling, or owning that occurs thereafter is based on an immoral system of producing goods. If entities in the US (or anywhere else) buy or sell goods produced by slaves, or goods produced by people who were not compensated for their work, then those entities are guilty of supporting slavery, socialism, communism, or whatever. Capitalism does not imply Imperialism either. Imperialism is the policy of extending one's territorial dominion by direct (e.g. forceful) means, or by indirect economic means. Imperialism is anti-capitalism if it disregards the concept of ownership as absolute. Remember, to take something and not compensate the owner is NOT Capitalism. In Capitalism everything belongs to some individual, group of individuals, or in some cases everybody (e.g. the air we breath), and to defy or ignore this fact turns the world into a nightmare consisting of a savage bunch of thugs and defenseless population of victims. In order for mankind to survive, goods and services must be produced. I will choose Capitalism over any any other means of production. Which do you choose and why? Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b
bprice@bmcg.UUCP (07/20/84)
From mit-eddie!lkk: _____________ >You're forgetting one very vital aspect of capitalism, namely IMPERIALISM. We can all forget about that "vital aspect", since imperialism is contrary to all the principles of capitalism. Imperialism, in fact, is only a feature of those philosophies which define their mission as control of the world. Since capitalism is solely concerned with control of one's life and results, the phrase (so beloved of those who wish to control you) "capitalist imperialist" is a prima facie oxymoron. >There may indeed be political freedoms in the advanced industrial >capitalist countries, but we are only able to maintain our high >standards of living by keeping the third world in the state of fascist >slave labor that you claim to detest [viz. Central America, South >Africa]. Your choice of words tells me that you would prefer the third world to be kept in the state of soviet slave labor. Advice--when you're spouting this kind of nonsense, at least choose words by their capitalist-society meanings, rather than parroting the soviet propaganda phrases. Those of us who care can spot those propaganda usages a mile off. > These countries supply us with raw materials and cheap labor, >while we supply them with weapons so that their governments may continue >to keep their populations docile in the face of widespread hunger and >poverty. There are two fallacies here. The first is that a capitalist trading partner can and should control the government and philosophy of the 'supplier' country--this is the imperialism that your teachers denounce so loudly and practice so widely. The second is that trade with a capitalist country causes or exacerbates "widespread hunger and poverty". The facts show that a "third-world" country that adopts capitalism rather than repression improves such problems. > You also ignore the role of economic coercion in capitalist >societies. Certainly in the US, nobody is physically forced to work >behind a McDonalds grill for $3.35 an hour, or walk the streets for lack >of adequate low income housing, but people do it anyway. Do you think >they LIKE doing that? (Just contemplate for a second the idea of >spending the rest of your life working at McDonalds, or some equally >vile job). Of course not, but they are forced into that situation by >circumstance, by the system which locks them into a dim future merely >because of where and to whom they were born [the one out of a thousand >who make it like horatio alger notwithstanding]. This kind of coercion >is JUST as powerful as explicit physical force, and is more insidious >since it is not as easy to realize even its existence. > Granted, it isn't easy to realize the existence of 'economic coercion in capitalist societies'. That's not at all surprising: it isn't easy to realize the existence of any purely imaginary propaganda construct. The people that I know who work (or have worked) at MacDonalds, or who haved lived in the streets, have preferred doing that to being told where they can work, or told where they can live. All the ones that I know who didn't LIKE doing that have used those experiences to bootstrap their way up. I don't know any pure Horatio Alger people: nor do I know anyone who is locked into a dim future merely because of having been born in a Capitalist society. That kind of thing, again, is strictly contrary to all real versions of Capitalism and exists only in the minds of antiCapitalist propagandists. This reply will probably be rejected by some on the grounds that it does not grant some of points made in the original article. Just because the propagandists have found partial acceptance of their "Big Lies" does not require any of us to accept them. -- --Bill Price uucp: {decvax!ucbvax philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/21/84)
****************
Arrgh. Slavery is NOT an economic system. Slavery is regarding human
beings primarily as an resource to be controlled and distributed just
like any other resource. Slavery stems from what I consider to be the
ultimate evil, regarding another human being as a thing. You can fit
slavery just fine into a capitalistic economy by not considering slaves
to be "individuals". The Old South did a grand job of that.
****************
That's not describing slavery; it describes standard North American
management methods ... but then again .... ?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt