I don’t remember any over-weening coverage by big media over the firing squad demise of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu when ” video pictures of their summary trial and execution were shown on television in Romania and around the world”, back in December of 1989.
The images of their dead bodies, riddled with bullets, were broadcast and much of the unrest which continued after their deaths subsided.
So, what’s transpired in the years intervening that has prompted such distress on the part of media for the way that citizens of oppressed nations treat the dearly awaited departure of their not-so-beloved dictators?
Here is Bill Carter in the New York Times, on the hard choices facing their editors, chastising the great unwashed amateurs of the internet for their lack of journalistic… standards…
Confronted with a second, unofficial and more graphic video account of the moments leading up to the execution of Saddam Hussein, and the hanging itself, executives at television news organizations made a series of what one executive, President Steve Capus of NBC News, called “delicate editorial decisions” about what they would put on the air on Saturday night and Sunday to augment the first pictures of the execution.
The new video, almost certainly shot by a cellphone camera by one of the guards or witnesses at the execution, includes exchanges between Mr. Hussein and either the witnesses or guards leading up to the moment when the trapdoor opens and he falls. No national American television organization has thus far allowed the moment of the drop to be shown.
But the same niceties were not observed on numerous Web sites, which have posted the complete video, including the moment that Mr. Hussein, noose around his neck, falls, and a close-up of his face afterward. Some prominent sites, like Google’s video site and the conservative blog Littlegreenfootballs.com, have posted the complete cellphone coverage of the execution, including the moment Mr. Hussein falls from view.
What’s that saying?
“Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to forget to fact-check”.
Little Green Footballs is running slower than a mule on Valium this morning, apparently because of a link in this article at the New York Times that’s sending a deluge of people looking for the cellphone video of Saddam Hussein’s execution: Hard Choices Over Video of Execution.
[…]
In his haste to take a slap at the “conservative” blog LGF for not observing the same “niceties” as mainstream media, New York Times writer Bill Carter failed to notice that the “complete video” is not posted at LGF, and never has been. Elementary fact-checking, anyone? Did Carter even look at our site before writing that, or was he going for the cheap smear based on nothing more than his own fevered imagination?
h/t to Maz2, in the comments.
More – observations on CTV’s Tom Clark editorializing, also in the comments.
ahem. This from a blog that recently maintained that anarchism was a far-right political philosophy. Pot. Kettle.
(I’ll take the inevitable “poor reading comprehension” response as read.)
maybe off topic)))
;-)Just came across of “Great Dismantler’ puts ideology into action” by dimitry – nice Canadian name – must be “first nation” guy/gay. I can only ask – do you love Canada Dimitry? or you work for putin?
What?? A slavic-type name isn’t Canadian? Many of us who are descendents of immigrants from non-English speaking countries have “non-English” names but that hardly makes them “non-Canadian”. Why exactly is Dimitry less Canadian than George?
Poor Saddam! Poor socialists everywhere, he was one of their poster-boys for anti-Americanism since he became a ‘victim of American Imperialism'(TM).
Let me assure you, on behalf of socialists everywhere, that none of us regarded Saddam as our ‘poster-boy’. He tortured and murdered our comrades by the thousands.
“This from a blog that recently maintained that anarchism was a far-right political philosophy”
It is. No political movement that demands freedom from all government control over the individual can convincingly argue it’s part of the “left”.
The people you’re thinking of who march down streets and smash windows, (while the taxpayer subsidizes their university degree) are simply hard-left socialists impatient with the government’s failure to do their looting for them.
LMAO, Exile, Please go back to your fisrt post.
Something about reading comprehension, i believe.
Seems to me that this thread concerned the laziness of reporters who do not fact – check before they publish.
Perhaps you could persuade Kate to start a thread that is more amenable to whatever it is that you want to rant about.
“LMAO, Exile, Please go back to your fisrt post.
Something about reading comprehension, i believe.
Seems to me that this thread concerned the laziness of reporters who do not fact – check before they publish.
Perhaps you could persuade Kate to start a thread that is more amenable to whatever it is that you want to rant about.”
Do you really not understand what I was saying? I was suggesting that a blog that recently portrayed anarchism as a far-right political philosophy (as this one did) was not in a position to criticize anyone for a failure to fact-check; hence the reference to the famous, “pot calling the kettle black” proverb.
After that, I responded to other comments. People frequently do that on this site.
>It is. No political movement that demands freedom from all government control over the individual can convincingly argue it’s part of the “left”.
A friend of mine who claims to be an anarchist would dispute the idea that he is on the ‘far right’. In fact, he disputes the use of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ to describe the political spectrum. He considers himself to be ‘libertarian’. He is a strong follower of Hayek, as well as being an anarchist.
I said the same thing to my husband about the fact that the “executions” have received two different levels of play. Of course GWB was not around to blame for the world’s ill’s in 1989.
exile: “This from a blog that recently maintained that anarchism was a far-right political philosophy”
Kate: “It is. No political movement that demands freedom from all government control over the individual can convincingly argue it’s part of the “left”.
The people you’re thinking of who march down streets and smash windows, (while the taxpayer subsidizes their university degree) are simply hard-left socialists impatient with the government’s failure to do their looting for them.”
Sure. Political scientists all over the world are wrong. Political philsophers all over the world are wrong. Anarchists all over the world are wrong. All of these are wrong. They have been wrong about this ever since anarchism arose. Kate is right. The arrogance is stunning.
(And no, hard left socialists do not march down the street smashing windows. That’s one of many points on which they disagree with anarchists.)
They’re just different flavours of socialist, Exile. Yours likes to do it’s looting from other individuals under cover of government “redistribution of wealth”.
Jon Klein, the president of CNN’s domestic operations, said the flavor of sectarianism cinched the decision. “It really was a microcosm of the various strains in Iraqi society at the moment,” he said.
So CNN’s Jon Klein, one of the dumber MSM twits, confirms CNN’s agenda driven motives in linking the video, what a hypocrit. CNN’s decision was exclusively to advance their editorial position of Iraq as failed policy, on the verge of civil war and Bush as stupid.
Klein could have responded that CNN made the decision to link the video, in spite of its graphic nature, because it was the execution of a murderous despot, tried and convicted publicly on video; his hanging, a logical finality of historical importance in keeping with journalist’s historic documentation of Mussolini hanging from a lamp post.
These are the same smarmy slugs at CNN that shielded the public’s eyes from the innocuous Mohammed cartoons, in spite of freedom of speech issues, to advance their pc agenda.
The MSM can’t die fast enough. Oh, and Klein was recruited from CBS after the Rather catastrophe to CNN. These smarmy weasels can always be rehablitated in the MSM kingdom.
“They’re just different flavours of socialist, Exile. Yours likes to do it’s looting from other individuals under cover of government “redistribution of wealth”.
You’re right that I have no objection to “looting” if it is done “on behalf of the people”. Obviously, that requires some explanation but I don’t think anyone’s intersted so I won’t give spend any time on it 🙂
But anarchist looting tends to be purely destructive, individual acts that are counter-productive. There’s a whole tactical and theoretical debate but, again, I’ll leave it alone. But I don’t deny that there’s something in common. That’s part of my point, actually.
apologies for incomplete editing 🙁
I’m looking forward to coverage of the fact(?) that Christians around the world were seen dancing in the streets upon hearing the news of Hussein’s execution. Some were firing celebratory rounds into the air from the automatic weapons they were carrying … but not in Canada eh.
Yes, exile, your arrogance is stunning.
The definition of ‘anarchism’ is not simple, for there are a variety of definitions, but, the basic axioms are a rejection of the institutions of the state. This is indeed ‘far right’ – moving into the realm of romantic naivete, in its belief that men are naturally benign and corrupted only by gov’t. They are as violent as the far left.
The left, as you know, is defined as committed to Big Government, with a view that basic human nature requires the state and its actions of supreme governance and a rejection of the individual. The far left, like the far right, wishes to impose its will, by force.
Surely you aren’t denying that the left has a long history of marching in the streets and smashing windows, burning cars and etc.
By the way, I don’t understand how one can be an anarchist and follow Hayek. Hayek’s view of the economic reality as a complex adaptive network is hardly similar to the simplistic and naive definition of ‘benign humanity’ of the anarchists.
I have no objection to “looting” if it is done “on behalf of the people”.
How the hell does that work? People vote to loot themselves. Who’s the looters and the voluntary looted in your idiotic paradigm? And if I object to being looted “on behalf of the people”?
What are you, about age 18, in the throws of acne management, got a neatnik mother leaning on you to clean your bedroom, and just discovered how cool Che gear is?
“A friend of mine who claims to be an anarchist”.
Well, your comment really reinforced my point – most people who claim they are anarchists, aren’t. They’ve stolen the term in the way that the left has stolen “progressive”.
Those who desire an anarchist state should leave Seattle behind and head to Somalia, circa 1994.
“A friend of mine who claims to be an anarchist would dispute the idea that he is on the ‘far right’. In fact, he disputes the use of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ to describe the political spectrum. He considers himself to be ‘libertarian’. He is a strong follower of Hayek, as well as being an anarchist.”
Well, it sounds like he is a libertarian. I’m not sure why he wants to call himself an anarchist. Maybe he thinks it sounds cool. There is something called “left libertarianism” that can be described as anarchism but if he’s a follower of Hayek, it is unlikely that he belongs in that camp!
There are always those who deny the applicability of “left” and “right”. It usually means that they think they’re right and they refuse to discuss it!
So, what’s transpired in the years intervening
The internet, or more specifically, forums and blogs that have given voices to billions of people who offer up millions of differing opinions.
“How the hell does that work? People vote to loot themselves. Who’s the looters and the voluntary looted in your idiotic paradigm? And if I object to being looted “on behalf of the people”?
First, I don’t think democracy is a matter of voting every four years for one of several candidates presented to us by those who hold wealth and power.
Secondly, of course the people whose property is being expropriated aren’t happy about it. But everyone else is!
I am not suggesting that we break the windows of elderly widows and the bicycles of small boys. I’m talking about taking the property (and power) of the few and giving it to the many. I know you don’t agree with this but please don’t caricature my position.
“What are you, about age 18, in the throws of acne management, got a neatnik mother leaning on you to clean your bedroom, and just discovered how cool Che gear is?”
That’s not actually an argument. It’s simply a series of rather nasty insults. Normally, I don’t answer this kind of thing but I’ll make an exception. No, I’m an adult. I work and support myself. I have changed my mind politically over time, as a result of reading, reflection, and experience. I have advanced degrees in relevant areas as well as plenty of “real-life” experience, i.e., I am not an academic and I have had a variety of jobs, none of them in the government sector. I do not own a che t-shirt. And I would never speak to another person the way you have just spoken to me.
Dragnet: Just the facts, mamm; the bare facts. …-
Japan TV apologizes for “topless” New Year’s Eve (Reuters completely skipping the truth)
Reuters – via Drudge
Reuters article describing Japanese TV saying that the women they had on the stage were wearing body suits.
Uh. Japan TV people are lying through their teeth and Reuters doesn’t even bother to check the facts. Which are obvious.
Video of “Red and White Song Contest” broadcast on New Years eve.
Commenter:
Unbelievable. Drudge has this up on his site. Its like these people live in another universe. How could they even begin to try to sell this story. Is there going to be a news service in this world that has an ounce of creditability….-
free republic
ps my mother died of cancer a few years ago.
“Left” and “right” aren’t particularly informative descriptors of political philosophy. It would be ideal if they were abandoned in favour of something more exact, or at least their usage bounded by quotation marks, but oh well.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but anarchism in itself isn’t a singular political position. Its permutations have in common the rejection of existing authority structures and power-based dominance, but beyond that, they are discrepant enough that they can be found in various forms on both far ends of the traditional “left-right” spectrum.
It seems that Kate is referring to individualist-style anarchism, and focusing on its various rejection-of-state-authority, individual autonomy and self-determination principles. These are in line with classical liberal and libertarian thought, so it might be considered “(far-)right-wing.”
exile’s position seems closer in line with collectivist and anarcho-communist schools of thought, which also reject state authority and power hierarchies but generally support locally-formed collectivist social arrangements. This allowance for communalism and the distribution of resources according to need create the appearance of similarities with other philosophies of the traditional “left”, especially socialism.
Arguing about who came up with the “original” anarchism and who appropriated what from whom is kind of petty.
Hey Robert – did you kick Ti*Guy from your site? Ever since the kerfuffle about the NDP’s apparent allergy to Dipper blogs, he seems to have disappeared as one of your commentors.
Hey exile I will agree with the redistribution as long as its your wealth we redistibute. What a …
But exile, you are setting up your arguments as circular, ie, invalid. Your arguments contain axioms that are irrelevant and disputable.
First – you are against wealth. That requires a lot of explanation, because a society that does not develop a surplus, however that surplus is held, is reduced to living on a hand-to-mouth subsistence level. There are many pre-industrial modes that did live in this way (hunters and gatherers) but, they can’t support large populations.
Large populations require the accumulation of wealth. This is surplus to basic sustenance or continuity. This surplus is then invested in longterm infrastructures – such as research, which is very expensive and can take decades to produce results; in long term infrastructures such as hospitals, schools, roads, etc, etc. Daily sustenance can’t support these long term and cost-heavy infrastructures.
Therefore, your rejection of wealth, ie, surplus accumulation, is naive.
Your definition of democracy is fallacious. You’ve reduced it to ‘every four years’ – which is invalid, since you ignore the debates and decisions in Congress. You’ve reduced it to candidates of ‘wealth and privilege’ which is invalid by factual evidence.
You’ve defined expropriation in emotional rather than terms of justice. It is NOT just to expropriate wealth; equally, it is NOT just to gloat about such actions. Again, your assumption that wealth is a bad thing is economically ignorant. No industrial economy can manage without surplus – because an industrial economy must, must, must, develop long term infrastructures. It cannot survive on an economy that is only sustenance.
Your view that surplus should not be allowed and that the society’s economic capacity should be leveled so that all have the same amount, is ignorant. You are reducing that society to a no-growth mode, without any capacity to develop long term infrastructures that produce results only in the far future. A society with an economic population that is all the same – is a peasant agriculture. It has no capacity to support large populations and no capacity to adapt or change because it consumes its production as rapidly as it produces it.
This is a naive and ignorant position that you hold.
“It seems that Kate is referring to individualist-style anarchism, and focusing on its various rejection-of-state-authority, individual autonomy and self-determination principles. These are in line with classical liberal and libertarian thought, so it might be considered “(far-)right-wing.”
Well, one crucial distinction between libertarians and anarchists is that anarchists do not believe in any kind of state (as opposed to the limited state favoured by libertarians). Moreover, they are almost universally (and violently) opposed to capitalism. They don’t share the libertarian reverence for private property either. These are a few reasons why they are usually considered to be on the left.
“exile’s position seems closer in line with collectivist and anarcho-communist schools of thought, which also reject state authority and power hierarchies but generally support locally-formed collectivist social arrangements. This allowance for communalism and the distribution of resources according to need create the appearance of similarities with other philosophies of the traditional “left”, especially socialism.”
Actually, I’m a marxist 🙂 Anarchists and marxists have a history of disagreement and debate, though both are opposed to capitalism.
“please don’t caricature my position.”
Yeah, it’s not nice and it’s totally unnecessary. I’m not even sure it’s possible.
Seriously, I suppose it’s unfair to assume what age you are, but most people grow out of this. I think it happened to me about age 19, about the time i started working in a steel mill and supporting myself. Weird coincidence, huh?
ET “But exile, you are setting up your arguments as circular, ie, invalid. Your arguments contain axioms that are irrelevant and disputable.
First ….”
ET, I have to go out right away, but briefly:
I never said I was against wealth. And of course we need a surplus and of course we need to “invest” in infrastructure. That doesn’t mean we need capitalism. (Yes, I know you think it does. But I have to leave in two minutes!)
My point about democracy not being a matter of elections is not that elections occur only every four years but that the candidates (almost) all represent those who hold wealth and power in our society. The fact that they rule on their behalf inbetween elections is entirely consistent with this.
I do indeed understand expropriation in terms of justice and I could give you a very lengthy account of it!
I can continue this discussion later if you are interested but now I really have to leave.
2006/12/31
Eco-warrior Liberals strangely silent
Remember how the Liberals went ape when Stephen Harper dared to publicise the case of a Canadian citizen jailed in China?
— It’s funny, but I’ve yet to hear a peep out of Steffi and his pack of small noisy dogs, about the way China is laying waste to the global environment.
It is often darkness at noon in Datong, just 160 miles west of Beijing, where vehicles drive in daytime with their headlights on to grope through the miasma.
One of the four filthiest towns in China, it stands at the heart of the nation’s coal belt in Shanxi province, a region that mines more coal every year than Britain, Russia and Germany combined.
Most Ontarians are familiar with the political fallout from Dalton McGuinty’s broken promise to close the coal fired generating plants in Ontario. Compare our situation with what is going on in China…
The Chinese plan to build no fewer than 500 new coal-fired power stations, adding to some 2,000, most of them unmodernised, that spew smoke, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.
Even without the extra 500 plants, the toxic clouds from China can be seen from space as they make their way across the Pacific Ocean to North America.
C’mon Steffi… this is your big chance. Speak up.
UPDATE: Maybe Steffi should keep quiet
While the Liberals signed the Kyoto accord in 1998 and ratified it in 2002, not only did our emissions go up by 24.2% compared to 13.3% for the U.S. from 1990 to 2003 — which the media did report — but that left us with the sixth worst record among the world’s key industrialized nations.
Technorati Tags: China, Kyoto accord, Stephane Dion
Posted by Neo Conservative at 12/31/2006 01:01:00 PM
5 comments:
“Yeah, it’s not nice and it’s totally unnecessary. I’m not even sure it’s possible.
Seriously, I suppose it’s unfair to assume what age you are, but most people grow out of this. I think it happened to me about age 19, about the time i started working in a steel mill and supporting myself. Weird coincidence, huh?”
I’m not an anarchist! I think anarchism does tend to be a position held by young men and I think it is naive (though probably not for the sort of reasons you have in mind.) I grew into my present position as I moved out on my own and started supporting myself, though it took me quite a few years of work, reading, thinking, and living. Wierd coincidence, eh?
FREE: “Hey exile I will agree with the redistribution as long as its your wealth we redistibute. What a …”
I don’t have that kind of wealth. You probably don’t either. (Think “means of production”.)
(As a matter of fact, though, I do redistribute what I have.)
Ok. Now I really have to leave!
“And I would never speak to another person the way you have just spoken to me”….but, and, give me a break….“of course the people whose property is being expropriated aren’t happy about it. But everyone else is!”….you’d have no problem “looting” my property.
I am sorry about your mother, but, I’ll stand by my musings on your level of maturity, rebellious adolescence with zilch real life experience. It’s amusing that as a self-professed Marxist you’ve chosen the verb loot. You probably aren’t catching the comedy in that.
I realize this thread has strayed off topic, and I’ve been guilty of helping it along. It’s a slow day and I’m in a generous mood.
But readers tips should be posted on those threads, please. There’s one a few posts down.
“And I would never speak to another person the way you have just spoken to me”….but, and, give me a break….”of course the people whose property is being expropriated aren’t happy about it. But everyone else is!”….you’d have no problem “looting” my property.
I am sorry about your mother, but, I’ll stand by my musings on your level of maturity, rebellious adolescence with zilch real life experience. It’s amusing that as a self-professed Marxist you’ve chosen the verb loot. You probably aren’t catching the comedy in that.”
Thank you for what you said about my mother.
I’ll match you for maturity and real-life experience any day 🙂
I took the term “loot” from Kate and I used it, maybe inappropriately, partly because I found it humourous. You are right that marxists usually do not use that term.
Ok, sorry kate. I forgot what this thread was for. I’ll say no more!
Here’s a tip: if he is really in “exile” send him packing from this site. His trolling and adolescent pontifications are tedious.
Hey, come to think of it, could this be Maurice Strong living in “exile” in China? If he comes clean and admits that much, then I withdraw my suggestion of banning. Bring it on Marxist bootlicker!
What was Exile’s purpose in informing us of the death, and cause of death, of his mother? I too have/had a mother and a father and….Why would I post information about their deaths on this thread? It’s called ‘appeal to pity’. Yet another fallacious argumentative tactic.
In his ten minutes after his post to me, he didn’t address my criticisms of his outline – which was filled with fallacies. And the fallacies continue.
He writes that he ‘never said he was against wealth’. But, all his comments about wealth are criticisms of it.
Equally, he’s in favour of expropriations, which means that as a Marxist, he’s denying a basic tenet of Marxism – which is a recognition of the value of a man’s work. If a man’s work adds value to a product, and that man is compensated accordingly, then – why take away that wealth? An expropriation denies the act of investment by that man – who can invest his wealth in, for example, building a new wing on a hospital etc. It denies the freedom of will of the individual to both create and invest wealth.
Oh, and it doesn’t work. History teaches us that a top-heavy governance, that expropriates the results of a man’s labour, reduces that man to a slave or animal, because it denies him the act of investing his work with his intentions. Slaves or animals don’t produce as much as free men.
Oh, and there’s the problem of leveling, which he hasn’t addressed.
And the problem of his binary frame of ‘wealth and power’. He assumes that democracy enables only the wealthy to take office. What type of government would he propose, rather than democracy? Would he do away with elections? With votes in Congress? With debates? Well?
And a supreme governance beyond the pale of the electorate – heck, that’s the epitome of wealth and power!!!
So, Exile – you haven’t dealt with any criticisms.
Start here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Personally, I’m a Vitruvianist.
That MSM has dual standards or doesn’t check it sources is hardly a surprising revelation – it’s a significant part of their new branding.
What surprises me is the eagerness of MSM to show their irrelevancy by sending their customers to a blog.
We’ve been asked to drop this topic. I tried to find a place to move this reply and I don’t know where to put it. So, begging Kate’s forbearance, here it goes, since I have been asked for a reply:
“What was Exile’s purpose in informing us of the death, and cause of death, of his mother? I too have/had a mother and a father and….Why would I post information about their deaths on this thread? It’s called ‘appeal to pity’. Yet another fallacious argumentative tactic.”
It was Penny who brought up my mother in the context of an ad hominem argument that I am an adolescent rebelling against his mother.
“He writes that he ‘never said he was against wealth’. But, all his comments about wealth are criticisms of it.”
I am in favour of wealth.The issue for me is not wealth but how it is held and by whom and how it is used.
“Equally, he’s in favour of expropriations, which means that as a Marxist, he’s denying a basic tenet of Marxism ….”
The reason you feel that I am not answering your arguments is that – with respect – you don’t know much about marxism and I really can’t explain it in this little box! Briefly, marxists believe in expropriating capitalists not workers. (I know this isn’t a satisfying answer. But we are speaking from within two very different ways of understanding the world here. Even the words we use have different meanings. And, as I say, this kind of forum doesn’t lend itself to lengthy theoretical exposition.)
“Oh, and it doesn’t work. History teaches us that a top-heavy governance, that expropriates the results of a man’s labour, reduces that man to a slave or animal, because it denies him the act of investing his work with his intentions. Slaves or animals don’t produce as much as free men.”
Actually, a motivating idea (and experience) for marxists is “alienation of labour”. We consider that one of the chief evils of capitalism. I do not propose a top-heavy governance. That is not part of marxist theory (though, yes, it has been a feature of some marxist governments). Marxism aims at freedom and at a full life. Production (up to a point) is a necessary precondition for that, but it is not our primary aim.
“Oh, and there’s the problem of leveling, which he hasn’t addressed.”
Well, I have an idea what you’re getting at here but I’d like to be sure. Are you saying that people won’t be motivated unless they think they can have more than others?
“And the problem of his binary frame of ‘wealth and power’. He assumes that democracy enables only the wealthy to take office. What type of government would he propose, rather than democracy? Would he do away with elections? With votes in Congress? With debates? Well?”
No, I don’t assume that about democracy, but I do say that about the limited democracy that exists under capitalism. I propose more democracy! And no, I wouldn’t do away with elections or votes in the assembly of those elected.
“And a supreme governance beyond the pale of the electorate – heck, that’s the epitome of wealth and power!!!”
See above.
“So, Exile – you haven’t dealt with any criticisms.”
I realize it seems that way. But as I said earlier, an adequate reply requires a fairly adequate discussion of a way of thinking that is quite foreign to you. (I know you think you understand it – that just makes it more difficult!)
I’d be willing to try, maybe, on one of my days off, if other people here are prepared to tolerate it, but I kind of doubt it would be welcome 🙂
If we want to pursue this, we need to find another thread. I cannot see an appropriate one. Can you?
ET: marxists believe that one works to his/her ability and recieve according to their need
thus the state “expropriates” their “wage” and pays them their “due”
exile – your remark about your mother remains an ‘appeal to pity’. Don’t use penny as an excuse; take responsiblity for your own actions.
Now – could you explain how you know that I ‘don’t know much about Marxism’? I find it rather strange – your claims that you know the nature and depth of my knowledge base. Are you omnisicient?
No, your answer about ‘expropriating capitalists not workers’ is extremely unsatisfactory. Your differentiation of the population into classes is unrealistic and 19th century. And, your agenda of expropriation is irrational. The so-called worker class has nothing to expropriate, so your kindness in not doing so is irrelevant. Furthermore, your establishment of a Supreme State that makes such decisions is unworkable. See Hayek, and history, for that.
‘Marxism aims at freedom and a full life’. So does capitalism. Could you explain exactly how Marxism provides such freedom and a full life? Oh, and how the expropriation of the results of the hard work of the wealthy man, keeps him free and full of life?
Oh- and how an economy, any economy, can survive without ‘production’?
No, leveling doesn’t mean motivated by a desire for more. Leveling is a tactic in no-growth economies, which are subsistence level only, and don’t accumulate surplus (ie, peasant, non industrial economies). The tactic is an enforced leveling of wealth by a top-down redistribution so that all families, both the producers and the non-producers, will all have the same. It’s found, as I said, in no-growth subsistence societies. It won’t work in a large population.
You propose ‘more democracy’. Please explain.
Oh – and I’m appreciate it if you’d drop the smug and patronizing claims that I ‘seem to understand it’. You have no knowledge of what I do and don’t understand. Your attempt to claim that I don’t understand – is yet another fallacious argumentative tactic (appeal to ignorance and also, rather ad hominem). I could say the same about you. And the ‘I doubt it would be welcome’ is yet another false tactic – The Excuse For Not Answering. Heh. You aren’t answering because you can’t, not because you won’t.
GYM – that’s fallacious. Who determines one’s ability to produce and who determines one’s need? What is ‘ability’? What is ‘need’? Does one need a Rolls Royce or Rolex? Does the fact that one can get along with a Timex mean that one shouldn’t produce the quality of a Rolex?
Cutting to the chase here, espousing Marxism at this juncture in history is sort of in the league with the last Luddite or Flat Earther. It’s failed everywhere. It’s last stand as a viable economic system is where exactly? Show us on the map, for God’s sake, Marx’s enduring paradise. No, don’t bother.
Exile, here’s a piece of advice, you’re the first troll of the New Year, you really are out of your league here. You’re gamey, manipulative and mentally lazy. Take all of the offense you want or use the negative responses as a valuable learning tool.
The problem with Marxism, and utopias in general, in that they disregard the immutable rule that, as Bob Lewi explained: “Level playing fields are for those who lack the wit to find one tilted in their favour.”
Or to put it in the vernacular: “You can keep your Marxist ways, but it’s only just a phase…” – from youtube.com/watch?v=GlS8O257Gi0
IRC was the first blog on the Internet late Saturday night to announce a link (the first link that was created by whoever got a hold of the original tape) to the raw, uncut, untampered video from a cell phone showing the creepy hanging of Saddam:
http://www.indierockcafe.com/2006/12/cell-phone-video-hanging-of-saddam.html
Today there were dozens of versions of the tape edited and manipulated and what have you flying around the Internet and on cable news.
How can you report or comment on something if you haven’t seen the entire thing from start to finish.
Example: The Washington Post reported that Saddam hanged for five minutes.
That is impossible if you watch or download the original, the REAL original, video here:
http://www.indierockcafe.com/2006/12/cell-phone-video-hanging-of-saddam.html
exile – “your remark about your mother remains an ‘appeal to pity’. Don’t use penny as an excuse; take responsiblity for your own actions.”
Of course it wasn’t an appeal to pity – my mother’s suffering hardly establishes the truth of marxism! I was trying to demonstrate the inappropriateness of penny’s resort to personal insult. Nonetheless, I regret dragging my mother into this.
“Now – could you explain how you know that I ‘don’t know much about Marxism’? I find it rather strange – your claims that you know the nature and depth of my knowledge base. Are you omnisicient?”
If I were a physicist and we were talking about physics, I could easily assess how much you knew about physics. No omnicience would be required. Correspondingly, I can quite easily assess how much you know about marxism. Indeed, I have a pretty good idea of your sources.
“No, your answer about ‘expropriating capitalists not workers’ is extremely unsatisfactory. Your differentiation of the population into classes is unrealistic and 19th century.”
I don’t have time for this – see below.
“And, your agenda of expropriation is irrational. The so-called worker class has nothing to expropriate, so your kindness in not doing so is irrelevant.”
The point about the worker class having nothing to expropriate is made in the communist manifesto. I didn’t say I was being kind.
“Furthermore, your establishment of a Supreme State that makes such decisions is unworkable. See Hayek, and history, for that.”
I don’t accept the theories of Hayek nor do I interpret history in the same way you do. I already said that I don’t want to establish a Supreme State. I’m not going to keep repeating myself.
“”‘Marxism aims at freedom and a full life’. So does capitalism. Could you explain exactly how Marxism provides such freedom and a full life? Oh, and how the expropriation of the results of the hard work of the wealthy man, keeps him free and full of life?”
Capitalism aims at profit and a full life for the capitalist. The rest is ideology. I’m not going to stay up all night explaining this. I have to go to work tomorrow.
“Oh- and how an economy, any economy, can survive without ‘production’?”
It can’t. My point was that production is a means to an end, not the end itself.
“No, leveling doesn’t mean motivated by a desire for more. Leveling is a tactic in no-growth economies, which are subsistence level only, and don’t accumulate surplus (ie, peasant, non industrial economies). The tactic is an enforced leveling of wealth by a top-down redistribution so that all families, both the producers and the non-producers, will all have the same. It’s found, as I said, in no-growth subsistence societies. It won’t work in a large population.”
I don’t believe in a subsistence economy. Some anarchists do. Marxists don’t. You appear to have misunderstood what marxists say about “surplus value”.
“You propose ‘more democracy’. Please explain.”
I propose that we ourselves control our economy, our society, our lives, and our government, rather than have all these controlled by corporations and businesses (or capitalists).
“Oh – and I’m appreciate it if you’d drop the smug and patronizing claims that I ‘seem to understand it’. You have no knowledge of what I do and don’t understand. Your attempt to claim that I don’t understand – is yet another fallacious argumentative tactic (appeal to ignorance and also, rather ad hominem). ”
See the above “analogy of the physicist”.
“I could say the same about you.”
You could – and undoubtedly you will. But you’ll be wrong.
And the ‘I doubt it would be welcome’ is yet another false tactic – The Excuse For Not Answering. Heh. You aren’t answering because you can’t, not because you won’t.
I wasn’t born a marxist. I grew up in the same kind of society you did. I’ve read all sorts of ant-marxist, anti-communist material and political theory. Don’t you think I answered these questions for myself before becoming a marxist? So of course I can answer them. But how much of my life do you think I want to spend on this? Your mind is completely made up. Why should I spend half the night answering any question or ‘challenge’ you care to pose? I’ve wasted too much of my day on this already and I need to go to work tomorrow. There is no point whatsoever in this discussion. It’s a waste of my time.
Yes, I know, “good riddance”, “you’re stupid” and various other devastating ‘arguments’.
“Exile, here’s a piece of advice, you’re the first troll of the New Year, you really are out of your league here. You’re gamey, manipulative and mentally lazy. Take all of the offense you want or use the negative responses as a valuable learning tool.”
In your world, anyone who disagrees with you is a troll and stupid.
My responses have been more detailed than ET’s and you haven’t made any arguments at all. So the accusation of mentally lazy is bizarre. As to being “out of my league”, I’m not going to cite my qualifications on the internet.
As I said to ET, I have realized that I am wasting my time on this kind of thing. It’s pointless.
yes – I know, “stupid, troll, etc” or – the ultimate argument – “moonbat”!
Incidentally, ET, “argumentative tactics” are not true or false (“fallacious”). They are valid or invalid.