DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on August 16, 2008, 07:11:41 AM
-
Out Damn Blot: A Letter to Powell
by Ray McGovern
Dear Colin,
You have said you regret the "blot" on your record caused by your parroting spurious intelligence at the U.N. to justify war on Iraq. On the chance you may not have noticed, I write to point out that you now have a unique opportunity to do some rehab on your reputation.
If you were blindsided, well, here's an opportunity to try to wipe off some of the blot. There is no need for you to end up like Lady Macbeth, wandering around aimlessly muttering, Out damn spot?or blot.
It has always strained credulity, at least as far as I was concerned, to accept the notion that naivet? prevented you from seeing through the game Vice President Dick Cheney and then-CIA Director George Tenet were playing on Iraq. And I was particularly suspicious when you chose to ignore the strong dissents of your own State Department intelligence analysts who, as you know, turned out to be far more on target than counterparts in more servile agencies.
It was equally difficult for me to believe that you thought that, by insisting that shameless George Tenet sit behind you on camera, you could ensure a modicum of truth in your speech before the U.N. Security Council. You were far savvier than that.
That is certainly the impression I got from our every-other-morning conversations in the mid-80s, before I went in to brief the President's Daily Brief to your boss, then-defense secretary Casper Weinberger, one-on-one. I saw the street smarts you displayed then. They were familiar. I concluded that they came, in part, from the two decades you and I spent growing up in the same neighborhood at the same time in the Bronx.
On those Bronx streets, rough as they were, there was also a strong sense of what was honorable ? honorable even among thieves and liars, you might say. And we had words, which I will not repeat here, for sycophants, pimps, and cowards.
Your U.N. speech of February 5, 2003 left me speechless, so to speak ? largely because of the measure of respect I had had for you before then. Outrage is too tame a word for what quickly became my reaction and that of my colleagues in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), as we watched you perform before the Security Council less than six weeks before the unnecessary, illegal attack on Iraq.
The purpose ? as well as the speciousness ? of your address were all too transparent and, in a same-day commentary, we VIPS warned President George W. Bush that, if he attacked Iraq, "the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."
That's history. Or, as investigative reporter Ron Suskind would say, "It's all on the record." You have not yet summoned the courage to admit it, but I think I know you well enough to believe you have a Lady Macbeth-type conscience problem that goes far beyond the spot on your record. With 4,141 American soldiers ? not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens ? dead, and over 30,000 GIs badly wounded, how could you not?
What Did You Know?and When?
Here is what could be good news for you, Colin. Information that has come to light over the past two years or so could wipe some of the blot fouling your record. It all depends, I guess, on how truthful you are prepared to be now. Much of the new data comes from former CIA officials who, ironically, have sought to assuage their own consciences by doing talk therapy with authors like Sidney Blumenthal and Ron Suskind.
At first blush, these revelations seem so outlandish that they themselves strain credulity. But they stand up to close scrutiny far better than what you presented in your U.N. speech, for example.
If you now depend on the fawning corporate media (FCM) for your information, you will have missed this very significant, two-pronged story. In brief, with the help of Allied intelligence services, the CIA recruited your Iraqi counterpart, Saddam Hussein's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, and Tahir Jalil Habbush, the chief of Iraqi intelligence. They were cajoled into remaining in place while giving us critical intelligence well before the war ? actually, well before your speech laying the groundwork for war.
In other words, at a time when Saddam Hussein believed that Sabri and Habbush were working for him, we had "turned" them. They were working for us, and much of the information they provided had been evaluated and verified. Most important, each independently affirmed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, information that should have prevented you from making a fool of yourself before the U.N. Security Council.
The Iraqi Foreign Minister
The FCM gave almost no coverage (surprise, surprise!) to the reporting from Naji Sabri, which continues to be pretty much lost in the woodwork. In case you missed it, we now know from former CIA officials that his information on the absence of WMD was concealed from Congress, from our senior military, and from intelligence analysts ? including those working on the infamous National Intelligence Estimate of October 1, 2002. That NIE, titled "Iraq's Continuing Programs for WMD," was the one specifically designed to mislead Congress into authorizing the president to make war on Iraq.
One question is whether it is true that Sabri's reporting was also concealed from you.
Tyler Drumheller, at the time a division chief in CIA's clandestine service, was the first to tell the story of Naji Sabri, who is now living a comfortable retirement in Qatar. On CBS's "60 Minutes" on April 23, 2006, Drumheller disclosed that the CIA had received documentary evidence from Sabri that Iraq had no WMD.
Drumheller added, "We continued to validate him the whole way through." Then two other former CIA officers confirmed this account to author Sidney Blumenthal, adding that George Tenet briefed this information to President George W. Bush on September 18, 2002, and that Bush dismissed the information as worthless.
Wait. It gets worse. The two former CIA officers told Blumenthal that someone in the agency rewrote the report from Sabri to indicate that Saddam Hussein was "aggressively and covertly developing" nuclear weapons and already had chemical and biological weapons. That altered report was shown to the likes of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was "duped," according to one of the CIA officers.
Worse still, the former CIA officials reported that George Tenet never shared the unadulterated information from the Iraqi foreign minister with you, the secretary of state and Naji Sabri's counterpart. Again, whether that is true is a very large outstanding question.
The Chief of Iraqi Intelligence
Again, Colin, I am assuming you take your information from the FCM, so let me brief you, as in the old days, on what else has popped up over the past couple of weeks. Two other CIA clandestine service officers have told author Ron Suskind that Iraqi intelligence chief Habbush had become one of our secret sources on Iraq, beginning in January 2003.
I hope you are sitting down, Colin, because Habbush also told us Iraq had no WMD. One of the helpful insights he passed along to us was that Saddam Hussein had decided that some ambiguity on the WMD issue would help prevent his main enemy, Iran, from thinking of Iraq as a toothless tiger.
Habbush, part of Saddam's inner circle, had direct access to this kind of information. But when President Bush was first told of Habbush's report that there were no WMD in Iraq, Suskind's sources say the president reacted by saying, "Well, why don't you tell him to give us something we can use to make our case?"
Putting the Kibosh on Habbush
Apparently, Habbush was unable or unwilling to oblige by changing his story. Nevertheless, later in 2003, when it became clear that he had been telling the unwelcome truth, Habbush was helped to resettle in Jordan and given $5 million to keep his mouth shut.
Suskind also reveals that in the fall of 2003, Habbush was asked to earn his keep by participating in a keystone-cops-type forgery aimed at "proving" that Saddam Hussein did, after all, have a direct hand in the tragedy of 9/11. This crude forgery was not unlike the one that originally gave us the yarn about yellowcake uranium going from Niger to Iraq.
You will hardly be surprised to hear there is evidence, much of it circumstantial, that Vice President Dick Cheney was the intellectual author of both incredibly inept forgery operations.
Sorry to have to bring this up, but there is something else about Habbush that you need to know. He had actually been in charge of overseeing what was left of the Iraqi biological weapons program after the 1991 Gulf War, and reported that it was stopped in 1996.
Sabri vs. Curveball
Before the attack on Iraq, Tenet's deputy, John McLaughlin, was repeatedly briefed on Sabri's information, but complained that it was at variance with "our best source" ? a reference to the infamous "Curveball," the con-man whom German intelligence had warned the CIA not to take seriously.
You may recall hearing that on the evening before your U.N. speech, Drumheller warned Tenet not to use the information from Curveball on mobile biological weapons laboratories; Tenet gave Drumheller the brush-off.
The CIA artists' renderings of those laboratories, to which you called such prominent attention during your speech, were spiffy, but bore no relationship to reality. Tenet and McLaughlin knew this almost as well as Sabri and Habbush did.
"We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and rails," you will recall telling the world. Later, you lamented publicly that you had not been warned about Curveball either.
McLaughlin seemed to confirm that this was so, in an interview with the Washington Post in 2006: "If someone had made those doubts clear to me, I would not have permitted the reporting to be used in Secretary Powell's speech."
This is highly disingenuous, even by McLaughlin's and Tenet's standards, since they had deliberately chosen to ignore Drumheller's warning. I know Drumheller; he is a far better bet for truthfulness that the other two.
Outright Lies
Although I am against the death penalty, I can sympathize with the vehement reaction of normally taciturn Carl Ford, head of State Department intelligence at the time. Ford has revealed that both Tenet and McLaughlin went to extraordinary lengths, and even took a personal hand in trying to salvage some credibility for the notorious Curveball. In an interview for Hubris, a book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Carl Ford spared no words, asserting that Tenet's and McLaughlin's analysis "was not just wrong, they lied?they should have been shot."
Though I've been around a while, I am not the best judge of character, Colin, and perhaps I am being too credulous in giving you the benefit of the doubt concerning what you knew ? or didn't. It could be, I suppose, that you were fully briefed on Naji Sabri, Habbush, Curveball, and all the rest of it, and have been able to orchestrate plausible denial. If that is the case, I suppose it would seem safer to you to let sleeping dogs lie.
If, on the other hand, what my former colleagues say about your having been fenced off from this key intelligence is true, your reaction seems a bit?. how shall I describe it??.understated.
Perhaps you are too long gone from the Bronx. Back there, back then, letting folks use you and make a fool of you without any response was just not done. It was the equivalent to running away when someone was messing with your sister. And letting oneself be bullied always set a bad precedent, affirming for the bullies that they can push people around ? especially understated ones ? and risk nothing.
In sum, the CIA had both the Iraqi foreign minister and the Iraqi intelligence chief "turned" and reporting to us in the months before the war (in Naji Sabri's case) and the weeks before your U.N. speech (in the case of Tahir Jalil Habbush). Both were part of Saddam Hussein's inner circle; both reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
But this was not what the president wanted to hear, so Tenet put the kibosh on Habbush and put Sabri on a cutter to Qatar.
So Here's Your Opportunity
Either you knew about Sabri, Habbush, and Curveball, or you did not. If you knew, I suppose you will keep hunkering down, licking your blot, and hoping that plausible denial will continue to work for you.
If you were kept in the dark, though, I would think you would want to raise holy hell ? if not to hold accountable those of your former superiors and colleagues responsible for the carnage of the past five years, then at least to try to wipe the "blot" off your record.
Granted, it probably strikes you as a highly unwelcome choice ? whether to appear complicit or na?ve. Here's an idea. Why not just tell the truth?
In Congress: Unusual Signs of Interest
If House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers is any guide, Congress seems quite taken with the explosive revelations in Ron Suskind's book The Way of the World. On Thursday, Conyers joined Suskind on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now," and declared that he is "the third day into the most critical investigation of the entire Bush administration." (He clearly was referring to the Suskind revelations.)
Conyers emphasized that, even though Congress is in recess, "We're starting our work, and?I'm calling everyone back. We've got a huge amount of work to engage in." At the same time, though, Conyers said he is "maybe the most frustrated person attempting to exercise the oversight responsibilities that I have on Judiciary."
A good deal of his frustration comes from stonewalling by the Bush/Cheney administration, which will surely cite national security concerns to justify withholding any damaging information.
Bush Visits CIA
It was, no doubt, pure coincidence that President Bush made a highly unusual visit to CIA headquarters, also on Thursday, before leaving for Crawford on vacation.
The official line is that he wanted an update on the situation in Georgia and the Soviet role there, but Bush did not need to go to Langley for that. Rather, given the record of the past seven years, it is reasonable to suggest that he also wanted to assure malleable Mike Hayden, the CIA director, and his minions that they will be protected if they continue to stiff-arm appropriate congressional committees, denying them the information they need for a successful investigation.
Pardons dangled as hush money? Not so bizarre at all. Some will recall that George H.W. Bush, just before leaving the White House, pardoned one of your former bosses, Casper Weinberger, who had been indicted and was about to go to trial for lying about his role in the Iran-Contra fiasco.
Out Damn Blot
If past is precedent, sad to say, Conyers is not likely to get to first base, UNLESS he can get knowledgeable witnesses to come forward. On Thursday he did not rule out a suggestion that Habbush be asked to come before Congress to testify, but the CIA can easily thwart that kind of thing ? or delay it indefinitely.
In any case, your own credibility, though damaged, has got to be greater than Habbush's.
Let me suggest that you offer yourself as a witness to help clear the air on these very important issues. This would seem the responsible, patriotic thing to do in the circumstances and could also have the salutary effect of beginning the atonement process for that day of infamy at the Security Council.
If we hear no peep out of you in the coming weeks, we shall not be able to escape concluding one of two things:
(1) That, as was the case with the White House Situation Room sessions on torture, you were a willing participant also in suppressing/falsifying key intelligence on Iraq; or
(2) That you lack the courage to expose the scoundrels who betrayed not only you, but also that segment of our country and our world that still puts a premium on truth telling and the law.
Think about it.
With all due respect,
Ray McGovern
-
The author of that letter is either extremely naive about what Colin Powell will or will not do allegedly to "save" his "reputation" or else he's just using the "appeal" cynically and purely rhetorically to get his facts out before the public, writing to and for people who already have lost any respect they might have had for the man.
As we now know, Powell began his Tomming as part of the team assigned to whitewash the My Lai massacre and discredit those few honest soldiers whose accounts of the massacre were starting to punch through the Army's wall of lies and denials. A black man willing and eager to help The Man to cover up the latest of his long string of atrocities against the nonwhite races. In the First Gulf War, he gave a big helping hand to the lies and bullshit of the George H. W. Bush administration by lending his name and "prestige" to the faked surveillance photos showing the "Iraqi Army" in Kuwait allegedly massed on the "Saudi border," lies which were cleverly exposed by the St. Petersburg Times, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning paper, simply by paying $5,000 for commercially available satellite photos taken in the same time frame and showing no army, Iraqi or otherwise, massed anywhere near the Saudi-Kuwaiti frontier. Uncle Tom (or perhaps it was his white massas) later apologized for using the doctored photos; he (and/or they) had somehow been "deceived," although how, or by whom, was never explained.
To nobody's great surprise, Uncle Tom participated fully in this Bush administration's campaign of lies and deceptions in order to defraud the American people into supporting its criminal grab for Iraq's oil, mainly by going along and lending his "prestige" or whatever was left of it (probably by that point in time, shrunk down to the hard core of true believers like sirs and his ilk) to the incredible fiction that this tiny nation of 23 million Arabs somehow possessed an arsenal of weapons that represented some kind of existential threat to the 300 million people of America, a threat so dire to the great and mighty U.S.A. that only a direct invasion could remove the "danger."
And now, at this point in his illustrious career, with every shred of a decent reputation long gone, Powell (or so Ray McGovern says) can save his "reputation" simply by coming clean about ONE of the innumerable Bush administration lies that he has helped sell to the people he was sworn to protect. Of course (a) he has no reputation left to save and (b) if he DID come clean and admit his knowing participation in one of the biggest lies in the Big Lie administration, far from clearing his rep, it would merely cement the capstone onto the reputation he actually does have: Uncle Tom, liar and war-monger.
-
The more i think about the Uncle Tom slur, the more i realize how racist a charge it really is.
It presupposes a standard behavior based on nothing more than skin color, and that is racist to the core.
-
You have to consider the source, Bt........ :o ........*gasp*....... what an egregious personal attack I just perpetrated. I mean, that equates to 25+ various forms of being called every name in the name book. How could I have sunk so low??
;)
-
Ponders whether McGovern is angling for a new book deal.
He seems to have successfully launched a second career as a darling of the anti-war crowd.
His first career involved 27 years at the CIA where he personally delivered many of the intelligence briefings that he now claims were cooked.
-
<<The more i think about the Uncle Tom slur, the more i realize how racist a charge it really is.
<<It presupposes a standard behavior based on nothing more than skin color, and that is racist to the core.>>
"Uncle Tom" is said to be a racist slur, not by the victims of racism (who, since they are also the victims of Uncle Tom, don't hesitate to use the term) but by the enablers of racism, those who claim, for whatever reason, that racism is a spent force in the U.S. Of course, if racism really were a spent force, the black population would be wasting its time and resources in fighting it, and whatever odd Uncle Toms might still be around would be tragic and isolated figures serving a bygone ideology, not worth the effort of an adverse comment.
-
if racism really were a spent force, the black population would be wasting its time and resources in fighting it, ...
Yes almost , at this point there isn't a really good racist target for spending a lot of effort on , but a sweeping is good for any house.
But if someone wants to expend a lot of effort improveing the human condition , there are still very serious problems that are not as damaged already,as white supremicy .
-
"Uncle Tom" is said to be a racist slur, not by the victims of racism (who, since they are also the victims of Uncle Tom, don't hesitate to use the term) but by the enablers of racism, those who claim, for whatever reason, that racism is a spent force in the U.S. Of course, if racism really were a spent force, the black population would be wasting its time and resources in fighting it, and whatever odd Uncle Toms might still be around would be tragic and isolated figures serving a bygone ideology, not worth the effort of an adverse comment.
Nigger is also a reacist term often used by the victims f racism. It is OK for them to use it, because by taking ownership of the word they negate its power, or something like that.
You on the other hand were the user of the term Uncle Tom and as far as i know you are not an american black and therefore have no special rights to the use of it.
My original point stands.
Uncle Tom is a racist term, especially if hurled by a honky.
-
Uncle Tom is a racist term, especially if hurled by a honky.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
It is silly to call anyone who is not black an Uncle Tom.
I think Powell thought he was being patriotic (unwisely so) when he endorsed what he knew were serious lies.
-
It is silly to call anyone who is not black an Uncle Tom.
Of course it is.
It is also racist for a honky to use the term Uncle Tom, Assuming it is ok for blacks to call themselves whatever they want.
Though in the Uncle Tom case even that is debatable.
-
Isn't it racist for you to use the term 'honky' as well?
This seems to be a very, very silly point to debate.
-
Isn't it racist for you to use the term 'honky' as well?
Don't see why. See blacks using the nigger term for justification.
And if you find the topic silly, i suggest you don't participate in it.
BTW welcome back, how was the trip?
See any honkies?
-
<<Nigger is also a reacist term often used by the victims f racism. It is OK for them to use it, because by taking ownership of the word they negate its power, or something like that.>>
You don't know what you're talking about. Blacks say "nigger" to laugh at The Man and also at themselves. It's funny as hell if you can appreciate adolescent humour. First of all, there's the mockery of The Man and his racism. Secondly, there's the self-mockery of the speaker, who's as black as the other guy, "giving himself airs" or "acting white" by speaking as if his skin weren't black. "Who does this nigger think he is?" It was pretty common for Jewish kids in high school or university to do pretty much the same thing, only in the context of anti-Semitism rather than white racism. Admittedly, kind of adolescent humour and not all that common in mature adults.
"Uncle Tom" when used by blacks or by whites has nothing at all to do with the use of racist talk by members of the target group for humorous purposes. There's nothing funny about the use of the term, so it isn't used for humour. Your dragging of the N-word into this discussion is just an attempt to muddy the waters. It's completely irrelevant.
<<You on the other hand were the user of the term Uncle Tom and as far as i know you are not an american black and therefore have no special rights to the use of it.>>
That's just pure bullshit. An Uncle Tom is a member of an oppressed minority race who ingratiates himself into the majority oppressor race and chooses to aid them rather than his own people. He either helps the oppressor inflict more oppression on his own people or on other people like his own in a similar position of vulnerability. You don't have to be black, white, green or yellow in order to recognize an Uncle Tom and to call him on it. Nobody owns the English language.
<<My original point stands.
<<Uncle Tom is a racist term, especially if hurled by a honky. >>
Bullshit.
-
Bullshit.
You are welcome to hold that position.
I am also free to reject your defense.
Your remark is racist by reason of the projection of stereotype based on nothing more than color.
You must be from Southern Canada.
-
Bullshit.
You are welcome to hold that position.
I am also free to reject your defense.
Your remark is racist by reason of the projection of stereotype based on nothing more than color.
You must be from Southern Canada.
Knute chimes in:
The only people that think UT is a racist term are black's who are themselvesUncle Toms and racist whites like you who like to think everyone is a racist as well.
-
Knute chimes in:
Knutey misses the point.
No surprise.
guess which candidate was the Democrat
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Racistcampaignposter1.jpg/747px-Racistcampaignposter1.jpg)
-
<<Your remark is racist by reason of the projection of stereotype based on nothing more than color.>>
Your problem seems to be that you have confused "projection of [race-based] stereotypes" with membership in an oppressed group with identifiable group interests.
-
And you call Powell an Uncle Tom for no other reason than he is black.
If he were white he would not qualify.
And that makes your remark racist.
You can deny it all you want, you can try to rationalize it all you want, You can minimize it all you want, but the fact remains it is a racial slur.
And you are guilty of perpetuating it.
-
<<And you call Powell an Uncle Tom for no other reason than he is black.
<<If he were white he would not qualify.>>
Powell is a betrayer of his own people. I could call him a BOHOP, but very few people would know what that meant. "Uncle Tom" is good shorthand, which everyone gets the first time they hear it, and it also conveys the additional information that he is a black man and the people that he betrayed are the black people, specifically the black people of America. Yet you complain that "Uncle Tom" is racist language.
Perhaps you are technically correct, in that "Uncle Tom" contains a little too much information, racial information in fact, that is not absolutely necessary. To call O.J. Simpson "a murderer" would be politically correct, to call him a "black murderer" is giving some superfluous information relating strictly to race, and I think most people would rightly consider the addition of that superfluous information to be racist. After all, what's his blackness got to do with the fact that he's a murderer? It's additional information inserted gratuitously, and for sure it's not with the intention of casting O.J. or the race he allegedly belongs to in a favourable light.
(Where the person is being described in an admiring light and the superfluous fact of his or her race is gratuitously thrown in, with the obvious intention of pride or putting in a plug for the race, I suppose, again technically, that could be considered as technically "racist" but a well-intentioned racism meant to foster tolerance and harmony rather than discord between the races.)
I suppose if I wanted my reference to Powell to be completely free even of technical racism, I would refer to him in strictly race-neutral terms as a "betrayer of his own people." Rather than deal with the almost inevitable phony questions ("Which people? He's an American isn't he? How did he betray the American people?) that would follow such race-neutral terms, from the folks who love to deny that America is a racist nation and that many if not most Americans racist in varying degrees, I use "Uncle Tom" to make my meaning clear from the outset. It's also a very evocative phrase, it doesn't belittle or degrade blacks in general or their struggle for freedom and equality, but it does degrade and belittle those few blacks who, through their own convictions have come to genuinely believe the same kind of shit that conservative white Republicans believe. That's an insight that, but for the stubborness of BT, I would not have had, so, a thank-you and a tip o' the hat to BT for that.
Which raises the question, should a racist insult which offends only a small minority within a minority and which rightly chastises a particularly despicable and pernicious and much larger minority within the larger minority, be abandoned because of the insult to the smallest group concerned? I dunno, I'm starting to have my doubts, but overall, "Uncle Tom" is such a powerful indictment of men like Colin Powell that my common sense is telling me to keep on using it. Partly because in most cases the harm to blacks and the service to white racists is so obvious that no black man can rightfully claim the mantle of "genuine belief" in the rightness or correctness of the position. And partly because everyone "gets it."
-
I still don't think you get it.
A betrayer of his people implies that a person of color must have dual allegiance and if there is conflict then those of the same color take precedence.
What is fair and equitable for a white person should be fair and equitable for a black person.
What is unfair and inequitable for a white person should be unfair and inequitable for a black person.
There is and there should be no different rules for different people.
And yet your use of Uncle Tom implies there is and should be and your use perpetuates any remnants of the old jim crow regiment.
It is a term meant to keep people in line, no different really than a burning cross on the lawn.
.
-
Knute chimes in:
Knutey misses the point.
No surprise.
guess which candidate was the Democrat
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Racistcampaignposter1.jpg/747px-Racistcampaignposter1.jpg)
This only proves that you still live in the remate past and missed the whole 20th century when racists became Republicans:
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/strom/bio.html (http://www.strom.clemson.edu/strom/bio.html)
-
Past is prologue.
Your side has never proven that the Republicans have taken the mantle of racism from the Democrats who have a long and illustrious history of same.
-
Past is prologue.
Your side has never proven that the Republicans have taken the mantle of racism from the Democrats who have a long and illustrious history of same.
Didnt have to- Y'all proved that.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=208 (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=208)
-
<<A betrayer of his people implies that a person of color must have dual allegiance and if there is conflict then those of the same color take precedence.>>
Obviously, people have interests and interests have groups. If you want to call membership in an interest group "dual allegiance," then be my guest.
A black man has an interest in seeing that lynching is punished, that education is freely available to all regardless of colour. And that applies whether or not he personally or his immediate family were likely to be lynched, or were going to be well-educated in any circumstances regardless of publid policies. There's such a thing as group interest, call it what you will. The rich whites certainly have no difficulty in recognizing their class and its interests, and neither does any black.
-
A black man has an interest in seeing that lynching is punished, that education is freely available to all regardless of colour.
Can you show where Powell is against either of those?
-
<<Can you show where Powell is against either of those?>>
Never said he was. Lynching and public education are just two examples of where a special interest group might find a special interest.
Powell's Tomming consists of his participation in a white man's military which oppresses people of colour and dark-skinned Third World people all over the world to execute a racist foreign policy of exploitation.
-
ROFL
-
Didnt have to- Y'all proved that.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=208 (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=208)
One man does not make a party. I'll see your Lott and raise your Byrd.
-
A black man has an interest in seeing that lynching is punished, that education is freely available to all regardless of colour.
And whites don't believe in these things?
Who do you think passed the laws that make lynching and separate but equal illegal.
Your logic is seriously flawed.
-
<<And whites don't believe in these things?
<<Who do you think passed the laws that make lynching and separate but equal illegal.
<<Your logic is seriously flawed.>>
Your logic is childishly simplistic. These laws were passed during the Cold War when both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were competing for world influence and the Jim Crow legacy was just too much of an albatross for the U.S to carry in the race. As more and more Third World countries fought their way out from under colonialism, they were new clients to be won, and Senator James O. Eastland and his ilk were not the men to win them. Little Rock Central High was not the image the New Frontier wanted to project to the world. Racists were thrown under the train by the ruling Democrats, which forced many of them, as we have seen, into the Republican Party.
This did not change the underlying racism of the ruling classes, but it did drive it out of the public eye. While blacks in America were no longer to be clubbed, whipped, hosed or bitten by attack dogs in public on U.S. soil, the bloodthirsty managers transferred their war on non-whites to the rice paddies of Viet Nam. And who better to feed to the cannon of war than the Black American?
-
And who better to feed to the cannon of war than the Black American?
You really are full of crap.
You aren't saying white guys didn't go to Nam are you?
-
(Where the person is being described in an admiring light and the superfluous fact of his or her race is gratuitously thrown in, with the obvious intention of pride or putting in a plug for the race, I suppose, again technically, that could be considered as technically "racist" but a well-intentioned racism meant to foster tolerance and harmony rather than discord between the races.)
Does this really work?
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/ (http://www.aerospaceguide.net/)
(http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacehistory/neil_armstrong.jpg)
Neil Alden Armstrong.
White American Astronaut
-
<<Can you show where Powell is against either of those?>>
Never said he was. Lynching and public education are just two examples of where a special interest group might find a special interest.
Powell's Tomming consists of his participation in a white man's military which oppresses people of colour and dark-skinned Third World people all over the world to execute a racist foreign policy of exploitation.
What would be proven , if it were impossible of a black person to rise to high station in the US military?
-
<<You really are full of crap.
<<You aren't saying white guys didn't go to Nam are you?>>
I'm saying that black guys made up a higher proportion of the war's casualties than blacks did of the general population. What kind of fucking idiot would say that white guys didn't go to Nam? Lt. Calley was white, wasn't he?
-
<<Does this really work? [photo captioned, Neil Armstrong, white astronaut]>>
It only works in a racist society where one or more races are treated as inferior, so when a member of such a race attains a high distinction, pointing him or her out as a black, Asian, etc. works to raise the prestige of the maligned race.
Where the person who attains the distinction is a member of the maligning race rather than one of the maligned ones, of course it looks boorish and racist to describe the guy as "white" in a racist society where most of the distinctions go to the whites anyway.
It was interesting when Jackie Robinson became the first black athlete to be allowed to play in the major leagues, photos of him and articles about him often were accompanied by racial references which you wouldn't see today because the colour bar has fallen away in sports.
-
<<What would be proven , if it were impossible of a black person to rise to high station in the US military?>>
Probably that they can't even find a token black to exhibit as proof of their non-racism. This could prove either the low capabilities of blacks in the military or that the organization was still so racist that impossible barriers were being erected against blacks. I mean, there would be more than one theory to fit those facts.
-
I'm saying that black guys made up a higher proportion of the war's casualties than blacks did of the general population.
And you'd be wrong.
In sum, while the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5 percent of the population, they accounted for 12.1percent of the deaths in Vietnam.
http://www.insomnomaniac.com/weblog/archives/2003/01/so_if_more_whit.html (http://www.insomnomaniac.com/weblog/archives/2003/01/so_if_more_whit.html)
-
The numbers given were unsourced.
Furthermore, if correct, they prove that of men serving in Vietnam, proportionately more blacks than whites were killed. This means that whites tended to get the cushier REMF jobs while blacks were earmarked for frontline combat, where their chances of catching a bullet were exponentially increased.
-
Furthermore, if correct, they prove that of men serving in Vietnam, proportionately more blacks than whites were killed. This means that whites tended to get the cushier REMF jobs while blacks were earmarked for front line combat, where their chances of catching a bullet were exponentially increased.
Actually what it means is that blacks were no longer considered unworthy of front line roles like they were in previous wars where they primarily served as cooks, chauffeurs and other support personnel.
The triumph of civil rights, if you will.
-
<<Actually what it means is that blacks were no longer considered unworthy of front line roles like they were in previous wars where they primarily served as cooks, chauffeurs and other support personnel.
The triumph of civil rights, if you will.>>
That's preposterous. Once the racists considered them too cowardly to fight in a white man's army. Then they got a little more practical - - they'd fight if they were mixed with whites. So they mixed the least desirable of all citizens ("least desirable" in their racist white eyes) with the least desirable whites (the working class and the lumpenproletariat) and sent them all off to die as cannon fodder.
Your mistake is to think that racism and class consciousness are mutually exclusive. The American ruling class practices both. Wait till the current war in Iraq is over - - you'll see how much of the spoils are given to the blacks and the white underclass and how much goes to Dick Cheney and his pals in Texas and the U.K.
-
That's preposterous. Once the racists considered them too cowardly to fight in a white man's army. Then they got a little more practical - - they'd fight if they were mixed with whites. So they mixed the least desirable of all citizens ("least desirable" in their racist white eyes) with the least desirable whites (the working class and the lumpenproletariat) and sent them all off to die as cannon fodder.
Who is they?
You think guys on the line give a damn about the oligarchs? Hell no, they give a damn about the guys on their left and right.
You give the ruling class too much credit. One of your major contradictions and inconsistencies is you put all this power in the hands of the oligarch and yet you are such a huge fan of a bottom up revolution. How can that happen if the oligarch is all powerful? Hmmm?
-
<<Who is they?>>
The ruling class and their hired hands.
<<You think guys on the line give a damn about the oligarchs? >>
I think they're too fucking stupid to know what an oligarch is.
<<Hell no, they give a damn about the guys on their left and right.>>
The recruiters used a standard bag of tricks to corral these low-hanging fruits into the Army and another bag of tricks to get them to bond together, and still another bag of tricks to make sure they never ever think of turning their guns around. So what those pathetic losers think or don't think is of little interest, but I would guess, in no particular order, it's getting laid, blowing people's heads off, not getting fucked up, coming home a hero, krispy kritters, saving money, working out, getting laid, blowing other people's heads off and/or really fucking them up.
<<You give the ruling class too much credit. One of your major contradictions and inconsistencies is you put all this power in the hands of the oligarch and yet you are such a huge fan of a bottom up revolution. How can that happen if the oligarch is all powerful? Hmmm?>>
It can't and it won't happen now. Things have to get worse before they can get better. That's why I wouldn't be too upset if McCain wins. Things'll get worse a lot faster with him in charge.
-
So what those pathetic losers think or don't think is of little interest, but I would guess, in no particular order, it's getting laid, blowing people's heads off, not getting fucked up, coming home a hero, krispy kritters, saving money, working out, getting laid, blowing other people's heads off and/or really fucking them up.
And it is these people you want to empower in your perfect Utopian society, come the revolution?
BTW the only guy I know who got a woody about Krispy Kritters was your own Knutey.
-
<<And it is these people you want to empower in your perfect Utopian society, come the revolution?>>
THOSE people? Holy shit, no. They are the ones who form the Cossack brigades that do The Man's dirty work for him. I would empower the more class-conscious working man and woman, those who think of something productive as an honest day's work, not blowing the heads off defenceless Third World locals whose homes they invaded.
<<BTW the only guy I know who got a woody about Krispy Kritters was your own Knutey.>>
I probably remember that dialogue better than you do. Knute was taken to the woodshed for using the term krispy kritters as implying particular disrespect for the victims (who happened to be American mercenaries deserving of no respect anyway) and I had to point out that "krispy kritters" was standard journalese for any burn victim fatality photo, civilian or military. I think up to that point, the only woody involved was the one that you or some other right-wing attack dog had developed for Knute, thinking that he personally had originated the somewhat disrespectful phrase.
-
I would empower the more class-conscious working man and woman
like the Russians invading Georgia?
-
who happened to be American mercenaries deserving of no respect anyway
who happened to be Jews who deserved what they got.
Who happened to be blacks who deserved what they got.
Who happened to be muslims who deserved what they got.
Who happened to be christians who deserved what they got.
Who happened to be indians who deserved what they got.
Who happened to be union thugs who deserved what they got.
is that the way it works?
-
Let me straighten you out on mercenaries.
A soldier kills for his country.
A mercenary kills for money.
Most folks draw a distinction.
Got it?
-
"... I would empower the more class-conscious working man and woman, ..."
There is that term again , what is the diffrence it makes?
-
<<There is that term again [class-conscious], what is the diffrence it makes?>>
Well, BT was asking how I could support a Revolution if it would bring to power the low-hanging fruit that make up most of the U.S. military.
They belong mostly to the lumpenproletariat and the proletariat proper (the "working class") and yet it's obvious from my posts I don't hold them in particularly high regard.
I distinguished them from the "class-conscious" proletariat, who should come to power in a Communist Revolution.
Although both come from the same class or classes, the difference is that the "low-hanging fruit" are too fucking dumb to recognize class warfare and know what side of the line they belong on; the class-conscious proletarian, unlike his brothers in the military, knows there is a class war and has figured out correctly which side to take in it.
-
<<There is that term again [class-conscious], what is the diffrence it makes?>>
Well, BT was asking how I could support a Revolution if it would bring to power the low-hanging fruit that make up most of the U.S. military.
They belong mostly to the lumpenproletariat and the proletariat proper (the "working class") and yet it's obvious from my posts I don't hold them in particularly high regard.
I distinguished them from the "class-conscious" proletariat, who should come to power in a Communist Revolution.
Although both come from the same class or classes, the difference is that the "low-hanging fruit" are too fucking dumb to recognize class warfare and know what side of the line they belong on; the class-conscious proletarian, unlike his brothers in the military, knows there is a class war and has figured out correctly which side to take in it.
It doesn't matter that in the US most of us love the military and move in and out of it during our lives?
The "Class ""class-conscious" proletariat" has to be a very small subset of our people , should this small number properly hate the most of us?
-
It doesn't matter that in the US most of us love the military and move in and out of it during our lives? The "Class ""class-conscious" proletariat" has to be a very small subset of our people , should this small number properly hate the most of us?
That's the idea plane. The foundation to class warfare; making 1 class be angry at another class, simply because they're more successful, and that should make you angry, and resentful. How dare they have so much more than me or you.
You know, if a billionaire lives next to you, who cares?? If an unemployed fella is living on the other side, you should be asking why. The class warfare crowd's objective is to make you mad at the billionaire, and how dare he not share his money, or give it to the unemployed person. Here's what we'll do, we'll empower the Government to legally take his money and give it to the unemployed person. >:(
-
Here's what we'll do, we'll empower the Government to legally take his money and give it to the unemployed person. >:(
The first half of that proposal is a lot more dependable than the second.
-
<<It doesn't matter that in the US most of us love the military and move in and out of it during our lives?>>
No, it matters. A lot of really good people in the U.S. love the military. That is true. I meet lots of them in my travels. They've been very effectively brainwashed to accept their government's definition of its motives and also of the "demonic" nature of their victims. And I don't really think there's any practical way to reverse the effects of that brainwashing, especially since most of them are middle-aged or older and pretty set in their ways. They're a huge problem.
<<The "Class ""class-conscious" proletariat" has to be a very small subset of our people , should this small number properly hate the most of us?>>
No, there's a consciousness-raising function that they have to enter into. This was the genius of Lenin and the Bolshevik organizers, many of them unnamed and unknown today, who convinced the masses of the reality of the class war and enlisted them in the struggle. This was a kind of genius unknown in America today, but perhaps called into existence only by hard times, which as yet have not appeared.
-
Let me straighten you out on mercenaries.
A soldier kills for his country.
A mercenary kills for money.
Most folks draw a distinction.
Got it?
Last i heard soldiers are paid, so what is the distinction again?
-
It doesn't matter that in the US most of us love the military and move in and out of it during our lives? The "Class ""class-conscious" proletariat" has to be a very small subset of our people , should this small number properly hate the most of us?
That's the idea plane. The foundation to class warfare; making 1 class be angry at another class, simply because they're more successful, and that should make you angry, and resentful. How dare they have so much more than me or you.
You know, if a billionaire lives next to you, who cares?? If an unemployed fella is living on the other side, you should be asking why. The class warfare crowd's objective is to make you mad at the billionaire, and how dare he not share his money, or give it to the unemployed person. Here's what we'll do, we'll empower the Government to legally take his money and give it to the unemployed person. >:(
That is not the "intent" of class-consciousness at all. As I've explained before there is no "hate" or "anger" or any other emotion involved. It is an historical movement, not an emotional or psychological movement, which seems to be some sort of hang-up within yours and Plane's conservatism.
Class-consciousness has nothing to do with empowering "the Government to legally take his money and give it to the unemployed person" and neither does class warfare.
Seriously, if both of you wish to make such statements will you at least read Marx, Lucaks, and Luxemburg just as starters to try and understand class consciousness and history. To understand Marxism you have to understand it in totality and neither of you understand it even in fragments. You simply place its terms into your prisms of "left versus right" and throw them around in your myopic, cliche worldview.
-
The foundation to class warfare; making 1 class be angry at another class, simply because they're more successful, and that should make you angry, and resentful. How dare they have so much more than me or you.
You know, if a billionaire lives next to you, who cares?? If an unemployed fella is living on the other side, you should be asking why. The class warfare crowd's objective is to make you mad at the billionaire, and how dare he not share his money, or give it to the unemployed person. Here's what we'll do, we'll empower the Government to legally take his money and give it to the unemployed person. >:(
That is not the "intent" of class-consciousness at all. As I've explained before there is no "hate" or "anger" or any other emotion involved.
Strange, though how that's the very inferrence and emotional response I get from those that push class warfare. The name itself also tends to imply such anger as well. So, whether it's the "intent" or not, the repercussive actions & rhetoric speak loud and clear
-
The foundation to class warfare; making 1 class be angry at another class, simply because they're more successful, and that should make you angry, and resentful. How dare they have so much more than me or you.
You know, if a billionaire lives next to you, who cares?? If an unemployed fella is living on the other side, you should be asking why. The class warfare crowd's objective is to make you mad at the billionaire, and how dare he not share his money, or give it to the unemployed person. Here's what we'll do, we'll empower the Government to legally take his money and give it to the unemployed person. >:(
That is not the "intent" of class-consciousness at all. As I've explained before there is no "hate" or "anger" or any other emotion involved.
Strange, though how that's the very inferrence and emotional response I get from those that push class warfare. The name itself also tends to imply such anger as well. So, whether it's the "intent" or not, the repercussive actions & rhetoric speak loud and clear
The only one I see who is emotional here, is you in your defense of the hypothetical billionaire.
I take your response as a "no." So you'll continue to speak about something you don't understand as opposed to actually reading, learning and speaking to the subject with intelligence?
-
Strange, though how that's the very inferrence and emotional response I get from those that push class warfare. The name itself also tends to imply such anger as well. So, whether it's the "intent" or not, the repercussive actions & rhetoric speak loud and clear
The only one I see who is emotional here, is you in your defense of the hypothetical billionaire.
I see....so referencing others why should they care if someone is a billionaire, or living next to them is..... emotional?? Ummmm....ooooookaaaaaay ::)
While those simmering about how unfair it is for the billionaire to have his billions, and how they don't, and that the billionaire isn't giving them any of it.....well, that of course is perfectly rational unemotional thought processing.
riiiiiiiiight
1 more time Js, intention's are always perfect. Whether the "intent" was pure as written by Marx, the ramifications have mutated to the classwarfare monster, we currently observe, and perpetuated on a daily basis from the hard core libs & socialists, in this country.
-
That is not the "intent" of class-consciousness at all.
Should a person be free to earn as much as they are able, with no artificial limitations, no onerous taxation that kicks in at a certain level because they cross an arbitrary threshold?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
-
*sirs also to wait in anticipation*
-
<<Last i heard soldiers are paid, so what is the distinction again?>>
Mercenaries are paid a lot more and they fight whoever they're paid to fight. Soldiers fight whoever their Commander-in-Chief tells them to fight and they do it for peanuts.
-
I think no BT
the reason is that it actually happen in history
and the over ridding pattern of such unbridle capitalism is some serious harm to the genral population.
ex. note in history I don`t ever recall companies before health and safety laws came into effect ,to ever self regulate themselves to ensure safety of workers or thier customers.
but I`m also noting in those days these supposed captains of industries are not getting the maximun amount of profit possible due to the general population following the buyer beware rule .
it`s strange, greed can actually blind people of other potential profits .
I live in a town where most business is selling thier crap at the highest possible price.
but that doesn`t mean big profits it mean everything else will go up in price and now most people here are struggling
about the soldier topic
soldier are subject to military code of conduct
but people from blackwater at the moment don`t answer to anyone .
meaning these MF`s are a serious risk of getting us into another war.
note that 2 weeks ago thier pulling oversea business when talk of making them answerable to military code of conduct is in the works.
-
So we have established both are whores, and you are just haggling over price.
Compensation doesn't seem to illustrate the distinction.
-
Does it matter if Brad Pitt earns 20 million or 1 million per pic.
and what harm does his compensation do to society?
-
<<So we have established both are whores, and you are just haggling over price.>>
Well, you've got a point regarding salary, but only partially. For most folks, the compensation is minimal and not enough to justify the loss of freedom, discipline and danger. But I guess for the rescued-from-the-chicken-plant Lynndie Englands of the world, the lure was probably the compensation.
I guess the real difference that applies across the board is that the soldier kills on the orders of his Commander in Chief, who happens to be the President of his country and the merc kill whoever his bosses tell him to kill for whatever reason.
-
heres an example of the problem with blackwater
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4560171.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4560171.ece)
I`m not sure I talked about price though
and about brad
he and his wife puts massive amount of money into charities.
new orleans is a ex.
but the thing about charities is I read somewhere the bulk of them are mainly into the arts so it`s very possible that alot of the humanitarian base charities that we think are there could be underfunded.
and don`t forget only a percent of any donate money needs to actually fund the cause.
united way got alot of flake for that from 9-11
-
I guess the real difference that applies across the board is that the soldier kills on the orders of his Commander in Chief, who happens to be the President of his country and the merc kill whoever his bosses tell him to kill for whatever reason.
In the case of the krispy kritters they were hired by the DOD which in turn was directed by the POTUS.
So again what was you distinction?
-
Forget about Brad.
Is it any of my business how much you earn and what you spend your money on?
-
ex. note in history I don`t ever recall companies before health and safety laws came into effect ,to ever self regulate themselves to ensure safety of workers or thier customers.
The National Safety Council was founded by corporations, not the government.
-
1 more time Js, intention's are always perfect. Whether the "intent" was pure as written by Marx, the ramifications have mutated to the classwarfare monster, we currently observe, and perpetuated on a daily basis from the hard core libs & socialists, in this country.
First, intentions are not always perfect. I'm not sure where that notion comes from, but it certainly is not true.
Second, again you speak without any underlying knowledge or basis for your words. Sirs, you're akin to a fry cook at Waffle House trying to claim knowledge of being a professional chef. And it isn't because you don't have the intelligence, but because you are simply unwilling to do the work. I partly wonder if you're not afraid that Marxist writers will challenge you a bit more than you wish. But, who knows?
And here we see the evidence again in your statement: "the ramifications have mutated to the classwarfare monster, we currently observe, and perpetuated on a daily basis from the hard core libs & socialists, in this country."
No, we don't. Quite to the contrary, what passes for the left in the United States is primarily content with the status quo - which is a proletariat blissfully ill-equipped for class struggle. This country is so far from class consciousness and a worker's movement that it would bring a tear to any Fascist's eye.
Class struggle is a fact of history. It is not an emotion as you assert, nor is it the idea of a welfare state as you seem to consistently imply (over and over again like a child with a drum set). It is an underlying movement of history. It does not matter if you like it, or if Bt likes it, or if Hitler hated it. That doesn't nullify the existence of class struggle or of class itself. Moreover, class is not based upon income as you, Plane, and many people seem to keep pounding away at.
I seriously suggest reading some Marx or Marxist thinkers before using Marxist terms without any understanding of them.
-
1 more time Js, intention's are always perfect. Whether the "intent" was pure as written by Marx, the ramifications have mutated to the classwarfare monster, we currently observe, and perpetuated on a daily basis from the hard core libs & socialists, in this country.
First, intentions are not always perfect. I'm not sure where that notion comes from, but it certainly is not true.
The point is there are no perfect plans, only perfect intentions. The point is, just because someone hasn't read your prescious Marx doesn't negate the current observations being made, in the name of Marx or "class-consciousness" (nice buzz word). It's current manifestation is the class warfare rhetoric, oh so well echoed by the likes of Tee, of Brass, of even Xo, decrying the billions that various folks or corporations make, not "paying their fair share", and how woeful it is that they have so much, when so many have so little. That is precisely the mindset that advocates envy, anger, hatred, jealously, all emotions, NOT seen by the likes of me, but by the likes of leftists consumed with guilt, and those less fortunate being made to feel it's not their fault their poor, but by "the rich" keeping them poor.
Enter the government.......government to the rescue. We'll take (tax) those evil rich bastards and corporations' $$$$, even try to squeeze in a wind fall profits tax, so you all can feel better about not being as rich as they are
Heard a lady on the radio the other day, decrying how Big Oil, absolutely needs to have a wind fall profits tax applied to them, but while she went on her emotionally driven rant, couldn't for the life of her answer how such a tax would generate 1 extra gallon of oil...decrease the price of oil by even a dollar. Nope, it was all about how obscene their profits were, all the while not listening to the $$$'s they did pay in taxes, the $$$ that did go back into the company, the $$$ that did pay their vast amount of employees, the $$$ that did have to go back to the stockholders, the $$$ that did go into futher R&D. So busy ranting that the point that Wal-Mart makes a greater % profit than Exxon, never touched her ears.
-
National Safety Council
I just looked it up
I can`t find much history info on it.
I never even heard of this place before now
I`m sure it does good stuff but wow.
I`m tempted to chaulk it up with the baldridge award as something made to make them look good
but note the time it was formed up to now.
it`s influence it quite small
wiki or it`s own website hasn`t noted anything it has done to stop workplace abuses
at least the FDA can say they shutdown some of the beef plants.
-
That is not the "intent" of class-consciousness at all.
Should a person be free to earn as much as they are able, with no artificial limitations, no onerous taxation that kicks in at a certain level because they cross an arbitrary threshold?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
I'm not on trial, nor do I speak binary, so I will answer as I see fit.
From an historical view, it depends upon the moment in time. I notice that your question has no moral implications for the individual. He or she is simply earning as much as possible - the how, why, and the impact on others are questions left aside. I find that rather consistent with neoliberalism. The lack of any ethical implication or the egocentric notion of a Randian-esque character who does the most good by being the most selfish are common threads.
I have no problem with that - from an historical view. Capitalism must have its day after all.
From a Christian point of view, I believe that we all have a duty to one another as a community. Moreover, I do believe in the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as is written in the Book of Acts as well as Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program. The Epistle of James and Gospel of Luke do not paint a very pretty picture for those who accumulate wealth and though I love my brothers and sisters, I do feel that they are playing with fire by following such a path.
-
No, we don't. Quite to the contrary, what passes for the left in the United States is primarily content with the status quo - which is a proletariat blissfully ill-equipped for class struggle. This country is so far from class consciousness and a worker's movement that it would bring a tear to any Fascist's eye.
Class struggle is a fact of history. It is not an emotion as you assert, nor is it the idea of a welfare state as you seem to consistently imply (over and over again like a child with a drum set). It is an underlying movement of history. It does not matter if you like it, or if Bt likes it, or if Hitler hated it. That doesn't nullify the existence of class struggle or of class itself. Moreover, class is not based upon income as you, Plane, and many people seem to keep pounding away at.
Ok so what is nullifing the existence of class struggle and class itself in the United States?
-
That is not the "intent" of class-consciousness at all.[/quote]
Should a person be free to earn as much as they are able, with no artificial limitations, no onerous taxation that kicks in at a certain level because they cross an arbitrary threshold? A simple yes or no will suffice.
I'm not on trial, nor do I speak binary, so I will answer as I see fit. From an historical view, it depends upon the moment in time.
That's all I needed to hear. Thanks for the honesty, Js
-
1 more time Js, intention's are always perfect. Whether the "intent" was pure as written by Marx, the ramifications have mutated to the classwarfare monster, we currently observe, and perpetuated on a daily basis from the hard core libs & socialists, in this country.
First, intentions are not always perfect. I'm not sure where that notion comes from, but it certainly is not true.
The point is there are no perfect plans, only perfect intentions. The point is, just because someone hasn't read your prescious Marx doesn't negate the current observations being made, in the name of Marx or "class-consciousness" (nice buzz word). It's current manifestation is the class warfare rhetoric, oh so well echoed by the likes of Tee, of Brass, of even Xo, decrying the billions that various folks or corporations make, not "paying their fair share", and how woeful it is that they have so much, when so many have so little. That is precisely the mindset that advocates envy, anger, hatred, jealously, all emotions, NOT seen by the likes of me, but by the likes of leftists consumed with guilt, and those less fortunate being made to feel it's not their fault their poor, but by "the rich" keeping them poor.
Enter the government.......government to the rescue. We'll take (tax) those evil rich bastards and corporations' $$$$, even try to squeeze in a wind fall profits tax, so you all can feel better about not being as rich as they are
Heard a lady on the radio the other day, decrying how Big Oil, absolutely needs to have a wind fall profits tax applied to them, but while she went on her emotionally driven rant, couldn't for the life of her answer how such a tax would generate 1 extra gallon of oil...decrease the price of oil by even a dollar. Nope, it was all about how obscene their profits were, all the while not listening to the $$$'s they did pay in taxes, the $$$ that did go back into the company, the $$$ that did pay their vast amount of employees, the $$$ that did have to go back to the stockholders, the $$$ that did go into futher R&D. So busy ranting that the point that Wal-Mart makes a greater % profit than Exxon, never touched her ears.
"Class-consciousness" is not a buzz word but a term from Georg Lucaks and predates pretty much everyone in this forum. *sigh*
Interesting notion: "and those less fortunate being made to feel it's not their fault their poor, but by "the rich" keeping them poor" So, in your view, they are to blame for being poor?
Enter the government.......government to the rescue. We'll take (tax) those evil rich bastards and corporations' $$$$, even try to squeeze in a wind fall profits tax, so you all can feel better about not being as rich as they are
This has nothing to do with Marxism or class struggle.
So busy ranting that the point that Wal-Mart makes a greater % profit than Exxon, never touched her ears.
Yet again, nothing to do with class struggle, class-consciousness, or Marx.
Why won't you read Marx, Luxemburg, or Lucaks? Most of their works are on the Internet and are free. It won't cost you anything and you can read it without the bias and filters, but the actual source documents.
-
No, there's a consciousness-raising function that they have to enter into. This was the genius of Lenin and the Bolshevik organizers, many of them unnamed and unknown today, who convinced the masses of the reality of the class war and enlisted them in the struggle. This was a kind of genius unknown in America today, but perhaps called into existence only by hard times, which as yet have not appeared.
Oh yes that turned out well didn't it.
-
I'm not on trial, nor do I speak binary, so I will answer as I see fit.
No you aren't. Your ideas or ideas you subscribe to are on trial.
What are the moral implications of success and reaping the rewards that go with same.
-
It doesn't matter that in the US most of us love the military and move in and out of it during our lives? The "Class ""class-conscious" proletariat" has to be a very small subset of our people , should this small number properly hate the most of us?
That's the idea plane. The foundation to class warfare; making 1 class be angry at another class, simply because they're more successful, and that should make you angry, and resentful. How dare they have so much more than me or you.
You know, if a billionaire lives next to you, who cares?? If an unemployed fella is living on the other side, you should be asking why. The class warfare crowd's objective is to make you mad at the billionaire, and how dare he not share his money, or give it to the unemployed person. Here's what we'll do, we'll empower the Government to legally take his money and give it to the unemployed person. >:(
That is not the "intent" of class-consciousness at all. As I've explained before there is no "hate" or "anger" or any other emotion involved. It is an historical movement, not an emotional or psychological movement, which seems to be some sort of hang-up within yours and Plane's conservatism.
Class-consciousness has nothing to do with empowering "the Government to legally take his money and give it to the unemployed person" and neither does class warfare.
Seriously, if both of you wish to make such statements will you at least read Marx, Lucaks, and Luxemburg just as starters to try and understand class consciousness and history. To understand Marxism you have to understand it in totality and neither of you understand it even in fragments. You simply place its terms into your prisms of "left versus right" and throw them around in your myopic, cliche worldview.
This is like reccomending Ptolemy for better understanding of Astronomy, better to study the more correct first and perhaps then the failed system as an interesting contrast.
I see that you are hung up on my misunderstanding of class diffrence as wealth diffrence, well where is a diffrence in class unrelated to wealth? Two classes of equal prosperity have what to complain about?
-
it`s fairly easy to make class unrest .
ex. in a midsize company It`s not unheard of to see a downsizing and have fellow co-workers get laid-off and within a week hear or actually see execs get bonuses or have resort treatment which the cost some times equal or exceed the cost of the laid-off employees.
class unrest is not that big a trick
-
No, we don't. Quite to the contrary, what passes for the left in the United States is primarily content with the status quo - which is a proletariat blissfully ill-equipped for class struggle. This country is so far from class consciousness and a worker's movement that it would bring a tear to any Fascist's eye.
Class struggle is a fact of history. It is not an emotion as you assert, nor is it the idea of a welfare state as you seem to consistently imply (over and over again like a child with a drum set). It is an underlying movement of history. It does not matter if you like it, or if Bt likes it, or if Hitler hated it. That doesn't nullify the existence of class struggle or of class itself. Moreover, class is not based upon income as you, Plane, and many people seem to keep pounding away at.
Ok so what is nullifing the existence of class struggle and class itself in the United States?
Nothing nullifies class struggle. It exists everywhere in the modern world and at anytime.
I think what you're asking is: what has prevented class and the labor movement from becoming powerful forces in the United States?
To be honest, it would take quite some time to give an in-depth explanation that would involve a lot of history. But for a quick and small difference, let's look at the political landscape. At one time the party of the economic right was the Democrats and the party of the economic left were the Republicans (Free-Soil Midwesterners). At that time the Free Soil Republicans wished to confiscate the property of the plantation owners in the South and divide it equally amongst former slave families. This did not sit well with the other faction of Republicans - the Northeast businessmen who had financed much of the war. They were traditional, but with a mind towards the business world and trading with England and France (especially concerned about cotton).
Of course the parties reversed roles eventually, but the United States never had a Labor Party that represented the Unions. Moreover, the unions were rife with their own inner-conflicts of racism and anti-communism. Perhaps there was no greater enemy of the Labor movement than the AFL. So, you have two parties with very little intrinsic ties to the workers, especially as we moved into the 80's, 90's, and today. You have a passive people who accept large swaths of corporate control in Government decision-making. This is something many other countries would find appalling. Even the Tories in Britain or Canada would be alarmed at what passes for everyday business in Washington here.
-
Interesting notion: "and those less fortunate being made to feel it's not their fault their poor, but by "the rich" keeping them poor" So, in your view, they are to blame for being poor?
YES. In large part, YES. Their circumstances, whatever they may be were a product of their upbringing and being fortunate vs not so fortunate, in where they've had to grow up. People have come from overt poverty to become mutlimillionaires. Do we "blame" them for their success?? So no, Js, "the Rich" are not some Darth Vader like entity, perpetually keeping the poor, poor. The classes have people moving thru them constantly, poor --> middle class --> upper class, and those that have gone the other direction, as its fluid. MOST people strive to move out of the poor into a more successful status. And that's a good thing. But if one just sits on their butt, and expects the government to bail them out at every turn of bad luck, it's their fault they remain poor, and not "the rich"
Enter the government.......government to the rescue. We'll take (tax) those evil rich bastards and corporations' $$$$, even try to squeeze in a wind fall profits tax, so you all can feel better about not being as rich as they are
This has nothing to do with Marxism or class struggle.
True to the fomer, false to the latter
So busy ranting that the point that Wal-Mart makes a greater % profit than Exxon, never touched her ears.
Yet again, nothing to do with class struggle, class-consciousness, or Marx.
It goes directly to class warfare, this lady ranting at how bad it was for big oil (or Wal-Mart for that matter) to be making big profits, and how dare they......they need to be punished, and Government needs to do the punishing
Why won't you read Marx, Luxemburg, or Lucaks? Most of their works are on the Internet and are free.
I have FAR more pressing time requirements than to read what class conscious is supposed to be, or the good intentions of Marx. But I appreciate the suggestion
-
This is like reccomending Ptolemy for better understanding of Astronomy, better to study the more correct first and perhaps then the failed system as an interesting contrast.
I see that you are hung up on my misunderstanding of class diffrence as wealth diffrence, well where is a diffrence in class unrelated to wealth? Two classes of equal prosperity have what to complain about?
No, it is recommending that you read the text from which you discuss your notions. You condemn Marxism, but do not understand it. In fact, you've shown absolutely no ability to even try and make an attempt. Would you lecture a room on SQL statements without knowing what they are? I think not.
There may be some correlation in class and wealth, but it is not causation. One can be a proletarian and do rather well in monetary gains.
Nor is Marxism a "failed system" anymore than Kant "failed." It has to be understood in its totality. If you'd bother to read it you'd understand that. Instead, you simply oppose it based on ignorant hate.
-
YES. In large part, YES. Their circumstances, whatever they may be were a product of their upbringing and being fortunate vs not so fortunate, in where they've had to grow up. People have come from overt poverty to become mutlimillionaires. Do we "blame" them for their success?? So no, Js, "the Rich" are not some Darth Vader like entity, perpetually keeping the poor, poor. The classes have people moving thru them constantly, poor --> middle class --> upper class, and those that have gone the other direction, as its fluid. MOST people strive to move out of the poor into a more successful status. And that's a good thing. But if one just sits on their butt, and expects the government to bail them out at every turn of bad luck, it's their fault they remain poor, and not "the rich"
I assume you will provide us with data on the number who "sit on their butt and expect the government to bail them out at every turn of bad luck?" I'll be interested to read that. It sounds more like the airline industry than any poor folks I know.
It goes directly to class warfare, this lady ranting at how bad it was for big oil (or Wal-Mart for that matter) to be making big profits, and how dare they......they need to be punished, and Government needs to do the punishing
No, it goes to your notion of "class warfare" which is a non-academic pretended entity that the right has created and makes for a useful stereotype. It has no basis in reality. The Government is simply a tool of your "precious" (to paraphrase you) democracy and does as the people will.
I have FAR more pressing time requirements than to read what class conscious is supposed to be, or the good intentions of Marx. But I appreciate the suggestion
I travel to Seattle and Philadelphia on a regular basis nowadays. I do a hell of a lot of work. But I always find time to read. It doesn't take that much time...the truth is that you are either too lazy or too scared.
-
I'm not on trial, nor do I speak binary, so I will answer as I see fit.
No you aren't. Your ideas or ideas you subscribe to are on trial.
What are the moral implications of success and reaping the rewards that go with same.
I do not understand what you are saying here, BT.
-
Ok so what is nullifing the existence of class struggle and class itself in the United States?
Nothing nullifies class struggle. It exists everywhere in the modern world and at anytime.
You can't just say that when you have also said this;"No, we don't. Quite to the contrary, what passes for the left in the United States is primarily content with the status quo - which is a proletariat blissfully ill-equipped for class struggle. This country is so far from class consciousness and a worker's movement that it would bring a tear to any Fascist's eye. "
You both admit and deny that Class struggle is happening , that it is and isn't nullified. I get the impression that you are very well read , but you havent reconciled all of your learnings with each other.
Americans do not recognise class , I am a Mister and so are you , if you work really hard you might get an honorific like Doctor or Senator but not an American Lordship or Peerage nor can you become a higher caste even if you become very pious in your religion , I cannot be required to pull my forelock in deferance to you nor you me , we may honor each other willingly , perhaps to acnoledge learning or accomplishment , but even that is an option of manners not a fact of law.
I feel a brotherhood with Benjamin Franklin thjough I don't feel I am his scientific equal , I feel a kinship with Thomas Jefferson though I have a fraction of his energy or genius, these guys wanted a brotherhood of Americans and they eschewed the peerage that they were well placed to erect preferring to adress their brother Americans as equals even tho they had entirely the option to establish a seaprate caste for themselves.
This is the country where you claim to have been born in a log cabin if you want to be the top boss if you were raised by the uppercrust that is a problem to overcome , even some wellborn claim humility in order to get chosen the class struggle isn't real here.
-
[quote ]
Nor is Marxism a "failed system" anymore than Kant "failed." It has to be understood in its totality. If you'd bother to read it you'd understand that. Instead, you simply oppose it based on ignorant hate.
[/quote]
There were for half a century ,a thousand universitys that taught Marxism as economic theroy, most of the students of these classes have moved on to more sophisticated economic theroys now.
Can ten million ex marxists be wrong?
-
This is like reccomending Ptolemy for better understanding of Astronomy, better to study the more correct first and perhaps then the failed system as an interesting contrast.
I see that you are hung up on my misunderstanding of class diffrence as wealth diffrence, well where is a diffrence in class unrelated to wealth? Two classes of equal prosperity have what to complain about?
No, it is recommending that you read the text from which you discuss your notions. You condemn Marxism, but do not understand it. In fact, you've shown absolutely no ability to even try and make an attempt. Would you lecture a room on SQL statements without knowing what they are? I think not.
There may be some correlation in class and wealth, but it is not causation. One can be a proletarian and do rather well in monetary gains.
Nor is Marxism a "failed system" anymore than Kant "failed." It has to be understood in its totality. If you'd bother to read it you'd understand that. Instead, you simply oppose it based on ignorant hate.
I do hate Marxism , but is it fair to call this hatred ignorant?
I hate Facism too ,and I understand it more from its results than from reading the theroys of its founders .
Do I really have to read up on Facist theroys and understand them in detail to find disgust in them?
The proof of ANY pudding is in the tasteing thereof Marxism had half the world in its clutches for a century , in the universitys of these lands no economic theroy was taught before Marxism , it has had a more than fair chance to succeed , what better labratory could you ask for to test it?
-
I assume you will provide us with data on the number who "sit on their butt and expect the government to bail them out at every turn of bad luck?" I'll be interested to read that. It sounds more like the airline industry than any poor folks I know.
It's rhetorical Js. Obviously there are no stats on butt sitting. Are you denying there aren't thousands upon thousands of poor who's only strive is to live day to day, largely off Government subsidies and handouts?? No one is denying there are those who work hard, but don't seem to get anywhere, but I'm guessing many of those that stay in overt poverty levels, have little else to "blame" than themselves and/or their circumstances. Hardly the fault of "the rich", or anyone else, for that matter. And neither is anyone saying we, as a Christian nation, ought not help the less fortunate......as a CHOICE
It goes directly to class warfare, this lady ranting at how bad it was for big oil (or Wal-Mart for that matter) to be making big profits, and how dare they......they need to be punished, and Government needs to do the punishing
No, it goes to your notion of "class warfare" which is a non-academic pretended entity that the right has created and makes for a useful stereotype. It has no basis in reality.
It has EVERYTHING to do with reality, and very little to do with some interpretation in a book. It was her rant, it was her decrying how terrible it was for big oil to be making such big profits. it was her decrying the need for a wind fall profits tax, that would do absolutely zip in decreasing the price of oil, or increasing its supply. THAT's the current reality I'm referencing.
The Government is simply a tool of your "precious" (to paraphrase you) democracy and does as the people will.
And if you get enough people (a majority) all emotionally worked up about how unfair it is that they have so much less than "the rich", presto, democracy at work
I travel to Seattle and Philadelphia on a regular basis nowadays. I do a hell of a lot of work. But I always find time to read. It doesn't take that much time...the truth is that you are either too lazy or too scared.
OR......not interested, especially since I have so little down time, compared to you. I'll go with option 3. As i said, I have no need to read about the perfect intentions of marx, as i have to live the current reality of it's acute mutations
-
<<Oh yes that [the Russian Revolution] turned out well didn't it.>>
Sorta like the American Revolution turned out - - had its good side and its bad side.
You seem to have a very one-sided view of things which just isn't grounded in history.
-
<<I have FAR more pressing time requirements than to read what class conscious is supposed to be, or the good intentions of Marx. But I appreciate the suggestion>>
That's really what you're up against, JS. Not just ignorance, but willful ignorance. Not usually so concisely expressed. But then again, aren't we equally guilty? - - who on the left has the time to read the classics of the right-wing canon, apart, perhaps, from Mein Kampf, which is interesting mainly for its bizarre aspects, and probably disavowed by most right-wingers today?
What this forum teaches me about right-left "dialogue" is that it is almost completely a dialogue of the deaf. Minds are never changed, sometimes points are scored. Ultimately there is no logical argument why you should be your brother's keeper, there are just people who feel they should be and others who don't.
-
<<Americans do not recognise class >>
It's recognized in every country club, in every motor vehicle or liquor advertisment, in every nightclub or bar or restaurant, in every Hollywood movie, TV drama or sitcom or soap. Americans certainly do recognize
<<This is the country where you claim to have been born in a log cabin if you want to be the top boss if you were raised by the uppercrust that is a problem to overcome >>
This if nothing else should have convinced you of the reality of the class struggle. Why on earth would a well-born individual have to claim he was born in a log cabin if not to claim a false solidarity with the members of the working class who correctly perceive those born to wealth as class enemies?
-
National Safety Council
I just looked it up
I can`t find much history info on it.
I never even heard of this place before now
I`m sure it does good stuff but wow.
Funny, every company I've ever worked for had NSC approved safety manuals and training courses. The "green cross" was on lots of stuff. They did all the CPR courses, the AED courses, fire safety training, etc...
-
<<I have FAR more pressing time requirements than to read what class conscious is supposed to be, or the good intentions of Marx. But I appreciate the suggestion>>
That's really what you're up against, JS. Not just ignorance, but willful ignorance.
Hillarious coming from someone who willfully ignores any and all investigative conclusions, regarding Bush, the elections, 911, Intelligence failures, that demonstrate no wrong doing, no illegal acts, no lying us into war. Damn those facts, its all one big conspiratorial cabal, with Bush at the head :D
-
oops
I`m civil service and I`m in security
so I might be stumbling on to something here
but you say manuels
I`m sure whatever books we got here maybe NSC approved.
but we`ll never know if the places with safety violation may also be NSC approved.
It`s probly like osha
do wqhat needed to shut them up than ignore them
like OHSA
quite afew business would rather pay fines than make the place safer since it`s cheaper that way.
remember overall people are not exactly safety conscious
ex. helmets,seat belts
alot of folks think these thing are stuff to shut the liberals up
don`t forget how these policies are made.
all are reactive measure never done before somebody gets hurt.
-
<<Oh yes that [the Russian Revolution] turned out well didn't it.>>
Sorta like the American Revolution turned out - - had its good side and its bad side.
You seem to have a very one-sided view of things which just isn't grounded in history.
Good side?
The Prison of Nations that Lenin bitterly complained about remained a prison of nations , the faces in the head office changed but was there real change?
The Czars built the worlds longest rail road and Stalin bilt the worlds biggest dam , the simularity of goals is very striking.
The simularity of methods too.
I had high hopes when Russia lost its communism , but the habits of the Czars and Commisars seem to be reasserting themselves.
-
<<Americans do not recognise class >>
It's recognized in every country club, in every motor vehicle or liquor advertisment, in every nightclub or bar or restaurant, in every Hollywood movie, TV drama or sitcom or soap. Americans certainly do recognize
[/quote ]No , the only thing that might keep me out of one of those venues or possessions is a lack of cash , which _JS assures me is not equivelent to class , there is no American class in the sense of the word you are attempting to use it. There is no peerage , no royalty that cannot be entered or lost.[quote ]
<<This is the country where you claim to have been born in a log cabin if you want to be the top boss if you were raised by the uppercrust that is a problem to overcome >>
This if nothing else should have convinced you of the reality of the class struggle. Why on earth would a well-born individual have to claim he was born in a log cabin if not to claim a false solidarity with the members of the working class who correctly perceive those born to wealth as class enemies?
Do you realise how contrived you had to get to say this? Yes , to become a Senator or President ithelps a lot to have cash , but it helps even more to have a common touch , anyone who cannot cross a class barrier has no hope of high office in America.
-
<<Yes , to become a Senator or President ithelps a lot to have cash , but it helps even more to have a common touch , anyone who cannot cross a class barrier has no hope of high office in America.>>
I see, so America has no classes, just class barriers. Thanks.
-
just class barriers
What class barriers?
-
well it might called minor class distinctions
ex. like the thinking teachers should be paid more than garbage workers.
-
<<Yes , to become a Senator or President ithelps a lot to have cash , but it helps even more to have a common touch , anyone who cannot cross a class barrier has no hope of high office in America.>>
I see, so America has no classes, just class barriers. Thanks.
You are almost there ...
Now point to a class barrier and I bet I will be able to find an example of a hole in that barrier.
It isn't easy to earn a lot of money , it isn't easy to steal a lot and hide that it is stolen , but to get elected as an eleteist is even harder , the barriers against gaining political power work in the reverse than you seem to think they would.
-
<<Hillarious coming from someone who willfully ignores any and all investigative conclusions, regarding Bush, the elections, 911, Intelligence failures, that demonstrate no wrong doing, no illegal acts, no lying us into war. Damn those facts, its all one big conspiratorial cabal, with Bush at the head >>
Well, maybe if even one of those "investigative conclusions" had included even one investigator who wasn't a Washington insider, I would have shown a little more respect for it. Just let Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Paul Craig Roberts or Naomi Klein or Seymour Hersh or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright participate in one little investigation, instead of the clubby little group investigating one of their own Republocrat brethren, and I might have the tiniest shred of respect for it.
But as constituted, all of the "investigative conclusions" as you hilariously choose to call them have about zero genuine investigation in them and all the "conclusions" were formed long before any "investigation" was actually commentced. As anyone but a moron can see just by reading the names of the committee members, these "investigations" can all be described in one word: WHITEWASH.
-
<<Hillarious coming from someone who willfully ignores any and all investigative conclusions, regarding Bush, the elections, 911, Intelligence failures, that demonstrate no wrong doing, no illegal acts, no lying us into war. Damn those facts, its all one big conspiratorial cabal, with Bush at the head >>
Well, maybe if even one of those "investigative conclusions" had included even one investigator who wasn't a Washington insider, I would have shown a little more respect for it.
Naaaaa....unless it had a ringing conviction placed around Bush's neck, you had no intentions of giving it any respect, what-so-ever. That, BTW, all your rationalization efforts aside, is a perfect example of woeful ignorance.
-
Ok so what is nullifing the existence of class struggle and class itself in the United States?
Nothing nullifies class struggle. It exists everywhere in the modern world and at anytime.
You can't just say that when you have also said this;"No, we don't. Quite to the contrary, what passes for the left in the United States is primarily content with the status quo - which is a proletariat blissfully ill-equipped for class struggle. This country is so far from class consciousness and a worker's movement that it would bring a tear to any Fascist's eye. "
Note that said the American proletariat is "blissfully ill-equipped for class struggle." That does not negate the fact that their is and always will be (for as long as capitalism exists) class struggle. You find mutual exclusion where there is none.
-
[quote ]
Nor is Marxism a "failed system" anymore than Kant "failed." It has to be understood in its totality. If you'd bother to read it you'd understand that. Instead, you simply oppose it based on ignorant hate.
There were for half a century ,a thousand universitys that taught Marxism as economic theroy, most of the students of these classes have moved on to more sophisticated economic theroys now.
Can ten million ex marxists be wrong?
[/quote]
Again, Marxism has not failed any more than Kant failed, or Kierkegaard failed. Yours is a nonsensical sentence. The Soviet Union failed, but in that same time period a number of capitalist regimes failed as well. Do we consider capitalism a failure too? Your line of thinking is false and presents a false conclusion.
-
It's rhetorical Js. Obviously there are no stats on butt sitting. Are you denying there aren't thousands upon thousands of poor who's only strive is to live day to day, largely off Government subsidies and handouts?? No one is denying there are those who work hard, but don't seem to get anywhere, but I'm guessing many of those that stay in overt poverty levels, have little else to "blame" than themselves and/or their circumstances.
It is not "rhetorical" it is a purposefully false anecdote presented as evidence. I'm denying it until you present actual proof.
It has EVERYTHING to do with reality, and very little to do with some interpretation in a book. It was her rant, it was her decrying how terrible it was for big oil to be making such big profits. it was her decrying the need for a wind fall profits tax, that would do absolutely zip in decreasing the price of oil, or increasing its supply. THAT's the current reality I'm referencing.
One person on a call-in show is not a sample-size of any worth. Again, an anecdote of no value. But your anti-intellectualism is duly noted.
And if you get enough people (a majority) all emotionally worked up about how unfair it is that they have so much less than "the rich", presto, democracy at work
LOLOL - you preaching to me about "emotion" - that's a good one.
OR......not interested, especially since I have so little down time, compared to you. I'll go with option 3. As i said, I have no need to read about the perfect intentions of marx, as i have to live the current reality of it's acute mutations
Too busy to read a book? Sorry Sirs, I'm not buying it. It is willful ignorance.
-
<<Yes , to become a Senator or President ithelps a lot to have cash , but it helps even more to have a common touch , anyone who cannot cross a class barrier has no hope of high office in America.>>
I see, so America has no classes, just class barriers. Thanks.
You are almost there ...
Now point to a class barrier and I bet I will be able to find an example of a hole in that barrier.
It isn't easy to earn a lot of money , it isn't easy to steal a lot and hide that it is stolen , but to get elected as an eleteist is even harder , the barriers against gaining political power work in the reverse than you seem to think they would.
Of course America has class distinctions.
Do you own the means to production?
-
Do you own the means to production?
What exactly does that mean?
Does it mean i own the hardwood i want to use to shape into a table?
yes.
Does it mean i own the tools to do the shaping ?
yes
Does it mean i own the labor that manipulates the tools to shape the table?
Yes
So what do you really mean by that question?
-
Do you own the means to production?
What exactly does that mean?
Does it mean i own the hardwood i want to use to shape into a table?
yes.
Does it mean i own the tools to do the shaping ?
yes
Does it mean i own the labor that manipulates the tools to shape the table?
Yes
So what do you really mean by that question?
Do you own the the business where you work?
-
It's rhetorical Js. Obviously there are no stats on butt sitting. Are you denying there aren't thousands upon thousands of poor who's only strive is to live day to day, largely off Government subsidies and handouts?? No one is denying there are those who work hard, but don't seem to get anywhere, but I'm guessing many of those that stay in overt poverty levels, have little else to "blame" than themselves and/or their circumstances.
It is not "rhetorical" it is a purposefully false anecdote presented as evidence. I'm denying it until you present actual proof.
Proof there are those who sit and just take in government paycheck, after government paycheck, doing virtually nothing to get out of the cycle?? Proof there would be in my actually witnessing it. My mother having to raise us 3 kids on her own, was on Government food stamps, and the like. We knew a multitude of similar folks. I witnessed both their lack of effort, and confessions of "why mess up up such a good thing?". There's nothing "false" about it, especially if your posotion is everyone receiving government assistance has no choice, and are literally being kept in such a predicament, by........I can only imagine "the rich", right?
Oh, and BTW, my Mom worked her and our family out of it. How the hell did she manage that, I can only wonder :-\
It has EVERYTHING to do with reality, and very little to do with some interpretation in a book. It was her rant, it was her decrying how terrible it was for big oil to be making such big profits. it was her decrying the need for a wind fall profits tax, that would do absolutely zip in decreasing the price of oil, or increasing its supply. THAT's the current reality I'm referencing.
One person on a call-in show is not a sample-size of any worth. Again, an anecdote of no value. But your anti-intellectualism is duly noted.
I love it......overt ignorance in the face of the obvious, a window into the typical class warfare rhetoric you get from the hard core left. Throw in a little personal insult to boot, perfect.
And if you get enough people (a majority) all emotionally worked up about how unfair it is that they have so much less than "the rich", presto, democracy at work
LOLOL - you preaching to me about "emotion" - that's a good one.
Especially when you can't provide any examples of my getting emotional, thru-out this entire thread. Or apparently, in some twisted rationalization, my referencing the emotional rants of the left, is be design being emotional?
OR......not interested, especially since I have so little down time, compared to you. I'll go with option 3. As i said, I have no need to read about the perfect intentions of marx, as I have to live the current reality of it's acute mutations
Too busy to read a book? Sorry Sirs, I'm not buying it. It is willful ignorance.
I see, now you can read minds. It's not that I have no interest, it's because Js has devined I'm some ignorant coward. You should take that act on the road, Js
-
Do you own the the business where you work?
yes
Although woodworking is not my business, I have designed manufactured and sold pieces of furniture.
-
<<Yes , to become a Senator or President ithelps a lot to have cash , but it helps even more to have a common touch , anyone who cannot cross a class barrier has no hope of high office in America.>>
I see, so America has no classes, just class barriers. Thanks.
You are almost there ...
Now point to a class barrier and I bet I will be able to find an example of a hole in that barrier.
It isn't easy to earn a lot of money , it isn't easy to steal a lot and hide that it is stolen , but to get elected as an eleteist is even harder , the barriers against gaining political power work in the reverse than you seem to think they would.
Of course America has class distinctions.
Do you own the means to production?
Yes , doesn't everyone?
-
Do you own the means to production?
What exactly does that mean?
Does it mean i own the hardwood i want to use to shape into a table?
yes.
Does it mean i own the tools to do the shaping ?
yes
Does it mean i own the labor that manipulates the tools to shape the table?
Yes
So what do you really mean by that question?
Do you own the the business where you work?
Yes , I am a federal civil servant .
Most of the means for the production I do are attatched to the ends of my arms , I do not own the hand tools I use , but some of my co-workers do , those guys are contractors for the same work I do as a civil servant , they buy their tool box and generally have higher pay but lower benefits .
-
Proof there are those who sit and just take in government paycheck, after government paycheck, doing virtually nothing to get out of the cycle?? Proof there would be in my actually witnessing it. My mother having to raise us 3 kids on her own, was on Government food stamps, and the like. We knew a multitude of similar folks. I witnessed both their lack of effort, and confessions of "why mess up up such a good thing?". There's nothing "false" about it, especially if your posotion is everyone receiving government assistance has no choice, and are literally being kept in such a predicament, by........I can only imagine "the rich", right?
Oh, and BTW, my Mom worked her and our family out of it. How the hell did she manage that, I can only wonder :-\
1. You're being emotional again.
2. You've provided no proof/evidence...again.
3. Yet another anecdote. We can compare poverty stories any day of the week. Still, it is just anecdotal evidence. You've yet to provide anything substantive to back up your statements.
I love it......overt ignorance in the face of the obvious, a window into the typical class warfare rhetoric you get from the hard core left. Throw in a little personal insult to boot, perfect.
There was absolutely no personal insult. There is no ignorance. You offered one individual who called into a radio show. Shall I start using the same as evidence of the right-wing? I think not. Again...you provide no evidence.
Especially when you can't provide any examples of my getting emotional, thru-out this entire thread. Or apparently, in some twisted rationalization, my referencing the emotional rants of the left, is be design being emotional?
The previous two quotes are good examples.
I see, now you can read minds. It's not that I have no interest, it's because Js has devined I'm some ignorant coward. You should take that act on the road, Js
And more emotion. I've not "divined" anything. I used your derogatory comment on books and your statements about having "no time" as evidence.
-
Do you own the the business where you work?
yes
Although woodworking is not my business, I have designed manufactured and sold pieces of furniture.
Actually, Marx spoke highly of the cottage industries of Britain, which is exactly what you're describing.
That isn't the same as urban industrialization. Of course, you know that.
-
Of course America has class distinctions.
Oh?
Who are the Lairds or Bramins of ours?
-
I still get a kick out of Js referencing non-existant emotion, as emotion on my part. Whatever floats his boat, i guess
-
Actually, Marx spoke highly of the cottage industries of Britain, which is exactly what you're describing.
That isn't the same as urban industrialization. Of course, you know that.
You asked if i owned the means of production. Apparently in my case i do, because you came back with a yeah but. . .
Fact is lots of working stiffs in the blue collar trades own the means of production, Plane gave an example, i gave an example, pending further clarification of what you actually mean by that.
-
Actually, Marx spoke highly of the cottage industries of Britain, which is exactly what you're describing.
That isn't the same as urban industrialization. Of course, you know that.
You asked if i owned the means of production. Apparently in my case i do, because you came back with a yeah but. . .
Fact is lots of working stiffs in the blue collar trades own the means of production, Plane gave an example, i gave an example, pending further clarification of what you actually mean by that.
Most Plumbers , most Auto mechanics , most Aircraft mechanics , lots of carpenters ,... there isn't a point in makeing a complete listing is there?
-
Actually, Marx spoke highly of the cottage industries of Britain, which is exactly what you're describing.
That isn't the same as urban industrialization. Of course, you know that.
You asked if i owned the means of production. Apparently in my case i do, because you came back with a yeah but. . .
Fact is lots of working stiffs in the blue collar trades own the means of production, Plane gave an example, i gave an example, pending further clarification of what you actually mean by that.
You did not give an example! You gave a hobby.
Plane did not give an example, he said that in some cases some contractors own some of their tools. Do they own the shop? Do they own the company?
Do you see the difference now?
-
You did not give an example! You gave a hobby.
Nonsense.
How do you think Apple got started or Hayes Modems or any other pc computer startup back in the day.
-
You did not give an example! You gave a hobby.
Nonsense.
How do you think Apple got started or Hayes Modems or any other pc computer startup back in the day.
Irrelevant to the point.
Nice try though.
Are you suggesting that Steve Jobs is a member of the proletariat?
-
Irrelevant to the point.
Nice try though.
Are you suggesting that Steve Jobs is a member of the proletariat?
No i am suggesting that Steve Jobs built an empire out of a hobby. You seemed to think turning hobbies into vocations was a joke.
-
Irrelevant to the point.
Nice try though.
Are you suggesting that Steve Jobs is a member of the proletariat?
No i am suggesting that Steve Jobs built an empire out of a hobby. You seemed to think turning hobbies into vocations was a joke.
No. I'm saying that it is not an occupation (until it is). In your case it is not your primary means of income.
-
In your case it is not your primary means of income.
Anything i do at any given time is my primary means of income. I am self employed, i own the means of my production. And i am not unique.
-
Actually, Marx spoke highly of the cottage industries of Britain, which is exactly what you're describing.
That isn't the same as urban industrialization. Of course, you know that.
You asked if i owned the means of production. Apparently in my case i do, because you came back with a yeah but. . .
Fact is lots of working stiffs in the blue collar trades own the means of production, Plane gave an example, i gave an example, pending further clarification of what you actually mean by that.
You did not give an example! You gave a hobby.
Plane did not give an example, he said that in some cases some contractors own some of their tools. Do they own the shop? Do they own the company?
Do you see the difference now?
Almost all mechanics own thousands of dollars in tools , I as a civil servant am the exeption, the government wants to controll my tools so I am not allowed to use my own.
It is not uncommon at all for a plumber , auto mechanic , welder or even an Aircraft mechanic to own his own business. Check the yellow pages.
Some people prefer working for a large concern , less hassle in insurance and retiremant planning , but how many are really trapped thereby? An employer needs to offer a deal to an employee that keeps him from running off on his own , if he can do better for himself ,he will run off.
-
And Bt...your point is what? That you are bourgeoisie? Is that somehow surprising?
Either I am dense (completely possible) or you two have yet to make a clear point. Class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production and the surplus labor of others.
So yes, Steve Jobs is a member of the bourgeoisie. The person running a company of plumbers is too. The person managing a Wal-Mart is as well. You two seem to be really hung up on the literal tools. No, owning a trowel does not determine your class, nor does owning your own machine shop.
-
And Bt...your point is what? That you are bourgeoisie? Is that somehow surprising?
I never label myself something that i have to use spellcheck to type.
I'm just a guy. Fairly independent. I do my own thing.
And i don't think i fit neatly into philosophical boxes that are more designed to define a movement than real life situations. And i think there are a whole lot of people like me.
People who work with their hands and their heads, means of production, that i do in fact own.
-
And Bt...your point is what? That you are bourgeoisie? Is that somehow surprising?
I never label myself something that i have to use spellcheck to type.
I'm just a guy. Fairly independent. I do my own thing.
And i don't think i fit neatly into philosophical boxes that are more designed to define a movement than real life situations. And i think there are a whole lot of people like me.
People who work with their hands and their heads, means of production, that i do in fact own.
The problem with your last sentence is that this fits your definition, but not the Marxian definition of class. It is the same issue that I spoke with Sirs about. If you wish to discuss Marxian terms or Socialist terms, then have the courtesy to at least understand them or be willing to learn. Yet, what you, Plane, and Sirs seem to want to do is to apply your definitions then ponder at how anyone can think like that. One can do that with any line of thought. In fact, that is pretty much the state of our current sorry debate in this country today. It becomes a matter of perception over logic.
-
but not the Marxian definition of class
Why should i care how marx defines class?
-
I was trying to explain that one to Js, as well
-
And Bt...your point is what? That you are bourgeoisie? Is that somehow surprising?
Either I am dense (completely possible) or you two have yet to make a clear point. Class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production and the surplus labor of others.
So yes, Steve Jobs is a member of the bourgeoisie. The person running a company of plumbers is too. The person managing a Wal-Mart is as well. You two seem to be really hung up on the literal tools. No, owning a trowel does not determine your class, nor does owning your own machine shop.
Finally !
By this rather strange and narrow definition ,there is no class distinction in the United States. People who are born to wealth can easily determine what their relationship will be to productive capacity , but persons without wealth can earn any relationship they want as well , luck is heavyly involved , but not as much as talent.
-
1. You use the terms, without understanding them.
2. You asked.
3. To better understand the world around you and the history of that world.
4. To better understand events as they occur.
5. Some of you attack Marxian thought without any understanding of it.
Or, as Billy Bragg once sung:
"You can be active with the activists
Or sleep in with the sleepers
While you're waiting for the Great Leap Forwards"
-
And Bt...your point is what? That you are bourgeoisie? Is that somehow surprising?
Either I am dense (completely possible) or you two have yet to make a clear point. Class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production and the surplus labor of others.
So yes, Steve Jobs is a member of the bourgeoisie. The person running a company of plumbers is too. The person managing a Wal-Mart is as well. You two seem to be really hung up on the literal tools. No, owning a trowel does not determine your class, nor does owning your own machine shop.
Finally !
By this rather strange and narrow definition ,there is no class distinction in the United States. People who are born to wealth can easily determine what their relationship will be to productive capacity , but persons without wealth can earn any relationship they want as well , luck is heavyly involved , but not as much as talent.
Oh dear lord ::)
I don't really believe you're that thick Plane. But the act gets tiresome after a while.
-
Define means of production.
-
Define means of production.
If you (and clearly others) do not care, then explain to me why I should bother?
-
The means of production are the instruments and resources used to produce a good or service through productive labor.
-
According to MIA: Encyclopedia of Marxism: Glossary of Terms
Means of Production
The tools (instruments) and the raw material (subject) you use to create something are the means of production.
If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour.
Karl Marx
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm)
Seems my description of woodworking fits this definition nicely.
Is your definition different?
-
No.
And? Are you selecting bits and pieces now?
-
And? Are you selecting bits and pieces now?
No. apparently i was applying your definition to my world.
-
And Bt...your point is what? That you are bourgeoisie? Is that somehow surprising?
Either I am dense (completely possible) or you two have yet to make a clear point. Class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production and the surplus labor of others.
So yes, Steve Jobs is a member of the bourgeoisie. The person running a company of plumbers is too. The person managing a Wal-Mart is as well. You two seem to be really hung up on the literal tools. No, owning a trowel does not determine your class, nor does owning your own machine shop.
Finally !
By this rather strange and narrow definition ,there is no class distinction in the United States. People who are born to wealth can easily determine what their relationship will be to productive capacity , but persons without wealth can earn any relationship they want as well , luck is heavyly involved , but not as much as talent.
Oh dear lord ::)
I don't really believe you're that thick Plane. But the act gets tiresome after a while.
What sort of problem is class then, if we do have them, we certainly have a lot of people crossing between them.