From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 18:48:19 BST
On 6 Aug 2005 at 2:18, Scott Roberts wrote:
msh 08-05-2005:
I don't see how acting on "principles" automatically translates to
low-quality action. And your rejection of communist principles just
because some brutal guys called themselves communists places you
squarely in Platt's camp, shown a hundred times to be made up of
leaky tents. I'm a little surprised.
Scott:
I didn't say I reject communist principles. I object to brutal guys
using them as a cover to be brutal, which seems to happen when
communists get power.
msh 8-06-05:
It happens when any gang of BD-SD individuals gets power. And, of
course, we should object to brutal guys using any ideology as cover
for the maintenance and expansion of power. The ideology that
(fraudulent) free-market capitalism is the best way to organize an
economy, for example, when it is in fact best only for relatively few
free-market ideologues, and not good at all for countries brutally
consumed for cheap labor, resources, and new markets.
scott:
Nor is it just bad guys who do bad things. Some things done for
strictly communist reasons turned out badly, such as the Great Leap
Forward, which resulted in a huge famine.
msh 8-6-05:
Just for accuracy, the famine was a result of many natural disasters,
not just the economics of the Great Leap. But sure, Mao's plan
failed, so he resigns and more moderate leaders are elected,
including Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, and things got better. But
the US, under its unregulated free-enterprise system, experienced
equally bad economic conditions during the Depression. What
happened? FDR is elected, regulation of the private sector goes into
effect, and things get better. I don't get the point of focusing on
the evils of just one ideology.
msh before:
As for principle dominating both American parties, if you mean the
principle of subjugation to the bidding of power and wealth, then I
couldn't agree more. Is that the principle you're talking about?
Scott:
No. I'm referring to the more ideologically motivated of the
Democrats and Republicans dominating their respective parties.
msh 08-06-05:
Well, I pay pretty close attention to the ideas advanced by the major
parties, and I find very little difference between them, and none at
all when it comes to foreign policy. I guess you'll have to be more
specific, if you want to pursue this point.
Scott prev:
Pirsig and I were referring to the hippies. You are referring to
others of that era, such as the New Left. Each camp (broadly
speaking) didn't have much use for the other. They both had their
good and bad points.
msh 08-05-2005:
What bad ideas came form the New Left, in your opinion?
Scott:
Supporting the Maoist Cultural Revolution. Espousing violence, as in
"you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs." I recommend
reading Doris Lessing's novel *The Sentimental Agents*.
msh 08-06-05:
I don't agree that the NL unilaterally supported Mao. The thinkers
of the NL were criticizing the dominant ideology of their own
culture, and were not automatically discounting cultures at odds with
their own. This is called free thinking.
As for violence, there is a wide variety. There's violence against
people, and violence against property. There's violence used in self-
defense, and in the maintenance and expansion of power. The
"breaking eggs" metaphor is a little played, I think. Better to keep
JFK in mind: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable.
msh before:
There was a lot of overlap between "hippies" and the New Left, as a
matter of fact. The fact that Pirsig didn't mention the New Left in
his one-sided disparagement of the 60's only supports my point that
he was going to the wrong parties. Rather than setting up the straw-
man stoners and cop-haters, he could have attended parties with so-
called "hippies" and people like Rap Brown, Robert Lowell, Tom
Hayden, Eldredge Cleaver, Norman Mailer, the Berrigan brothers,
Chomsky, Zinn, Parenti, et al.
Scott:
Like I said, there were good and bad points. The analysis of the
problems had some legitimate points. What to do about it was largely
bad (that's where you got the cop-hating and so forth.)
msh 08-06-05:
Well, this takes us back to our original disagreement, where I listed
all the good that was accomplished by movements born in the 50's and
60's. If it wasn't for the Anti-War movement, the thing might have
dragged on forever. More important, the awareness that came out of
that movement was what drove later US attacks underground. It's the
same awareness that sent millions into the streets protesting the
2003 invasion of Iraq BEFORE it even happened. That's not perfect,
my friend, but that's progress.
Scott prev:
For the sake of argument, let's say you're correct in saying "nor is
there anything anti-intellectual about the current movements against
so called "free trade" globilization efforts, and against the current
war in Iraq." Would you agree in saying there is nothing
anti-intellectual in current movements for free trade, and for the
war? Just curious.
msh 8-05-2005:
Fair enough. There is nothing completely anti-intellectual in
anything humans do. All people have ideas, but, at this point in our
evolution, it seems clear to me that most people are Bio-Dominant or
Social-Dominant. So the useful question is, how do the various B-D,
S-D, and I-D ideas compare on the quality scale?
But this useful question is one that BD-SD people in positions of
power are not interested in answering. This is why so much of what
power does is done in secret or extremely low-profile: Economic and
imperialist war plans, trade talks, corporate strategy meetings.
There is no dearth of intelligent, knowledgeable people who could
intellectually challenge these powerful planners; but such people are
rarely heard from in the corporate-government (BD-SD) dominated media
Why do you suppose that is?
Scott:
Somebody's got to fill those roles in the Giant. In return, the Giant
provides us with a good standard of living, which is what defeated
the new Left and continues to defeat people like you. Most people
are willing to put up with being led by the power-hungry as long as
that standard of living is kept up.
msh 08-06-05:
First, in-so-far as people like me are defeated, the fact that our
ideas are not pumped into people's brains the way consumer messages
are, has a tremendous amount to do with it. If every hour of air-
time given to people like Limbaugh was matched by an hour of time
given to thinkers on the left, I suspect you'd see some amazing
changes which, of course, is why no such equal time is allowed.
Your point about a good standard of living is interesting. The
problem is that this good standard comes at the expense of most of
the world's population. The fact that the people enjoying the good
standard are unaware of this says a lot about the domination of
information in this country, and a lot about the people who are not
so ill-informed but who nevertheless remain silent.
And, BTW, how does this infatuation with consumerism square with your
ideas about driving away one's ego? Just curious.
scott:
So if you really want to defeat all those imperialists, encourage
people to be true Christians and Buddhists, simple-living
enthusiasts, and so forth.
msh 08-06-05:
That might help, as long as they act rather than self-immolate or sit
around waiting for Judgement Day. Why not just encourage them to get
in touch with their own sense of humanity?
Scott prev:
What about the position that there isn't enough data to decide which
side to come down on?
msh 08-05-2005:
There's plenty of current and historical data to decide. The reason
you and most others don't have this data is directly related to my
answer above. And, sometimes, really smart people spend a lot of
time assiduously counting angels on pinheads.
Scott:
That's not the data I'm talking about. On the Iraq war, the question
was: will invading Iraq make the world better off or worse off. Now
the folks who actually made the decision may have done so for the
basest of motives (or a mix of good and bad motives), but whether one
supports that decision depends on whether one thinks that overall,
the world will be better off in, say, ten years. Nobody has that
data.
msh 08-06-05:
We don't need that data, we have a long history of brutal US
interventions, followed by installation of puppet "democracies," to
review. Just focus on Latin America, and compare the standards of
living under US supported dictatorships with the standard after a
people's rebellion; then compare again after the people's government
is overthrown by the US and replaced with another brutal dictatorship
or by some putative democracy, dominated by wealth as it is here.
The results are very clear: The wealth gap increases to the point
where millions live in utter poverty while a few hundred families
thrive.
scott:
Now if you object that by that reasoning, no one could act at all, I
agree. That is why I am not political. I do not know how Giants
should be run. I'd rather encourage people to work on their own
intellect so that gradually the Giant will wither away.
msh 08-06-05:
And, as I said before, that's fine for you, enjoying your good
standard of living while you wait. In the meantime, millions are
suffering as a direct result of policies instituted by our
government, in our name and, if we are silent, with our tacit
approval.
Scott:
I've read a couple of Chomsky's political books, but that was a while
ago. I recall being more or less convinced by them. But I gradually
came to see all that as being of little interest. The deeper problem
is, as David Harding said, we are all ego-bound, and until that is
solved, we will just swap one set of social ills for another.
msh 08-06-05:
Well, I don't see how criticizing people who act, saying they are
merely ego-bound and therefore making things worse (especially when
there is plenty of evidence to indicate positive results), can be
interpreted as anything other than ego-bound criticism. Sorry.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Doesn't the Kansas State Board of Education pretty much prove that Intelligent Design doesn't exist?" "I think some Darwinian purpose might be served if biology classes teaching Intelligent Design are required for the children of parents who want Intelligent Design taught in biology classes." MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 06 2005 - 18:47:50 BST