On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote:
> Irrelevan my ass. I'm offended that you would assume such a thing about
> anyone. I won't let you escape this arguement by stating "But I said the
> Average American and you're not average." The average American isnt'
> knowledgeable about cyphers, or the NSA either for that matter. By
> talking on this list, you're not talking to the average American, so you
> can't take that exist hatch.
Agreed, the Average American is not represented on this list; and I
would not try and justify my statement by taking that out -- rather
my messages in this thread have never pointed toward individuals on
this list in particular, but have always been about average Americans
in general.
> It's irrelevant to this discussion that the
> Average American(tm) couldn't tell you in 5 seconds where Austra is if you
> gave him a globe.
It is irrelevant only if we agree that we are talking not about the
Average American, but about the particular sort of American that would
frequent this list. If we are discussing the latter, then I retract any
statements that I have made and redirect them toward the average american,
as this was always my intent.
> Quite honestly, I know both commie theory and have experienced it on my
> own back. Remember, I lived in a commie state when I was a kid. I know
> exactly what the conditions are. Can you say the same?
Nope. Best I can say is that I've done some research and talked with a
number of former Chinese citizens who have lived under communist rule.
Can't say I like what I've read, nor what I've heard from my friends.
> Unlike you, I haven't read Marx in the comfort of my own liberty.
Unfortunate.
> Just because I've read Marx doesn't mean I'll believe it. Just because
> I've read the bible, doesn't mean I'll believe it either any more than
> reading Lovecraft will get me to belive that gigantic intelligent squid
> and semi-plant/semi-animal elder ones live under the Artic caps either.
> Bullshit may be entertaining, but it's not reality. Not being able to
> tell them apart is a bad thing.
Agreed. I'd add that reading a medical journal, or news report doesn't
make it real (and therefore deserving of belief) either; and that is
my point. I think that the American media and government propaganda
machine has shown itself to be unreliable and untrustworthy -- therefore
when a collection of statements are made by those authorities, how do
we discern that which is worthy of consideration?
A bit of first hand experience would be most reliable. A trusted second
party with first hand experience second-best. Independant research, etc.
After thinking for oneself in such a manner for a time, one will notice
what sort of stories are likely to have a spin put on them for some
reason or another, and to be able to develop a base of intuition as to
just what sort of spin that might be.
You said you don't like believing things on blind faith. I agree.. I'm
just saying that it seems to me that the Average American takes a lot
on blind faith. Sometimes you get lucky "Thou shalt not murder" .. thats
a good one. "Communism sucks" .. hey, another good one. But obviously
it is not the best method in the world.
>
> > world." Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Marxist
> > tenents, and without knowing (or even reading about) the realities of
> > life under a Stalinist/Maoist rule.
>
> Just because the Average American condems or promotes something doesn't
> make them wrong either.
Yep.
> Why is it do you think that they say "sounds
> great on paper, but doesn't work in the real world?" How do you know how
> much the Average American knows or doesn't know?
I'm from a working class family, and I live in a working class
neighborhood. I talk with lots of average people every day. Most of my
neighbors don't have any college, or maybe a two-year technical degree.
None have a university education.. but their kids will.
I talk with lots of these people every day. I'm friends with them. As has
been my custom for several years, after work each day, I go to a bar and
put away a pint or two of Guinness after work. While in that bar,
sometimes we watch baseball on the TV. Other times we watch the news..
and this often causes me, and other patrons to get into discussions -- a
lot of times those discussions are political.
So, I am pretty well versed in the average guys opinions..
> How do you know that
> lack of firsthand experience or reading it makes them unknowledgeable
> morons or experts?
What I know is, that during my discussions with people when I ask them
"why" the oft-repeated answer is "I saw it on the news." With, "I read
it in the paper" being a distant second these days.
The mainstream media (almost by definition of mainstream) is the only
information source the average guy has. As such, his opinions are just
as suspect to me as the statements in the mainstream media.
A house built on sand ...
On a list like this, I expect out-of-the-way information sources. I expect
someone to mention something that Chomsky dug up, for instance.. I've
never my electrician neighbor quote Chomsky.
And, when talking about Communism, I hear stuff from average working-class
Joe's along the lines of "Yeah, the idea of putting everyone on an equal
playing field .. no rich, no poor.. sounds good, but it just doesn't work.
Men are too <insert adjective, usually greedy>."
> > It is _precisely_ because of this ignorance that makes Anonymous' point
> > so relevent.
>
> Look, the Average American will also tell you that getting a hot iron
> shoved up your ass isn't a good thing either, and I guarantee you that
> precisely less than 10 Americans have experienced getting a hot iron
> shoved up their ass. Does that make their point less valid?
That is a different scenario. If most American's had a concrete idea
of what the face of true oppression looks like, then one can extrapolate
and conceive of what forms extreme oppression would take.
In the same way, burning yourself on a hot stove is limited information
that can be used to conceive that getting a hot poker up the ass is
undesirable.
In the case of Communism .. actually, fuck Communism .. in the case of
tyranny, most Americans don't see the limited form of oppression and
tyranny that happens here (if they did see it, and we assume that they
think tyranny is bad, we expect it to change, right .. or perhaps the
tyranny is greater than we think?). They haven't experienced the extreme
form of tyranny in, say, China.
And, for whatever reason, they apparently don't see why Marxist principles
take form and build a Maoist tyranny. Neither do they see why
representative democracy mixed with capitalism is bound to build a
rich power-elite/aristocracy.
> > I'd take issue with that, in a round-about way. Uncle Sam steals your coin
> > because there are a shit-load of Americans out there with less-than-dick
> > for resources.
>
> Any as a side issue, I'll answer that with a question: "Why am I
> personally responsible for feeding and clothing them?"
This can easily boil down to a moral question, which I won't get into.
Suffice it to say, the American people being who they are, are altruistic
in nature.. and as such, our democracy enforces such ideas.
> As a second aside,
> "why does the money Uncle Sam take from me not reach them?" If it did, we
> wouldn't have homeless motherfuckers on the streets. The answers to these
> questions point out just how bad communism/socialism is.
Well, you raise an excellent point. Inefficiency in government. The
machine is simply not well oiled. Capital is the fuel of our machine, and
it consumes fuel itself. Greedy bastards abound, no doubt.
And, it is not as simple as you say. Many homeless people are mentally ill
(whether being homeless makes one ill, or being ill causes one to be
homeless is up for grabs .. I suspect it is a bit of both) and don't
get involved in many of the social programs that they could, and don't
take advantages of the opportunities that the government does create. As
critical as I am of the government assistance programs (I have worked
in homeless shelters and soup kitchens -- I see how fucked up they are)
they DO have good points.
> To take from the
> worker as to feed the incompetent is socialism, which is half a step from
> communism.
Perhaps. But, like I said, I'm from a working class neighborhood. I've
seen how easy it is for an honest, hardworking family to hit hard times
and need government assistance. Now, I wouldn't classify these people
as incompetant .. so they aren't who were are talking about, but if
we are going to have programs to help the working poor, I'm not about
to discriminate against the homeless guy.
> And that's my fault exactly how again? If they're incompetent, they
> deserve what they get. I'll add this: those unfortunate souls who
> realized that basket weaving won't get them food are the ones that are
> taking classes and improving themselves so that they will get food later.
> Those that don't are evolution in action, and shouldn't be a burden to the
> workers.
I'm not a social Darwinist. Life and liberty aren't just for the
'competent' and lucky. If some dumb-as-a-box-of-hair kid just happens
to have a last name of Kennedy, or Gates doesn't make them any more or
less 'valuable' to society as a smart kid born into a crime-ridden area,
forced to use his brains to live day-by-day on some mean fucking
streets rather than go to the fancy prep school that X Kennedy is going
to.
I'd rather have a social program to help that poor kid, get him into an
engineering school or something, and let him make his contributions to
the world. Lord knows we'll need all the smarts we can get once X Kennedy
becomes Prez, or Y Gates starts making even worse OS's.
> Yes, I agree that I'd rather make 50% of the money I earn and let Uncle
> Sam's protection racket let me make that 50% than be in a commie buttfuck
> state, but let's not have any illusions. A mafia by any other name is
> still a mafia.
Agreed.. taxes are WAY too fucking high. And raising them more won't
necessarily help that kid above, BUT I'd love to lower taxes, and put
together a GOOD social program that would.. and yes, I DO think it is
possible, it just requires that some real deep changes be made
to our system of government.
> > With some consideration, it seems obvious to me that in any socio-economic
> > system that places such high importance on money it is mere causality
> > that pure economic entities, like corporations, will become powerful
> > controlling forces; and that power and control shall be exerted upon their
> > closest subjects: the laborers .. aka, the people.
>
> Not when people can refuse to work or buy their products and services.
> This is a ridiculous arguement. Microsoft doesn't force me to run
> Windblows, nor does Intel force me to buy their hardware. I get to chose.
Yes, in a good, open, competative free market economy, I would agree. But
we don't have that.
One can't always refuse to work. Some close friends of mine just had a
new baby. My buddy can't refuse to work. He can't quit because they need
the coin (new family member and all), and he can't strike because he
works for the town.
As for MS. Sure, MS doesn't force anyone to use Windows and use a PC. But
what are the real alternatives? If your livelyhood depends on a computer
(maybe you're an account, and you need efficient record keeping) and you
can't write code you're kinda screwed -- especially when you need to
be compatible with other people. Collectively, if we were the damn Borg
sure, we could make a collective design to use something else -- but
we can't do that.
You're right though.. no one is forced to use MS stuff, or eat Nabisco
products. There is no gun to our head.
But, there IS a certain amount of coersion -- pressure from other people,
diffculty in actually doing it, etc. Nabisco owns a lot of food companies
and what not .. boycotting Nabisco isn't trivial. Same for MS.
Combine that coersion with a could advertising campaign, media circus,
a few contributions to a children's charity here and there, and maybe a
sweepstakes and you can make one hell of a dominant corporation.
Now just kick a few dollars over to a senator or two, and there is the
control I was talking about.
Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.
The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit
to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.
- Albert Einstein
