Politics, Fantasy, and Reality

quote:

---

Um, hello, in China the internet is controlled by the state so their people aren't able to get or send any "unacceptable" information. All of the content of people's internet activity is monitored by the state as well.

---

Do you think yours is not? Ever heard of ECHELON?Secondly, even if I conceded that China were more propagandised, which I do not due to the lower density of TV coverage, then the Us would be the 2nd most propagandised state on the planet today.Failing that, some exp

What does tv coverage have to do with ability to disseminate propaganda? The fact is there is much more freedom of information in the US than in China. You can say more and your receive more information, in more numerous ways in the US than in China. This is a simple fact.You really need a vacation to visit all these countries you like to talk about. Wow, I woulda thunk NKorea, or puppet states like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would have ranked higher than the US. Maybe even Pakistan.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I have no problem with this as evidence, nor evidence of this being (in some cases) a result of worker-producer dynamics. Okeydoke. But that is not necessarily evidence of what those dynamics are set to produce and for how long.

---

Well, by definition we do not know what they are going to produce in any detail. So that seems to be reaching for an objection for no apparent reason.

quote:

---

This answer is no good. It is very simple to explain what mechanisms a revolution may use, and then how it will use them after the state has been overthrown in order to keep society functioning.

---

Well I guess that terminates the dialogue then. I just wrote you a very large post explaining wehy this was a silly proporition, and you either are not able or not willing to follow. I will not be manipipulated; either debate like and adult or go away.

quote:

---

I think it's bizarre to argue that everything that happened was necessary when the revolutionaries themselves have dismissed portions of it as wanton and worthless.

---

I throw your own challenge back at you - WHICH revolutionaries? Either way, its pointless, because this is another blatant attempt to distort a discussion of the mechanisms of social evolution into simple Utopian moralism.Like it or not, the feelings people have about an event are irrelevant to the tangible impact of that event; your feelings or mine do not oblige other people to share our feelings. It is not valid to ignore the functional impact of the terror in establishing bourgois power merely becuase it was done in a method which we pretend to disaprove of (and I say pretend, becuase in the modern day Iraq we apparently accept the role of brute force in the creation of democracy).

quote:

---

It is not just that it is inevitable, as I have even said there can be no governments at local levels. What I have said is that they become necessary at certain stages of size and development of a community. Necessary for smooth running that is.

---

so how do you explain all the non-state societies that ever existed? Your argument is not just subtley wrong, its obviously facile. I have already offered to discuss with you the appropriate non-state mechanisms in pre-Norman Ireland; do you actually want to disccuss it or are you just going to repeate and repeat the "government is unavoidable" catechism? Its clearly, blatantly, obviously, historically untrue. and it relies on the conflation of any organisational method with the particular method of the state.

quote:

---

I am currently here free of charge analyzing your arguments and writing. If you feel that you need to be charged providing material, I will charge you for its analysis... where shall I send the bill?

---

Attempting to debate a topic you are unfamiliar with and resorting to bluster to get you past technical jargo is hardly "analysis".I, however, apparently foolishly, went to some effort to explain this situation to you and you are merely pissing on it. Your getting as bad as Hambre.

quote:

---

You need to go and live in the US, or at least visit it for a while, to know how people actually live and act. Forums hardly give one and idea about that.

---

Bullshit. I work in a Canadian/american company and work with Americans every day. I converse with Americans by phone, by email, by forums. You people are not some special breed that can only be apprehended in all your physical glory. Your'e just people like everybody else.

quote:

---

And I cannot believe you are using TV as an indicator of what the US is like.

---

Then you should study mor archeology. The symbols which a culture chooses to use in its public discourse are very telling.

quote:

---

In the Netherlands many people think Americans are like X (I'll use that in place of full descriptions). They get that opinion from the same place YOU just described. My gf came to live with me in the US and then returned to the Netherlands. She found out Americans are NOT what the media show.

---

of for fucks sake... If I see Dan Rather on CBS, I see the very same stuff you do.

quote:

---

Indeed the programs chosen by Europeans are some of the worst the US has to offer. We come off as total ignoramuses.

---

I see, you have ignored my point yet again and gone on to assume your conclusion, yet again. I didn't say I was watching European TV about Americda, I said I was referring to what American TV, export or otherwise, projects about America.

quote:

---

Do you think I can formulate an adequate picture of Africa and all Africans from what I see on TV in America and Europe and talking to a few African friends?

---

I think if African politics were as important to you as American politics are to many, and if Africa exported a very large percentage of the worlds media, and it was produced in the prolific quantitites that Western media is produced, then yes it would be entirely valid to interrogate that media for Africa's slef- and world perceptions.

quote:

---

There were no definitional problems earlier. Only when your explanations failed did you start raising a ruckus

---

Bollocks; I have made it clear from the outset that the arguments of Hambre, Paisano et al are entirely arguments that manipulate definitions, or rely on the audiences ignorance to do so. I have also offered to withdraw arguments that I am aware give apparently contradictory answers becuase of those problems in order to establish the basics, but you appear uninterested in doing so.

quote:

---

I never said this. I use state and government as handy terms for the bodies which enact legislation or regulation over individuals or organizations based on the wishes of the community.

---

aha! Thanka you for grudgingly conceding the point. Please STOP using that misleading "shorthand". Also note that "the community" is also too nebulous to be meaningful.

quote:

---

I have not asked about a permanent revolution in keeping with your request to drop it. My only request is evidence for revolutionary mechanisms being used to run in place of previous state mechanisms. You had no problem in the beginning, After being discredited you have one now.

---

I see. You've decided not to ask about permanent revolution, you just demand an example of it in practice. That makes so much sense.I have already provided a discusison of the transition of modes of production; if that did not answer your question then I do not know what it is. The bourgoisie organised its own operations according to councils and guild election; when they superceded feudalism as the dominant class, they replaced the feudal method of vassa-liege relationship with their own system of election and appointment; hence, the advent of modern social democracy. But this is not precisely the PR for which Trotsky argued.

quote:

---

I did however ASK how an individual would be free to act as his own producer in that individuals would be hampered from receiving or using materials unless within a collective, correct? But that says nothing of the above two points.

---

No, there is nothing in Marxism about "a collective" being a requirement for anything. But what we refer to as a collective would likely be a method of organising access to resources and what have you.

quote:

---

It seems like... in addition to arguing against points I am not even making... you are deliberately pretending something is out of my depth such that you do not have to ever answer valid questions.

---

No, I do not have to answer INVALID questions.If you want to continue this, why don;t you just try rephrasing and posing the question you want answered, and I will try to answer it or explain why I cannot.

quote:

---

What does tv coverage have to do with ability to disseminate propaganda?

---

Becuase that IMO is its primary mechanism. I watch American news an it is even more militaristic and hyper-nationalist than even the state broadcasting organ to which I was exposed in south africa. Let me say that again: American TV is conforms even more relentlessly to a set of given truths than a state that teetered on the lip of fascism. It is my honest opinion that the US is just a tiny sliver away from being a full bore fascism.

quote:

---

The fact is there is much more freedom of information in the US than in China.

---

Legally, yes. But that does not in any way prevent broadcasting organs to signing up to a non-critical, self-imdulgent world view.Which is precisely how we end up with the absurd situation of an aggressor state breaking international law that somehow still carries the self-identityn of a force for liberty. Why the simple verbal linking of Al Qaida and Iraq passed so succesfully into the public consciousness, and why Rumsfelds francophobia immediately became a cause celebre in every venue Americans inhabit. In the medias willingness to swallow neocon claims at face value... in failing tocover the returning dead... for fucks sake EVEN VIETNAM HAS BEEN REHABILITATED.

quote:

---

Do you think yours is not? Ever heard of ECHELON?

---

While I agree that the Western democracies are as thoroughly propagandized as any other society, contracycle, your example of Echelon is irrelevant to shrafinator's point. Scrhafinator was speaking about how the content of the internet allowed to be viewed by the Chinese are directly controlled by the Chinese government. There are no such controls here in the U.S. Echelon is a system of electronic eavesdropping, not a system of control of content.

I'm well aware of thic Chiroptera; that was specifically aime at the remark "All of the content of people's internet activity is monitored by the state as well."The content of Western internet activity is monitored as well.

quote:

---

While I agree that the Western democracies are as thoroughly propagandized as any other society

---

Actually, I think it's much higher than in most historical societies, purely due to technical facility. Ancient Egypt simply didn't have the technical capacity to project and reproject its ideology with anything like the frequency and intensity that we do.

Recap:
Holmes criticizes MrH's statement on the negatives of revolution. Enter contra...contra: Revolution is necessary and must be permanent.
holmes: Well I wouldn't go that far, the mechanisms of revolutions can't manage materials and programs necessary for modern life.contra: But I have proof! Historical evidence!
holmes: Okay so what's the proof?contra: The Russian Revolution.
holmes: Actually that failed to provide the right materials and people starved.contra: Yes but that's because you are looking at history over time! There were other elements involved.
holmes: Okay, then let's look at China...contra: No, no, China was agrarian... marxism is only about industrial societies.
holmes: So what evidence do you have?contra: You are McCarthyist swine!!! That is why you will never understand what I am saying, because you are an American and hopelessly addicted to propaganda which does not allow you out of that framework. If you really understood then you would know what I say is completely true. But you hate marxism which means you'll never understand and anyway I am talking about Trotskyism which shows you don't know anything.
holmes: ?????? How about YOU describe it to me...contra: That'll cost you $10/hr.I submit this as clear evidence that communism (marxism or other) will probably not succeed anytime soon. It apparently requires everyone to accept the idea before being able to understand the argument, as no evidence can come from an objective standpoint accessible to those with different theoretical backgrounds.Indeed, if you ask for a simple set of definitions, hypotheses, and evidence you get charged $10/hr.That's a bit pricey for the common man.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually I didn't say I was watching European TV about America either. This is a great example of how you just don't read.I was referring to the choice of European TV on what to IMPORT FROM AMERICA. They choose the worst of... don't ask me why.If you are watching Dan Rather, that does not mean you are watching or hearing or reading everything Americans do. You are getting a selection, and obviously it is NOT correct, based on your asinine caricature of them.As far as US propaganda goes...While I agree there is propaganda in the US, it is not overwhelming to the point of major control as is seen in China, N Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc etc.You really ought to go to these different places and see for yourself. Indeed, try and start a business in the media to get your view point out. See which nation is easier.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

More misrepresentation, Holmes?

quote:

---

Recap:
Holmes criticizes MrH's statement on the negatives of revolution. Enter contra...

​

contra: Revolution is necessary and must be permanent.

---

Please quote. Looking at the thread, I see my intervention as challenging Hambres presentation of the events of the RR and the attribution of prime movership to the Bolsheviks by someone else. I went on to frame the outline of the Marxist theory of revolution.As a part of that, you said:

quote:

---

If anything, what that suggests is (and Jefferson noted this) revolutions may always be necessary from time to time, or that once your revolution is over everyone must make very sure how the next government operates so that a new revolution will not be necessary.

---

to which I said:

quote:

---

Yes. Or rather, in the formulation I favour, the revolution as carried out by the populace must become PERMANENT, the new mode of social operation, rather than retiring from the stage and giving control of society to a new ruling class.

---

From then on you launcyhed a semantic objection. I was agreeing with your point - you have to be very careful about the structure that follows (if anything follows) the revolution itself.And that entirely depends on your special use of the term "governemnt" to maan "any organised body", and the term "revolution" to refer exclusively to the military conqueest of state power.Even so, you then agreed with me that:

quote:

---

Indeed, the problems have come AFTER such revolutions when jerks with ideological bents forget about rights in order to maximize the ideology.

---

... while simultaneously claiming you did NOT support my position over Hambre's... because of your assumptions above.You then rant about proof:

quote:

---

contra: But I have proof! Historical evidence!
holmes: Okay so what's the proof?

​

contra: The Russian Revolution.
holmes: Actually that failed to provide the right materials and people starved.

---

Actually, regardless of its success or failure, it showed that Marx prediction of the METHODOLOGY of revolution was correct. And there is no denying the advent of social democracies through the Fernch Rev.But of course you disregard this, because you do not want proof of what the theory predicts: you want proof of a non-existent theory. Which I cannot provide. I DID provide the proof you actually asked for.

quote:

---

I submit this as clear evidence that communism (marxism or other) will probably not succeed anytime soon. It apparently requires everyone to accept the idea before being able to understand the argument, as no evidence can come from an objective standpoint accessible to those with different theoretical backgrounds.

---

Holmes, I have given you ample opportunity to engage with this honestly. I have wasted my time to type this stuff to you, and all you do is play games. I have not claimed a manifest destiny and will not be held to a proof of manifest destiny. When you develop the intellectual honesty to test a theory against its own predictions, I'll be happy to discuss it again.Let me ask you that directly: why do you think it is not adequate to test the theory against its own predictions?

quote:

---

If you are watching Dan Rather, that does not mean you are watching or hearing or reading everything Americans do. You are getting a selection, and obviously it is NOT correct, based on your asinine caricature of them.

---

No shit Holmes; you're pretty arrogant to assume I'm not aware of the limitations. But then again, I never claimed to hear or read EVERYTHING that Americans read. What I have claimed is that the pattern is pretty consistent, regardless of the venue - whether it was an American sitting right next to me, or talking via boards like these, the cultural mores are identifiable. As they are with any culture.

quote:

---

While I agree there is propaganda in the US, it is not overwhelming to the point of major control as is seen in China, N Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc etc.

---

Why so? Fox news sounds almost exactly like Korean news; the same hysteria and voluntary subordination to the state. And after all, who is who tells you how free you are but your own media?When you see the 9/11 remembrance ceremony dressed up like the Nuremberg rallies, with all the nationalistic hysteria and hubristic claims to the president being "the leader of the free world", its quite apparent that Americans are living in an image of their own reflection, rather than the real world.It appears to me that I am much more likely to meet a Saudi weith a non-orthodox view of the state history than I am to meet an Amer4cian with a non-orthodox view. I donlt think I've met a single one who didnlt think that not only was the US the freest place in the world, but this was sel-evident to everyone in the world.How does that delusion become so common? I'm open to any suggestions you'd care to propose.

quote:

---

ctually, I think it's much higher than in most historical societies, purely due to technical facility.

---

Technical facilities not including only technology, but an understanding of mass psychology as well.

No problem with methodology, problem with ideology. How does not equal what it will be, or even what it can be.Which is not to be confused with my saying it definitely can't, simply no evidence for it yet. Look again, right above. I don't disregard it. I do however note it's limited effects as evidence. You did not provide the proof I asked for.Once again, what mechanisms of a revolution (and this can be a passive or nonviolent one as well as military... though we obviously started with military), can be used to keep a community functioning. By functioning I mean properly distributing resources and products, as well as controlling the sideeffects of production so that the community can keep its living standards up. I never said or thought such a thing. However each set of predictions may only have so much relevance to an overall theory. Proving that one has properly identified methods of revolution, does not necessarily suggest the product of the revolution, or that product's longterm efficacy.I am sorry that the evidence is not there for you. But it just isn't.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sounds like a bigot to me.That holds especially true when you keep distorting what I say into things that other people have said. According to you, and against everything I have said to you, you claim I believe in McCarthy and hate feminism.Yeah, you really pegged me... So what does Fox have to do with what AMERICANS believe, or what AMERICAN MEDIA says? I don't like Fox and stopped watching it well before I left for Europe. There's plenty of other stuff on TV. There isn't in those other nations I mentioned. I didn't watch it. Any of them. I wonder what percentage actually did?And if they did, how many would have enjoyed it? 70% maybe. That's how many are gullible enough (or ignorant enough) to think Saddam had something to do with 9-11.I wonder how many of those 70% choose to watch everything they have available to them? Willfull ignorance is different than no option. Not a single one? See what bad reading skills you have? You're insane?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

No problem with methodology, problem with ideology. How does not equal what it will be, or even what it can be.

---

Correct. But the theory specifically does not make any claims about what will be, and discusses what can be only generally.These are decisions that can only be taken by the people actually doing it.

quote:

---

Once again, what mechanisms of a revolution (and this can be a passive or nonviolent one as well as military... though we obviously started with military), can be used to keep a community functioning.

---

And for the 4th time, we saw the Russian revolution do this with the soviets, and the French with social democracy. What problems do you have with these examples?

quote:

---

I never said or thought such a thing. However each set of predictions may only have so much relevance to an overall theory. Proving that one has properly identified methods of revolution, does not necessarily suggest the product of the revolution, or that product's longterm efficacy.

---

I'm well aware of that. Thats why I wrote that bloody essay explaining that Marx model is one of social evolution, not state reformation, and thus why the model makes the claim it does. Becuase it is about modes of production, and as we see in the French revolution, the bourgeois revolution against feudalism organised itself on bourgeois methods, and then subsequently ran the state with bourgeois methods, and continues to do so today. That is what is meant by revolutionary methods - Marx argument is one in which one model of social order develops within another and out-evolves it.The model in which a bourgeois revolution organises itself on bourgeois principles and then ABANDONS those principles in order to introduce a new (reformed) monarchy is the counterpoint, and more common.

quote:

---

Sounds like a bigot to me.

---

I see. That must make all anthropological reserach bigotry, I guess.

quote:

---

According to you, and against everything I have said to you, you claim I believe in McCarthy and hate feminism.

---

Regardless of your opinion OF McCarthy, you certainly parrot false criticisms that exist only for propaganda purposes. Why? You tell me.In terms of feminism, my specific criticism is that you give it lip service while leaping onto the anti-feminist bandwagon.

quote:

---

So what does Fox have to do with what AMERICANS believe, or what AMERICAN MEDIA says?

---

Because, as you well now, those opinions are parrotted by others. TV remains the source of most information about the world. So when Fox news broadcasts the false claim that Saddam, for example, booted out the inspectors, when what they really mean is that America lost patience (allegedly) with Saddam stalling (allegedly) and demanded the inspectors be withdrawn, that passes into the public consciusness even though it is grossly distorted.

quote:

---

And if they did, how many would have enjoyed it? 70% maybe. That's how many are gullible enough (or ignorant enough) to think Saddam had something to do with 9-11.

---

Quite right. 70%, despite the total absence of evidence. Based only on the reptition of loaded statements and unqualified assumptions. Now is it likely that 70% of Americans are in some capacity mentally impaired? Surely the prevalence of these tropes in the media is more plausible answer.Did your own news organs not admnit that they accepoted the administrations version with insufficient checks, and insufficient skepticism? Yes, they did; the mythology of America as the land of the free is incrticially reproduced regardless of the reality.

quote:

---

You're insane?

---

Haha - yes, I must be insane becuase I don't buy into the American mythology. Confirmation of bias detected.