quote: It is not a matter of if the war is not is not real or if it is, victory is not possible because the war is not meant to be won but to be continuous. A Hierarchical society is only possible based on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past could ever have existed, in principle the war effort is planned to keep society at the brink of starvation the war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact.
I got this at the end of 9/11; ANd I must say that this is a fascinating qoute. Anyone want to talk about it?
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that a hierarchical society is possible only on the basis of poverty and ignorance. I think he left out complacency.
I think he's right about the "war" being continuous, however. When we aren't in a war against terrorism, we're in a war against drugs, or some other thing.
It's as if we breed politicians who only understand one way of "attacking" a problem.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that was mighty immature of your prez to declare war on terrorism after thousands of people were slaughtered without provocation. How immature and unenlightened and (gasp!) insensitive of him. Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
digging holes...you are either missing the point of Orwell's quotation, or of what I just said, or both.
For example, I said nothing about Bush and his war in Iraq. I think the fact that we have a war on drugs and a war on terrorism and a war in Iraq running simultaneously kind of proves Orwell's point, and mine too. If a government has to tackle social problems with a "war" it argues to me that they aren't thinking very clearly or creatively about problems and solutions.
As for the actual war (the one in Iraq), while it is absolutely understandable to WANT to strike back at whoever perpetrated the acts of terrorism (and whoever supported them, funded them, etc.) your use of the word "immature" is rather odd. Are you trying to paint my remarks as saying that Bush et al. were acting in an immature fashion?
I've never said that and nor would I. I think that's far too simplistic a notion for what this administration did to make sure the war in Iraq happened.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something, but you seem to be taking something that Orwell said in a novel about totalitarianism and applying it to our current system. While fun in a cynical sort of way, I don't think that is at all realistic. Maybe I read too much into your comments when I saw an implicit attempt to compare Orwell's "Party" to American politicians.
I also fail to see how the US waging several simultaneous wars indicates a lack of creativity. There are not fifteen thousand ways to solve the problem of terrorism, or to depose a dictator, or to take on drug czars.
Also, I'm sorry if my post sounded more sarcastic than I intended. Some comments and attitudes that I've heard repeated ad nauseum lately have induced a state of highly susceptible paranoia in me. Please correct me if my interpretation of your intent was a skewed one.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
"War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent."
I meant my statements in exactly the same way as Eisenhower. That we have important choices to make and we run certain risks when we treat things like a problem for the military to solve.
And the part of the Orwell quotation which I clearly was pointing to was the thing about perpetual "war" as a way to maintain a power base. It seems to me to be very appropos of the way this country is behaving lately. At least it's an interesting thing to think about. The militarization of America is only a good thing if one thinks that war is the solution.
Sometimes it is. But often, other methods aren't even given a try. Or, worse, they are viewed with derision and their benefits are downplayed. I think the UN sanctions and inspections are a prime example of something that we were told simply "were not working" only to find out later that they seem to have been having the desired effect afterall.
Oops.
Of course, we didn't have a way of knowing that prior to invading Iraq. Unless of course we simply gave them more time. Which we couldn't do because our president saw this as a situation that could be solved only by war.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is indeed sad that people will rip their lives apart for the sake of war, see the cream of our manhood risked, pour billions into material, all in the justified defense of ones way of life and ones 'people.' Yet if you ask the average person if we should explore space they speak of it as a waste of money.
God if we had stayed the course with the space program we would be at the "permanent base" phase of Lunar occupation looking for material and perhaps building the vehicles that would allow manned exploration of the solar system and eventually the asteroid colonies that would provide both the room and resources to build infrastructure and living space for enough people to actually make population pressure and oil energy meaningless.
This process is the other side of why we must hold the high ground of our civilization, despite the lack of progress we and our western allies remain the only near hope that mankind will reach the stars.
As for Orwell, well he was articulate wasn't he, but to paraphrase Hole Digger, there may be many ways to skin a cat, but in the end you still have a skinned cat. There is nothing to do in the short run but kill those who would kill us.
Those in 'power' may have a vested interest in war, or may profit from it, but neither they nor Orwell seem to have understood what real power is, or how slippery it is, and inherently unsatisfying any substitute is.
The truth of the matter seems to be that what pacifies populations is not control but abundance. We will pacify the Middle East with abundance, that is how we threaten them with democracy. Imagine the oil wealth being redistributed to the citizenry and the housing and job market that will create. (in Iraq 17,000 a year expected per family)
Those of you who know the money multiplier effect can see what this will do in a generation. Creating a model for the region and a secure strong ally.
Ultimately, the poor and disaffected will always envy and fight the rich until they are comfortable enough too not care. Then they will play video games and go on Atkins like the rest of us.
quote:Then they will play video games and go on Atkins like the rest of us.
The only problem I had with your post was the thing about killing those who wish to kill us. And the problem is that sometimes we kill those we THINK want to kill us, and that's a very different thing.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh... It is true that to a man with a hammer every problem can look like a nail. However it is false to think the sanctions were working.
The Saddam regime was holding its population hostage and the sanctions were hurting the population far more then he and his, in other words creating an impoverished dissatisfied populace that Saddam could blame us for perpetuating.
He was also setting the stage through bribery to get sanctions lifted and move back into the WMD business. It is hard to imagine that a man with dozens of palaces and plenty of anything he wanted was on the 'verge' of having sanctions influence him in any way.
If intelligence and local reports can be believed, the next generation would have been worse. With no chance that a local uprising would be successful there was no relief in sight for the people but to give Saddam what he wanted or for us to do the job we have done.
It seems to me that post-invasion reports are fairly consistent in showing very little capability for Saddam to "project" a war beyond his borders. Exactly the situation that the sanctions and inspections were supposed to ensure.
We could debate the effects of sanctions on the local population but that wasn't the reason we went to war in Iraq. We've been imposing sanctions on Cuba since the 1950's. Bush just strengthened a host of those sanctions. If it is a technique that mostly harms the people, and not the dictator, shouldn't he be consistent and eliminate the sanctions on Cuba too? And then invade, I suppose.
Second, if there was evidence of Saddam attempting to bribe other governments in order to lift the sanctions surely the situation could be dealt with by bringing the bribes to light. You're making it sound like we acted to preempt a documented situation. Unless I just missed it (possible) there hasn't been any sort of official declaration that this was happening.
We're justifiably ticked off at France and Russia who were cutting back-door deals with Saddam to get his oil, but this isn't the same as proof of bribery or an official accusation.
I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for proof on that one.
PS: You can't shoot everyone who hates America or Americans. If they are actively fighting us, then sure, go get 'em. But speaking out (including screaming in the streets)is actually ONE of the democratic principles we're supposedly sharing with these countries.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient Rome is a great example as during the early parts of the Empire there was no standing army, only an army when Rome was at a state of war. Of course Rome was literally always at war, its how it kept the Empire running. There was never a time of complacency or peace etc. There was always some threat to counter or nation to conquer. During the 90s America searched for its conflict of sorts. People may not see America as a warrior nation or a nation that is at war a great deal, but that isn't quite true if you look at history. We have always had some great threat or a nation to conquer. We had the British, Spanish, French in a sense, the Natives, Russians, Germany, Japan, Iraq, Chinese, Communism, however you want to put it. We are always looking for the next enemy.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just plain not true. Historically, America has spent a lot more time NOT at war than fighting. From the end of the Revolution to World War I, there are only a three or four brief periods where we were in a real state of war against someone other than ourselves, each lasting only a matter of years. Between those are decades of peace and/or isolationism with no real enemy. We didn't even want to get involved in WWI or WWII. That's the philosophy America was founded upon, dating all the way back to George Washington - we are a nation that excels at not seeking out enemies.
And it's pretty unrealistic to say most Americans were seeking out an enemy during the 90's. We HAD a number of enemies right in front of us to attack, if we wanted to. The only reason we ended up at war is because one of those enemies eventually sought US out, and attacked US.
America is a nation that doesn't look for the next enemy - it only reacts once the next enemy forces them to. In the case of Iraq, however, it confused one enemy attacking it with a similar but quite different enemy that had no means to attack it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As too proof of bribery and coercion, it is as you say after the fact that we have it, in other words it in no way justifies the war.
However their was the negative space that we could see beforehand. In that there were always big questions about why the UN seemed so reluctant in this mission. Why France, Germany and Russia all were so adamant against us. Now of course we know. For the list which includes some American companies that advocated for Saddam as well I will have to chase the article down, but do I need to? It was a major news story after all.
quote: You can't shoot everyone who hates America or Americans. If they are actively fighting us, then sure, go get 'em. But speaking out (including screaming in the streets)is actually ONE of the democratic principles we're supposedly sharing with these countries.
Of course not, I never meant to be taken for one who for whipping the slaves until morale improves, or killing until everyone loves us.
I just point out that I agree, it is hard to seperate the retoric from the threats especially given the political hyperbole of the region. Still we have real fighters to face, carrying real weapons and doing real harm, that is more then enough fight to sink our teeth into eh?
I agree with those who say that America is a tiger that loves to nap, at one point our military took the position that as long as we kept our command structure in place we could do without those pesky soldiers that cost so much to feed and train and care for. We could recruit and train them at need. Luckily we went with the Civilian Soldier model that is proving so much more effective today.
quote:That's just plain not true. Historically, America has spent a lot more time NOT at war than fighting. From the end of the Revolution to World War I, there are only a three or four brief periods where we were in a real state of war against someone other than ourselves, each lasting only a matter of years. Between those are decades of peace and/or isolationism with no real enemy.
During that entire period we were at war with the native americans. Not always an active war, but a constant push and shove, often legal, often violent, but the 'brutal savage' was always a threat until the very end of the 1800's.
And its not so much about being actively at war, as it is having an enemy or threat to worry about. For that entire period the Natives were that threat.
posted
That is just the condition of the universe, lions and tigers and bears oh my...
Man is a fragile creature and the universe is a harsh place, we will always have to struggle at the borderlands it is one of the core stories of human existence, change it and you change our species into something other...
It is who we are and it is a source of much greastness in us.
quote:Why France, Germany and Russia all were so adamant against us. Now of course we know.
Yes, now we know it was because we were wrong - there were no WMDs and was no immediate threat. And now it is not just France, Germany, and Russia leaving the coaltion, but everyone aside from ourselves...
quote:And its not so much about being actively at war, as it is having an enemy or threat to worry about. For that entire period the Natives were that threat.
I don't think the native Americans could be considered an enemy or a real threat for the U.S., in the eyes of Americans of the time. I suspect they were viewed more as a nuisance, except perhaps by those on the frontier itself.
posted
BC, yes, I'd like to see that article if you can find a link to it. I totally missed it. You're saying that France, Germany and Russia were all bribed? And that US corporations were bribed also?
That is indeed big news.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's nice to see how I can manipulate people with quotes. However, to the arguement that America was never at a perpetual state of war, that is too a degree true. But also remember that every war either directly or indirectly from 1945 down has always been followed by a rapid growth in the economy. And most perpetual wars of course back before 1900 were impossible because of the finances. I'll come back later.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Interesting article. It doesn't say that Iraq bribed people on the security council, but that people were bribing Iraq (or rather giving kickbacks to Iraq as part of the UN oil-for-food campaign).
Sort of exactly what Halliburton has been caught doing, isn't it?
Since most of the Middle East is corrupt and their governments exist mainly for the enrichment of the rulers, I'm not at all surprised that they are accepting (or rather, demanding) bribes.
I was looking for something to back up your claim that France, Germany and Russia were taking bribes as part of scheme by Hussein to get the country off of sanctions.
Also, I read a little on the home page of the group that puts out that newsletter. They aren't exactly unbiased, are they?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's nice to see how I can manipulate people with quotes.
Some of us found something interesting to discuss in your post. If you have something to add to the discussion, please do. But please do so without trying to "manipulate." Basically, it doesn't really work here. We'll discuss things if we find them interesting, or we won't if we don't.
posted
For the record, The Roman Empire did, in fact, have standing armies, starting with Octavius (Augustus, the first Emperor). There were the praetorian guard and the armies in Gaul and along the Danube, at the very least.
The Roman Republic, on the other hand, mostly had a history of no standing army (the great story of the conscription of Cincinatus, the farmer, and all that). But there still were times, particularly towards the end, when the Roman sphere of influence was large, that standing armies existed. --
Here's a manipulative quote in return:
quote:The highest form of treason," said Minton, "is to say that Americans aren't loved wherever they go, whatever they do.Claire tried to make the point that American foreign policy should recognize hate rather than imagine love."
"I guess Americans are hated a lot of places."
"People are hated a lot of places. Claire pointed out in her letter that Americans, in being hated, were simply paying the normal penalty for being people, and that they were foolish to think they should somehow be exempted from that penalty."
posted
Okay, I meant the word "manipulate" as a joke, since the george orwell quotes got such a good respnce and resulted in a healthy debate. Also, George Orwell's articles (I've read a few) tend to be about possibilities, he never really says that totaltrianism is inevitible or stuff like that, he talks more about possibilities.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: A Hierarchical society is only possible based on the basis of poverty and ignorance
In a way as far as history reveals this is indeed true. Even in America "the land of the free" it is a Hierarchical society, because it is a class society, and there is no denying it. In America, you have the upper class; the wealthy and influencial. The middle class who are the factory owners, engineers, small company owners, entrepeneurs, scientists, bankers, etc. And finally the lower class; the soldiers, the poor, the unemployed, the workers the proleteriat. This is the society of America. The rich get richer as the poor get poorer, only the middle class has the ability to have a decent living while the lower class usually only through back breaking labour and enlisting for the army in order to gain a half decent living, but they are defending a social structure that abuses those who fight for them. This is happening now, and it has happened anywhere and everywhere in recorded history.
posted
We had a short-lived thread about 1984 a little while ago that touched on the idea of constant warfare. I tired to make the point on it that this idea of maintaining power over people by directing their attention and anger elsewhere goes far beyond actual countries at war. This wsa the central idea behind race baiting or the Red Scare or what I see as the current atmosphere of partisan politics.
For many people, "defending" something both justifies otherwise inexcusable behavior and and focues their attention on the "enemy". This is a great boon to people who are mostly concered about their own power over people. For example, many people justify not doing something about the excesses of our market capitalistic society because doing othewise would be "communism", where communism is a symbol for the idea of the Soviet Union resolutely plotting the downfall of America and of freedom everywhere. The actual economic reality may be much different, but as long as you can frame it in this light, people will fight vigorously against proposed changes because what they're actually fighting against is their mind's conception of this boogeyman.
When in war, both physical and metaphorical, it's common for the leaders to state "You're either with us or against us." Getting people to accept a framing of complex situations as a choice between two options, one of which is extremely noxious, is a great triumph in public manipulation. It's a rare case where this sort of two-sided decision actually reflects reality.
Complexity and rigor are the remedies for this social infection. When people reject magic thinking (such as the blaming of Goldstein for anything that went wrong in 1984) or claiming that God caused 9/11 to punish us for not discriminating against gays enough, when they stop and actually trace out what is causing their problems, they often find that many of their problems flow from the actions of the very people who are claiming to being conducting the war on their benefit. For example, who benefits from the current "culture war" aspect of American politics? It's certainly not the American public. It's almost always a good idea to be cautious of those people who are trying to provoke emotional reactions in you. Stop and think and you'll often find that the only people they're trying to benefit are themselves.
posted
Either that or become one of those yourself. I'm for democracy and liberty and freedom, but if you offered me either that or leadership in totaltarian society I'm afraid that I would take a very hard long look at the choices.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as someone who is relatively gifted with the ability to read and manipulate people and was enamoured with this for a little while, I'll tell you, it's not all it's cracked up to be. Exploiting the weakness and stupidity of others gets stale pretty quick. And yeah, the only way to keep feeling strong while doing it is to lie to yourself. I much prefer the company of strong, vibrant people even, or possibily especially, when they don't necessarily do or think what I want. As I said elsewhere A Leaf by Niggle is a remarkably wonderful thing when you come to appreciate it.
posted
I think warfare is what's brought us here today. Many of humanity's inventions and creations have been created and circulated out of competition. Just think about what's been made from warfare, it goes from a sharpened stick to nuclear power to Tang. The most ingenious and innovative tribe or clan wins, and thus eliminates or overpowers the simple one. If you really think about it, it's like technological Darwinism.
Nowadays the competition also takes part in the private sector, as in corporations, and they're competing for your money, not land. But the concept is the same. So, since competition and warfare is what's brought us here (both as in a species and as a nation), the need to prolong it is also there. It's like a... whaddya call it? A meme?
Of course, I may just be talking out of my ass here, and any one of you intelligent people could produce a paper at any time refuting everything I just said.
[ November 15, 2004, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
Oh well, it is not easy to be a prophet. Comrade Orwell does not seem to have considered the possibilities of McDonalds in this direction.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think warfare is what's brought us here today. Many of humanity's inventions and creations have been created and circulated out of competition. Just think about what's been made from warfare, it goes from a sharpened stick to nuclear power to Tang. The most ingenious and innovative tribe or clan wins, and thus eliminates or overpowers the simple one. If you really think about it, it's like technological Darwinism.
Nowadays the competition also takes part in the private sector, as in corporations, and they're competing for your money, not land. But the concept is the same. So, since competition and warfare is what's brought us here (both as in a species and as a nation), the need to prolong it is also there. It's like a... whaddya call it? A meme?
Of course, I may just be talking out of my ass here, and any one of you intelligent people could produce a paper at any time refuting everything I just said.
Just to let you know I wrote a whole thesis on that topic. I got a good grade as well. So, I gree with you there.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, to let all of you know, George Orwell is not nessasarilty a Communist, these quotes come from his science fiction book "1984", we're discussing what he wrote in his book not nessaserily what he believes.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most of us know that; granted, Orwell was a flavor of socialist though (Trotskyist, I believe, which is why he hated the Leninist/Stalinist communists who had neutralized his favored socialist). Animal Farm, especially the first half, is very much his portrayal of the early Russian Communist Party.
posted
For predictive power, ya oughtta check out JohnBrunner's TheSheepLookUp published around 1970: an incompetent President, a deeply corrupt Congress, a great extinction environment, a "war on terror" alongside a war with Islamic states, and a politically-supportive consolidated news&entertainment media propaganda-pushing the whole mess over the edge.
quote: Even in America "the land of the free" it is a Hierarchical society, because it is a class society, and there is no denying it.
What makes a class society, as I understand it, is an inability to move between classes. Every society has different classes because people are different. Some are born poor, some rich, some with advantage, some with severe disadvantage, HOWEVER, in America it is perfectly legal to move between classes.
Unlike the peasants in Feudal societies, poor Americans (this is true of most developed countries--I am not trying to single America out) can become rich Americans. Middle Class American children can even grow up and become the President.
There may be economic and social forces to keep people in a certain class, but there are also opportunities and encouragement to move up.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, a feature of Americain class society is the ability to go up a rank. But that is however only on the individual scale. The only time that we have no lower class is when all of our manual labour is automated. However, may I remind you that people who usually go up a rank have to work very hard to reach it, win a lottery. In order to do the first one you have to be complacent with society. So, a class/Hierarchical society however is still based on the concept of ignorance and poverty that when interpreted can be American society. After all those who are poor tend to go to very crappy schools with low standards keeping them ignorant and unable to make proper desicsions, which is why institutional systems like the electorial college exist; "because the masses are too stupid ot think for themselves." So by keeping people poor, we remove their ability to become properly educated politically. Thus effectively disarming the largest class. Because the proletariate will always seek for a content living, having them work hard to get is comes tot he advantage of the upper/middle class since the labour is thus more inclined to work for a better standing in society, the only other option is to enlist in the armed forces for their 3 meals a day . The result is that thoe of the lower class who could fight for a change in the social order are readily availiable to die when they are considered expenible.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a feature of a mechanized society that productivity increases as labor needed declines. One of the fundamental flaws of the basic economic theory of capitalism is the assumptions that needs are 'for all practical purposes' infinite.
I am aware that this is refined elsewhere however the common sense question that comes to mind is this... What happens when ten percent of the population can meet all the material needs of the entire population. What do you do with the rest of the population? Should you regress to a level of technology that requires full employment? Like Amish...
DO they sell each other coffee? Are we starting this process already?
quote:a feature of Americain class society is the ability to go up a rank
To me this seems like an oxymoron. As I researched Class Society for this thread, I realized that there are different takes on class system. I agree that every society has a class system. There are workers, property owners, poverty, middle class, slaves (in some societies), et cetera. Since every society has classes, calling America a class society seems...pointless.
For me, the defining attribute of a class society is the inability to move between classes. If you can make social advances but society keeps the majority in a class, then I see it as more institutionalized social stratification. I know, it is just words, but I wanted to make myself clearer.
quote:The only time that we have no lower class is when all of our manual labour is automated
I don't see the connection. Many people who do manual labor are wealthy, and many people who have service jobs are poor.
quote: people who usually go up a rank have to work very hard to reach it, win a lottery.
I am sorry; I see no relationship between hard work and winning a lottery. Condi Rice worked hard and moved up her class. It was not luck; it was not a shot in the dark.
quote: So, a class/Hierarchical society however is still based on the concept of ignorance and poverty that when interpreted can be American society.
Are you assuming that this ignorance is willfully perpetrated? There is a lot of education out there to lift people up.
quote: So by keeping people poor, we remove their ability to become properly educated politically.
Who do we intentionally keep poor? Poor people can't go to the libraries? I was raised poor, and thanks to the self sacrifice on a parent’s part, we raised above that. I agree that there may be institutional problems (like poor schools) that hold people back, but when people break free from that, we as a society are impressed and want to help more people move up.
quote: It is a feature of a mechanized society that productivity increases as labor needed declines.
Our unemployment seems pretty good to me, and we have great production. Agriculture Labor may decline (which may have dire consequences in the future), but other types of jobs are created. It does suck for someone in the industry, but as a society, it works quite well.
quote: One of the fundamental flaws of the basic economic theory of capitalism is the assumptions that needs are 'for all practical purposes' infinite.
What system is better? Every system has flaws. I am not sure what you are developing with this argument, please elaborate.
quote: What happens when ten percent of the population can meet all the material needs of the entire population. What do you do with the rest of the population?
You get service related jobs. The majority of our employment is not dependent on "needs-labor." Teachers, psychologists, programmers, anything computer related, et cetera, are all professions that are not based on food and shelter. Incidentally, it is generally the agricultural societies that have more of a class problem.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
What happens when ten percent of the population can meet all the material needs of the entire population.
The best solution I can think of is to put as much money as possible into the educational system, so that the bulk of people graduating can go into the sciences and engineering professions. Infact that may be the only convenient/moral solution otherwise you will have about 5,000,000,000 people with no jobs (I believe my math is wrong if I apply this to a global scale).
Now, Iem, we seem to have a misunderstanding. I forgot to put an "or" between work hard OR win the lottery. work/study for that matter. Next, It is the obligation of the upper class to exploit the lower class for their labour and the middle class for their technical experties. The only way to do that is to keep the lower class where they are and all societies everywhere do it throughout all of history, and you are naive to think otherwise. "the war is about the ruling group against its own subjects" if this did not happen then there would be no ruling group, no point for it for that matter, becuase the ruling group inorder to maintain it's wealth and influence have to keep it's lower class in check or lose that power. I have to go now so I'll add more later.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only way to do that is to keep the lower class where they are and all societies everywhere do it throughout all of history, and you are naive to think otherwise.
Of course there is an economic incentive for "all societies everywhere" to exploit the middle classes technical expertise and the poor class’s labor; however, there is a distinct difference on how the upper class achieves this thru-out history.
War, starvation, killing, prison, eliminating an educated class (like in Cambodia or Russia--both high labor worker intensive societies), withholding education, and keeping people illiterate are a host of efficient methods societies have used to keep lower classes in check.
I just don't see that in America. I see economic incentives to exploit people, but there are no ramifications against the "proletariat" if he/she recognizes what is going on and decides to use hard work and a host of social programs, the majority of which come from the rich, to move up in social status.
quote:in principle the war effort is planned to keep society at the brink of starvation the war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects
The Orwellian nightmare involves a socialist style government. Capitalism tends to disagree with socialism and the two must not be confused. I am very uneasy about the amount of Government Control the Patriot Act gives the federal government, but the root of this control is not the free-market philosophy.
Extending this fear to America: If the War on Terror is designed to keep us on the brink of starvation, then it is failing miserably. Most people I know are educated and well fed.
EDIT
One of the most interesting points Karl Marx made that has given me pause is his assertion that (paraphrased), "Capitalism and Democracy are bound to fail because there will come a point when the masses will use the democratic vote to take money from the entrepreneur." It was some sentiment like that.
I hope our constitutional amendments are strong enough to keep us out of an authoritarian government (yikes a republican controlled senate, congress, and president!!) and a socialist government—both of which have a government with too much power over the individual.
posted
I agree that America isn't what you would call a dictatorship and the masses aren't what you would call starving but the signs are there that America might and could become a dictatorship. Now, we both agree it is the incentive of the upper class to exploit the middle and lower class for such and such reasons, however you don't seem to see it in America, let me say otherwise, the upper class which controls the government in one way or another does try to keep the lower class from getting too content for example; alot of schools have very poor funding thus in order to receive more funding get horrible teachers and try to pass as many undeserving students as they can to get more funding resulting in a "slight" drop in educational effectiveness. There are manys ways that the US government (to a lesser degree the Canadian government as well) tries to exploit the middle and lower classes and tries to ensure that they remain in those classes unless they possess the skill/intelligence and nessasary complacency to rise in the social strata. However, it is of my opinion that as technology advances in robotics and AI (Artificial intelligence) it may nolonger be required for the lower classes to remain oppressed/poorly educated. Instead the lower class through an improved educational system/standards, more technical colleges could transform the entire lower class to a lower-middle class. After if the point of the lower class is to give labour what do we do when it is nolonger needed? The solution given above is a good example of a Technocracy, infact when the time comes the converion from a Capitalist system to a Techno-Socialist society where the key to success lays in the sciences, and thanks to the boost in the economy thanks to machines and the explosion of trained engineers working at lower rates of pay more money can be directed towards the educational system and other government welfare institutions.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
However, to the arguement that America was never at a perpetual state of war, that is too a degree true. But also remember that every war either directly or indirectly from 1945 down has always been followed by a rapid growth in the economy. And most perpetual wars of course back before 1900 were impossible because of the finances. I'll come back later.
