I am thinking we should invite a few more people into this phase of the project, build a little more activity and momentum and then go public.

The only criteria that I can see for who gets invited in right now is an potential interest in what we are taking about here - setting up running a left wing board.

The board should be a reliable place to make left wing arguments, which is not happening elsewhere. There should not be partisan litmus tests. Minority people and blue collar people should be welcome and not pissed on by some liberal gentry, which is not happening elsewhere. People will not be excluded for yapping partisan politics, about positions on narrow issues, or for talking about candidates, but we should not let that drown out or dominate everything else. Those are my thoughts.

I am thinking we should invite a few more people into this phase of the project, build a little more activity and momentum and then go public.

The only criteria that I can see for who gets invited in right now is an potential interest in what we are taking about here - setting up running a left wing board.

The board should be a reliable place to make left wing arguments, which is not happening elsewhere. There should not be partisan litmus tests. Minority people and blue collar people should be welcome and not pissed on by some liberal gentry, which is not happening elsewhere. People will not be excluded for yapping partisan politics, about positions on narrow issues, or for talking about candidates, but we should not let that drown out or dominate everything else. Those are my thoughts.

Well the discussion should probably regulate itself. That is, if nobody responds or flashes in any interest in talking about party politics it'll naturally control itself.

And, yeah, more people, definitely. Do you find blue collar posters tend to be more cynical about this in general? Certainly that would be justified when approaching most of the liberal talk boards.

Do you find blue collar posters tend to be more cynical about this in general? Certainly that would be justified when approaching most of the liberal talk boards.
I think so, don't you? My reading is this: 10% dyed in the wool Dem, 10% dyed in the wool Republican, and 80% they both suck and throw them all out. Think of the teeny tiny demographic PI is appealing to. Of the 10% dyed in the wool Dem, just a fraction of those are Kucinich people. And then of that tiny fraction, we take just the people who can even understand - let alone support this - "we are for the platform of one certain candidate, but we are not for the candidate exactly, because he is part of the party, which we reject, although we will not consider any other party nor welcome anyone from any other party. We are advocating a new party, but we are not for the Democratic party, either, and anyone who was ever a Republican voter should buzz off. The Democratic party is the only practical and viable alternative, but we don't support it. We support what it could be in our imagination. Some of us are socialists, but we think that the two party system is inevitable. So we will take one of the two parties, reject everything except one narrow slice, then not support that narrow slice either, rather support one narrow aspect of it, and then tell everyone else they are wrong and run them off."

There is an endless splitting of hairs by liberals that eventually leads to thousands of factions with a handful of members in each. Since “my personal choices and beliefs” is the standard for everything, there are 200 million different warring factions potentially.

What are the broad themes? I think there are broad themes that resonate with the majority of the population, with the exception of the liberal activists and the extreme right wingers – two different sets of shills for the ruling class.

I say the haves versus the have nots, and economic justice are broad themes, corruption is a broad theme, as are the principles of self-government and civil rights. That is a big tent, yet doesn't involve any pandering or compromising or triangulating. Within those broad themes, people will inevitably move to the Left. The predominant sentiment I hear is “throw them all out.” The predominant complaint I hear is about corruption, and about money and material success ruling over everything else. As Leftists, we ought to be able to work with that, yet no one is.

I am thinking we should invite a few more people into this phase of the project, build a little more activity and momentum and then go public.

The only criteria that I can see for who gets invited in right now is an potential interest in what we are taking about here - setting up running a left wing board.

The board should be a reliable place to make left wing arguments, which is not happening elsewhere. There should not be partisan litmus tests. Minority people and blue collar people should be welcome and not pissed on by some liberal gentry, which is not happening elsewhere. People will not be excluded for yapping partisan politics, about positions on narrow issues, or for talking about candidates, but we should not let that drown out or dominate everything else. Those are my thoughts.

Well the discussion should probably regulate itself. That is, if nobody responds or flashes in any interest in talking about party politics it'll naturally control itself.

And, yeah, more people, definitely. Do you find blue collar posters tend to be more cynical about this in general? Certainly that would be justified when approaching most of the liberal talk boards.

In America, "blue collar" does not mean uneducated or politically conservative. Far from it. I agree with Mike on this. As long as the discussion is relevent, there is much more openness to political discussion then among your typical (marginal) "white collar types...

In my experience, most "blue collar" people I know are MUCH more likely to be put off by aliens, "New World Orders", "Masons", New Age thoughts, regurgitated Buddhist slogans and talk of "primitivism" and "footprint", than with radical politics. No offense to the forgoing, but, if we "keep it real" and balance larger issues with more immediate... there ain't gonna be no problems.

Kid, I learned Hegel from a guy who worked at Dodge Main. He worked on the line at night and went to Wayne State during the day. He was a leader of the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM - look it up), worked the Construction trades in NYC, and later got his PhD and taught. He didn't change a bit that I could tell through the entire experience and he remains to this day the only person who I have ever met who had a well-thumbed copy of Hegel's Logic in the bathroom.

The "lines" of demarcation are not what you think they are. They are mostly imaginary...

http://www.theslingshot.com/text/gra_0204/ad_0204_002.GIF

I was at the Mound Road plant (at McNichols) and then later 16 Mile.

I was at the Mound Road plant (at McNichols) and then later 16 Mile.

Were you around at the time of the "League"? I know (or knew) a bunch of those guys...

I was at the Mound Road plant (at McNichols) and then later 16 Mile.

Were you around at the time of the "League"? I know (or knew) a bunch of those guys...
I was in Europe by '69. I met James Edwards and John Taylor, but didn't really know them. Those guys were LRBW - League of Revolutionary Black Workers - I think. There was also the Motor City Labor League, and the Communist League, later, around '70. We were really inspired by DRUM.

I was at the Mound Road plant (at McNichols) and then later 16 Mile.

Were you around at the time of the "League"? I know (or knew) a bunch of those guys...
I was in Europe by '69. I met James Edwards and John Taylor, but didn't really know them. Those guys were LRBW - League of Revolutionary Black Workers - I think. There was also the Motor City Labor League, and the Communist League, later, around '70. We were really inspired by DRUM.

I meant LRBW... Small world! Is that where you picked up the "white-skin privilage" perspective (I've been curious)?

Here's a link for you:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lo ... 9/lrbw.htm (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/lrbw.htm)

Charles Johnson taught me Hegel... and Capital.

Many years later, and in completely unrelated circumstances, I became very good friends with Babu.

Happy Hamtramck to you, brother...

http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Race/R_Overview/ID64326_hamtramack_aerial.gif

I meant LRBW... Small world! Is that where you picked up the "white-skin privilage" perspective (I've been curious)?

Here's a link for you:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lo ... 9/lrbw.htm (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/lrbw.htm)

Charles Johnson taught me Hegel... and Capital.

Many years later, and in completely unrelated circumstances, I became very good friends with Babu.

Happy Hamtramck to you, brother...
Lots of good memories in that article and also thinking about Hamtramck. The Senate Cafe was one hang out. What was that place with a round bar and a balcony? Greatest Polish food in the world there. I always liked Hamtramck at Christmas time. We used to go to the Rev. Cleague's Shrine of the Black Madonna and sing in the choir. The plant seemed to me to be divided three ways - older eastern European immigrants, white boys from Kentucky and West Virginia, and then the Black guys. The Black guys were definitely the most progresssive and revolutionary politically, had the best "stuff" etc. Man, DRUM got our imaginations going back then. We were fired up. Yeah the DRUM guys talked about white privilege a lot come to think of it. Living on the northwest side in a mixed neighborhood, being involved in music and sports, the civil rights marches, working in the plant, Upward Bound - I guess I was always aware of racism and white privilege.

I meant LRBW... Small world! Is that where you picked up the "white-skin privilage" perspective (I've been curious)?

Here's a link for you:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lo ... 9/lrbw.htm (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/lrbw.htm)

Charles Johnson taught me Hegel... and Capital.

Many years later, and in completely unrelated circumstances, I became very good friends with Babu.

Happy Hamtramck to you, brother...
Lots of good memories in that article and also thinking about Hamtramck. The Senate Cafe was one hang out. What was that place with a round bar and a balcony? Greatest Polish food in the world there. I always liked Hamtramck at Christmas time. We used to go to the Rev. Cleague's Shrine of the Black Madonna and sing in the choir. The plant seemed to me to be divided three ways - older eastern European immigrants, white boys from Kentucky and West Virginia, and then the Black guys. The Black guys were definitely the most progresssive and revolutionary politically, had the best "stuff" etc. Man, DRUM got our imaginations going back then. We were fired up. Yeah the DRUM guys talked about white privilege a lot come to think of it. Living on the northwest side in a mixed neighborhood, being involved in music and sports, the civil rights marches, working in the plant, Upward Bound - I guess I was always aware of racism and white privilege.

Never lived there. I met most of those guys in the East (I suppose there was a significant migration after all was said and done). I was a "tourist" later (well... a working "tourist"). It was the hub of America, just as Sparrow's Point was earlier and Pittsburg, before that. All in all, it was a lot like visiting Giza... Chlamor was right about me. I am "fascinated with mass production", although, for me, it was always a lot more about flesh than about iron.

http://www.makingsteel.com/images/frontispiece-f.jpg

The DRUM/LRBW crew was a playoff team. There is your model (among many others) for "proletarian intellectuals".

Here is a bibliography:

Dan Georgakas and Marvin Surkin, Detroit: I Do Mind Dying, South End Press, 1998.
James Geschwender, Class, Race and Worker’s Insurgency: The League of Revolutionary Black Workers, Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Ernest Allen, “Dying for the Inside: the Decline of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers” in They Should Have Served that Cup of Coffee, South End Press, 1979.

Allen was an insider. I knew him, too... very smart guy.

I am "fascinated with mass production", although, for me, it was always a lot more about flesh than about iron.

hmm, I thought it was about numbers?? Thats what a Black Belt told me once.

Oh, and planned obsolesence was the death of the Detroit. My Dad told me that one.

I read that the guy who pitched statistical quality control got rebuffed, went to Japan, they leapt all over it, then came back to the States and got laughed at for a second time. Actually this is probably something I should've read about more considering I'm a stat geek.

Somewhere in there is probably a Poisson distribution. Its always fucking Poisson

EDIT: obligatory six sigma link

http://www.skymark.com/resources/method ... uality.asp (http://www.skymark.com/resources/methods/sixsigmaquality.asp)

I am "fascinated with mass production", although, for me, it was always a lot more about flesh than about iron.

hmm, I thought it was about numbers?? Thats what a Black Belt told me once.

Oh, and planned obsolesence was the death of the Detroit. My Dad told me that one.

I read that the guy who pitched statistical quality control got rebuffed, went to Japan, they leapt all over it, then came back to the States and got laughed at for a second time. Actually this is probably something I should've read about more considering I'm a stat geek.

Somewhere in there is probably a Poisson distribution. Its always fucking Poisson

EDIT: obligatory six sigma link

http://www.skymark.com/resources/method ... uality.asp (http://www.skymark.com/resources/methods/sixsigmaquality.asp)


His name was W.E. Deming... the "quality" guru... Yet another bullshit "Hero of Capitalism"...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a3/W._Edwards_Deming.gif/113px-W._Edwards_Deming.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

I meant LRBW... Small world! Is that where you picked up the "white-skin privilage" perspective (I've been curious)?

Here's a link for you:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lo ... 9/lrbw.htm (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/lrbw.htm)

Charles Johnson taught me Hegel... and Capital.

Many years later, and in completely unrelated circumstances, I became very good friends with Babu.

Happy Hamtramck to you, brother...
Lots of good memories in that article and also thinking about Hamtramck. The Senate Cafe was one hang out. What was that place with a round bar and a balcony? Greatest Polish food in the world there. I always liked Hamtramck at Christmas time. We used to go to the Rev. Cleague's Shrine of the Black Madonna and sing in the choir. The plant seemed to me to be divided three ways - older eastern European immigrants, white boys from Kentucky and West Virginia, and then the Black guys. The Black guys were definitely the most progresssive and revolutionary politically, had the best "stuff" etc. Man, DRUM got our imaginations going back then. We were fired up. Yeah the DRUM guys talked about white privilege a lot come to think of it. Living on the northwest side in a mixed neighborhood, being involved in music and sports, the civil rights marches, working in the plant, Upward Bound - I guess I was always aware of racism and white privilege.


Never lived there. I met most of those guys in the East (I suppose there was a significant migration after all was said and done). I was a "tourist" later (well... a working "tourist"). It was the hub of America, just as Sparrow's Point was earlier and Pittsburg, before that. All in all, it was a lot like visiting Giza... Chlamor was right about me. I am "fascinated with mass production", although, for me, it was always a lot more about flesh than about iron.
http://www.makingsteel.com/images/frontispiece-f.jpg

The DRUM/LRBW crew was a playoff team. There is your model (among many others) for "proletarian intellectuals".

Here is a bibliography:

Dan Georgakas and Marvin Surkin, Detroit: I Do Mind Dying, South End Press, 1998.
James Geschwender, Class, Race and Worker’s Insurgency: The League of Revolutionary Black Workers, Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Ernest Allen, “Dying for the Inside: the Decline of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers” in They Should Have Served that Cup of Coffee, South End Press, 1979.

Allen was an insider. I knew him, too... very smart guy.

Grew up near the place. Thirty thousand good jobs gone. The Points large residential community gone. All of the neighborhoods approaching Baltimore impoverished(My sister's moving to Dundalk,fleeing gentrification). The nearby two Big Three plants gone. Blue collar Baltimore, dead as a hammer.

Funny thing about the Point. It was obviously a serious polluter, yet the Bay survived it. Hell, I've eaten bushels of crabs from Bear and Goose creeks and I'm here to talk about it. Now the Bay is moribund and the culprit is run-off, primairly from suburban development.

edit: I've GOT to get a handle on how this thing works. Don't mind me.

In my experience, most "blue collar" people I know are MUCH more likely to be put off by aliens, "New World Orders", "Masons", New Age thoughts, regurgitated Buddhist slogans and talk of "primitivism" and "footprint", than with radical politics. No offense to the forgoing, but, if we "keep it real" and balance larger issues with more immediate... there ain't gonna be no problems.

http://www.theslingshot.com/text/gra_0204/ad_0204_002.GIF

Footprint is materially different and far more important than the other matters you have lumped it in with. Footprint is also very much part of what any leftist movement MUST be about.

"The individualism of current economic theory is manifest in the purely self-interested behaviour it assumes. It has no real place for fairness ... nor for the preservation of human life or any other moral concern. The world which that economic theory normally pictures is one in which individuals all seek their own good and are indifferent to the success or failure of other individuals. ...There is no way to conceive of a collective good." -Christian theologian John Cobb, in his book, For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, co-written with economist Herman Daly

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42415000/jpg/_42415073_house250ansc.jpg

While the world's politicians and media focus their attention on the big picture of agreeing the best way to curb global climate change, we are left to pick up the pieces from wasted years of inaction.

The cost to move one small village of 300 people ranges from $130m (£66m) to a high of $200m (£102m), even if the distance is a few miles, because moving means reconstructing entire water, electrical, road, airport and/or barge landing infrastructure, as well as schools and clinics.

From their actions, it is clear that neither the federal nor state governments are prepared for the immense cost and complexity of moving even one tiny community.

There is no lead government agency to assist communities affected by climate change events, and that is evident here in Alaska as small villages are left to take the initiative to mobilise support from a myriad government agencies to piece together some kind of incremental financial assistance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6230731.stm

I am not saying that we have to try and fail to sell Green - and a failure it would be - but we must discuss with an eye towards Stewardship. Lifting up the lowerclass is not the frame I take. Rather, shifting stewardship from the overclass to the Folk is what I see. Common Good dictates an eye toward the planet, not just some mens' place in the economic engine that MUST be dismantled to save the planet and not just some men.

I won't spend a lotta time 'advertising'it, but PPLE stands for post-petroleum local economy...

We might want to use a more approachable synonym, or even unpack it, but we effing well better put that on the banner at the front of the parade.

Footprint is materially different and far more important than the other matters you have lumped it in with. Footprint is also very much part of what any leftist movement MUST be about.



I took that him to mean it in a different context


One ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark, its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time, one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase - some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse - into the dustbin where it belongs.

His name was W.E. Deming... the "quality" guru... Yet another bullshit "Hero of Capitalism"...
What is this?? Deming might be a "hero of Capitalism" among the hard-of-thinking, but he was no more pro-Capitalism than Adam Smith was. Just because they're brandished like swords by derfs who've never read either one of them, or didn't understand what they did read, doesn't mean we should fall in with that.

Deming's major finding was 100% socialist: it's the system itself, not the individual within the system, that accounts for 80-90% of all success or failure. The individualistic "great man" theory of success beloved of the ruling class is total, proven crap.

In my experience, most "blue collar" people I know are MUCH more likely to be put off by aliens, "New World Orders", "Masons", New Age thoughts, regurgitated Buddhist slogans and talk of "primitivism" and "footprint", than with radical politics. No offense to the forgoing, but, if we "keep it real" and balance larger issues with more immediate... there ain't gonna be no problems.

http://www.theslingshot.com/text/gra_0204/ad_0204_002.GIF

Footprint is materially different and far more important than the other matters you have lumped it in with. Footprint is also very much part of what any leftist movement MUST be about.

"The individualism of current economic theory is manifest in the purely self-interested behaviour it assumes. It has no real place for fairness ... nor for the preservation of human life or any other moral concern. The world which that economic theory normally pictures is one in which individuals all seek their own good and are indifferent to the success or failure of other individuals. ...There is no way to conceive of a collective good." -Christian theologian John Cobb, in his book, For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, co-written with economist Herman Daly

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42415000/jpg/_42415073_house250ansc.jpg

While the world's politicians and media focus their attention on the big picture of agreeing the best way to curb global climate change, we are left to pick up the pieces from wasted years of inaction.

The cost to move one small village of 300 people ranges from $130m (£66m) to a high of $200m (£102m), even if the distance is a few miles, because moving means reconstructing entire water, electrical, road, airport and/or barge landing infrastructure, as well as schools and clinics.

From their actions, it is clear that neither the federal nor state governments are prepared for the immense cost and complexity of moving even one tiny community.

There is no lead government agency to assist communities affected by climate change events, and that is evident here in Alaska as small villages are left to take the initiative to mobilise support from a myriad government agencies to piece together some kind of incremental financial assistance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6230731.stm

I am not saying that we have to try and fail to sell Green - and a failure it would be - but we must discuss with an eye towards Stewardship. Lifting up the lowerclass is not the frame I take. Rather, shifting stewardship from the overclass to the Folk is what I see. Common Good dictates an eye toward the planet, not just some mens' place in the economic engine that MUST be dismantled to save the planet and not just some men.

I won't spend a lotta time 'advertising'it, but PPLE stands for post-petroleum local economy...

Then, explain it.

When the discussion moves from "stewardship" to "personal footprint" in which personal lifestyle choices trump everything else, even political partisanship (as I heard Chlamor say many times, without challenge, on the other board), it becomes yet another part of the cultural fog clouding the class issue (just as "guns" do). Personal asceticism can no more be the ticket to political inclusion than the denial of toy guns to ones children can be. Collective responsibility and understanding (or "stewardship") is a whole different matter. In fact, the dilemma often turns into yet another instance of "blame the victim".

As with all other issues, interests derive from one's social perspective (class and economics), transformed into a political agenda. Arguing for personal lifestyle changes is just another competing Cable TV channel.

A recent thread on PI was entitled, "A seed of resistance for the New Year: ... Homemade, non toxic exterior paint!"

Say what?

Then, explain it.

When the discussion moves from "stewardship" to "personal footprint" in which personal lifestyle choices trump everything else, even political partisanship (as I heard Chlamor say many times, without challenge, on the other board), it becomes yet another part of the cultural fog clouding the class issue (just as "guns" do). Personal asceticism can no more be the ticket to political inclusion than the denial of toy guns to ones children can be. Collective responsibility and understanding (or "stewardship") is a whole different matter. In fact, the dilemma often turns into yet another instance of "blame the victim".

As with all other issues, interests derive from one's social perspective (class and economics), transformed into a political agenda. Arguing for personal lifestyle changes is just another competing Cable TV channel.

A recent thread on PI was entitled, "A seed of resistance for the New Year: ... Homemade, non toxic exterior paint!"

Say what?


I don't know if PPLE is playing into what you're saying or not but I disagree a little bit. Enforced austerity programs are about oppressing the victims, not blaming them. The blame is built-in, you can see a better explanation of that in newswolf's writing about the poor and self-loathing.

If I may be so bold, I think you are saying that without the proper perspective all of the proposed 'solutions' are going to be so half-wit and dumbass as to make the problem worse, not to mention being draconian to the max.

A seed of resistance for the New Year: ... Homemade, non toxic exterior paint!"

Huffing it still frys your brain

I am not saying that we have to try and fail to sell Green - and a failure it would be - but we must discuss with an eye towards Stewardship. Lifting up the lowerclass is not the frame I take. Rather, shifting stewardship from the overclass to the Folk is what I see. Common Good dictates an eye toward the planet, not just some mens' place in the economic engine that MUST be dismantled to save the planet and not just some men.

I won't spend a lotta time 'advertising'it, but PPLE stands for post-petroleum local economy...

Then, explain it.

When the discussion moves from "stewardship" to "personal footprint" in which personal lifestyle choices trump everything else, even political partisanship

Collective Footprint, not personal footprint. The footprints of the oranges and the milk in your fridge. That's what I think of. I am not saying the things Chlamor has said, though I seldom disagree with him.

Relocalization is a good thing not merely because of its environmental aspects, but as importantly because it builds community. And in building community, relocalization also can be the catalyst for citizen participation in and control of the poltical process.

Stewardship is not about me recycling or leaving my car parked. Stewardship is about providing for those indigenous folks' villages in this time of change. Stewardship is about changing the very structure of our modern lives to not only lesson the changes our activities have had on the planet but also about changing the structure to better cope with massive population shifts rising seas and desertification will bring. This is very real shit and concerns the lives of children here on the planet today. It is incomprehensible to me that we could ever throw out the baby of planetary stewardship with the dirty bathwater of personal choices. Time is of the essence. Very much so. Economies of scale are the planet-killing enemy.

Stewardship is about changing the very structure of our modern lives to not only lesson the changes our activities have had on the planet but also about changing the structure to better cope with massive population shifts rising seas and desertification will bring.
I think you're coming up short here. If the best we can do is try to palliate the effects, we're dead. "Rising seas and desertification" are not the sum and substance of what's beginning to happen. Either we stop it before it gets that far, or we're circling the drain and on our way out.

Stewardship is about changing the very structure of our modern lives to not only lesson the changes our activities have had on the planet but also about changing the structure to better cope with massive population shifts rising seas and desertification will bring.
I think you're coming up short here. If the best we can do is try to palliate the effects, we're dead. "Rising seas and desertification" are not the sum and substance of what's beginning to happen. Either we stop it before it gets that far, or we're circling the drain and on our way out.

For some of these fucking kooks, stopping it means paving the deserts

Stewardship is about changing the very structure of our modern lives to not only lesson the changes our activities have had on the planet but also about changing the structure to better cope with massive population shifts rising seas and desertification will bring.
I think you're coming up short here. If the best we can do is try to palliate the effects, we're dead. "Rising seas and desertification" are not the sum and substance of what's beginning to happen. Either we stop it before it gets that far, or we're circling the drain and on our way out.

We're over the cliff. Mark my words. If you live another 20 years, you'll see that I am right. So, yeah, while we need to do things to reduce our emissions, we also must face the facts that we are WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too late.

Stewardship is about changing the very structure of our modern lives to not only lesson the changes our activities have had on the planet but also about changing the structure to better cope with massive population shifts rising seas and desertification will bring.
I think you're coming up short here. If the best we can do is try to palliate the effects, we're dead. "Rising seas and desertification" are not the sum and substance of what's beginning to happen. Either we stop it before it gets that far, or we're circling the drain and on our way out.

We're over the cliff. Mark my words. If you live another 20 years, you'll see that I am right. So, yeah, while we need to do things to reduce our emissions, we also must face the facts that we are WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too late.
I certainly hope you're wrong, and I take comfort --not much comfort, but better than none-- in the fact that the climatologists are still holding out hope. I'm definitely standing with Lovelock, however, in believing that if we let the ruling class dick around trying to save their wealth and power then it's for sure going to be too late by the time they pull their collective fingers out. Their psychopathology will kill us all if we don't muscle them out of the way and take over.

The missing component in the discussion is farming. That connects politics with ecology. Only in the United States is it invisible to people.

Stewardship is about changing the very structure of our modern lives to not only lesson the changes our activities have had on the planet but also about changing the structure to better cope with massive population shifts rising seas and desertification will bring.
I think you're coming up short here. If the best we can do is try to palliate the effects, we're dead. "Rising seas and desertification" are not the sum and substance of what's beginning to happen. Either we stop it before it gets that far, or we're circling the drain and on our way out.

We're over the cliff. Mark my words. If you live another 20 years, you'll see that I am right. So, yeah, while we need to do things to reduce our emissions, we also must face the facts that we are WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too late.

Forgive me for asking the obvious question. If that is so, what is the point of politics of any kind? Wouldn't hedonism or survivalism be a better choice? Is the objective a kind of post-apocalyptic politics? That seems very hard to predict.

IF any immediate change in the "very structure of our modern lives" is unlikely (mark MY words... there won't be any socialism in America next year), AND, it is "WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too late", already, THEN, where does that leave you?

If what we are facing is the inevitable environmental equivilant of a global world war, perhaps multiplied many times... how does localism or footprint or "reducing emissions", fit into that at all? Doesn't that all fall into the category of "emptying the sea with an eye dropper"?

When the discussion moves from "stewardship" to "personal footprint" in which personal lifestyle choices trump everything else, even political partisanship (as I heard Chlamor say many times, without challenge, on the other board), it becomes yet another part of the cultural fog clouding the class issue (just as "guns" do). Personal asceticism can no more be the ticket to political inclusion than the denial of toy guns to ones children can be. Collective responsibility and understanding (or "stewardship") is a whole different matter. In fact, the dilemma often turns into yet another instance of "blame the victim".

As with all other issues, interests derive from one's social perspective (class and economics), transformed into a political agenda. Arguing for personal lifestyle changes is just another competing Cable TV channel.
I agree completely.

People have difficulty connecting environmentalism to politics because farming is invisible to them and they don't consider it in the mix.

"Collective stewardship" means agriculture. Food production is what we need the land for to begin with. "Farming" as a banner cuts to the chase, and never mind fancy nomenclature and personal lifestyle choices. Farming was going along fine, and could have forever. The problems are all distortions of traditional agriculture caused by capitalism. All of the cooperative and sustainable systems are already thought through and in place.

His name was W.E. Deming... the "quality" guru... Yet another bullshit "Hero of Capitalism"...
What is this?? Deming might be a "hero of Capitalism" among the hard-of-thinking, but he was no more pro-Capitalism than Adam Smith was. Just because they're brandished like swords by derfs who've never read either one of them, or didn't understand what they did read, doesn't mean we should fall in with that.

Deming's major finding was 100% socialist: it's the system itself, not the individual within the system, that accounts for 80-90% of all success or failure. The individualistic "great man" theory of success beloved of the ruling class is total, proven crap.

Rather than get into it over Deming (who is just a management optimizer to me), I'm much more interested in why you don't think Adam Smith was "pro-Capitalism"? Is it in the merchant's criticism of industry?

Stewardship is about changing the very structure of our modern lives to not only lesson the changes our activities have had on the planet but also about changing the structure to better cope with massive population shifts rising seas and desertification will bring.
I think you're coming up short here. If the best we can do is try to palliate the effects, we're dead. "Rising seas and desertification" are not the sum and substance of what's beginning to happen. Either we stop it before it gets that far, or we're circling the drain and on our way out.

We're over the cliff. Mark my words. If you live another 20 years, you'll see that I am right. So, yeah, while we need to do things to reduce our emissions, we also must face the facts that we are WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too late.

Forgive me for asking the obvious question. If that is so, what is the point of politics of any kind? Wouldn't hedonism or survivalism be a better choice? Is the objective a kind of post-apocalyptic politics? That seems very hard to predict.

IF any immediate change in the "very structure of our modern lives" is unlikely (mark MY words... there won't be any socialism in America next year), AND, it is "WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too late", already, THEN, where does that leave you?

If what we are facing is the inevitable environmental equivilant of a global world war, perhaps multiplied many times... how does localism or footprint or "reducing emissions", fit into that at all? Doesn't that all fall into the category of "emptying the sea with an eye dropper"?

Mike's right about the missing component being farming. The major change is to feed a sea of people with thousands of little eye cropped farms instead of vast monocultures transported vast distances. This kind of farming, and the economies that follow, is the sort of massive change I am thinking of.

Hedonism probably would be a better choice if it were all about only my life. Indeed, I have recently thought of just saying fuck it and going back (trying to, anyway) to sleep. Unfortunately, my concern for others seems to cause a kind of insomnia...

massive change
Talk of massive change worries me. Talk about what is wrong with the people in some moralistiic or spiritual sense worries me.

Massive change is the problem, not the solution, as the all-out global war against rural agricultural communities by capitialism continues unchecked.

People are the solution, not the problem. The horrid conditions that capitalism forces them into needs to be fixed, not the people themselves.

massive change
Talk of massive change worries me...

Massive change is the problem, not the solution, as the all-out global war against rural agricultural communities by capitialism continues unchecked.

Massive Change as I mean it is a reverting back to how things were. A recognition in the validity of the Luddite position.

I will just keep being a pain in the ass.

I think Luddite versus techno-wizardry is a false dichotomy. Look at the industrial revolution in England. All of the tech was in place long before it started. It was the Enclosure Acts that drove the people off their communal farms and emptied the villages. People didn't leave the farm because they were looking for a better life, nor because their farms were not sustainable in some way nor because they were dissatisfied with their lives. As desperate people were packed into the seaports (they went there because they were trying to escape the country, not to look for work) suddenly the capitalists had a huge reserve of vulnerable and exploitable labor, and those towns became industrial centers.

These problems are political problems, they are not technological problems. No tech is going to save us, nor is elimination of tech going to save us. It is the way that society and work are organized politically that is the problem. Many of the proponents of this or that tech as part of the solution are saying "given that we will all continue to be isolated consuming units with little or no freedom or power and have no communities and will be completely enslaved by and dependent upon capitalism, and that society will be completely oriented around the needs of capital and for the benefit of a few, this new energy source will keep things going for a while." In other words, they attack a political problem by leaving politics out of the equation.

You can watch this happen every day over at DU – we have a political problem, but people refuse to discuss it in a political context, yet they post their ideas on a political discussion board and call it “politics.” And we wonder why no one can agree, why everyone is confused, and why we can't effect any change?

They might as well say "my politics are that I eat red peppers grown in acidic soil by Polynesians and cold-pressed in the shade, and always ride a bike and read by candle light." Actually, they do say things like that.

I will just keep being a pain in the ass.

I think Luddite versus techno-wizardry is a false dichotomy.

Me too, and I also think it was the division of labor that caused the uprising, not the technology.

I will just keep being a pain in the ass.

I think Luddite versus techno-wizardry is a false dichotomy.

Me too, and I also think it was the division of labor that caused the uprising, not the technology.


There is also the fact that Ludditism was a very primitive stage in the resistance of labor, when oppression was associated with the machines themselves rather than with the owners of that machinery. The proof of this is that the movement was not repeated. Even the individual act, sabot-age, is exceedingly rare in labor history. Further, many of those stories that do exist are pure invention (i.e. the "Molly Maguires").

http://www.fieradisantorso.it/sabot.jpg

His name was W.E. Deming... the "quality" guru... Yet another bullshit "Hero of Capitalism"...
What is this?? Deming might be a "hero of Capitalism" among the hard-of-thinking, but he was no more pro-Capitalism than Adam Smith was. Just because they're brandished like swords by derfs who've never read either one of them, or didn't understand what they did read, doesn't mean we should fall in with that.

Deming's major finding was 100% socialist: it's the system itself, not the individual within the system, that accounts for 80-90% of all success or failure. The individualistic "great man" theory of success beloved of the ruling class is total, proven crap.

Rather than get into it over Deming (who is just a management optimizer to me), I'm much more interested in why you don't think Adam Smith was "pro-Capitalism"? Is it in the merchant's criticism of industry?

Reductionism, thats what Deming gave us, really. Rather than try to explain that, I'll leave you something to chew on, as off-topic as it might appear (PS just read the intro)

http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research ... oolbox.pdf (http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/Poisson_Toolbox.pdf)


44. All representation is false. A likeness differs of necessity from what it represents. If it did not, it would be what it represents, and thus not a representation. The only truly false representation is the belief in the possibility of true representation. Critique is not a solution, but the problem itself. Critique is a police action in representation, of service only to the maintenance of the value of property through the establishment of its value.

Then, explain it.

When the discussion moves from "stewardship" to "personal footprint" in which personal lifestyle choices trump everything else, even political partisanship (as I heard Chlamor say many times, without challenge, on the other board), it becomes yet another part of the cultural fog clouding the class issue (just as "guns" do). Personal asceticism can no more be the ticket to political inclusion than the denial of toy guns to ones children can be. Collective responsibility and understanding (or "stewardship") is a whole different matter. In fact, the dilemma often turns into yet another instance of "blame the victim".

As with all other issues, interests derive from one's social perspective (class and economics), transformed into a political agenda. Arguing for personal lifestyle changes is just another competing Cable TV channel.

A recent thread on PI was entitled, "A seed of resistance for the New Year: ... Homemade, non toxic exterior paint!"

Say what?


I don't know if PPLE is playing into what you're saying or not but I disagree a little bit. Enforced austerity programs are about oppressing the victims, not blaming them. The blame is built-in, you can see a better explanation of that in newswolf's writing about the poor and self-loathing.

If I may be so bold, I think you are saying that without the proper perspective all of the proposed 'solutions' are going to be so half-wit and dumbass as to make the problem worse, not to mention being draconian to the max.

A seed of resistance for the New Year: ... Homemade, non toxic exterior paint!"

Huffing it still frys your brain

It's not so much that "the proposed 'solutions' are going to be so half-wit and dumbass as to make the problem worse, not to mention being draconian to the max", although that is certainly possible. I'm more on my standard kick (like a broken record).

For example, the issue is "Race", perpetuated and extended by social, legal, economic, and practical inequalities as well as by "racist attitudes". There are two perspectives to the issue: The first says, "eliminate racist attitudes amongst ourselves and others and racial inequality will go away by itself". The second says, "eliminate social, legal, economic, and practical inequalities and racism will disappear by itself".

Three guesses as to the names that I would give to those two perspectives...

For example, the issue is "Race", perpetuated and extended by social, legal, economic, and practical inequalities as well as by "racist attitudes". There are two perspectives to the issue: The first says, "eliminate racist attitudes amongst ourselves and others and racial inequality will go away by itself". The second says, "eliminate social, legal, economic, and practical inequalities and racism will disappear by itself"



OK, we must be interpreting it differently, because to me you are reiterating:


the proposed 'solutions' are going to be so half-wit and dumbass as to make the problem worse, not to mention being draconian to the max

EDIT: Are the two perspectives "dave" and "alvin, simon, theodore"?

For example, the issue is "Race", perpetuated and extended by social, legal, economic, and practical inequalities as well as by "racist attitudes". There are two perspectives to the issue: The first says, "eliminate racist attitudes amongst ourselves and others and racial inequality will go away by itself". The second says, "eliminate social, legal, economic, and practical inequalities and racism will disappear by itself"



OK, we must be interpreting it differently, because to me you are reiterating:


the proposed 'solutions' are going to be so half-wit and dumbass as to make the problem worse, not to mention being draconian to the max

EDIT: Are the two perspectives "dave" and "alvin, simon, theodore"?

Retrospectively, you are right, of course... Funny how it isn't so clear at the front end, at least to many.

Dave, Alvin, Simon, and Theodore are what we call the competing post mortems:

1. "It worked! Attitudes are much better. Good, we can abandon all 'programs' and 'special' laws..."
2. "It didn't work! It's human nature. .. That means you. Watta ya gonna do about it?"
3. "We need new ideas: build more prisons and arrest Kanye."
4. "I can't stand this Racism! Quick, everyone stop doing what they are doing and do SOMETHING! .. or else we are doomed!"

(Theodore is bipolar...)

(Theodore is bipolar...)

Alvin is the not-so-figurative voice of punk rock. Meanwhile,


I'm tying to get back at my parents. I want to be an anarchist. What should I do?

EDIT: to hear the Alvin-effect, go here but gird yourself first :)

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu ... d=31350898 (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=31350898)

EDIT#2 since I forgot: rap killings and the subsequent investigative failure to round up any suspects is like an immutable law of nature. So, unless you believe Tupac is off alpaca farming with Jim Morrison, arresting Kanye is the last thing anyone should be worrying about ;)

I'm much more interested in why you don't think Adam Smith was "pro-Capitalism"? Is it in the merchant's criticism of industry?
It's the whole WoN, really. Or at least those parts that might be called "general theory". I can't really understand how anyone can read what he wrote and think he was pro-capitalism. My guess is that people who want to see him as pro-capitalism take the fact that most of what he wrote is pure description and infer that his lack of overt disapproval means he approves. But the places where he does express an opinion, it's quite definitely disapproving.

I don't have time to thumb through and make out a chapter-and-verse argument, but his famous "vile Maxim" comment is significant as well as his references to labor being sacred property, to the way the owner class uses the power of their capital to suppress the wages of labor "below their natural level" either by law or by waiting til workers are desperate, etc. When he says "people of the same trade seldom meet together...." we tend to think of union members, but he's talking about business owners, wealthy master guild members like Paul Revere who lived more or less off the labor of the journeymen and apprentices in their shops. To him, the "invisible hand" that (sometimes) leads people to unintentionally serve the communal good by their self-interested behavior can only operate in a truly free market, one that's not being biased by unproductive forces such as people with big bags of capital or big guns, and in which each person receives the full value of their work.

I'm much more interested in why you don't think Adam Smith was "pro-Capitalism"? Is it in the merchant's criticism of industry?
It's the whole WoN, really. Or at least those parts that might be called "general theory". I can't really understand how anyone can read what he wrote and think he was pro-capitalism. My guess is that people who want to see him as pro-capitalism take the fact that most of what he wrote is pure description and infer that his lack of overt disapproval means he approves. But the places where he does express an opinion, it's quite definitely disapproving.

I don't have time to thumb through and make out a chapter-and-verse argument, but his famous "vile Maxim" comment is significant as well as his references to labor being sacred property, to the way the owner class uses the power of their capital to suppress the wages of labor "below their natural level" either by law or by waiting til workers are desperate, etc. When he says "people of the same trade seldom meet together...." we tend to think of union members, but he's talking about business owners, wealthy master guild members like Paul Revere who lived more or less off the labor of the journeymen and apprentices in their shops. To him, the "invisible hand" that (sometimes) leads people to unintentionally serve the communal good by their self-interested behavior can only operate in a truly free market, one that's not being biased by unproductive forces such as people with big bags of capital or big guns, and in which each person receives the full value of their work.

I couldn't disagree more on this issue but your post reminded me that there seems to have developed a left/liberal rehabilitation of Smith. I looked around, and sure enough, he has become timely again, for reasons both similar and dissimilar to yours.

Could we defer this discussion until the board is fully launched? I think it is detailed but quite worthwhile.

I promise not to forget...

http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/smith.jpg

Could we defer this discussion until the board is fully launched? I think it is detailed but quite worthwhile.

I promise not to forget...

http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/smith.jpg


DING DING DING

Memory Hole issue getting you down?

Don't let it.

We will make sure this discussion becomes part of our content management.

Discuss Away if you desire.

Could we defer this discussion until the board is fully launched? I think it is detailed but quite worthwhile.
Sure, if you like. I shouldn't think we'll get anywhere with it, since the poor bugger's been stane deid for 200 years and capitalism as we know it, i.e. industrial, corporate capitalism, didn't exist in his time. The closest seems to have been a form of what we know as silent partnership, sometimes with government privilege attached. Or perhaps the Funds, which involved lending the government money against the tax receipts, ergo related to our Treasury bonds.

Could we defer this discussion until the board is fully launched? I think it is detailed but quite worthwhile.

I promise not to forget...




DING DING DING

Memory Hole issue getting you down?

Don't let it.

We will make sure this discussion becomes part of our content management.

Discuss Away if you desire.

Hah... No, it's not a memory hole although that is becoming an issue at my advanced age. I want to talk a couple people I know onto the board but it will take a little time and, probably, a slightly larger membership. Smith is a draw (both "for" and "against"). People talk about everything under the sun, but "substantial" debate is rare on this here web.

I just followed that graphic back to Glyn Hughes's site and took a wee keikie at his abridgement. If he intended a joke, then it was funny. If he intends that his abridgement be taken as a serious representation of Smith's thesis, then it's embarrassingly awful. There's nothing like taking the simple mistakes and least important parts of what someone wrote 200+ years before to make the victim look a fool.

Could we defer this discussion until the board is fully launched? I think it is detailed but quite worthwhile.

I promise not to forget...




DING DING DING

Memory Hole issue getting you down?

Don't let it.

We will make sure this discussion becomes part of our content management.

Discuss Away if you desire.

Hah... No, it's not a memory hole although that is becoming an issue at my advanced age. I want to talk a couple people I know onto the board but it will take a little time and, probably, a slightly larger membership. Smith is a draw (both "for" and "against"). People talk about everything under the sun, but "substantial" debate is rare on this here web.

Your feigned senility notwithstanding, I meant that the issue of this discussion going away as time goes by needn't be a concern. I think a key part of the discussion during the start up time for pop indy is to scheme on how we keep important topics from getting 'old' and obscure.

I do hope you have some friends that will come along!

Could we defer this discussion until the board is fully launched? I think it is detailed but quite worthwhile.
Sure, if you like. I shouldn't think we'll get anywhere with it, since the poor bugger's been stane deid for 200 years and capitalism as we know it, i.e. industrial, corporate capitalism, didn't exist in his time. The closest seems to have been a form of what we know as silent partnership, sometimes with government privilege attached. Or perhaps the Funds, which involved lending the government money against the tax receipts, ergo related to our Treasury bonds.

In common with many of the debates at the beginnings of political Sciences, I think all roads (...well, maybe a few roads) lead to (or from) Smith. Certainly that includes Hume and the "Conservative Philosophy" inbound and J.S. Mill and the "liberal tradition" outbound. Personally, I think that some people dug up the body, simply because there is currently a market shortage of non-socialist but "left-wing" ideology. There's a lot to talk about.

Of course, I could have come back on the cheap about Smith being "anti-capitalist". I could have said that it is a simple tautology that no one who is inimical to the interests of Capital can EVER appear on banknotes issued by the Bank of England.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/business_enl_1162225010/img/1.jpg

I just followed that graphic back to Glyn Hughes's site and took a wee keikie at his abridgement. If he intended a joke, then it was funny. If he intends that his abridgement be taken as a serious representation of Smith's thesis, then it's embarrassingly awful. There's nothing like taking the simple mistakes and least important parts of what someone wrote 200+ years before to make the victim look a fool.

The graphic came to me through "Google Image". I haven't even seen Glyn Hughes' site...

I just followed that graphic back to Glyn Hughes's site and took a wee keikie at his abridgement. If he intended a joke, then it was funny. If he intends that his abridgement be taken as a serious representation of Smith's thesis, then it's embarrassingly awful. There's nothing like taking the simple mistakes and least important parts of what someone wrote 200+ years before to make the victim look a fool.

The graphic came to me through "Google Image". I haven't even seen Glyn Hughes' site...
Oh good! You can't imagine how reassuring that is. Don't go there, it's brain-rot.

Of course, I could have come back on the cheap about Smith being "anti-capitalist". I could have said that it is a simple tautology that no one who is inimical to the interests of Capital can EVER appear on banknotes issued by the Bank of England.



Good thing too since the cheap shot sucks ;) Many times, hell maybe always, the iconclast ends up being less iconoclastic than his followers from subsequent generations.

I'm thinking of excepting Martin Luther from that rule though bc he was such a putz

In common with many of the debates at the beginnings of political Sciences, I think all roads (...well, maybe a few roads) lead to (or from) Smith. Certainly that includes Hume and the "Conservative Philosophy" inbound and J.S. Mill and the "liberal tradition" outbound. Personally, I think that some people dug up the body, simply because there is currently a market shortage of non-socialist but "left-wing" ideology. There's a lot to talk about.

Of course, I could have come back on the cheap about Smith being "anti-capitalist". I could have said that it is a simple tautology that no one who is inimical to the interests of Capital can EVER appear on banknotes issued by the Bank of England.
Yes, you could have been uselessly provocative :twisted:, so I'm glad you decided not to be. So whenever you decide to have a go at him, I'll do my best to illuminate what I see of Smith as expressed in his WoN. I don't particularly want to try making or defending against arguments based on what other people said, though. Whatever he took from others, he turned it to his own purpose. And similarly, whatever other people claim about him to support their own theses, that's them not him.

Of course, I could have come back on the cheap about Smith being "anti-capitalist". I could have said that it is a simple tautology that no one who is inimical to the interests of Capital can EVER appear on banknotes issued by the Bank of England.



Good thing too since the cheap shot sucks ;) Many times, hell maybe always, the iconclast ends up being less iconoclastic than his followers from subsequent generations.

I'm thinking of excepting Martin Luther from that rule though bc he was such a putz

Knowing your anarcho-punk leanings, you'd be talking about these guys:

http://cdbaby.name/i/c/iconoclast.jpg

http://www.thefunkstore.com/NewRelease/June2006/CD-MartinLutherRebelSoul.jpg

No?

Of course, I could have come back on the cheap about Smith being "anti-capitalist". I could have said that it is a simple tautology that no one who is inimical to the interests of Capital can EVER appear on banknotes issued by the Bank of England.



Good thing too since the cheap shot sucks ;) Many times, hell maybe always, the iconclast ends up being less iconoclastic than his followers from subsequent generations.

I'm thinking of excepting Martin Luther from that rule though bc he was such a putz

Knowing your anarcho-punk leanings, you'd be talking about these guys:

http://cdbaby.name/i/c/iconoclast.jpg

http://www.thefunkstore.com/NewRelease/June2006/CD-MartinLutherRebelSoul.jpg

No?

I meant this guy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Icon.jpg/250px-Icon.jpg

EDIT: incidentally, since it seems slightly related my pick for album of 2006:

http://www.jadetree.com/radio/stream/JT1122

Martin Luther ... was such a putz

???

Martin Luther ... was such a putz

???

It was just a joke, if anybody actually picks up on that and runs with it, well..good for them I guess rofl

It was just a joke, if anybody actually picks up on that and runs with it, well..good for them I guess rofl
You might have to explain it...I can't get anything out of it no matter whether in German or Yiddish.

It was just a joke, if anybody actually picks up on that and runs with it, well..good for them I guess rofl
You might have to explain it...I can't get anything out of it no matter whether in German or Yiddish.

I picked a noted iconclast at random off the top of my head. My first pick was Uri Geller but 'iconclast' seemed like too much credit for him.

[quote="Kid Of The Black Hole":153q5gw4] Martin Luther ... was such a putz

???

It was just a joke, if anybody actually picks up on that and runs with it, well..good for them I guess rofl[/quote:153q5gw4]


I take that as a dare...


The Peasant War in Germany[/b]]Luther was born November 10, 1483, in a peasant family. His father worked in the mines. In 1501, he entered Erfurt University, where he led a very gay life in the circles of the Humanists, those advocates of radical ideas. In 1505, he entered a monastery, and, as every good Catholic, went to see the pope. In 1509, Luther gave a course of lectures in the Wittenberg University. In 1517, when Tetzel, the representative of Pope Leo X, opened a sale of indulgences in Saxony, Luther hung out on the doors of the Wittenberg chapel, his ninety-five theses against indulgences. His first protest against the Roman Church was very timid. Luther protested against corruption. Thesis 21 read: "Advocates of indulgences are mistaken when they say that through papal absolution a man is freed of all punishment." Thesis 27: "It is nonsense to preach that as soon as the penny jingles in the box, the soul leaves purgatory." Luther was surprised at the effect of his theses. He gave impetus to a movement which had started before him, and it engulfed all classes of Germany. Three groups became engaged in the struggle: the Catholic conservatives, the middle-class reformists, and the plebeian revolutionists. As a leader of the middle-class reformist movement, Luther at first appealed to violence, to the use of fire and iron for the extermination of the cancer that, he said, was destroying the world. He called for a decisive struggle against the lay and clerical princes. Between 1517 and 1522, Luther was ready to enter an alliance with the democratic factions. Between 1522 and 1525, however, he betrayed his allies, the peasantry and the lower clergy. His change was due to the Anabaptists in Zwickau and the peasant movement. He was also influenced by the uprising of the knighthood (Autumn, 1522).

At the head of the uprising of the knighthood were Franz von Sickingen and Ulrich von Hutten. The former was the commander, and the latter the ideologist of the movement. Their hatred for the pope and the princes and their striving for the reconstruction of a united Germany made them, by the middle of the Sixteenth Century, the heroes of the German bourgeoisie. In substance, however, the movement of united knighthood in a society where capitalism had begun to develop, was reactionary. Sickingen and Hutten dreamed of a renewed mediaeval state where power was in the hands of the nobles and the emperor was their subject. They never aimed at freeing the cities or the peasantry, though they were compelled to appeal to them for aid. In the summer of 1522, Franz von Sickingen led troops against the "priestly nest" of Trier. But the armies of the united Rhenish and Suabian princes dealt him a decisive blow. Many castles were destroyed and many knights perished. Luther did not support that movement, but condemned it as well as that of the peasants.

In his first works, where he called the princes "the greatest fools on earth and the most heinous scoundrels," and in his first appeals relative to the Peasant War, Luther defended the insurgents. He wrote, for instance, "It is not the peasants who arose against you masters, but God himself, who wishes to punish you for your evil doings." Luther hoped to find in the peasant movement a support for his struggle against Rome. But when, in April and May, the peasantry revolted all over the country, burning and destroying castles, the movement assuming a communist character, Luther defended the princes against the insurgent peasants. He attributed the movement to the peasants' easy life. He urged the princes to "strangle them as you would mad dogs." When the insurrection was quelled, he bragged that he "had killed the peasants because he had given the orders to kill." "All their blood is upon me," he said.

An alliance was established between Luther and the princes, who were well satisfied with the acquisition of the church estates. The Reformation was profitable both to them and to the insurgents of the big cities. In 1526, at a Diet session in Speyer, it was for the first time decreed that the subject must follow the faith of his master. This saved the princes, who openly joined Luther. It is true that in 1529 Catholic services were reinstated and the confiscation of the lands of the clergy was halted in the provinces of the Lutheran princes, but the Lutheran minority protested against this decision-hence the name Protestants. In 1530, at a Diet session in Augsburg, the Protestant princes submitted to Emperor Charles V the so-called Augsburg Confession of the Lutherans. It consisted of two parts, the first giving an exposition of the new faith, and the second condemning the corruption of the Roman Church and outlining the necessary reforms.

"We reject those," says the Augsburg Confession, "who preach that absolution can be reached, not by faith, but by good deeds." Man can find favour in the eyes of God, says the document, only by the word of God and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We must not, it says, confuse the authority of the State with the authority of the pope; the Church has the power to preach the Gospel and to perform rites, but it should not participate in the affairs of the State.

The publication of the Augsburg Confession was not the end of the struggle. In September, 1555, at the Augsburg Diet, the so-called Augsburg Religious Peace confirmed the decision of 1526 relative to the obligation of the subjects to follow the faith of their masters. This decision made it obvious that Germany was to remain dismembered, under the rule of the princes.

Lutherism became the religion of the economically backward countries. It spread in northern and western Germany, Denmark and Sweden, where the princes, the bishops and the landlords became the protectors of the Lutheran Church. But even this partial reform could succeed only as a result of the revolutionary movement of the peasantry, the cities and the knighthood.

He was a putz...

http://www.jenskleemann.de/wissen/bildung/thumb/b/b0/martin_luther_by_lucas_cranach_der_a_ltere.jpeg

In 1501, he entered Erfurt University, where he led a very gay life in the circles of the Humanists, those advocates of radical ideas. In 1505, he entered a monastery, ..

hmmm

Here and there, a little spark flares up. If we could gather them together, we could get some flames going.

Do we need a crash effort to locate the lone voices out there in the wilderness and bring them in?


OUR war is here at home - and there are a lot of casualties.

The homeless, the poor, the sick, the worker, and so on. They are all depending on those in power and those with a voice to fight in the war with them and for them.

Many of them are unable to change the system. So many are caught up just in surviving day to day. Depressed, downtrodden, and needing help.

Our country funds our troops. It gives them guns, meals, health care, education etc. It also funds those in prison with food, shelter, books, health care, etc.

Our federal employees, especially those in congress, have health care and usually decent wages, etc.

Everyone else - on your own. And everyone else seems to me to be the bulk of these United States.

The military, prisoners, federal and state employees, all get funded by you and me. We PAY for them to have all the things they need (well, except fed/state employees, but they are still better off than wal-mart employees).

Corporations get welfare and a lot of tax breaks. They pass it on to the few at the top.

It always seems the few are getting a lot from the many, and when the many want something in return we get called lazy or greedy.

So many people have issues, so many need some type of help or other. From mental to physical to financial.

And YET we are seen as the enemy by those who are getting from us when we ask for something in return.

The govt needs a raise or more money for war, they just take it from us. We need money to save lives and help others, we have to battle year in and out to get a slither of cash. Civil rights? Not without a fight and a lot of people taking time from their lives to battle for it.

It is no longer a government for the people and by the people, it seems more like a government for the few by the many.

Our system is broke, and playing nice does not seem to be fixing it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 64x3167244 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3167244)

Let's work on wording an invitation - one that clearly states our intentions. One that is so clear, that it will establish the tenor and context for the discussion right from the start for each new member.