(The right forum for this is screwed up because of people giving the address to spammers to harass us, and I can't get it to take a post so I am putting this here.)

We may have a chance to put the whole issue about how to handle disruptors to rest once and for all and stop having it be such a drama and distraction.

The "about us" page is crystal clear about the purpose of the board. I think we are on very solid ground with that. There is no reason we should have to put up with people arguing against the purpose of the board, who have no interest in the purpose of the board. A tuba player cannot walk into the middle of a physics lecture and start blasting away, and then argue that we should be having band practice rather than a lecture.

Unlike other boards, we do not pretend to be "open to all points of view" so we don't have to play games about manners and rules and courtesy and the rest of that nonsense. It is not about "free speech" anymore than it is with the tuba player in the physics lecture in my example above. It is not about "respecting all points of view" or even about respecting all people who post. I don't feel obliged to respect people who are trolling and baiting and doing everything they can to take us down.

The problem with banning members and deleting posts is that it plays into the hands of our antagonists, and it puts a chill on new members who may not understand what is going on. Maybe those are not big concerns, but why have them at all when we don't need to have them?

We need to have new members brought up to speed and understand the "about us" page, I think. We all need to be solid on it, and not get drawn into responding to baiting and taunting. On the other hand, the long time members need to be confident that they will not have to put up with the baiting and taunting and disruption - chlamor deleted a post, and had good reason to.

We have someone, omega, who clearly does not agree with - is antagonistic to - the express purpose of the board. PH now seems to be as well. We are not here to debate the purpose of the board, although if she wanted to start a thread, make her best case for what the purpose of the board should be in her view, and then should she get consensus from everyone on her view of this, I suppose she could do that. But as we know, the legitimacy of the purpose of the board and the group will soon dominate every thread.

So...

- We are clear and outspoken about what we are doing here.

- The members should not be forced to suffer through people who are antagonistic to the purpose of the board and disrupting threads.

- Banning and deleting posts have unrelated negative consequences.

- We should not have to go through hand wringing and arguing about what to do with disruptors.

We need a quick, simple, clear and easy way to handle this.

Here is that statement we hammered out about what we are up to.

Here is what we are doing here, here is what the project is about:

About PI[h2]

Progressive - Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies

1. America needs a strong Left

2. We are here to figure out how to do that

3. The fake Left is the biggest obstacle

If you still have questions, take a long hard look at the following diagram.

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/shalom/pia/piaimages/spectrum.png

If this is not clear, read further...

[h2]'The Fake Left'

Confusion often stems from misunderstanding the real meaning of 'leftist' in terms of political and economic thought. In popular discourse the 'left' commonly refers to certain positions on culturally-divisive social issues (like abortion, gay rights, etc). This is dangerously misleading and serves to distract from understanding our economic reality.

People talk about 'democracy' and 'freedom' as if they can exist without economic democracy. The very concept of economic democracy rarely enters the discourse. Yet it is the key to all of these 'issues' we struggle with piecemeal in our legislative system - poverty, environmental damage, income disparity, weak education system, health care, and so forth.

Many people identify themselves as liberal AND leftist. These are contradictory positions. Liberalism, first and foremost, is an ECONOMIC theory, not a social platform. Not only that, LIBERALISM IS A RIGHT WING ECONOMIC THEORY. It is no accident that people have been taught to think otherwise.

Many people look to the liberal 'social democracies' of western Europe as some sort of people-oriented balance between capitalism and socialism, where the living standards are high, education, health care, labor rights etc are great. However, this perspective falls apart when we look deeper and see the relationship of these capitalist countries to the rest of the world. They still rely on the exploitation of other people's labor to keep their high standards. Those standards are applied only to those within their borders while the rest of the world continues to suffer. Make no mistake about it - these romanticized countries are generally nationalistic and protective. And the bottom line is that they are capitalist.

The ideals of the true left are universal, global. They do not stop at one country's borders at the expense of poor people elsewhere. They require the end of capitalism.

Yes, we are talking about the class war. Yes, we are talking about socialism. Yes, we are pointing to capitalism as the root of our problems.

Now for the 'rules', insofar as we have any.

NO RED-BAITING. Believe me, we've seen it enough to recognize it in its many disguises. There are plenty of other places to go if that's your game.

BE HONEST. Don't be afraid of looking uninformed. It's even ok if you're confused - billions of dollars have been spent to confuse you your whole life. No passive-aggressive games either.

NO WHINING. Is someone being mean? Tough it out. These are words on a screen, not kids on a playground. Don't take things personally. Substance trumps civility here. This is not a free pass for being an asshole, but everyone has a different style.

This is one place where we don't constantly have to defend the most basic leftist views. Challenges are fine but the impetus is on the status-quo protector.

"The radicals have the easier case to make. They have only to point to the discrepancies between the operation of the modern economy and the ideas by which it is supposed to be judged, while the conservatives have the well nigh impossible task of demonstrating that this is the best of all possible worlds. For the same reason, however, the conservatives are compensated by occupying positions of power, which they can use to keep criticism in check... The conservatives do not feel obliged to answer radical criticisms on their merits and the argument is never fairly joined."

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj71/harman.htm

To existing members who are upset/confused about this - recent events have demonstrated that we can't waste our time distracted by defending against attacks from the status quo. Sorry if it ruffles your feathers, but the reality is that if there will ever be real change, there needs to be a fight. The battle lines are being drawn here, and you need to pick a side. It's that simple.

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/shalom/pia/about.htm

:shrug:

I have disagreements with you in your handling of OET, and with chlamor and his handling of OET, and with those here who have no investment in OET but came there to post in the last month only to escalate a feud. That I have a big problem with.

The only thing I have said about my disagreements relating to handling of OET I've said in the OET threads that OTHERS STARTED.

If you seeing me carrying those things outside of those threads, then we can talk about that.

Our stand in the dispute with OET, and everything chlamor is expressing here about that, is consistent with our express mission and purpose here at this site.

I know I am relatively new, but I like what is going on here. There are a least a billion places on the internets where liberals can rake sand and admire the patterns. There is only one of this place.

I vote for:

http://www.marieclaire.com/media/cm/marieclaire/images/guillotine.gif

excrement drips from his tongue:



It is not required of us to withhold or vote or throw away our vote in a symbolic gesture of support for an unelectable presidential candidate. The maximization of all possible positive action would be through supporting local progressive candidates at whatever level one's local community can sustain, and organizing within one's community around a persuasive and inclusive message. Public education about the real values of radical progressivism, and how many of them are in reality commonly shared values at their core is the starting point.

Respectfully:

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EPH/8516~Admitting-You-re-an-Asshole-Posters.jpg

Now shouldn't you get back to admiring the cuteness of The Emperor's children and kissing owner ass?

:shrug:

Are you here to discuss leftist politics? Because that is the purpose of this board.

Let's move the fuck on. This is tedious.

:thumbsup:

The problem is, and it came up in this case, that some new members don't get it. In this case, I am sure that leftinSF is a good member, but she is new and couldn't understand why omega's post was seemingly arbitrarily deleted. Omega said about something I wrote "could I get the link to that right wing source?" I would have been sorely tempted to delete that myself. Omega then went on to argue that anything critical of liberals helps the right wing and so may as well be right wing. That is a devious attempt to undermine and attack the very mission and purpose of the group here, and that mission and purpose includes the exclusion of exactly that sort of attack and disruption.

If someone objects to the mission and purpose of the project, they can start a thread, make their best case, and if they can get a consensus from the members about changing the mission and purpose, so be it. They can not go from thread to thread arguing about the validity of the mission and purpose of the project under one pretext or the other, because that is disruptive - obviously.

We worked hard to establish and defend a place where we could pursue the mission and purpose spelled out in the about us page. Others may not agree that there is a need for a place where people can talk without being red-baited, and that is fine. They claim at OET that no red-baiting is going on, that it is all in our imagination, that people are free to express left wing points of view and that we are paranoid to think otherwise, for example. However, we here do think there is a need for such a place. We do think that left wingers are red-baited and attacked mercilessly everywhere that liberals gather, and this is the place for people who see this that way.

Okay.

Yes, I am right.

:banghead:

That is one of the reasons for starting this thread.

We were clearly purged from OET, and purged for being left wingers. There is a climate of red-baiting, it is pervasive. This is one place on the Internet where that is not going to happen. That is our commitment. We clearly had red-baiting at OET, and you sided with management there. That is not consistent with supporting the mission and purpose of this project. If that is not clear to you, then we need to do some more work on that mission statement until it is more clear.

So please explain to me how you see the opposition to chlamor, and to me and to others that you have been expressing, and your support of OET management, as being consistent with the mission and purpose of this site so we can clear up any possible source of confusion. Doing that and helping us with this would be supporting the mission and purpose of this project.

This is a serious discussion.

I am seeing that the statements against capitalism and about the left and liberalism have left an opening - people can merely say that they agree with those and then keep the discussion going on that basis while still reserving the option to themselves of standing against the Left when the shit hits the fan, or of engaging in subtle and convoluted new forms of red-baiting. In fact, opposition to the Left does keep evolving, and that increases as the Left gains more influence. It is an ongoing rear guard action, a series of tactical retreats - "OK, I are with you that the Democratic party is bad BUT..." to "OK I agree with you that there is something wrong with liberalism BUT..." to "OK I agree with you that Capitalism has to go BUT..."

We have no arrived at "I agree with all of your left wing ideas BUT the way you are going about it is all wrong." We are alienating potential friends and supporters, we are not persuading people, we are not effectively selling our product, we won't attract any bees with vinegar and all of the rest of that. That is an encouraging sign of progress, I guess, that "being rude" is the charge against us now - even when some of us were not even being rude.

You sided with the owners, defended the prerogatives and privileges of the owners, the very concept that ownership ought to give people prerogatives and privileges - because they are the owners, and fought against the leftists. It doesn't matter if you claim now to agree with the leftists - that costs you nothing.

In the mission statement it says this:

NO RED-BAITING. Believe me, we've seen it enough to recognize it in its many disguises. There are plenty of other places to go if that's your game.

Does that need to be extended and clarified?

You can't stand against, work against, undermine and attack the Left, no matter what you claim to "believe" in or agree with, because that is in opposition to the express purpose and mission of the group and is therefore disruptive. How can we make that more clear in the board "about us" page?

The neolibs have been extorting and perverting that term for some time.


But as far as new members, is there a software function thingy where a user would have to read the mission statement before they could continue processing the signup?

Maybe we need "Which Side Are You On" in large letters across the top of the website. The pinned sticky note is too subtle it seems. People keep finding ways to invent sides that aren't there or declare that there are no sides or that we are fueling the "perception" of sides. Perhaps they think that "Oasis of Independent Thought" is an opening for indulging in solipsism.

sorry edit: just spotted word left out.

I'm never going to agree about what happened at OET. I'm profoundly disappointed in what TA, Chalm and the influx of PI people who have no ongoing connection to OET did that I can hardly put it into words.

TA seems to imply that agreeing about OET is sort of a prerequisite for posting here. I may have interpreted that wrongly. But if that's the case, then its not going to work - because I simply don't agree, and I never will. I think the actions of people here over at OET were embarrassing and disappointing.

But if we can agree to disagree fine. I want nothing more than the termination of this system of structural injustice and purposeful, sustained inequality in favor of workers, and collective communities of equal partners with shared voice in their own affairs.

The temptation to keep talking about OET is there, especially when its still an active topic(s) because I disagree. But I don't have to do that.

I don't post here most frequently and never have, only because the scope of discussion is so narrow that, save for select instances, my input seems to be limited to "yup."

But I nevertheless appreciate many of the collected articles reposted here to be easily found, as well as the occasional enlightening exchanges.

So do what you feel is most appropriate for the community. I've always felt like a guest anyway. If we can agree to disagree on OET, and some sort of declared agreement on that topic is not a requisite for being here, then great. I will just stop commenting in the OET threads.

If that's not good enough, or for any other reason (including doubting intent, or questioning motives, etc.) you decide together on the need to brand me as a disruptor, then I'll accept that too, and you can remove me - or I can voluntarily remove myself.

Up to you.

People can't see beyond titles and brand names. The problem is, that is true of ALL words related to politics. Also, we have some who are playing games with us about word definitions. They are not confused, they want to pretend they are. "I think the word progressive should mean such and such, so therefore everything you are saying is invalid and I should be free to troll and disrupt and there is nothing you can do about that."

I don't think it would make any difference if people had to read the rules in order to sign up, because the trolls and disruptors wouldn't therefore become good members. They would simply look for loopholes in it or weak places to exploit, and then start debates about whether they were or were not in violation of the rules. Since the rest of us would then be under some illusion that the problem had been handled by making people read the rules, we would be weaker rather than stronger against those arguments.

Making people read the rules could be used against them if and when we banned them, but "you read the rules when we hired you, so you have no excuse, and you are fired" has a bad management-owner feel to it anyway.

and instead of the current header we just had the big arrow.

How do we make that happen? Is it easy?

Second of all, it's up to you.

I didn't read all the stuff in the middle about OET.

Just the mission statement, what the site is about

I hatez rules!

:)

Sorry I see now how that can be taken two ways.

I am not trying to enforce some sort of purity test.

I asked you to explain your opposition to us, that is all. I suspect you oppose the purpose of the group.

My actions at OET were "embarrassing and disappointing?" Fighting back against slander and personal attacks, and against red-baiting and witch hunts, against a double standard being applied against leftists embarrasses and disappoints you? Or do you doubt that this was what I was doing? The mission statement says that is what we are doing. The mission statement says there is a necessity to do just that. Do you think that red-baiting and witch hunts go on anywhere? Is it a problem? Would you claim that it was not happening at OET?

How was what I did and said over there inconsistent with the mission and purpose of the group here? That is the only test that means anything, especially in any discussion about it here. The attacks are about "those people" and we all know exactly whom is being attacked. You certainly do. Are "those" people acting and speaking consistent with their avowed express mission and purpose? I say that they are. Would you have them act or speak contrary to their mission and purpose?

No part of the mission and purpose statement says "be polite" or "cater to liberals" or "pretend that red-baiting and witch hunts are not going on" or "do not defend others from red-baiting and witch hunts" or "obey rules that are being enforced with a double standard and used to purge leftists."

Feel free to offer suggestions as to how we could have done a better job of defending ourselves against red-baiting and witch hunts. But is you are saying that something else - being nice, or obeying Andrea, or deferring to Jake and Nikki for the sake of "getting along" or something, should take precedence over defending ourselves against red-baiting and witch hunts, you are expressing opposition to the mission itself. You don't have to agree with the mission, but you must respect it here.

You cannot be on the OET managements side and our side, too. This isn't about rules and manners and courtesy, this is about real life and death issues. Now if this is just some kind of yuppie hobby with you, then I think "fuck off" is the right phrase. If you want to get real, then do it! Who's side are you on?

"Socialist or "Leftist": "Someone advocating the extension of democratic principles into the social <...> realm. This is <...> the extension of 'Liberty, Equality and Fraternity' into the disposition of social property. This includes the ownership of land, banks, and large enterprises, as well as dams, roads and the like, in 'common.' The extension of "The Rights of Man" into the Economic sphere (the Right to Education, a Job, Social Security, Housing, health Care, etc.).""

This is from a thread by TA: http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=98322


I add some shit... :)

Well, obviously, but I think it's deliberate. He's playing games. I'm tired of it.

[div class="excerpt"]
Feel free to offer suggestions as to how we could have done a better job of defending ourselves against red-baiting and witch hunts. But is you are saying that something else - being nice, or obeying Andrea, or deferring to Jake and Nikki for the sake of "getting along" or something, should take precedence over defending ourselves against red-baiting and witch hunts, you are expressing opposition to the mission itself. You don't have to agree with the mission, but you must respect it here.
[/quote]

Okay. I can do that. I'll attempt to demonstrate respect for the mission by ceasing discussion about OET.

I agree. Off with the fucking heads!

(Love your guillotine, Starry...)

It isn't about you.

We are trying to establish the bottom line here.

Masochism anyone?

Edit to say: Wha...?

The mission of the group is not negotiable.

Are you saying that something else - being nice, or obeying Andrea, or deferring to Jake and Nikki for the sake of "getting along" or something, should take precedence over defending ourselves against red-baiting and witch hunts?

PH can oppose us or support us - the group, the purpose. I don't care. But we do need to know which it is.

Apparently it's pretty hard to treat

:)

When the yuppy sumbitch craw-fished on his "begging forgiveness" thread I said, "Enough!"

As Starry messenger said so eloquently, "Chop his fucking head off!" Well, figuratively, of course...

Which is part of the problem.

This isn't about OET being managers and "your side" being noble. This is about a collective community with shared principles and collectively agreed on structure. And then "your side" saying "yes, we agree and want to be part of this community - oh wait, just kidding, fuck you and fuck your rules, we'll independently do whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want, because we're not partners in this community - we're individualistic self-righteous "me-first" gate crashers representing the absolute worst of our modern culture of entitlement. Because we're "right" - therefore everything is justified.

I am asking him to explain how he can support both, reconcile support for both in his own mind, consistent with the purpose of this group.

I'll save you any trouble. I'm disruptive to the goals of PI, apparently.

So, I'll remove myself.

Good luck. You won't see me again. (Cheers all around.)

http://kingdomcalling.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/carrying-the-cross.jpg

No one was trying to get rid of you. This was an opportunity to pitch in and be part of the community here, and resolve some confusion.

I am asking if you support the mission and purpose of the group here (not "goals" as that place us back in the "agenda" and "plans" realm) - you don't have to, and you are free to argue another point of view about that openly - and asked you how you could support the management at OET against the people here if you do support the mission and purpose of the group here.

"I want nothing more than the termination of this system of structural injustice and purposeful, sustained inequality in favor of workers, and collective communities of equal partners with shared voice in their own affairs."

Does this mean you are in favor of the end of capitalism and for some form of socialism? Say things plainly. stop using weasel phrases and word groupings that you can claim mean something else. Who's side are you on?

It is not a trick question. It is simple. Who's side are you on? If you can;t answer that straightforwardly then you are in the wrong place. The right thing to do would be to leave and not come back...

:roflmao:

He is too immersed in deception and liberal "reasoning". He cannot get passed the idea that socialism is bad for him, personally. That is why he can't say he supports it, but goes all around the world to avoid it. He is lying to us and to himself. He is a waste...a dry leaf...

He certainly isn't going to address your post #12 or 14. He's playing games whether he knows it or not. It's a waste of our time and there are a hundred other places he can do that.

Wait...is that redundant? Wait...what?

One person said "fuck you and fuck your rules." That became an excuse to force everyone into choosing sides and then take out a bunch of people - I didn't know who was on which side and was surprised by the sides that some people joined - you for example.

I never agreed with the rules, and never claimed to, and never was told that I had to. I always argued that the way they were worded they could and would be used selectively against leftists.

I never broke the rules, even though I disagreed with them. So how come I was banned? The other banned members never broke the rules.

Your argument just falls to pieces under even the slightest scrutiny, PH.

I wonder if we should go back to closed admin meetings, and also fully disclose what the arrangement is. I would like to get everything clear and unambiguous, and move forward. We keep having to re-plow the same ground.

Rather than having every thread out there become "what is wrong with those commies" I thought we could use it as a chance to tighten up the ship and put some chronic stuff to rest once and for all.

I think the About Us is very clear - it needs to be emphasized somehow, and the graphic needs to be changed. Anyone new coming across this place will know what's up, and as for the interboard overlap whatnot, no amount of behind-the-scenes planning will change that.

I don't like the closed shit. I mean, if we need to talk we can talk but I really the think the groundwork is there already.

For weeks we go along and everything's fine. Then someone or something gets some of us all riled up and we indulge it and then it passes. It's more about our own reactions than it is the board and it's description. We tend to let it play out for too long. I poke at it out of boredom, you do it out of an unnatural amount of patience or something.

Apparently that's a recurring pattern. We need to follow and enforce our own board statement, heh. That's the problem. If people are here to fuck around, then we shouldn't indulge them (or ourselves).

You convinced me.

"You do it out of an unnatural amount of patience or something" - ROFL. Well that doesn't hurt anything, does it? Maybe I bore them to death, so they leave lol.

.

We just need FTP access, and then swap out the image(s). We even made new images at some point last summer, still using "progressive" but getting away from the new age-y feel.

than banning, then they can't complain about what fascists we are. :)

I think that many of these gentrified fucks use these boards as a hobby - I think that is what PH and these other yuppie assholes do. I would like to get them in person, one on one, and see how they do...just sayin'...

We seem to have scared omega off just by starting this thread.

My feeling is we have nothing to hide and no reason to fear talking about anything. It is the trolling, the insertion of the same "what is wrong with those commies" baiting into every thread that is a problem, because that is disruptive (hate to use that word, since Skinner has ruined it for me.) That is all they have got - other than hacking into the board and hijacking it - and they won't and can't stand and defend their positions openly and honestly.

These false claims are bogus. The false claims were bogus in the thread where they first appeared:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=105666

A new thread has been started, using those false claims to suit some agenda that has nothing to do with me, my words, thoughts or actions.

"We have someone, omega, who clearly does not agree with - is antagonistic to - the express purpose of the board."

I did not accept the misrepresentations in the other thread. I do not accept the manipulation in this one.

Please do not pander to this attempt to drum up hatred toward a Goldstein.

http://newcombat.net/Conversation/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/1984-movie-goldstein.jpg

Whatever this agenda and vendetta is, it's not about or because of me.

Thank you.

doesn't seem to realize his assertions have nothing to do with omega.

It is not about you.

If I am wrong when I said omega clearly does not agree with - is antagonistic to - the express purpose of the board, it would be pretty easy for you to correct that for us. Yes, we have an "agenda" - if that is what you want to call the mission and purpose. You either share that, or you don't. We are not going to endlessly debate the validity of the purpose and mission with you, nor debate what is wrong with the members here or their behavior. There are all sorts of places on the Internet to debate that stuff - what is wrong with those commies, how we should all behave, what is the meaning of truth, what liberalism really means to me, my personal belief systems and so forth.

If you want to discuss the mission and purpose of this project, start a thread and offer your ideas as to what the purpose and the mission here should be. It is not going to be a topic of discussion on any and every thread, because that is disruptive.

I am not making any "false claims."

How is anyone misrepresenting or manipulating you?

A new thread has been started, using those false claims to suit some agenda that has nothing to do with me, my words, thoughts or actions.

I did not accept the misrepresentations in the other thread. I do not accept the manipulation in this one.

I can't figure out what you are trying to do or say.

You keep agreeing with me, yet keep arguing (I guess.)

Here is where we agree:

- You are antagonistic to the purpose of this group - "some agenda" you call that. I agree that you are antagonistic to the purpose here.

- This is not about you, and has nothing to do with you. I agree.

- You do not accept the purpose and mission here, and do not accept having that explained to you. I agree with you on that. You are not accepting what I am saying.

So on my main points, you are in complete agreement.

We only disagree on this - you want to characterize what we are doing in derogatory terms, as "an agenda," and you want to characterize that being pointed out to you as "false claims" and as "manipulation" and "misrepresentation." That is trolling.

Being asked to not disrupt threads is not "manipulation."

My claims are these - you do not agree with the purpose of the board; you do not want to be asked about whether you do or do not; you want to be able to make derogatory remarks about the purpose and mission here wherever and whenever you choose; you are not making relevant responses to my posts about this, but instead characterizing what I say in derogatory terms.

Those are my claims. Are those claims false, or are they not?

What possible reason could there be for you to continue to post the same things again and again other than to antagonize people and cause trouble? If I am wrong about that, all you need to do is to simply explain what it is you are trying to say. Simple, easy, clear.

Where is the problem?

at manipulating to suit your personal agenda, whatever it may be, which as you know, was the agenda being referred to.

Nothing you have said about -- and certainly not FOR -- me is true.

On that we agree.






"The right wing herds cats by terrorizing them. That works with cats, too."

Are these statements true, or are they not?

[div class="excerpt"]You want to characterize what we are doing in derogatory terms, as "an agenda," and you want to characterize that being pointed out to you as "false claims" and as "manipulation" and "misrepresentation."

You do not agree with the purpose of the board; you do not want to be asked about whether you do or do not; you want to be able to make derogatory remarks about the purpose and mission here wherever and whenever you choose; you are not making relevant responses to my posts about this, but instead characterizing what I say in derogatory terms.[/quote]

Your response, a rebuttal I guess, is to do all of those things once again. So how can they then not be true? Yet if they are true, why are you still responding and arguing? What is there to argue about?

Here is what I see. The trouble all has a common denominator - people who are in direct opposition to what we are trying to do here, use a variety of pretexts and misdirection and excuses to act out their opposition and try to disrupt things. One would think that a simple suggestion - hey, here is what we are up to at this place - would be sufficient and people would respect that.

I suspect that some recent visitors are hoping to be banned, so they can run back to other boards trophy in hand and say "see? They are hypocrites!"

I would suggest that we have a forum "questioning and attacking the mission and purpose of the board" - not sure if those are the best words, that is just what I have been saying. Then we just move disruptive posts there and be done with it.

It is pretty clear - all of the talk about motives and agendas, about going about things wrong, about hypocrisy, about alienating friends and allies, about broad brushes, about definitions of words, about rules. I don't care if people do that, myself, but that stuff is all for the purpose of trying to undermine or sabotage things here. They want to play a game of "prove it!" or "catch me if you can" and cause an uproar about it or play the martyr, but that is all pretty transparent and obvious. They try to turn every thread into a discussion about what is wrong with us, and demand that we defend ourselves. That is disruptive.

Let's just have a forum where they can talk to their hearts content about what is wrong with us, and how we are doing everything wrong, and how everything we are saying and doing is bullshit, and then any posts about that subject can simply be moved there and out of the thread.

No sincere and honest person would be offended by that - if we moved a post and said "we have a forum where you can question the validity of what we are doing here. Talking about that in other threads and forums has proven to be disruptive."

No drama, no time wasted, no threads disrupted.

Nothing you have said about -- and certainly not FOR -- me is true.

I don't know anything about you. We are talking about what you are doing here, that's all.

First, let me say up front that it's difficult to tell the players without a program, and I'm struggling with the plot a bit, too. I've only been here a couple days, I have a lot of old threads to read to figure things out, and I've only even been on the Internet boards a few months.

I read the PI "About Us" page, and it seems pretty clear. I intend to continue posting on DU and OET, but for very different purposes than simply joining with like minds. It seems that this site has the potential to be far closer in line with my own beliefs and my own agenda for the future.

The effects of unregulated capitalism are so clear to me that I not only question the judgement, I question the intelligence, sanity and principles of anyone who can look around the world and still defend it. I can easily envision a socially responsible "capitalism" that rewards initiative without letting power accumulate in the hands of a few bosses, and which holds the general welfare, not greed, as it's highest principle.

While I'm not an advocate of violence, I clearly see a class war coming, and I don't believe the Ruling Class will hesitate to make it violent the moment it looks like the masses are truly organized enough to challenge their control. Thus, while I believe the Working Class has the power to take control nonviolently, because we ultimately control both production and consumption, any credible threat to the status quo will become violent.

I'd like to suggest that, if the purpose of this site is to promote socialism and progressivism, rather than defend it, why don't we simply ignore posts trying to open that debate or challenge the validity of these perspectives. If the debate is over for us, wouldn't it be best to simply let non-socialist/non-progressive non-entities post to their hearts' content without validating their opinions with replies? If the debate over socialism and capitalism is over for us, as it certainly is for me, then why waste the time?

Forgive my boldness with so little experience on PI.

Is there a board or agency somewhere that decides what the highest prinicple of capitalism is? Is that even how capitalism works? What does it mean to "reward initiative"?

Is capitalism a distinct thing apart from power accumulating in the hands of a few bosses?

My I encourage you to do a reading of the threads that cover the first few chapters of Capital (*as opposed to trying to read the threads that will inform what is only the latest in a long line of Red Purges on some other lame ass site)?

It seems that you are on the right track but still have notions about capitalism that need to be revisited at such time as you have a more explicit understanding of the dynamic - appropriation - that characterizes capitalist social relations. At the atomic level, capitalism is nothing more than theft. There can be no kinder, gentler theft.

Cheers,

http://files.myopera.com/gialioy/albums/882818/35-Fight%20Back.jpg

and please stick around.

This too shall pass.

The last week has been a little off the wall. Board wars aren't constant. They crop up now and again.

I'm glad you think the About Us is clear - that is reassuring from someone new to the board (and someone new to this odd network of internet forums).


Welcome!

:shrug:

That's a good argument, I guess. What I meant by that form of capitalism is that it would preserve the market, including differential compensation for differential production, while being under control of a system that makes it answer to the people, rather than under the control of mythical market "forces" or "natural laws" that somehow impy that the Haves have because they are superior to the Have-nots.

(I know that there are probably lots of definitions doctrines that would destroy my beliefs, but I'd ask that we not let definitions limit the possibilities, any more than Edward Abbey let facts get in the way of the truth.)

As I understand capitalism, its essence is investing money to make money. It it's most simple form, accepting only market forces as limits, it's little more than a predator-prey system.

While I don't invest money to make money (unless you count all the tuition I paid), I've been told I'm a capitalist because I trade labor for wages. For me, "labor" isn't physical, it's scientific and engineering expertise combined with a knack for cutting through corporate, government and cultural bullshit to solve problems.

My assumption, possibly simple-minded, is that in a socialist democracy the people would have the final say about what limits and goals to assign to "capitalism." Will the people, via the state, control all means of production and distribution, or do we let the owner of the local bookstore keep his business because it's small? I say simple-minded because in my half-century on this planet, I've found that a universal truth is abuse of power.

The tendency to abuse power, regardless of the source or the doctrine behind that power, is why I believe that if we truly are headed for another revolution it will only be the next in a series.

I'll do some studying an come back. (Please don't expect me to memorize Marx. I didn't throw out one gospel to adopt another.)

What you describe isn't capitalism. It simply can't be a system that answers to the people. It's at the root of that system - it doesn't work for the people.

Definitions are vital and this is exactly why.

Is there a sentimental attachment? I honestly don't understand it.

Capitalism has it's own goal and it isn't the will of the people. Capitalism has no limits. 'Growth' is built into it. It cannot be regulated. It is global, and it plans to grow and grow and grow. It has no mechanism to deal with the fact that this is impossible.

It is not a good system. Well, unless you're in the top 3% or so.

"I can easily envision a socially responsible "capitalism" that rewards initiative without letting power accumulate in the hands of a few bosses, and which holds the general welfare, not greed, as it's highest principle."

Well, I can't, and this board is about allowing those of us who can't to speak freely without some crap about civility or community. I'm not here to envision some ever-growing community. The people at the liberal boards like OET, think that they can offer a prototype for how liberals can all get along, and promote enlightenment to all of us working class retards. Growing the enlightened community is the goal.

I/we are here to offer blistering social criticism, to offer strategic approaches to ending Capitalism and to demonstrate solidarity to anyone that is on the side of the working class, especially those of us who are uncivil and without manners. It ain't a waste of time brother, it's all there is.

After all, it's all we know.

Until new data comes along...

Trouble is, 'nature' becomes obscure to the point that a good many think those puppies aren't still cute ;

They'll burn us at the stake eventually, so until then playing it safe is the waste of time.

Who is rewarding whom with what? Marx is dense, even paragraphs like the one below will require some work if you haven't read him, but maybe addresses "reward initiative" a little?

"...after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

on edit: this is meant for Prospero!! Kid can probably say this in his sleep...editted again for clarification???

If fact, what I was describing probably isn't capitalism at all. I'm told that I'm a capitalist, but I earn a wage. I don't invest money to make money.

When I worked as a scientist, I routinely witnessed people getted wrapped around the axle cramming nature, which exists in continua along multiples axes, into nice human-made categories that don't really exist in nature. The end result was a very orderly and precise description of something that doesn't exist.

So, what would you prefer to "socially responsible capitalism?" and how we educate the masses who are not among the 1900 or so people registered on PI if a new member of the PI community gets shot down for a poor choice of words rather than being educated?

Please offer an alternative.

I'm heading out the door in a minute.

No one is shooting you down. You yourself said the About Us was clear - we are no fans of capitalism here so if someone shows up and tries to make a case for it of course we will respond by questioning or criticizing the ideas. It's not personal.

And we are all capitalists in the sense that we live in a capitalist economy, again, it's not personal and no one is gonna criticize you simply for existing in the society as it is, having a job, a savings account, whatever. There's no way around it. I'm sure many people here have a 401k or whatever sort of retirement accounts. Others don't because they are broke. It is what it is.

The rest of your post, well, like I said I'm on my way out the door. I'll be back.

I hope you don't feel piled on. We just get excited when we get a new person :)

We're all in this together as capitalists? C'mon man..

EDIT: wait, who said this? Megan or Prospero? In addition to changing your life plans you changed your avatar lady!!! Too confusing!

Anyway, I don't think this is a good way of approaching the question. There are very few pure capitalists in truth (petit bourgeoisie, small business owners, sure). More importantly, what does it do but suggest that everyone has culpability? Its a bad idea because you're only going to encourage Prospero here..

I adressed this too at post 77, maybe that's where to go with this?? ("rewards initiative" initially hit me as "good dog" but might not be the intent...?)

It was a clumsy choice of words, probably.

Basically, I'm talking about a system where people with twice the talent, or who put in twice the work, get twice the compensation. I understand the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" thing, but I also believe human nature is such that a person who produces twice as much expects twice the reward.

He had plenty of initiative.

Produces what?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/3024470265_1f0779891f.jpg

.

I'm talking about a system where people with twice the talent

Why should someone be rewarded for genetic accidents? So what if you're good looking or can jump higher or add quicker?


or who put in twice the work

Here we can have a discussion. There have been various proposals by socialists to reward labor based on both duration and how onerous the work is. In my opinion it's way to early to take a principled position on these things, but surely it can't be that hard to figure out.


human nature is such that a person who produces twice as much expects twice the reward

No, it's history or custom. People have very different physical attributes (again genetic accidents) that effect productive capacities. Individuals even change through age or injury in their abilities over a lifetime. Even more importantly, in the US productivity has consistently risen accompanied by a decline in real wages. You're elevating your individual speculation about fairness to principle of social organization. Nothing fair now, and it's got nothing to do with human nature.

The San regarded the farmers' cattle as game and started hunting them and the Khoi saw the farmers as intruders on their grazing fields...

http://rlv.zcache.com/i_hear_the_hottentots_are_young_and_beautiful_sticker-p217039021702615565qjcl_400.jpg

What if the person with this "talent" or "worked harder" was in circumstances where their efforts produced very little? What happens to them? And how are we defining "talented" or "hard working"? Who is the invisible being who is deciding those things?

Thinking in terms of doctrines and alternative systems really limits us. That context is artificial and weak - taught to the intellectuals for the purpose of prejudicing us against discussing material reality and objective conditions.

I don't think anyone here is selling or promoting or converting people to new beliefs, new doctrines or dogmas, or alternative systems. In fact, that is the one thing we all have in common here. We are questioning and rejecting all of that. Those who would attack us insist that we must be selling or promoting something, that we must have some doctrine, that we must share some belief system, that we must be promoting some alternative system. That all exists only in their imaginations, and they just use that to attack us in lieu of having any serio0us arguments.

People try to figure out what "our agenda" might be. what our secret plan might be, what we "believe" in, what we are promoting and selling, and since none of those things exist they make shit up. That then leads to red-baiting and to all of the trouble we see.

None of that is happening here. There isn't any dogma, there isn't any doctrine, there aren't any plans, there is no agenda, there are no personal belief systems, there is no sales and marketing persuasion going on, no preaching of beliefs to convert people is happening. All of that is in fact part of bourgeoisie thinking, prevalent among college educated (mostly white mostly suburban) folks, and they project that onto everyone else.

Well said.

I wrote that really quick and yeah, that sentence is terrible. We aren't all capitalists in any sense. I was just trying to address Prosperos concern that we were shooting him down or that we think people are at fault for having to have a job or whatever, that it's not personal. I was trying to say personal 'culpability' isn't the point, it seems to have come across as the opposite.

There were plenty other subthreads going on to get into the nitty gritty with him anyway. He's getting 5 replies to every post, heh.

My tendency to play friendly hostess I suppose. I did it quickly and poorly.

Yeah, my PImp avatar had to go. That's Chester, he's just a filler until I see something that suits my fancy. Sorry 'bout that.

eta: I also just realized that I misread his post too a little bit. I gotta slow down sometimes.

Maybe we should add this to the about PI page.

We don't envision reforming Capitalism, and this board is about allowing those of us who can't to speak freely without some crap about civility or community. We are not here to envision some ever-growing community. The people at the liberal boards think that they can offer a prototype for how liberals can all get along, and promote enlightenment to all of us working class retards. Growing the enlightened community is their goal, but not ours.

we are here to offer blistering social criticism, to offer strategic approaches to ending Capitalism and to demonstrate solidarity to anyone that is on the side of the working class, especially those of us who are uncivil and without manners. It ain't a waste of time brother, it's all there is.

It's very clear and will certainly improve the page as it stands. Maybe add it after this line above the 'rules' part?


Yes, we are pointing to capitalism as the root of our problems.

Ya know, we are being hornswoggled by all of this "polite" stuff, and it goes hand in hand with the "let's all get along and build a like-minded community" and "we need to work within the system and find practical solutions and make realistic concrete plans" crap.

A person just sent me this email in regards to the privatization of space thread. Surprised the hell out of me. I don't think she will mind me posting it here anonymously. I think there are all kinds of people in the general public who we don't hear from and don't see on the boards who share these sentiments and who express those sentiments just like this, as well.

[div class="excerpt"]Sons o bitches

Exactly like your research on land grant universities, education and farming. It is the public's money that's been invested in NASA for decades and that has built the infrastructure, without which no corporatist mother fucker could even begin to dream about privatizing space. It's flat out theft, yet they're successfully creating the delusion that they can do better than the government institution that created the technology, took all the risks, bore all the setbacks and consequences. Now that they (we) have achieved phenomenal advances and better safety, suddenly the old way is all wrong and we need new solutions?!

"The Falcon 1 and Falcon 5 -- which he plans to fly out of Launch Complex 36 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station -- also will be extraordinarily cheap"

If private corporations can do better than NASA, why does he need to launch his privatized space junk at OUR air force station?! This is disgusting.

This has to be stopped. PMFs (Prick Mother Fuckers – I'm thinking of trademarking it J) are taking EVERYTHING!!! Makes me want to puke.

[/quote]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I am such an asshole that I would probably have tried to be "polite" and not offend people lol.

It pops up when the anti-capitalists get all outraged when they get purged, particularly on the basis of a "violation of rights". The contradiction is reconcilable, but it needs explanation.

The truth is that liberal doctrine is predicated on that "open debate". There is little of substance without it. If, that debate is constantly undermined by every manner of underhanded rule-mongering and administrative sanction, than it is hypocrisy pure and simple. That is true, and it is also true that this is because Liberal debate cannot survive in the very circumstances in which Liberals nominally demand that it must.

The anti-capitalists have a different problem, as you lay out. They are attempting to self organize in conditions that could not be more unfavorable. More... we have no abstract commitment to "free debate" - we have a commitment to debate. The two are very different.

It is important to make these distinctions without confusion and with a minimum of outrage.... exactly because the difference appears subtle at first glance.

Because what it is saying is so damn true. The truth is not fucking polite. It is in your face and it actually sucks. People who don't want to hear it use their demand for civility and 'respect' as a shield from it.

I'm supposed to be getting mellower and learning that 'we may as well work within the system it's our only choice', as I've been told a hundred times in the last 15 years. But the opposite seems to be happening. I'm getting less polite and less civil.

It's better to be blunt and uncivilized than a polite asshole. (and Mike, You're no asshole)

It always fascinates me that the minute socialism is mentioned people immediately start talking about hard work, personal initiative and rewards. Um, that's capitalism.

No one ever says, "wait if we get rid of capitalism how will we provide for the common good?" (There's a big clue right there)

Millions and millions of us all over the globe subsidize 1% of us. We do it whether or not we're "working hard," are "talented," or have "personal initiative."

Some of us just wonder why the fuck we're doing this.

Yeah. Of course whenever I hear the word "rewards" I instantly think of its opposite "punishments."

LOL, definitely worth trademarking!

There's no rule against denying the truth when it's right in your face. But there is a rule against pointing that out.

Hmmmm...

That's a huge debate regarding nature and nurture. There is a genetic component to behavior that has always been a political hot potato. Edward O. Wilson was once assaulted in public by "liberals" who were offended by his views on the subject.

How much is genetic and how much is culture will be forever debated, but there is most certainly a human nature, just as there is a chimpanzee nature, a gorilla nature, a dolphin nature and an amoeba nature.

Animal breeders know about the "natures" of their particular breeds, and successfully demonstrate the genetic component of that nature. I own two working-bred German shepherds that share the general characteristics of German shepherd nature, but also have temperament and physical differences that make them better protection, tracking, police and military dogs than the pet and show lines that now dominate the breed.

Now, that said, intelligent animials there is also a cultural component to nature. Working within the cultural component to improve the human condition I would welcome. (Let's start with capitalism.) But using culture to supress perfectly acceptable elements of human nature, such as ambition and a desire for recognition and status among peers, I'll have no part of.

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan argued in "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" that the human propensity towards xenophobia, violence and obedience to charasmatic leaders should not be denied, but understood, so that we can work to control it be recognizing when it happens. They weren't arguing for conditioning to supress those behaviors, but for recognition so that they can be controlled.

This is far too complicated a subject for this thread/forum. My only point is that there is such a thing as human nature, and it's merely a cultural mechanism that causes us to deny that.

"Human nature" is malleable, determined by social conditions.

It's as simple as Chlamor's sig file.

Modern science has said as much, even as it remains controversial in just the same manner as climate change is, albeit with a magnitude befitting its even greater ideological import.

Still, I have to say I admire your erudition, general direction and fresh contribution.

"Breeding will tell" and "human nature" arguments have always been and always are defenses for the ruling class. I don't mean that as merely a declaration, nor as a belief, but rather as a call for further discussion and better understanding.

Is it not so that arguments about breeding and nature versus nurture and the like are used, can only be used for a defense or apology for social and political conditions that favor the ruling class?

"They (Sagan and Druyan) weren't arguing for conditioning to suppress those behaviors, but for recognition so that they can be controlled."

"Controlled." Operative word there. The position of the scientist as an external and neutral observer (which they are of course not) can introduce an extreme prejudice and bias into any discussion about political and social conditions.

"The human propensity towards xenophobia, violence and obedience to charasmatic leaders..."

That is an assumption, and from that their argument flows.

People have a propensity toward those things under certain social and political conditions.

"Now, that said, intelligent animals there is also a cultural component to nature."

For humans, unlike with breeding animals, culture is not a "component," it is for all practical purposes everything. That is the salient feature of human existence.

We could debate whether this salient feature - that we are first and foremost social creatures and not show dogs or plow horses - is itself from nature or from nurture, but that doesn't make much difference in discussions about social and political conditions.

As social creatures, regardless of what a person's breeding may be, that person can play a valuable role in the community - as valuable as anyone else. That is not a consideration with breeding animals, but is the only consideration with human beings.

Insofar as shared genetic traits, clearly the most important one must be the propensity toward cooperation and community - otherwise human beings would not have survived and would not exist today.

Denying the truth doesn't upset anyone - that is the entire purpose for the get togethers in the first place - so pointing it out is therefore "rude." What gets seen as "rude" is not politically neutral.

People find it "rude" to have their assumptions about social conditions challenged, especially when it threatens their own status.

Didn't I do a picture thread about the Brothers Marx that explained all of this pretty clearly?

Threatening the power and status of the ruling class and their house Negros, and ruining the decorum and ambiance at their pleasant soirees are one and the same.

Polite and pleasant little elegant tea parties are the only thing that the liberals do politically, the only place they can be found. "You are free to challenge social conditions and advocate radical change just so long as you don't spoil the decorum at our little gatherings - our little parties and what we discuss there, and who is and who is not invited and upon what conditions, are sacrosanct and not to be questioned" is a self-contradictory statement. The polite little gatherings are the very thing that needs to be overthrown. They are the only thing happening, an end in themselves.

I think you're right about that. In the recent OET debacle, I found myself asking how could it be any other way? Our friends over there did a good job of pointing out the hypocrisy, before they got the boot, but they were always going to get the boot.

One thing I would have liked to have seen discussed, but wasn't about to post it there (and it may be unwise to even say it here), is that tone and manner are always tactical. One day you may walk into the boss's office all polite with a petition addressing some grievance. The next day you might be at his front door with a howling mob, demanding that he come out and grant concessions.

It's a little harder to think that way on liberal discussion boards. Many of those people are so infuriating and stubborn, that attacking their right wing ideology and smugness might be the only sincere response. I think often of your formulation of who's going to be with us at the Town Hall meetings, but discussions boards aren't those meetings.

We don't do that here. We share. We will all use "PMF" wherever applicable! In fact I'm regretting closing that account at OET - that would have been a fab place to use it. ;)

I know what's going on. I work in the corporate world, and I answer directly to the president of the corporation. I've worked around or for the oil industry for three decades, including ten years as a regulator. It's power and money and control. Anything beyond that is overthinking the problem.

On the other hand, I expect to be compensated in line with what I produce. How that is judged will be a problem for the architects of whatever system replaces capitalism. If I weren't being paid what I'm being paid, I'd be spending a lot more time fly fishing. If my pay weren't distinguishable from a person's producing half as much, then I'd adjust my output to match the compensation, and use the surplus effort in other efforts.

I work to make money. I'm not doing what I planned to be doing when I started my education. Reality became a factor, so I work in exchange for pay. I don't like who I work for, but it gives me access to a lot of information, and I write a lot. If I published what I write today, I would be unemployed and unemployable. So, write, revise, and plan to become a major pain in the ass when I retire and no longer need the income.

That's my rationalization for what I do and who I do it for.

I need to learn the jargon and the sensibilities of this site, or I'm afraid I'm going to drag you good people through ground you all plowed long ago.

I'll get to work reviewing posts.

great minds... ;)

because we're not bandying about opinions, here. Or well, maybe, you are.

You think there is some intrinsic "human nature"? Great, rather than drone on about how sure you are that human nature exists, just detail and document what it is, and then there won't be anything to "agree to disagree" about.

But, of course, you can only make vague allusions and speak in generalities about German Shepherds which is not only unconvincing but rather insulting.

So forget about "cultural mechanisms" and animal behavior patterns and tell me how much study in the field of anthropology you done. How far back did the genus Homo -- ie "humans" -- diverge from other hominids (2-3 million years)? When did the Neanderthals disappear (30,000 years ago)? When do humans first appear in the fossil record (200,000 years ago)?

How long have humans been diverging from earlier common ancestors like chimpanzees (5-7 million years)?

So you are on the hook for, at a minimum and very generously, 100,000s of years of proving "human nature". But even if you wanted to start at the beginning of society, thats still a full plate because the first groups that are believed to be sedentary instead of nomadic seem to emerge in the Mediterranean 14000 years ago. If you want to start with the origins of writing then you are still somewhere between the Neolithic and Bronze Age which is dated at ca 4000 BC.

This is the time of Egypt and Sumer and agriculture spreading across Eurasia, so I am pretty sure you can't possibly shave off any more of history without some real gymnastic contortions.

So, tell me, what does that authority of authorities Carl Sagan have to say on the subject again?

People who make twice as much are not (well, at least theoretically) taxed double the amount but quite a bit more. Your idea would essentially be a "flat tax" putting you in the same camp as Steve Forbes.

Think about the stratification you're proposing here. First off, if you weren't being paid what you're being paid you'd spend alot more time worried about finances, forget fucking flyfishing.

I mean what the hell, man? You know that half the fucking world -- something like 3.5 BILLION people -- are living on less than 2 dollars a day, right? You know that the so-called Third World (which, again, is roughly half the world) has about 20% of world GDP, right?

I'm pretty sure they'd look at you and someone who makes half as much as you and say "both of you fuckers are rich"

What about making sure everyone eats man? Has clothes, shelter, and other basic amenities?

Whats more, past your income tell me all about these "surplus efforts" you'd use. Tell you what, quit your job tomorrow and come back in a year and tell me how well you're getting by on these surplus efforts and flyfishing.

Further -- you say if you published what you write, you would be unemployed. Big deal, you'd have so much more surplus effort to apply to other things and so much time to flyfish.

Or was that all bullshit in an attempt to justify why you feel you are entitled to a relatively high rate of compensation?

There can obviously be no "free discussion" in the model of liberal discussion boards, but if you recognize this then it is not adequate to simply lob charges of hypocrisy while resting on the platform that your right to free discussion is being denied.

The hypocrisy is not some righteous target for us to stamp out, its -- as you say -- a tactical move to expose it for what it is.

All the "outrage" and indignation over what happened (and its not an isolated incident obviously) amounts to jack shit. It devolves almost instantly into the personal with petty sniping, accusations, and all kinds of other tangential and irrelevant "issues" (the technical term for these issues is 'poop')

That is, in my mind, the problem with the goings on at OET. What lessons were learned? What principles were really established or fought for?

We seem to be short on answers to those questions

And I fully expect to be challenged, corrected, and have my mind changed.

But we are going to disagree on "human nature." I'm not in any way disputing the huge cultural contribution when it comes to human behavior. In fact, I hope culture can overcome certain inate human tendencies primarily related to xenophobia and submission to dominance hierarchies, but there is a basic genetic predisposition in every organism. I know it robs us of self-determination to some limited degree, but the knowledge also empowers us to regain that self-determination through cultural practices designed to control that part of nature.

I would draw the line well short of the Clockwork Orange scenario of behavior control.

I hope my arguments will improve as I adapt to the PI culture.

It may not be apparent in my clumsy argument here, but I am actually paid very well to intercede in situations where I can use my engineering, scientific and problem-solving skills to cut through political, corporate and cultural bullshit to solve problems. (Ironically, it is my lack of respect for those political, corporate and cultural factors--they are transient concerns that change over time, often nothing more than straw and red herring arguments--that allow me to see them as mere obstacles and circumvent them.)

That might be what I mean when I say "reward." I don't mean "good doggie;" I don't mean the opposite of "punishment;" I mean compensation in line with the amount and quality of services I render. I'm very good at what I do, and I expect my compensation to reflect that. I have no company loyalty, and I trade services in exchange for an autodeposit to my account every two weeks. If my pay were standardized according to some arbitrary scale, as it was years ago when I was a government employee and pay was simple function of pay range and years of service, then I would standardize my contribution accordingly and spend more time on my avocational interests.

I think more "employees" should see themselves as mobile free agents trading services for a paycheck, and dispense with outmoded notions of loyalty. "Loyalty" and the "work ethic" are our enemies. Workers allow themselves to be victims. This is one of the reasons I enjoy working with our union employees--they understand their power, even as the culture in the US turns against them.

I also think that the working class needs to drop the nationalistic and patriotic bullshit and start seeing themselves as part of the global peasant class. We have far more in common with peasants in Venenzuela, Honduras, and Ecuador than with our own ruling class. In fact, their ruling class is probably our ruling class.

but you're pretty far gone, man.

None of the stuff you're talking about has anything to do with "social justice" or the left or anything of the sort. I really don't give a shit if everyone's pay is standardized or not, so long as it is standardized at a rate that is viable for people to live.

I really don't care if people with more "talent" feel thwarted because they don't think their pay is fair "rewards" their skill level. In fact, if they get in the way haglging over the "compensation" issue I'd just as soon see them run over by a tank.

And, on top of that, there isn't one whit of truth to the central thesis of most of what you've written so far, that only by throwing extra money and perks at the "talented" people will they apply themselves to their fullest potential. This is the kind of thinking that leads someone to name their child Rand.

Where does most "innovation" come from, man? Is innovation really the driver of economic growth and prosperity or merely one aspect of the economy that has been fetishized because there are beau coup bucks to be made off it?

You've got like 10 underlying premises that you're merely playing on repeat and just filling in a few words around them as accoutrements. If you want to hash those out, great, but just vomiting them out over and over isn't helping anyone.

Capitalism/Colonialism/Imperialism

But I don't believe that extremes like DeBeers and Standard Oil argue against individuals being compensated in accordance with their contribution. You pointed to a person who contributed nothing and benefited greatly. How does that argue against compensating someone who actually does produce something in accordance with that production.

I don't really like the word "production." It's a rough word that includes everything from producing music to washing dishes. I don't envy the person who has to decide the relative merits of making tires versus the merits of creating sculpture.

In a nutshell, capitism rewards the few, rather than the many, and too often without regard to actual contributions.

I know the solution is complicated, but isn't the problem just that simple?

would not be good for you "personally". Is that the case? Because if we can't get past the "personal" we got nothing to say...

So lets say Bill Gates is a leetch, right..does he just get supplanted by someone who "earns" 60 billion dollars instead?

Too many to keep track of. In one, I'm salvageable and erudite, in another I "pretty far gone, man." This thread is closest to my original intent, so I'll follow this one.

First, I certainly reject the "breeding will tell" argument when applied to the wealthy and powerful. Inheritance is certainly at play. Not genetic inheritance, but inheritance of wealth and position. There are too many cultural components to position in the human dominance hierarchy for breeding to be that big a factor in human success. In a natural setting, inferior offspring are selected out of the population. In human culture, they're selected out if born to a poor family, but given a trust to live on if born to a wealthy family.

Yet there remains a genetically defined element of human nature. The liberal side of the political debate has always rejected that premise for the same reason the conservative side embraces it--it implies a determinism about the status quo. Both are wrong for the same reason--both the rejection and the embracing of the deterministic argument is based on giving the determinism more power than it has. There are degrees of determinism, and that flexibility is where hope is.

Strengths in one environment become weaknesses in others. Our tendency to cram high-fat and high-sugar foods into our heads when they are abundant was adaptive when "feast and famine" was the rule. That genetically-defined behavior, and a capitalist food industry that expoits it, is now killing us. The same can be said for traits like xenophobia and aggression, which probably were adaptive when the world was less populated, food and water resources were limited, and we didn't have the means to destroy all human life.

We shouldn't assume that the genetic components of our nature conflict with cultural components. As you correctly state, our tendency towards culture (including cooperation and community) is genetic. It's our definition of community that needs to change in a planet with nearly 7 billion people and enough nuclear weapons to kill them all many times over: Muslim v Infidel; Domocracy v Aristocracy; Capitalism v Socialism; nation v nation; nationality v nationality...

We also need to refine our power structure, which is currently a dominance hierarchy rooted in our primate origins and a distribution of power and wealth rooted in systems of aristrocracy and religious authority. Once power accumulates, from the perspective of he masses, is there really a difference between a king and a president when the power of the state and the influence of cronies are taken into account. Do elections even matter when the elected are corrupted once in office.

National Day of Prayer anyone?

What the people advocating for the "polite" stuff really want is a kind of brittle etiquette that doesn't make wealthy people feel uncomfortable around the hoi. It masks a lot of actual rudeness.

If you are blunt enough to point out the truth of their role in society, you get shoved out for "rude behavior". In fact my mom would always "shh" me for asking how much money someone had when I was little. It just isn't done. It's bad behavior to point out someone has more than others. Someone started that custom and I'm sure it wasn't the working class.

Once Kid starts beating up on you, that's how you know you are one of us.

A couple of points, if I may -

The genetic predisposition argument is going to be problematic to make, at best I think.

If there is a "basic genetic predispostion" in humans, it has to be toward cooperation an community, yet it is always used to justify or focus on the opposite traits.

The compensation reflecting the quality of work argument will bog down and go in circles eventually, too. I am smart and skilled as well. I have been paid well to intercede in situations where I can use my skills, etc., etc., too. I don't try to start with personal identity and justification and then extrapolate out to make political analysis, though. If you are helping a capitalist get rich, or defending capitalists and Capitalism you get paid more. It may seem clean and fair and neutral, but it never is and sooner or later it will bite you in the ass.

You may adjust the quality of your work to the level of compensation you get, as you say. I have never done that myself. A roomful of nursing home residents suffering from dementia and other infirmities gets the same - or better - level of performance as the big folk festival crowd of yuppies does. I would rather play the former than the latter, and find it more rewarding. I question why there is so much compensation in the one - $2500 an hour or better - and so little in the other - usually none, and am more concerned about the social and political conditions that cause that then I am about my personal strategy for looking after myself. Is there a place in society for people motivated that direction? Or must everything be structured to support and encourage the other model?

...the kind of brittle etiquette that doesn't make wealthy people feel uncomfortable around the hoi...

Giggle

I also see it as the social-climber hoi types trying to speak in the language of the wealthy people. I don't think all the people we struggle on this with are wealthy. But they are raised to want to speak the language of the ruling class, they are raised to think they can and want to become those wealthy people.

I am not arguing for or against the genetic predisposition premise. I am questioning the value of the argument itself.

I don't think there is anything wrong with "us" so I don't think "we" need to change. I think of the "we" you are talking about is a "they," and I think they need to go. We are fine the way we are - there are not too many if us, we are not eating the wrong food, we are not making the wrong choices, we are not killing ourselves, and none of that is is the source of the political and social problems.

When a gang of thugs run rampant pillaging and murdering and take over a town, we don't then see the problem as being "human nature" nor do we talk about how the townspeople need to change their evil ways. We take down the criminal gang. We wouldn't say "if we take down that gang another one will just arise to take their place" and we wouldn't say "if the townspeople took down the criminal gang, then they would turn into a criminal gang themselves and become no better. It seems like it has always been that way throughout history, so it must just be human nature and inescapable." We wouldn't say "once the townspeople have reformed their evil ways, then and only then will evil disappear and until evil disappears we can do nothing."

Once we start thinking like that, we are driven onto the narrow path of trying to figure out how to re-engineer mankind from the ground up (the dream of every tyrant and oppressor, as well as every religious zealot.) It i a religious an an authoritarian way of looking at these issues. "Fallen man" and "sinful man" are to blame - it is our sinful nature causing the problems. Since social convention already equates material success with righteous and moral living, it is easy to see how poor people then become seen as morally inferior, and as such proper subject for coercion and oppression. In fact, liberals talk about poor people all the time as though they were morally inferior. In other words, working class people are to blame and need to be converted to the proper belief system, or forced to "make the right choices."

Liberals argue that the way to solve political and social problems is to remake or force people to be different - to be more like enlightened liberals. Those who cannot or will not become like them will then be dealt with in various unpleasant ways. In fact, they will argue that this is the only way things can change, and then assert that because of that reason everything we are talking about is therefore invalid.

"We" means the working class people, and we have no power and are not to blame for the social and political conditions.

Should a person who makes music that 100 million people want to buy make twice as much money as someone who makes music that only 50 million people want to buy?

More generally, at the level of the individual worker, will a Socialist Utopia take into account the differences in talent and effort that will exist between two people doing the same basic task?

I'm not arguing against socialism, and I'd certainly like to see capitalism replaced with an equitable system, but the idea of someone being compensated according to contribution seems to be a sticking point for many, and I don't understand why. I'm not talking about extreme discrepancies in pay versus contribution in the existing system, those are too easy to argue against. I'm wondering about the system that would replace it.

Remember, I'm on a steep learning curve where PI is concerned.

Because pretty soon you're going to have Dhal afer you and between me and him, I'm Mr Nice Guy (seriously ;))

Anyway, I really don't give a fuck if one "recording artist" makes more than another or not.

I really don't think the "system that replaces capitalism" is going to be the issue -- certainly not now and likely not for a while. My theory is that the collective braintrust of the entire planet will be able to figure something out. If you want to argue against that, then think about what you're really saying..humanity is not able to create and perpetuate its own existence..now THERE is something that runs counter to "human nature"

Where we run into problems is that it stops being about personal possessions or even gradations in "quality of life" and starts to be about some people employing accumulated wealth (capital) to command the labor of others. I highly doubt that anyone outside of "high finance" earns enough in the work-a-day world to be able to do this on a wide scale.

But you want to bring up fringe cases like how much Lady Gaga deserves to make and is it more or less than the Jonas Brothers. Personally, I wouldn't mind if we put the "starving" back in starving artists when it comes to them.

I also think that the working class needs to drop the nationalistic and patriotic bullshit and start seeing themselves as part of the global peasant class. We have far more in common with peasants in Venenzuela, Honduras, and Ecuador than with our own ruling class. In fact, their ruling class is probably our ruling class.

For me this is the litmus test. If you can't go there, nothing else good could possibly follow. Can't believe the guy is hanging in here. Maybe starting a new thread about talent and rewards might be in order.

Yes, before I was an engineer I was a biologist, and I studied both human and animal behavior as part of my field of study.

I don't know what the random facts you tossed out have to do with the question of the genetic component of behavior and the similarities of human and primate behavior. Opposable thumbs haven't disappeared. Dominance hierarchies haven't disappeared. This is far to complex an argument for a discussion board, and I suspect your objections are abour the social and political implications of a genetic component to behavior, rather than the existence of such. You appear to have a hostility toward science you disagree with.

Instead, here is some relatively current popular literature on the subject of human behavior in contect of animal behavior in general:

"The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright
"The Ape and the Sushi Master" by Frans de Waal
"Our Inner Ape" by Frans de Waal
"Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes" by Frans de Waal

and was trying to press him to relate that back to "human nature" and "talent/rewards"

I am having trouble seeing how it even holds together

studied under Frans de Waal, I will ask him and make sure. He may have worked with a professor who had strong connections to de Waal instead. Its been a few years. Anyway, I am fairly familiar with his work.

Look, all you've done so far is ascribe (arbitrarily?) things like "dominance hierarchies" to genetic prescription and some sort of mythic "natural" behavioral predisposition.

I don't know what hierarchy means in this case, and I don't think you do either. Is hierarchy the problem at hand? Really? Are the guys at the top there because they're at the top of the food chain a la other biological examples?

In their indolence, sloth, ignorance and wretchedness? Consumed by carnal appetites and base avarice? Really? Because they don't seem to be the ones doing the heavy lifting or shooting the guns or, well, much of anything other than wallowing in their own slop and filth while raking in the dough.

Are you sure the "food chain" analogy is even applicable? If not what "hierarchy" are we talking about -- bureaucracy?

I'm not inately talented in mathematics, but as a biologist and engineer I was expected to master mathematics at a high level. I put in the work, and now others assume that I am "just naturally good at math." Distinguishing between natural talent and the results of hard work is going to be a problem.

Duration is easy to measure under ideal conditions. How "onerous" a job is will be subjective. I consider the job of the guy my wife pays to come by once a week to clean up the dog poop onerous, while he loves the independence, and especially getting paid in cash. He considers my job, working in a corporate office and spending most of my time unable to say what I really think, onerous. Hard physical labor would probably be considered onerous, but what about hard mental labor? I get paid to wade into controversy on a daily basis, and our union craft people who do a lot of physical labor, sometimes at fifty below, have told me they wouldn't touch my job for twice the money.

I think we'll have to just disagree about the last one. Even egalitarian cultures, like my wife's Innuit ancestors, still recognized and rewarded achievement. Even among chimpanzees, the chimp who brings home the meet is king for a day and gets his but kissed by the dominant male. I won't argue that our culture brings it to an extreme, or that we couldn't come up with a more egalitarian system, but I think part of the innate social structure includes social status and recognition.

A person who makes music that 100 million people want to buy should make twice as much money as someone who makes music that only 50 million people want to buy?

Of course not. What a bizarre idea. Why would we want to do that? The thought of it gives me the creeps.

I don't know about "Socialist Utopia" - that is an oxymoron, I think. People take into account differences in talent and effort. Can't imagine that changing.

As it is know, we get more money and accept that in lieu of genuine and authentic recognition and appreciation - it is pretty sad. "I am worthwhile because I make more money."

I would say that the people for whom "the idea of someone being compensated according to contribution seems to be a sticking point for many" is an issue for those who are making more, and that it reflects some real emptiness and isolation in their lives.

I would also say, again, that the idea of replaceable systems we can just swap out is going to be confusing and not very useful. Only people in power can switch systems and install alternatives and impose those on people, and liberals betray their identification with those in power when they talk about installing alternative systems and about Utopia. "If I were king for a day."

If there were a criminal gang terrorizing a town, taking them down would not be an "alternative system." The only way that one would talk about dealing with the problems caused by the criminal gang in terms of installing alternative systems, would be if one wanted to actually leave the criminal gang in power (probably because one were a member of or one identified with the criminal gang) and merely find some way to make the reign of terror more palatable to the townspeople. "OK so you don't like this gang of criminals terrorizing the neighborhood? It is easy to just complain, but what is your proposal for an alternative system, then, hmmmm?"

No, I think the idea that different people are worth more than others is part of he problem, don't you?

Don't worry, because there isn't really any PI learning curve, steep or otherwise.

Username? It seems to me that Prospero has the same same problem as most Liberals - he can't stand the idea of losing his status, possessions, and lifestyle. Socialism sounds too uncomfy for him - as it has sounded for many of our Liberal enemies. As Dancing Bear said, "We all like to see your plan." Did old Prospero actually use the phrase, "Socialist Utopia"? Now that's chutzpa!

utopia
1551, from Mod.L. Utopia, lit. "nowhere," coined by Thomas More (and used as title of his book, 1516, about an imaginary island enjoying perfect legal, social, and political systems), from Gk. ou "not" + topos "place." Extended to "any perfect place," 1613. Utopian originally meant "having no known location" (1609); sense of "impossibly visionary, ideal" is from 1621; as a noun meaning "visionary idealist" it is first recorded c.1873 (earlier in this sense was utopiast, 1854).

http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c395/chlamor/image.jpg

What is a utopia? Why do we seek it?

The word's roots in Ancient Greek actually means 'no place' or 'a place that does not exist.' And yet, it is a timeless, relevent human desire to find such a place. Thomas Moore conceptualized "utopia" in his book about a fictional island with ideal political, social and legal systems. It is largely based on Plato's "Republic" and several communities throughout history have been established in the hope of creating a utopia. The idea of a distopia is closely related to that of utopia through the idea of structure. In a utopia, the structure is such that, presumably, the inhabitants are happy and fulfilled, there is no need, no want, but also no negative excess, greed, crime or the like. In a distopia, the structure is so rigid so that a sigular force or entity controls all aspects of society, and the inhabitants, although not necessarily conscious of any injustice, are controlled to a point of almost sub-human existence.

==============

What is a gated community? Why do we seek it?

http://activeadultinsouthflorida.com/images/bv_poolaerial.jpg

A gated community is a residential area with controlled access, used to protect the privacy and safety of residents. Gated communities are typically quite expensive areas, and may offer exclusive amenities to residents as a means of creating a community feeling.

Compensation in proportion to contribution is a technical problem to be sorted out after everyone is making a basic livable wage. I don't consider it a fringe issue, but a fundamental issue with far-reaching consequences. The specific case of Lady Gaga versus Neil Diamond would simply be an example of the principle at work.

I just believe that people who produce more (defining "production" is yet another problem) will expect more in return. Even my wife's egalitarian Innuit ancestors, who shared everything, rewarded accomplishments like landing a whale with special privileges. The whaler who landed the whale got the best cuts and decided how the meat and muktuk was to be distributed. (Similarly, the chimpanzee that brings meat home gets his but kissed by the dominant male in exchange for part of the prize.)

So, here's the deal. I routinely fly to remote Alaska communities on small planes. I make about twice what the pilots of those planes make. I can't do my business without the pilots. I can't even survive if they aren't good at what they do. Why do I make more than the pilot and copilot put together? Why do I make ten times what the guy at Subway makes? If he makes a mistake in food handling, he could kill many people with foodborne illness.

Worse still. Children are born into the world innocent. There is no rational argument that their circumstances are their own responsibility. So, why should my children, who were all born while I was a college student, do without medical care because I can't afford insurance?

One step further: My children are 1/4 Innuit (Inupiat Eskimo). When we lived in California and were poor, they had no insurance. Simply by moving to Alaska so I could go to graduate school, they received free medical from the Health Service. If being Eskimo is enough to rate free medical, then why only Eskimos physically in Alaska? And why should an Eskimo child receive free medical care while a non-Native child is denied?

One more step: If my Innuit granddaughter his children by a white man, her children will not be ellible for free medical (1/8 is the cutoff). But if she marries another "Native" who is 1/8 or more (if 1/8 is truly still Native), then her kids will have medical care.

Why not all kids? Why not all people?

As much as I'd like to see one, I doubt there will ever be a socialist revolution because I doubt there will ever be enough socialists. Short-term solutions and cultural evolution is more likely, and those will negate the demand for a socialist revolution.

Thousands and thousands of hours of difficult work, day after day for years, for decades, and then people say "oh you are so lucky to have been born with musical talent."

Know what I say? I say "yes, I am."

So why is distinguishing between natural talent and the results of hard work going to be a problem?

As I said earlier, I find this very sad. We are stirring around the ashes left by the raging fire of Capitalism here. The damage that Capitalism does to the spirit of people is horrendous.

You have come to see your work, your life, your person as a commodity. You argue that some commodities are worth more than others. Horrific.

I don't think we are talking about politics, but rather about you. My heart goes out to you. GET OUT.

If the bars keep shifting and the current leaders of PI know where the line is drawn and "this board is about allowing those of us who can't to speak freely without some crap about civility or community," perhaps a litmus test on the Home Page would help prevent misunderstandings.

I see where I fit on the helpful arrow graphic but was unaware of the parody of "The Fake Left" being taken seriously and applied unilaterally.

It puts the right into power, that is where the fake left puts the right. That is the problem.

Why the insults? Do you want to talk about these issues, or do you not? Doesn't matter to any of us.

If you thought the mission statement was a parody, then I guess you will need to act on that - obviously you would not want to participate and would not have any interest in what we are doing - or else if you now think that you might have been wrong to think that it was a parody, pull up a chair and join us and learn. Your choice. No one is forcing you to join us.

It just seems odd to me that you continually say that there is nothing worthwhile here and that you don't want to have anything to do with, yet keep coming back and talking to us.

If you have no interest in what we are doing, yet keep posting about what is wrong with us, is that not the very definition of trolling? I don't care, but why bother? What are you hoping to get out of this? If this is all a waste of time then why are you wasting your time on it? Very strange.

Don't worry about it.

The role of the intellectual in society, and the personal struggles with that, is a perfectly OK topic as far as I am concerned. But I think that is what we are talking about. Good topic, good discussion. We are especially brainwashed, and so thoroughly, and then flattered that we are the only ones who are NOT brainwashed. What a mess. But this is the good work.

Step one I think - we need to learn to tell the difference between our ass and a hole in the ground. After that, things start to clear up.

If they didn't feed us all of this gobbledy-gook about talent and hard work, and different people deserving different things for different work, and higher pay and status, how the fuck would we ever be able to stand being completely owned - completely compromised, and how would they get us to so faithfully serve and grovel before our masters? If we started thinking for ourselves (and we have degrees and think we ARE thinking for ourselves, even though we are parroting the same old nonsense that every other intellectual is parroting!) then the rulers would be in trouble.

Either you are interested or you are not. No one here can make up your mind for you.

The "parody of the Fake Left" referred not to the Rules, but the parody of the Fake Left, which chlamor posted in another thread without link or attribution, which you think you wrote, saying it sounds like your writing. Confusion about that essay is what you have built this OP upon.

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=105666&mesg_id=105676

"... just seems odd to me that you continually say that there is nothing worthwhile here and that you don't want to have anything to do with, yet keep coming back and talking to us."

I never said any such thing. What seems really odd is your insistence on false accusations, presented as quotes, which you are clearly too smart to be doing unintentionally.

These are constructive suggestions. Especially if expectations are as specific as they are, it would be a courtesy to old and new visitors to be notified upon entry, rather than be caught unawares and accused of being "disruptors."

Also on the home page with the litmus test, a definition of "oasis of independent thought" could help warn old and new members about expectations.

It's an interesting discussion, if one is allowed, that a rigidly defined "Fake Left" exists. In some sense, that split could leave many, many folks in the middle and, arguably, also "put the right into power." If PI considers that discussion over and has an objective and definiitve criteria for entry to the site, it makes sense to put it right up front.

Since minor issues like mortgages and eating--not only for myself but for my family--sort of get in the way of checking out functionally.

I guess that is the challenge, heh? Especially in regard to the degree of change we're talking about? Getting by in a system we don't believe in.

I fight that battle every working minute of every day. My adult working life is a lot like my religious life as a child. Going through motions in a system that, from age 7, I didn't believe in.

With six year until retirement, and with my retirement circumstances depending a great deal on my financial success furing that six years, it's a little late to tune in, turn on and check out.

I work in corporate America at a fairly high level. I see the evils we all talk about, in the planning phase, routinely. If the "bosses" knew what I wrote in places like this, if they read my work journals, if they knew my plans for retirement... I would be quickly unemployed.

So, I have gotten out emotionally and intellectually and politically, but I'm afraid that practical considerations require my to continue to go through the motions for six more years.

How I balance the conflict is my burden. How I try to be a credible socialist while working in and profiting from the antithesis of that system without feeling like a hypocrite depends on how I do what I do. I'm in a position to advocate for labor and the indigenous people impacted by the company's work. (Last Friday, part of the solution to the problem I mentioned solving in another post included reversing a decision to make an employee a scapegoat and suspend him without pay for 30 days.)

When I retire I hope to take what I know and become a major former insider pain-in-the-ass for the oil industry. Until then, I pretend I'm insurgent. My battle.

how is it that human beings have become 'consumers'?

There is the genome to be sure, and there's all sorts of stuff in there. However, which traits that get expressed is largely a matter of social conditioning. It's the kind of critter that we are, no other species has such prolonged post birth development, and social conditions largely determine the nature of that development. Likewise in maturity, the behaviors expressed are conditioned by the social environment. Social conditions in a capitalists society encourage behaviors which are detrimental to the majority of the members of that society, greed, on a societal level, is not the cause of capitalism but rather the result.

Some might argue that some people tend to be greedy, domineering, etc, but in a society where such behavior is not encouraged, greatly rewarded, such foibles are small change and dealt with within the community.

I am having more and more difficulty understanding what you are talking about.

No one is bothering you. What is the problem?

All of the things you are talking about are in your imagination.

The discussion about whether there is or isn't a fake left etc., etc., is going on everywhere and has been for years, and everything you are saying here has been said a thousand times. That is not a topic we have any more interest in debating here. Is that OK with you, or must we talk about what you want to talk about?

but I could see Username too

*too lazy to look for hand waving smiley*

EDIT: its not really worth it btw, I zoned out a lot of it. Who knows what the crazy fucking priest was on about

.

that you don't think you have the right to make up what I think and write.

Same old shit, different day.

And for others to follow. I'm sure there is a heavy nurture component to it as well, but I also believe that humans still share a natural (genetic) tendency towards falling into dominance hierarchies. Nurture aside, some people are more likely to be followers than leaders. I speculate (and I admit it's speculation that needs testing) that things like hero worship and celebrity worship are submissive, following behavior.

To what degree nurture and nature each play a roll, and how effectively a good nurture process could overcome natural tendencies toward following, I just don't know. But I believe there is ample evidence, regardless of how it offends or threatens our preferred position relative to other primates and even other non-primates, that some social hierarchy is based on genetic programming.

Nobody I know questions that people are born with different intelligence levels. I don't think hardwiring for behavior is much of a stretch.

I'm not using nature or nurture as an excuse for fatcats wallowing in conspicuous consumption while others can barely feed themselves. I think I am arguing that reality needs to be addressed in any now order that successfully equalizes human opportunity and achievement.

There is an ongoing struggle between "falling into dominance hierarchies" and banding together for cooperative effort an mutual benefit. It is called "life" (social life, not individualistic life of choices and beliefs that the upper 10%, educated management type people call life.) Politics is about that ongoing ancient struggle.

Only people carrying water for the ruling class can think of leadership only in terms of dominance and hierarchies, and cannot imagine and will not accept any other concept of leadership. Only people carrying water for the ruling class see the struggle itself as the problem, seek to eliminate that struggle (which of course would mean that the ruling class wins) and reject any political thinking in opposition to the ruling class on the basis that those ideas cannot overcome "human nature" and therefore will not eliminate the struggle.

We see this playing out right here, with people insisting that we all get along and be polite, and embrace liberals and liberalism so we can avoid and deny the very existence of the struggle, and then "work within the system" for incremental change, and/or focus on personal lifestyles, belief systems and choices.

"If you are so smart and want to be the boss, then start your own (board, party, organization, enlightened entrepreneurial business)" is a defense of the current social arrangements about who has power and who does not, and how they get it. The assumption there is that it is an inevitable feature of human nature that people fall into dominance hierarchies, that this explains, rationalizes away and justifies the current power structure (not the "elites" or the "PTB" but rather the basis upon which one person dominates another all throughout society and at all levels) so if you ant to "promote you ideas" you need to claw you way to the top of the heap and become the big dog, and that if you do not you are not to be listened to or taken seriously.

No, we must oppose it all, it must all come down. By that I mean we must take that position, we must advocate that. This is what liberals oppose - they are protecting their own privilege and status, their own role in the hierarchy, their own access to resources and power. They claim that we can change the system without touching that, without even talking about it.

Here is a question: why NOT strongly take the position that it must all come down? Why catalog and collect all of the evidence that screams out that this is the case, and then retreat back into convoluted rationalizations about our personal place in all of this and endless and fruitless attempts at manufacturing "solutions" that deny the existence of the very problem we are cataloging and collecting evidence about? This is the tension, the confusion and agony that people are going through, which is why I expressed empathy after you talked about how you justify what you are personally doing to survive and care for your family, and why I said GET OUT!!! Get out of the trap your thinking is caught in around this.

:shrug:

Aren't you essentially talking about social hierarchies based on class, money and power?

In order to make a "human nature" case, wouldn't we need to see people standing in line for an autograph from a homeless, impoverished quarterback or rap singer?

The arguments about the inevitability of social hierarchies in general, because of "human nature," are actually arguments supporting the current and specific social arrangements, cleverly worded in such a way that liberals and progressives can pretend to be on both sides of the issue, as needed. "Don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT" is the bridge phrase that gets them from one side of the issue to the other. This does not just happen in political discussions, but everywhere in daily life. The boss, the owner, the manager, the landlord says "don't get me wrong, I am not trying to screw you over BUT" followed by blah blah blah about "practicality" and "being realistic" and "the way things are" because of "human nature." If you persist and say "but you are screwing me over, and here is exactly how you are doing it" the mask falls, they get very angry and start foaming at the mouth, will attack you personally for your supposed mental defects or character flaws or nefarious agenda, will criticize your "attitude" or "tone," will talk about "personal responsibility," and will eventually have you removed from the premises one way or the other - just as the liberals do in political discussions, be they on one of these boards or at the local party precinct meeting or political rally.

At least Republicans will say "yes, that is the way it is, and should be." Liberals deny that this is the way things are. That makes them much worse as bosses, owners, managers, landlords, political leaders, and presidents.

But the system in which I must survive isn't socialism. I can't help my children and my grandchildren in this system by quoting Marx, Engels, Gramsci and Sinclair.

I vote. I argue. I donate to NGOs working to shape the world into what I believe it should be. I help family members. Ask my 3- and 4-year-old granchildren what a war criminal is and they will say Obama and Bush. One day they'll know what that means and maybe they'll believe it.

Question my motives if you like. Question my plans. Question my abilities to complete them. You really don't know enough about me to do any of those things, but go ahead.

I'm still figuring out where the PI crowd sits. If we're heading in the direction of re-education camps, Inner and Outer Party membership and the 2 Minutes Hate, I'm not heading that direction. I'm still figuring out where I think the happy place is, but replacing one extreme for another isn't likely to work.

Keep writing. I'm reading.

still the most basic question: "Who's side are you on?" It is not a trick question and it does mean something. You HAVE to pick a side - either with the workers or with the owners. This isn't simplistic and it is not ideological. It is the very basic concept of how to face Capitalism. There are two classes - the exploiters and the exploited. Denying this is denying fact, history and material reality.

Once you have made that choice you have to study and read and talk and try to shed the skeins of unreality that clouds most everyone's thinking. Chlamor is wont to say: "Everything you know is a lie" (Or something close to that.) That is a good second step - to grasp that. You don't have to change your job or give up your life (at least not yet), but you do have to make a choice. There is no way around it...