Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ?

Martha Bridegam wrote:

>Alan Hogue wrote:
>
>
>
>>Martha Bridegam wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bobby Farouk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>...
>>>>I defer to Mr. Allport on this topic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Oh, mustn't do that, now...
>>>
>>>/M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Someone once told me that people are all the same. It shouldn't have
>>taken more than pointing at a few random specimens to show her she was
>>wrong. She was burdened with some abstract question that wouldn't let
>>her alone, and over time she had whittled away almost every human
>>quality as being irrelevant to it. What this question was I never found
>>out, but she was finally left with a world populated by billions of
>>people who were basically all the same. She was pretty depressed about it.
>>
>>1984 is particularly susceptible to this kind of thing. Surprising
>>numbers of people think that telescreens are metaphors for the modern
>>media, cheerfully ignoring the fact that telescreens are primarily tools
>>of surveillance and instead emphasizing the aesthetic but irrelevant
>>fact that telescreens are rectangular and look a bit like TVs.
>>
>>Likewise, someone who has an emotional investment in painting their
>>government, or the modern world in general, or whatever, in the worst
>>colors will certainly be tempted to use the worst political epithets
>>they can find. "Totalitarian" is near the top of the list. So you set to
>>work eliminating or glossing over distinctions and details until you
>>find you can make some kind of argument to the effect, and, voila, a
>>pleasing conceit.
>>
>>People who say the US is a totalitarian state are right in some ways.
>>The US is also similar to Sweden in some ways, but I don't go around
>>calling Bush a Swede.
>>
>>Alan H.
>>
>>
>
>Alan H, hon, don't worry: I wasn't really disagreeing with you -- I was just
>taking a comic jab at Alan A.
>
>Sorry for the confusion.
>
>/M
>
>

No no, thank you for the inspiration.

Alan H.
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

Alan Hogue wrote:

> Martha Bridegam wrote:
>
>>
>> Alan H, hon, don't worry: I wasn't really disagreeing with you -- I
>> was just
>> taking a comic jab at Alan A.
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> /M
>>
>>
>
> No no, thank you for the inspiration.
>
> Alan H.


I think maybe I should start posting to a new thread when I feel the
rant urge coming on...
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

"Alan Allport" <allport.DeleteThis@sasdot.upenndot.edu> wrote in message
news:bh8rc9$210o$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> "Hay Nongunahora" <haynongunahora.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vjfr1om25arl6c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Fairly accurate description of the behavior of the Bush
Administration
> > and its supporters
>
> If you say so. I think using overheated language like "totalitarian"
is
> frankly silly in this context; it's a kind of rhetorical inflation
that's
> insulting to those who have had to live under genuine dictatorships,
and it
> makes it next to impossible to have any real discussion about
comparative
> political history (if Bush is a totalitarian leader, then what was
Stalin?)
> Throwing exaggerated charges at our leaders only makes it easier for
them to
> sidestep genuine complaints. But I know from experience that this
sort of
> thing is far, far too popular to do anything about.
>
> Alan.
>

"Overheated"? "If Bush is a totalitarian leader then what was Stalin"?
Interesting bit of sophistry and heat that. Has the same logical force
as— if Richard Speck was a mass-murdering serial killer then what was
John Wayne Gacy?

The problem is not that the charges are exaggerated, but that you
don't like them because they unsettle you, admonish you, point a
finger at you saying if you'd get in touch with your courage as well
as compassion you'd get off your mollycoddled, pseudo-intellectual ass
and join the fray like you did finally about Iraq.

That you don't consider some of my observations genuine suggests to me
that you can't see them because of your position, that you are in
denial, or they require knowledge of economics (something of which you
have shown yourself to be mostly ignorant, but not unwilling to preach
about.) But then again you have shown yourself capable of saying most
anything to provoke another, so maybe, it is just another of your
rants.


Have a nice day
Hay
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

Hay Nongunahora wrote:

[various ad hominem attacks on Alan A.]

>That you don't consider some of my observations genuine suggests to me
>that you can't see them because of your position, that you are in
>denial, or they require knowledge of economics (something of which you
>have shown yourself to be mostly ignorant, but not unwilling to preach
>about.) But then again you have shown yourself capable of saying most
>anything to provoke another, so maybe, it is just another of your
>rants.
>
>

I would just like to point out that I'm the ranting one. Alan A's medium
is more the interminable bicker.

Alan H.
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

"Alan Hogue" <ahogue.RemoveThis@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:bh9cu5$2dm7$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Martha Bridegam wrote:
>
> >Bobby Farouk wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>...
> >>I defer to Mr. Allport on this topic.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh, mustn't do that, now...
> >
> >/M
> >
> >
>
> Someone once told me that people are all the same. It shouldn't have
> taken more than pointing at a few random specimens to show her she
was
> wrong. She was burdened with some abstract question that wouldn't
let
> her alone, and over time she had whittled away almost every human
> quality as being irrelevant to it. What this question was I never
found
> out, but she was finally left with a world populated by billions of
> people who were basically all the same. She was pretty depressed
about it.
>
> 1984 is particularly susceptible to this kind of thing. Surprising
> numbers of people think that telescreens are metaphors for the
modern
> media, cheerfully ignoring the fact that telescreens are primarily
tools
> of surveillance and instead emphasizing the aesthetic but irrelevant
> fact that telescreens are rectangular and look a bit like TVs.
>
> Likewise, someone who has an emotional investment in painting their
> government, or the modern world in general, or whatever, in the
worst
> colors will certainly be tempted to use the worst political epithets
> they can find. "Totalitarian" is near the top of the list. So you
set to
> work eliminating or glossing over distinctions and details until you
> find you can make some kind of argument to the effect, and, voila, a
> pleasing conceit.
>
> People who say the US is a totalitarian state are right in some
ways.

Exactly. And, of course, in other ways it is not.

> The US is also similar to Sweden in some ways, but I don't go around
> calling Bush a Swede.
>
> Alan H.

If you convert this last to a syllogism you'll probably laugh at
yourself for saying it.

Remember, Bush is the guy who said, "This would be a lot easier if I
was the dictator." What he clearly meant was he would like to be
because he could advance HIS agenda much more easily. That's surely
totalitarian at some level.

Hay
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

Hay Nongunahora wrote:

>
>Remember, Bush is the guy who said, "This would be a lot easier if I
>was the dictator." What he clearly meant was he would like to be
>because he could advance HIS agenda much more easily. That's surely
>totalitarian at some level.
>
>Hay
>

I'm not sure what this would look like as a syllogism, but I would point
out that if Bush were a dictator he wouldn't say such a thing.

Alan H.
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

I see a lot of common errors in discussing Orwell, 1984 and
Totalitarian issues.

#1.) Thinking either the 1984 Big Brother InSoc - or Stalin or
"Statist Socialism" as a "package deal" as a Mental Image when talking
about Totalitarianism. The Absolutist State is the crudest most
exteriorized form of the trends in State-Individual relations that lead
to a Dominant Oligarchy and a Passive Population.

#2.) It is entirely legitimate to be concerned Here and Now with Social
Trends building momentum to a Totalitarian Dominant Oligarchy and a
Passive Population. To be blunt, I think a lot of criticism on the
part of State Oriented Socialists is that they need the same tools of
collective formalization as a Totalitarian, but with the proviso:

"We're the Good Guys and we're doing this For Your Benefit, not ours".

#3.) Remember, in a successful capitalist Imperialist State, the middle
class can be transformed from Citizens to Consumers where "freedom of
choice" is translated into Market Choices, and their fear of being
dumped in the powerless working class makes them Self Censoring and
politically tame. With the Media in the hands of Corporate Interests
and the Government in their hands, a defacto "soft shelled"
totalitarian state can develop that can be as Orwell feared, "ongoing"
because there is not enough suffering in the class of necessary
educated workers to cause a momentum towards Liberty

#4.) State Fascism or Overt repressive Totalitarianism is a Bother no
Leader wants,..its militarily expensive, publicly ugly, and open to
rebellion. It is MUCH better to just be satisfied controlling all the
Important Decisions about Foreign Policy and Internal Economy
internally to the Oligarchy, and abandon the trivial stuff to The
People to squabble over and use up their time concerned with.

#5.) And remember, Orwell¹s clincher about Big Brother was that the
Totalitarian State needs the acquiescence of the Oppressed. This
acquiescence is the Nightmare of all Progressives and the worst problem
we have here and now already.

Hal
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

"Bobby Farouk" <farouk DeleteThis @ninemile.com> wrote in message
news:vjcgepf0hk0ca1@corp.supernews.com...
 >
 > "Hay Nongunahora" <haynongunahora DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:vja4fvcnmrbq9f@corp.supernews.com...
  > >
  > > "Alan Allport" <allport DeleteThis @sasdot.upenndot.edu> wrote in message
  > > news:bgpiq6$cbc9$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
   > > > "Madimi" <madim DeleteThis @madimi.com> wrote in message
   > > > news:050820031604308253%madim@madimi.com...
   > > >
   > > > > Could the United States be a Totalitarian State that breeds
Humans
  > > that
   > > > > don't need Liberty the way Scientists can breed cows without
  > > horns?
   > > >
   > > > Well, first of all, the United States may be many things today,
not
  > > all of
   > > > them very attractive, but it is not a totalitarian state; or at
  > > least, not
   > > > in any sense that someone like Hannah Arendt would have
understood
  > > that
   > > > term.
   > > >
   > > > Second, you need to clarify what you mean by 'liberty', which I
  > > doubt is
   > > > going to be as simple a task as you might think. Both Right and
Left
  > > can
   > > > plausibly claim that liberty is their guiding principle, but
they
  > > have
   > > > irreconcilable notions of what it means and the conclusions it
  > > demands. It's
   > > > something we all say or think we want, but we don't seem to be
able
  > > to agree
   > > > much on what it represents. Therein lies the problem.
   > > >
   > > > Alan.
   > > >
  > >
  > > Adjective: totalitarian
  > > 1. Characterized by a government in which the political authority
  > > exercises absolute and centralized control
  > > 2. Of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according
to
  > > which the state regulates every realm of life
  > > [WordWeb.info]
  > >
  > > By these definitions, using "absolute and every," no state could
ever
  > > be called totalitarian as it is impossible (nevermind incredibly
  > > tedious or counter-productive) to exercise that degree of control.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > I'd suggest to you that the corporate capitalist state is a
  > > totalitarian state because you are forced to participate in its
system
  > > unless you are born independently wealthy. (Assuming, of course,
that
  > > "suicide" or suicide is an irrational choice for the healthy.)
  > >
  > > My definition of a totalitarian state is one in which you are
forced
  > > (strongly coerced) to participate in its system/culture/myths.
Once
  > > all the food was "locked up", who was free?
  > >
  > > Hay
  > >
  > >
 > You may as well complain that you were toilet-trained. What you can
dispute
 > is whether it was decent of your parents to force you to use a
backyard
 > latrine while they took advantage of the perfectly sharable indoor
 > amenities.
 >
 > A system wherein the rich and powerful manipulate the law and
exploit the
 > lesser masses in order to maintain their gifts is not a system.
It's life
 > on earth.


Hmmm... Then your argument is that that's the way it is so that's the
way it should be? Doesn't sound like you.
 >
 > The Western constitutional democracies are not totalitarian. The
state may
 > regulate human intercourse in ways that insure the rich get richer
and the
 > poor get poorer, but it does not attempt to harness all human
activity in a
 > drive towards an imagined historic destiny.

You haven't been paying close attention to the pronouncements of the
Bush Administration such as (paraphrase): no nation on earth will be
permitted to approach the level of military force and weaponry
possessed by the US. To prevent such we will attack anyone or any
state that appears to be a threat.

Do you think they are kidding about that? It doesn't seem to matter
how outrageously wicked the statements from the Bush Administration
are (or how many lies they tell) there is a mass of people that is
right there to say, "Oh, it's okay. They don't mean it. They're doing
the right thing. They're good. You're just overheated."

What I can't figure out is:

are these people in denial
are they complicit (intentionally or unintentionally)
or are they just fucking nuts?

Hay<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

"Alan Hogue" <ahogue DeleteThis @lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:bhduoq$2b7j$1@agate.berkeley.edu...

> I would just like to point out that I'm the ranting one. Alan A's medium
> is more the interminable bicker.

.... and the crotchety nit-pick; I think I can claim that one too.

Hay Non ascribes an exotic array of motivations to me - ignorance,
discomfort, denial, truculence - all of which are probably accurate at
different times. But I'm afraid the reason I think his "George Bush is
totalitarian" argument is childish is because ... well, it is. It doesn't
stand up to a moment's examination. Even Hay Non, sanguine on his own
mollycoddled, pseudo-intellectual ass, must know it is. He sits at his
computer rattling out facile comparisons between Bush and Stalin. Does he
seriously worry that, as a result, G-Men will burst through his front door
tonight; frogmarch him off to the local Secret Police basement; rough him up
for a few weeks; get him to admit on national television that he has been
sabotaging military bases for the past year and putting razor blades in
pigswill; imprison his family members in an Alaskan reeducation camp; and
finally put a bullet through his wretched temple and bury him in New Jersey
wasteground? Of course he doesn't. He hasn't the first idea what it really
means to live with that kind of fear. He is full of it.

Jeez, with these kinds of enemies, does Bush need friends?

Alan.
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

Alan Allport wrote:

>"Alan Hogue" <ahogue.RemoveThis@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
>news:bhduoq$2b7j$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
>
>
>
>>I would just like to point out that I'm the ranting one. Alan A's medium
>>is more the interminable bicker.
>>
>>
>
>.... and the crotchety nit-pick; I think I can claim that one too.
>
>Hay Non ascribes an exotic array of motivations to me - ignorance,
>discomfort, denial, truculence - all of which are probably accurate at
>different times. But I'm afraid the reason I think his "George Bush is
>totalitarian" argument is childish is because ... well, it is. It doesn't
>stand up to a moment's examination. Even Hay Non, sanguine on his own
>mollycoddled, pseudo-intellectual ass, must know it is. He sits at his
>computer rattling out facile comparisons between Bush and Stalin. Does he
>seriously worry that, as a result, G-Men will burst through his front door
>tonight; frogmarch him off to the local Secret Police basement; rough him up
>for a few weeks; get him to admit on national television that he has been
>sabotaging military bases for the past year and putting razor blades in
>pigswill; imprison his family members in an Alaskan reeducation camp; and
>finally put a bullet through his wretched temple and bury him in New Jersey
>wasteground? Of course he doesn't. He hasn't the first idea what it really
>means to live with that kind of fear. He is full of it.
>
>Jeez, with these kinds of enemies, does Bush need friends?
>
>Alan.
>
>

Again, well put. Such a simple point, yet one which some people seem
incapable of grasping. It's weird, really. It can only point to a
disregard for linguistic accuracy; something which Hay apparently thinks
Orwell endorsed.

Alan H.
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

"Hay Nongunahora" <haynongunahora.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjkrrlnqmf3p98@corp.supernews.com...
 >
 > "Bobby Farouk" <farouk.TakeThisOut@ninemile.com> wrote in message
 > news:vjcgepf0hk0ca1@corp.supernews.com...
  > >
  > > "Hay Nongunahora" <haynongunahora.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
  > > news:vja4fvcnmrbq9f@corp.supernews.com...
   > > >
   > > > "Alan Allport" <allport.TakeThisOut@sasdot.upenndot.edu> wrote in message
   > > > news:bgpiq6$cbc9$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
   > > > > "Madimi" <madim.TakeThisOut@madimi.com> wrote in message
   > > > > news:050820031604308253%madim@madimi.com...
   > > > >
   > > > > > Could the United States be a Totalitarian State that breeds
 > Humans
   > > > that
   > > > > > don't need Liberty the way Scientists can breed cows without
   > > > horns?
   > > > >
   > > > > Well, first of all, the United States may be many things today,
 > not
   > > > all of
   > > > > them very attractive, but it is not a totalitarian state; or at
   > > > least, not
   > > > > in any sense that someone like Hannah Arendt would have
 > understood
   > > > that
   > > > > term.
   > > > >
   > > > > Second, you need to clarify what you mean by 'liberty', which I
   > > > doubt is
   > > > > going to be as simple a task as you might think. Both Right and
 > Left
   > > > can
   > > > > plausibly claim that liberty is their guiding principle, but
 > they
   > > > have
   > > > > irreconcilable notions of what it means and the conclusions it
   > > > demands. It's
   > > > > something we all say or think we want, but we don't seem to be
 > able
   > > > to agree
   > > > > much on what it represents. Therein lies the problem.
   > > > >
   > > > > Alan.
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > > Adjective: totalitarian
   > > > 1. Characterized by a government in which the political authority
   > > > exercises absolute and centralized control
   > > > 2. Of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according
 > to
   > > > which the state regulates every realm of life
   > > > [WordWeb.info]
   > > >
   > > > By these definitions, using "absolute and every," no state could
 > ever
   > > > be called totalitarian as it is impossible (nevermind incredibly
   > > > tedious or counter-productive) to exercise that degree of control.
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > I'd suggest to you that the corporate capitalist state is a
   > > > totalitarian state because you are forced to participate in its
 > system
   > > > unless you are born independently wealthy. (Assuming, of course,
 > that
   > > > "suicide" or suicide is an irrational choice for the healthy.)
   > > >
   > > > My definition of a totalitarian state is one in which you are
 > forced
   > > > (strongly coerced) to participate in its system/culture/myths.
 > Once
   > > > all the food was "locked up", who was free?
   > > >
   > > > Hay
   > > >
   > > >
  > > You may as well complain that you were toilet-trained. What you can
 > dispute
  > > is whether it was decent of your parents to force you to use a
 > backyard
  > > latrine while they took advantage of the perfectly sharable indoor
  > > amenities.
  > >
  > > A system wherein the rich and powerful manipulate the law and
 > exploit the
  > > lesser masses in order to maintain their gifts is not a system.
 > It's life
  > > on earth.
 >
 >
 > Hmmm... Then your argument is that that's the way it is so that's the
 > way it should be? Doesn't sound like you.
  > >
  > > The Western constitutional democracies are not totalitarian. The
 > state may
  > > regulate human intercourse in ways that insure the rich get richer
 > and the
  > > poor get poorer, but it does not attempt to harness all human
 > activity in a
  > > drive towards an imagined historic destiny.
 >
 > You haven't been paying close attention to the pronouncements of the
 > Bush Administration such as (paraphrase): no nation on earth will be
 > permitted to approach the level of military force and weaponry
 > possessed by the US. To prevent such we will attack anyone or any
 > state that appears to be a threat.
 >
 > Do you think they are kidding about that? It doesn't seem to matter
 > how outrageously wicked the statements from the Bush Administration
 > are (or how many lies they tell) there is a mass of people that is
 > right there to say, "Oh, it's okay. They don't mean it. They're doing
 > the right thing. They're good. You're just overheated."
 >
 > What I can't figure out is:
 >
 > are these people in denial
 > are they complicit (intentionally or unintentionally)
 > or are they just fucking nuts?
 >
 > Hay
 >
 >
I think it's safe to say I'm just fucking nuts.

In March, I was in the camp that believed Bush could not and would not ever
do anything right. Today, because my interpretation of a totalitarian state
differs from yours, I'm an apologist for that administration. Makes perfect
sense because I'm just fucking nuts.

The fact that I'm just fucking nuts explains why I'm not outraged at being
forced into participate the corporate capitalist state. I thought it was
because I didn't believe it was a government plot against me and because I
didn't equate it with forced collectivism. But I'm getting my mind right on
the matter now.

I once put an "imagined historic destiny" on a par with the 1000 year Reich
or International Communism and the withering away of the state. While I
found doing every stupid, blundering, unimaginative thing possible to
maintain our position in the world pretty frightening, I didn't put it on
the same level as the visionary thinking of Hitler and Stalin. My mistake.

You see Bush as a monster, I see him as a boob. I think he's scarier as a
boob.

But I'm just fucking nuts.

And this is why Bush and his ghastly foreign/domestic policy will be
re-elected in 2004. Because you and I are on the same side and we insist on
calling each other an idiot.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

"Bobby Farouk" <farouk.RemoveThis@ninemile.com> wrote in message
news:vjlhhpb1jntk50@corp.supernews.com...
 >
 > "Hay Nongunahora" <haynongunahora.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:vjkrrlnqmf3p98@corp.supernews.com...
  > >
  > > "Bobby Farouk" <farouk.RemoveThis@ninemile.com> wrote in message
  > > news:vjcgepf0hk0ca1@corp.supernews.com...
   > > >
   > > > "Hay Nongunahora" <haynongunahora.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
   > > > news:vja4fvcnmrbq9f@corp.supernews.com...
   > > > >
   > > > > "Alan Allport" <allport.RemoveThis@sasdot.upenndot.edu> wrote in message
   > > > > news:bgpiq6$cbc9$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
   > > > > > "Madimi" <madim.RemoveThis@madimi.com> wrote in message
   > > > > > news:050820031604308253%madim@madimi.com...
   > > > > >
   > > > > > > Could the United States be a Totalitarian State that breeds
  > > Humans
   > > > > that
   > > > > > > don't need Liberty the way Scientists can breed cows without
   > > > > horns?
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Well, first of all, the United States may be many things today,
  > > not
   > > > > all of
   > > > > > them very attractive, but it is not a totalitarian state; or at
   > > > > least, not
   > > > > > in any sense that someone like Hannah Arendt would have
  > > understood
   > > > > that
   > > > > > term.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Second, you need to clarify what you mean by 'liberty', which I
   > > > > doubt is
   > > > > > going to be as simple a task as you might think. Both Right and
  > > Left
   > > > > can
   > > > > > plausibly claim that liberty is their guiding principle, but
  > > they
   > > > > have
   > > > > > irreconcilable notions of what it means and the conclusions it
   > > > > demands. It's
   > > > > > something we all say or think we want, but we don't seem to be
  > > able
   > > > > to agree
   > > > > > much on what it represents. Therein lies the problem.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Alan.
   > > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > Adjective: totalitarian
   > > > > 1. Characterized by a government in which the political authority
   > > > > exercises absolute and centralized control
   > > > > 2. Of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according
  > > to
   > > > > which the state regulates every realm of life
   > > > > [WordWeb.info]
   > > > >
   > > > > By these definitions, using "absolute and every," no state could
  > > ever
   > > > > be called totalitarian as it is impossible (nevermind incredibly
   > > > > tedious or counter-productive) to exercise that degree of control.
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > I'd suggest to you that the corporate capitalist state is a
   > > > > totalitarian state because you are forced to participate in its
  > > system
   > > > > unless you are born independently wealthy. (Assuming, of course,
  > > that
   > > > > "suicide" or suicide is an irrational choice for the healthy.)
   > > > >
   > > > > My definition of a totalitarian state is one in which you are
  > > forced
   > > > > (strongly coerced) to participate in its system/culture/myths.
  > > Once
   > > > > all the food was "locked up", who was free?
   > > > >
   > > > > Hay
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > You may as well complain that you were toilet-trained. What you can
  > > dispute
   > > > is whether it was decent of your parents to force you to use a
  > > backyard
   > > > latrine while they took advantage of the perfectly sharable indoor
   > > > amenities.
   > > >
   > > > A system wherein the rich and powerful manipulate the law and
  > > exploit the
   > > > lesser masses in order to maintain their gifts is not a system.
  > > It's life
   > > > on earth.
  > >
  > >
  > > Hmmm... Then your argument is that that's the way it is so that's the
  > > way it should be? Doesn't sound like you.
   > > >
   > > > The Western constitutional democracies are not totalitarian. The
  > > state may
   > > > regulate human intercourse in ways that insure the rich get richer
  > > and the
   > > > poor get poorer, but it does not attempt to harness all human
  > > activity in a
   > > > drive towards an imagined historic destiny.
  > >
  > > You haven't been paying close attention to the pronouncements of the
  > > Bush Administration such as (paraphrase): no nation on earth will be
  > > permitted to approach the level of military force and weaponry
  > > possessed by the US. To prevent such we will attack anyone or any
  > > state that appears to be a threat.
  > >
  > > Do you think they are kidding about that? It doesn't seem to matter
  > > how outrageously wicked the statements from the Bush Administration
  > > are (or how many lies they tell) there is a mass of people that is
  > > right there to say, "Oh, it's okay. They don't mean it. They're doing
  > > the right thing. They're good. You're just overheated."
  > >
  > > What I can't figure out is:
  > >
  > > are these people in denial
  > > are they complicit (intentionally or unintentionally)
  > > or are they just fucking nuts?
  > >
  > > Hay
  > >
  > >
 > I think it's safe to say I'm just fucking nuts.
 >
 > In March, I was in the camp that believed Bush could not and would not
ever
 > do anything right. Today, because my interpretation of a totalitarian
state
 > differs from yours, I'm an apologist for that administration. Makes
perfect
 > sense because I'm just fucking nuts.
 >
 > The fact that I'm just fucking nuts explains why I'm not outraged at being
 > forced into participate the corporate capitalist state. I thought it was
 > because I didn't believe it was a government plot against me and because I
 > didn't equate it with forced collectivism. But I'm getting my mind right
on
 > the matter now.
 >
 > I once put an "imagined historic destiny" on a par with the 1000 year
Reich
 > or International Communism and the withering away of the state. While I
 > found doing every stupid, blundering, unimaginative thing possible to
 > maintain our position in the world pretty frightening, I didn't put it on
 > the same level as the visionary thinking of Hitler and Stalin. My
mistake.
 >
 > You see Bush as a monster, I see him as a boob. I think he's scarier as a
 > boob.
 >
 > But I'm just fucking nuts.
 >
 > And this is why Bush and his ghastly foreign/domestic policy will be
 > re-elected in 2004. Because you and I are on the same side and we insist
on
 > calling each other an idiot.

Lovely, Bobby, and yes, the boobs are more frightening than monsters.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ? 

"Alan Hogue" <ahogue.TakeThisOut@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:bhduoq$2b7j$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Hay Nongunahora wrote:
>
> [various ad hominem attacks on Alan A.]
>
> >That you don't consider some of my observations genuine suggests to
me
> >that you can't see them because of your position, that you are in
> >denial, or they require knowledge of economics (something of which
you
> >have shown yourself to be mostly ignorant, but not unwilling to
preach
> >about.) But then again you have shown yourself capable of saying
most
> >anything to provoke another, so maybe, it is just another of your
> >rants.
> >
> >
>
> I would just like to point out that I'm the ranting one. Alan A's
medium
> is more the interminable bicker.
>
> Alan H.
>

Hey, one man's rant, another girl's boobs. Oh, wait that was a
different thread (above.)

Hay
 >> Stay informed about: Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ?