Orwell - Who follows his take on Socialism ?

"Alan Hogue" <ahogue.RemoveThis@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:bhe940$2id0$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> 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.
>

Linguistic accuracy? You and Alan are quite a pair. Oh, that's that
other thread again.


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

"Alan Hogue" <ahogue.DeleteThis@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:bhdu4o$2acu$2@agate.berkeley.edu...
> 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.
>

A syllogism cannot be constructed from that statement. It is a simple
conditional, but since you are such a keen proponent of "linguistic
accuracy" ...

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

"Bobby Farouk" <farouk DeleteThis @ninemile.com> wrote in message
news:vjlhhpb1jntk50@corp.supernews.com...
 >
 > "Hay Nongunahora" <haynongunahora DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:vjkrrlnqmf3p98@corp.supernews.com...
  > >
  > > "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
  > >
  > >
 > 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 didn't say or imply that it was a government plot. 'Taint. It just
is the way it is. The important thing to do is to try to change it.



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

Fair enough as Martha is wont to say. (Not trying to drag you in
Dear.)


 > But I'm just fucking nuts.


Hey, Hay didn't force that choice on you.


 >
 > 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.
 >

I'm beginning to see signs that public opinion is reaching a tipping
point. That is, that a majority of the US public are beginning to see
this Administration for what it is (boob or monster) and I'm just
delighted to see them bringing Newt out of the closet. While our
memories may be short, I don't think they're that short that they
can't be revived by a strong booster shot of Newt.


Sorry, but I had to mix my comments in your text.

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

As subject line says.

Remember, Orwell was concerned that passive population enable
totalitarianism. He was concerned the People "give consent".
THAT is why the concern here and now.

Remember Carter and Clinton passed NationalSecurity Acts and made
Executive Decisions that sheathed Government and put us on that road.

This is not an Anri-Bush issue.

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

Hal wrote:

>As subject line says.
>
>Remember, Orwell was concerned that passive population enable
>totalitarianism. He was concerned the People "give consent".
>THAT is why the concern here and now.
>
>Remember Carter and Clinton passed NationalSecurity Acts and made
>Executive Decisions that sheathed Government and put us on that road.
>
>This is not an Anri-Bush issue.
>
>Hal
>

Can you cite some of the passages you have in mind? Thanks.

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

"John Rennie" <j.rennie1.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:p9b%a.798$xV3.458@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

> 1984 is perhaps the most perfect fictional description of such
> a state. Is life in America today in any way similar to 1984?
> Perhaps the detention of thousands of Arab nationals on rather
> specious grounds is a totalitarian act but it may not
> reflect other aspects of Bush's administration.

For the record, I think the Bush administration has displayed a really
disturbing contempt for basic civil liberties and free speech during its
tenure. I've written about this in ABGO many times. But the context of its
behavior is critical. America is a basically free and democratic country in
which the government sometimes behaves with indifference or hostility
towards the principles of its founders. This is disgraceful, but it does
mean that there are checks and balances in place to thwart some of the
state's more awful decisions, and - crucially - we have the power to
complain about them, and ultimately eject them from office. In a
totalitarian society, there are virtually *no* internal limits on the power
of government, and virtually *no* legal ways of presenting public
grievances, much less challenging the men and women in office. Americans
(and Britons, and Germans, and French, etc. etc.) are very lucky to live in
places that, for all their many faults, have a core commitment to a free
society; and we shouldn't belittle or distort that.

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