Here's another doc on Karl Hess:

Karl Hess:Toward Liberty
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]


Terrible quality tho. :/

Yeah Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron imo but I do understand what he means by it.
Btw, quoting Marx on the fly like that is hardcore!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism I see state capitalism as government intervention on behalf of corporate interest. I see state socialism as government intervention on behalf of the electorate/people.

very first line of that link

quote:

State capitalism, in its classic meaning, is a private capitalist economy under state control.

yes, it does go on to say this

quote:

In more modern sense, state capitalism is a term used to describe a system where state is intervening in the markets to protect and advance interests of big business

but i think that's just ideology-stealing by someone, and incorrect. especially considering that the USSR existed right up til the 90s, so i would consider it a 'modern sense' of the word.

___________________

and continued

quote:

This term is also used by some heterodox economists to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by a state in a capitalist way, even if such a state chooses to call itself socialist.[3] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in the latter sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is a country where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh absolutely. which is why he's always been one of my favourite (modern) theorists.

My favorite is when he points out all the fucking terrible, TERRIBLE things our government did in Central America. We've been funding terrorism, dictators, and fascist for years to get our way...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis My favorite is when he points out all the fucking terrible, TERRIBLE things our government did in Central America. We've been funding terrorism, dictators, and fascist for years to get our way...

was only listening to an hour-long lecture by him last night where he briefly covered that exact topic!

i'd love to be that coherent and articulate in spoken word on the fly like that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and continued

I think it just comes down to who is benefited by government intervention. Large corporations or the electorate.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis He speaks truth on a number of issues that no one else touches. His lectures on global American interests and foreign policy are pure gold.

Yet fails to talk about certain issues, like certain false flag operations. I understand why now though, intellectuals and wannabe intellectuals / academics are far more indoctrinated than I originally thought. You can't definitely make a case with out proof, and you can't have a proof when the one crucial piece of evidence that would end debate is destroyed. The bourgeoisie aren't exactly known for independent thought or being capable of seeing past boundaries defined by familiar models and constructs. It's not like they give a flying fuck about truth to begin with. I learned that the hard way but Chomsky has age and experience, not to mention a highly refined intuition and understanding with all the painstaking research he's done over a lifetime. Plus, why waste your time on people who don't even care for honest discussion and the only genuine participation by them is limited to ridicule and personal attacks?

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN There's a tremendous problem here that he doesn't address. He argues that structures of authority/coercion need to justify their existence, and those that cannot should cease to operate/exist. But to whom do these authorities have to justify their existence to? Who is making the ultimate decisions regarding which structures of coercion are ok (the grandfather pulling their grandaughter aside near a busy roadway) or not ok? One might assume given chomsky's leanings, that it would be an inherently democratic process. But this raises the question of necessary infrastructure- who is going to organise the vote? Who is going to count the vote? In which places will the vote be held? Who decides on the structure of the vote (first past the post? Or something more representative)? Who is going to take the lead in dismantling those structures of coercion that have been unable to justify their own existence? The inherent problem here of course is that only other structures of coercion are capable of dismantling structures of coercion. The level of governmental input in these endeavours would be astronomical, and rather contradictory to the process itself. Indeed, what happens when the ignorant voter decides that the police and army (two of the favourite targets of anarchists) are legitimate coercive entities? There is no reason to assume that a majority of people will agree on the role such entitites should play in the new society, especially if those that currently fulfill those roles are allowed their democratic voice in the process. One of the main reasons for this of course is inherited ideology, which in my opinion was one of the inherent problems of socialism. How can you 'teach' the people to engage in a new society and forget the old, when they are so indoctrinated in the first place? The other problem, which you have alluded to briefly, is the idea of the pre-colonial communal (for want of a better term) organisation. The problem with this position is that I find it incredibly difficult to extrapolate the situation back then in the hopes of providing an alternative for modern society. Just because pre-modern man could exist in such a way is not reason enough to think that postmodern man could as well. Forgetting the problem of inherited ideology (though that is big and bad enough), there remains the issue of personal choice- in this new society am I allowed to own and run the corner store I bought? If I am, what's to stop me buying the store next to it? And then the store next to that? Before you know it, we're back where we started. The transition from global capitalism to anarcho-syndicalism is (in my opinion) completely impossible. Remnants of the old guard will always remain to fill in any power vacuum, and without the evil coercive structures, I see no boundaries existing to prevent that old guard swallowing up everything it can get its hands on. For instance, without the coercive institution of the army, what is to prevent the country next door from taking all that we have because we have no one to protect us? What is to prevent the person next door from breaking into my house and stealing my possessions when chomsky has dissolved the militant arm of the state (the police) as well as the courts? I don’t disagree with much chomsky says, I think his analyses are pretty accurate more often than not. But, like the marxists before him, he has never really addressed (at least not in what I had read up until 2001) how society is meant to make the transition. In my opinion its completely impossible to do; large societies need institutions and structures of power to ensure some kind of stability. A modern society bereft of such power structures will merely break down to such a state where citizens form their own structures, which wont have nearly the oversight we have now, and I see no reason why they would be able to transcend the "might makes right" ideology that permeates such organisations. In other words, stripping back the state's structures of authority will merely move the power from the government to organised crime or other outlaws who do what they will because there is nobody there to stop them.

Just saw this post, I'll get to it later when I'm not dog-tired .

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by robstar Here's another doc on Karl Hess: Karl Hess:Toward Liberty [[ LINK REMOVED ]] Terrible quality tho. :/ Yeah Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron imo but I do understand what he means by it. Btw, quoting Marx on the fly like that is hardcore!

Thanks.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yet fails to talk about certain issues, like certain false flag operations.

does it occur to you for a second that chomsky doesn't talk about these false flags because they do not exist?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I understand why now though, intellectuals and wannabe intellectuals / academics are far more indoctrinated than I originally thought.

of course it doesn't occur to you. its always an issue with somebody else's understanding, and not yours. do you realise how arrogant and conceited you sound? yes shaolin, you can judge every 'intellectual' across the world so easily.

you would prefer to accuse chomsky, one of the sharpest minds of the modern era, of being an indoctrinated, ignorant slave than you would ever admit to a fallibility in your own position(s). as if somehow you are the only tertiary-educated member of academia that manages to resist the incessant indoctrination we all received at our chosen places of learning?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z You can't definitely make a case with out proof, and you can't have a proof when the one crucial piece of evidence that would end debate is destroyed.

does this mean that we should accept a lesser standard of 'proof'? and why is it that this evidence can never be found? how on earth do we find out about these false flags in the first place, if the proof is never there?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The bourgeoisie aren't exactly known for independent thought or being capable of seeing past boundaries defined by familiar models and constructs.

what does this even mean? its as if the fact that most people disagree with you is actual evidence that you are right. in any case, chomsky is a member of the intelligentsia, and not the bourgeoisie. bourgeoisie are those that control the means of production. yes, i know it has been kind've commandeered to mean middle class, but i dont think that's correct.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's not like they give a flying fuck about truth to begin with.

what are you even talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Plus, why waste your time on people who don't even care for honest discussion and the only genuine participation by them is limited to ridicule and personal attacks?

?

___________________

I think the fact that you are saying that false flag operations don't exist is proof towards indoctrination. The one that always comes to mind is Operation Ajax.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix