By clicking Publish you indemnify B-BBC and accept full legal responsibility for your comments
Alex:
You know, when I read your wikipedia extract, I wondered why your brief history of Burma only went up to 1988. Last time something interesting happened perhaps? So I looked for myself and found a change of government:
"Security forces killed hundreds of demonstrators, and General Saw Maung staged a coup d'état and formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). In 1989, SLORC declared martial law after widespread protests."
And then, shockingly enough, if you look up the State Law and Order Restoration Council, you get:
"The SLORC also stated that the services of the Deputy Ministers in the previous Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) government which it replaced were also terminated."
But as you say, "If it doesn’t fit the agenda, say nothing".
Ed:
Looking through the Wikidata it seems likely that it's still a socialist state- the coup was only because the old regime had gone a bit soft, apparently.
Alex:
Possibly, though Wikipedia doesn't seem to have much on current policies. It is funny how NiallKilmartin missed out such an important event though.
mister scruff:
if the regime was right-wing (in the mould of say Pinochet) , you can be darn sure that the BBC would call them a "RIGHT WING junta", or a "right wing regime".
Anon:
Since then SLORC has abolished itself and been replaced by another body. Burma/Myanmar has a coup every four or five years. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The leaders come from the same pool of generals every time.
korova:
Perhaps, as you all seem so concerned with the situation in Burma, you might be willing to join those on the left who have been calling on businesses that operate in the US/UK to cease trading with the military junta. Perhaps Biased BBC is going to start leading attacks on Total?? How many articles are on the BBC in relation to the amount of business the UK does with Burma, particularly the teak industry??? It's about time the BBC exposed the corporations that are propping up the Burmese regime, the corporations that are giving the Burmese military junta the means to suppress the people.
The BBC - Protecting the Capitalists.
korova:
And Wikipedia as a reference tool???? Hilarious. Did you actually read any further in the piece or did you just extract the bit you liked?? You might be interested in this:
In November 1977 a 'purge' of the BSPP including those on the Central Committee took place. Among the thousands that were purged from the party were 'leftists' or 'communist sympathizers'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bur...mme_Party#Purge
This is the Ronseal of websites. Don't look beyond what it says on the tin, eh chaps??
Anon:
There is nothing new about leftists purging other leftists. That was what Stalin did in the 1920s.
Anonymous:
Perhaps, as you all seem so concerned with the situation in Burma, you might be willing to join those on the left who have been calling on businesses that operate in the US/UK to cease trading with the military junta.
Perhaps you'll try and get your Red friends in China to join the US and impose sanctions on the Burmese regime?
LogicalUS:
korova you unknowing twit...one of the first things every socialistscommunist utopia has scheduled is the purge of trouble-makers, ie the leftists.
Being a committed leftist, one would think you would know this? But I supposed like most dupes, you think that will be for the "others" since you will be one of the favored.
I am sure the millions Stalin sent to Siberian, or the teachers Mao turned the students against, or the hundreds Che shot believed the same. Most of the bones in the "killing fields" of SE Asia were university professors and other "intellectuals".
Yet still today, millions of moronic youths parade around fantazing about the glorious "revolution" to come.
Peter:
Perhaps Korova would like to put her money where her mouth is and form an International Brigade to go to Burma.They are all so limp the young leftists nowadays
MisterMinit:
Let me get this straight: the BBC are, because they don't want to sully the reputation of socialism because of their love for it, purposely not referring to the Burmese regime as "socialist", "left wing" etc.
And further more, the fact that the BBC are doing this is further proof that they have a socialist/left wing agenda.
Well, could you show me ANY UK news outlet that is describing the Burmese regime as "socialist" or "left wing" - I have not been able to find a single reference. Below is a "representative" sample, none of which containg references to either of these terms:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3883123.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3879492.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3908641.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3871297.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3877061.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3912026.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3904822.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...html?
source=rss
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ef-
efforts.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...rickles-
in.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...-
shipments.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...argis-hit'
.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...'war-zone'
.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...hit-
10,000.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ese-
regime.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...html?
source=rss
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...its-
15,000.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...5/12/
dl1202.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...e-
handling.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...yclone-
aid.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
...ed=networkfront
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
...nenargis.burma2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
...ed=networkfront
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
...ed=networkfront
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
...ed=networkfront
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/
...ed=networkfront
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/...&
feed=worldnews
If we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, then the ENTIRE UK MEDIA loves socialism and is purposely keeping Burma's socialist past under the covers.
Is this what you are seriously suggesting?
Or is it B-BBC and half a story again.
Anon:
That's the MSM for you. Although to be fair Saturday's Independent mentioned the socialist history of the Burmese regime.
"Absence of Burma's notorious strongman provokes speculation of a power struggle"
Alex:
Alright, give the guy a break, he admits he had no clue about the ideology of the regime when he started out, so let's let the guy off. Honest mistake.
korova:
MisterMinit - half a story?? This bunch of plebs are lucky if they even manage that.
An Observer:
You gotta love this - not.
There's a blog.
B-BBC.
It allows freedom to post for and against arguments.
Fair enough.
But it goes way way too far.
It allows trolls to takeover its thread and post against the site as a whole and its posters rather than on issue.
Lunatics have taken over the assylum.
Count me out, I have the wire cutters, rope and security pass, I'm out of here...
Ed:
Observer - it's not so difficult as that to leave. Just you know, whatever. If you believe in the cause you don't bail when it turns ugly- ugly as Korova for instance is.
BBC bias is a contentious issue, tied up with its special funding and domination of the marketplace.
Personally I laugh at most of the anti-BiasedBBC posters. Sorry but I do. I do however think that personal abuse is totally unhelpful and therefore Korova is close to a ban I would say.
I am convinced that in a court of law of reasonable standard the BBC would be convicted of bias- it's harder to prove the point in the raucous blogosphere.
Jack Bauer:
Western leftists never met a commie dictactor they didn't love.
After all "you can't make an omlet without murdering 50 million or so" Mao (attributed)
korova:
From the Encyclopaedia Brittanica:
"A series of economic reforms were proposed in 1987–88 that would reverse the socialist policies enacted in the early 1960s. Chief among these were the further encouragement of foreign investment and a considerable liberalization of foreign trade."
It would appear the military junta turned it's back on socialism in favour of capitalism.
Jack Bauer:
It would appear you are an ignorant leftist troll.
You'll be trying to tell us China is "capitalist" next.
korova:
Er.....it is certainly heading that way. You do know what Tianamen Square was about don't you Jack Bauer???
Ed:
Yeah Korova- noticed that. Before the coup I would say; as in, the coup took place against such liberalisation, not pro it.
Jack Bauer:
korova -- yeah Tinamen Square. That was when the Communist Party of China crushed a nascent democratic movement. So effing what?
Let me guess -- communism hasn't really failed. It's just never been done properly.
You may fool braindeads with your foolish reactionary socialist claptrap, but try another violin here pal.
korova:
Tiananman Square was actually a protest against the adoption of Friedmanite policies by the Chinese government. Don't take my word for it, one of the organisers of the demonstration, Wang Hui, has written about the rising discontent with Deng's revolutionary Friedmanite economic changes (China's New Order). Friedman advised Jiang Zemin to privatise and liberalise the market and the Chinese government duly obliged. That is what prompted protestors to take to the streets. At least according to one of the organisers of the demonstration.
korova:
That China is now a capitalist country is widely accepted:
http://www.commondreams.org/view...s06/0110-
42.htm
Even the standard bearer for capitalism, The Wall Street Journal, has chronicled what they call 'China's rush to capitalism':
http://online.wsj.com/public/
art...Q_20070423.html
korova:
And here:
http://online.wsj.com/public/
art...c_20070423.html
Perhaps, Jack Bauer, you are the foolish one.
Peter:
"This bunch of plebs are lucky if they even manage that."
There we have it,the authentic voice of the left.
aviv:
"Friedmanite"? I always thought it was just called "liberalism", but I guess Friedmanite sounds much more highbrow and conspirtatorial, even if wholly inaccurate when describing an economic system dominated by State Owned Enterprises where the free-float is in single digit percentages. Not sure Milton (PBUH) would consider that "Friedmanite"...
As for the protesters, I seem to recall at the time that they were pretty explicitly demanding more democracy and freedom....that's probably far too simplistic and "unnuanced" a view to appeal to the towering intellects of the left though.
korova:
"Not sure Milton (PBUH) would consider that "Friedmanite"..."
Well, it was Milton who advised the Chinese to do open up their economy, so I guess it was Friedmanite.
Simon:
Fucking hell! We need Atlas Shrugged to comment on this one; he's the only commenter who makes sense on this board!
NiallKilmartin - you make an interesting point but you have made the classic mistake of quoting Wikipedia. I have noticed that anybody who disagrees with the general consensus of opinion on this board is universally flamed for quoting wikipedia without alternative sources. Could I ask you to quote an alternative source?
Simon:
... oh and Korova - I don't always agree with the general consensus of opinion on this site but you seem to be insinuating that the Tianamen Square protest was a result of China's drift to capitalism (as you see it) and therefore we should assume that CAPITALISM is responisible for this massacre?!!?!!? Are you REALLY saying that?
korova:
Simon - No that is not what I am saying. I never said it was responsible. The leaders were responsible. However, the move towards free markets was one of the catalysts for the demonstrations.
Jack Bauer:
kafka the k...
You get more detached from reality with every post. And I thought that was impossible.
Unlike you I don't read crap-hole Marxist shites like "commondreams"
And I certainly ain't wasting my time chasing your Talking Point links to stalinist scumbags like Cockburn and Tariq Ali. What are you, like 17 years old?
Go stick your lefty links where the sun don't shine.
Anonymous:
Korovaian world view: Burma not proper lefties despite being socialists as they once clamped down on communists; PR China not proper lefties despite being fully made up Communists like it sez on the tin with a politburo and a general secretary calling each other comrade and all that crap.
Presumably Hu Jintao is not dishing out enough Five Year Plans, Cultural Revolutions or Great Leap Forwards for the likes of Korova?
It must be a vicious body blow to see that countries chasing prosperity need to leave behind all that commie-crap behind?
korova:
Go stick your lefty links where the sun don't shine.
Wow, that's the first time I have seen someone of the right claim that the Wall Street Journal is a 'lefty' publication. This site truly is populated by some odd people.
Anon - not really a body blow no. I'm pleased they have abandoned communism, just a shame they took a wrong turn. I have no idea why you would think that I would sympathise with communists. My ideological forebears were as opposed to communism as you appear to be.
Mugwump:
On a slightly different point, listening to the BBC's reporting of the cyclone disaster recently, I was struck by the way in which criticism of the junta's response (or lack thereof) was deflected away from Burma's military rulers and toward.....guess who? The main question posed during the hour I tuned in was: Will the generals be forced by their understandable anger toward the US into rejecting American assistance, and will other donors wind up being tarred with the same brush by a regime fearing the Americans are taking advantage of the crisis to launch an Iraq-style invasion? The hosts were careful to label such fears as exaggerated, but not before establishing that Western (and especially American) motives are still somehow suspect.
Of course, had the US not responded in a massive way to the disaster, we would be hearing non-stop criticism from the usual sources over the Bush Administration's appalling callousness and indifference in the face of human suffering.
Another instance where the US and its allies are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
korova:
Mugwump - clearly you have been watching the wrong channel. I have seen nothing but condemnation of the military junta on the BBC, and certainly no attempts to justify it's actions.
Nearly Oxfordian:
Sigh ... yes, but they hide the fact that it's a SOCIALIST one.
korova:
Socialist one??? Even the original poster has claimed that it is hard to say what their ideology is. I wonder what conclusive evidence you have....
Mugwump:
korova:
Mugwump - clearly you have been watching the wrong channel. I have seen nothing but condemnation of the military junta on the BBC, and certainly no attempts to justify it's actions.
I'm not sure your comment requires a response since you didn't address the criticism I was making. Nevertheless, duly noted.
Nearly Oxfordian:
Err ... I don't kowtow the party line of 'original posters', korova: I leave that kind of behaviour to you.
When everything and the kitchen sink is nationalised, I call that 'socialist'. I do understand why you are desperate to deny this, however.
Peter:
"My ideological forebears were as opposed to communism as you appear to be."
Perhaps ideological Three Bears would be more appropriate.
Nearly Oxfordian:
korova:
Peter - Good one 
korova:
Nearly Oxfordian - my dear, they are totalitarians. Their ideology is not clear to observers. I would take the sensible option of declaring that they are neither creatures of the right or the left, they are merely despicable creatures that deserve contempt. If you are as concerned with the Burmese as I have been, I can pass on some addresses of various corporations who do business in Burma and thus provide the funds the junta needs to survive. Campaigners who care about the people in Burma are always welcome. Drop me a line and I'll send you a few addresses to start you off. Come on, you can make a difference
Peter:
Not enough Korova,roll your sleeves up,go there.There is nothing worse than a proxy revolutionary.
"To the barricades men.I only wish I could come with you,but I'm washing my sword that day".
Nearly Oxfordian:
korova, you patronising little twit, you can call me 'my dear' when I have given you permission to do so.
Bryan:
Korova and others can sneer and get as sarcastc as they want, but it doesn't change the fact that the BBC has a different attitude to dictatorships of the left as opposed to those of the right.
Take Cuba. A year or two back the World Service had a report by a misty-eyed armchair revolutionary who had positioned himself overlooking the Bay of Pigs and was reminiscing (no doubt with the wind ruffling his hair) about the evil CIA-backed invasion and the brave little nation that fought it off and ever since then has thumbed its nose at mighty America.
And the BBC recently had an equally misty-eyed celebration of Guevara, which was discussed on this blog. How many BBC hacks have his faded T-shirts in their cupboards? That would be an interesting subject for research.
So it's no stretch at all to conclude that the BBC is deliberately tiptoeing around a depiction of the Burmese government as lefty.
Anonymous:
Note that the US tried to have Myanmar's human rights record placed onto the UN Security Council's agenda, but the motion was later vetoed by China and Russia.
I'm sure Korova will be bigging up the US and especially Dubya for consistently condemning the atrocious record of Burma's leadership in contrast to some other places.
aviv:
Bryan, Korova etc.
I think there is a definitional issue here.
I (and I suspect most posters on this site) would define right wing as being broadly in line with classical liberalism: i.e. a system in which individual rights (property e.g.) , freedoms (speech and belief e.g.)and responsibilities (through civic society e.g.) are prioritised and where the state plays as small a role as possible.
Left wing, by contrast, pertains to a system in which the state assumes a much greater role in these arenas, ranging from the mild socialsism practiced by countries like Sweden and Canada through to the outright totalitariansim of Nazi Germany, the USSR and yes, Burma.
There are no "right wing" totalitarian regimes. It is a self-contradictory term invented by the left in order to unload some of the blame for the pain, suffering and inhumanity caused by the well-meaning and not so well-meaning idiots who throughout history have attempted to force human nature to conform to an ideology that is fundamentally at odds wuith human nature.
korova:
Anon - I would big him up more if he forced Chevron to stop investing there.
aviv - your definitions are slightly misleading. The left cannot merely be categorised as believers in a large state. Where does that leave the libertarian left? Anarchism is not a right-wing ideology by any stretch, so where does that fit into your explanation?
As for dictators being solely of the left.....presumably General Pinochet was a left-wing dictator who just so happened to draw a lot of support from the right? I seem to remember that when the left was protesting against Pinochet, the right were noticeable by their abscence.
There has, and always will be, a totalitarian right and a totalitarian left as well as a libertarian left and a libertarian right. To suggest otherwise is simplistic in the extreme.
aviv:
Korova- I do not merely categorise the left as believers in a large state, but a large state is certainly necessary to implement left wing ideology (central economic planning, curtailment of individual rights and freedoms e.g.) I am happy to consider other features that differentiate left from right, but this seems to me to be a big and useful one. Perhaps your definiton will shed light on what you mean by "libertarian left" as my definiton obviosuly can not reconicle the two. So, how would you define left wing and right wing?
Anarchism? I have not thought about this since I was about 14. I suppose it is neither left nor right...nor relevant.
Pinochet. True, he was an advocate of free markets, so he had that in common with the right. In most other respects (violent disregard for individual rights and freedoms e.g.)I would suggest he had more in common with the USSR, Cuba and North Korea of his day than with the US under Regan or UK under Thatcher. As for why they supported him, if you were politically sentient during the 70s and 80s I suspect you can figure that one out.
korova:
Am I to take it then, from your rather simplistic political analysis, that you consider George W Bush a left-wing president? He does, after all, display a disregard for individual rights and freedoms. If you characterise the right as observing basic liberal values, how can you explain the denigration of a right to fair trial? How does Guantanamo Bay fit in with the right's liberal values??
Both the left, and the right, are in love with the idea of the large state. Both the left and the right have supported, and continue to support, surveillance of private individuals.
I'm sorry, but your definitions of what constitute 'right' and 'left' (old fashioned terms that they are), do not bear up to scrutiny.
aviv:
Korova- you still have not provided me with a more accurate definiton of what constitutes "left wing" (and with a definiton of what a left wing libertarian is). This might be a more fruitful exchange if you did.
Your contention that the right is in love with idea of a large state is patently absurd and disingenous, not least because most left wing criticism of Regan, Thatcher and other bogey men (sorry, bogey-persons) of the Right focuses on the fact they reduced the role of the state and degree of collectivism in society (think helath care in the US and unions in the UK). The right has never advocated big government, so please don't fob that off on us: it is a left wing obsession.
Do I consider Bush left wing?. No I do not because most of his policies are in line with liberalism and are therefore right wing.
Do I belive that governments have the right to conduct surveillance on certain members of the populace that they have cause to belive are a threat to society and act in such a way that prevents those individuals from carrying out an act that endangers said society? Youbetcha. Indeed, protecting society and enforcing rule of law and security is one of the few roles that right wing thinkers approve of handing over to the state (with appropritate checks abnd balances). I draw the line at such left wing institutions as Stasi and gulags though.
Do I belive that Guantanamo Bay is an abomination that undermines the essentially liberal nature of the US? Nope, though you could argue (and N.B. in the US, unlike in left wing states, people do, all the way up to the supreme court) that it is inconsistent with the essentially liberal nature of the US (i.e an exception that proves the rule).
I'm sorry, but your comments do not successfully rebut anything I've argued so far.
korova:
and here is where you and I differ:
Do I belive that governments have the right to conduct surveillance on certain members of the populace that they have cause to belive are a threat to society and act in such a way that prevents those individuals from carrying out an act that endangers said society
That 'belief' in a supposed threat to society is reliant on instruments of the state, which is why I am opposed to a large state spying on individuals. As far as I am concerned, no elements of the state are to be trusted, whereas you believe in the ones that merely support your own prejudices. There is no justification for widespread surveillance of individuals by the state. I suspect you believe the burden of proof lies with the individual (hence your acceptance of the denigration of liberal ideals of justice that you claim to support - Guantanamo).
Of course the right advocates big government, just not in the way you describe. A state that locks people up without trial and spies on the individual, both serious attacks on individual liberty no matter how you dress it up,is indicative of a large state organ. The state is, as far as right-wing governments are concerned, an organ for crowd control whilst corporate entities get a free ride to control all other aspects of the state. My ideological predecessors, alongside myself, oppose oppressive state power (eg Guantanamo, gulags etc etc), corporate power and support the individuals right to liberty. Given your support for Guantanamo, it would appear you are not as staunch a defender of individual liberties as you might claim (you will find many right-wing libertarians are as opposed to Guantanamo as I am).
Out of interest, as you are concerned with civil liberties, which civil rights organisations are you a member of? Personally, I am a member of Amnesty and I have been involved in campaigns in respect of the US, UK, China, Cuba etc. How deep is your love for civil liberties one wonders?? Is it merely posturing??
Jack Bauer:
Oh God -- Shamnesty International. A bunch of Left wing whores.
What a poseur.
aviv:
Can i now assume that you have no better definiton of left wing than the one I proposed?
In order:
(1) "No elements of the state are to be trusted". You, Milton Friedman and me are in full agreement. Hence the bit about checks and balances.
(2)"there is no justification for widespread surveillance of individuals". Completely agree, hence my qualification along the lines of "certain individuals who pose a threat..."
(3) "you believe the burden of proof lies with the individual". Nope. Not sure where you got that one from.
(4) "the (right wing) state is an organ for crowd control". Clarify please (preferably without reference to Noam Chomsky, who I find tiresome).
(5) "Corporate entities get a free ride...". Interesting view point, especially in light of corporation tax, regulatory oversight, anti-monopoly legislation etc. etc.
(6) "... to control all other aspects of the state". Fascinating viewpoint. I feel some Chomsky coming on...let me try to short circuit it by asking: whom exactly do you think controls corporations?
(7)"My ideological predecessors...oppose corporate power". Assuming corporations are powerful, can you think why they might be? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they produce products and services that consumers wish to buy? But hang on, that means conusmers have the power becasue they force corporates to produce things they want.
(
"You will find many right wing libertarians are opposed to Guanatanmo as I am" Yeeees. And your point is?
(9) I am a member of Amnesty" I love the apporpriation of the moral highground. I take it then you were the sole voice at Amnesty that opposed Cuba's membership of the UN HRC?
korova:
I really do think that you fail to see the inherent contradiction in your argument. You claim that you (and your fellow right-wingers) are concerned with individual liberty and the overwhelming power of the state, yet you have no qualms in defending the one arm of the state that can do most direct damage to individual liberty. The checks and balances argument is laughable. Given your lack of trust in the state, who will administer these checks and balances? The state?? Or agents of the state?? Or will the state entrust these checks to someone entirely neutral? Given that you view the state with suspicion, why do you think they would handle this any better?
As for the right-wing state as an organ of crowd control...let's take the example of General Pinochet. Pinochet shut down on basic civil liberties whilst introducing Friedmanite economics that were recommended by the 'great' man himself. This led to free market reforms in conjunction with vicious human rights abuses. The kind of vicious human rights abuses that you claim to be opposed.
Your argument about civil liberties is now helped by nutjobs like Jack Bauer. When even your own side claims that groups fighting for civil liberties across the globe are 'left-wing' it only underlines how your own side has made civil liberties an issue of the left and not of the right. I cannot even bring myself to believe that someone of the right is claiming to be a big supporter of civil liberties. The present occupier of the White House has overseen the biggest destruction of individual liberties in modern history. And guess what?? He's a creature of the right.
David Preiser (USA):
korova | Homepage | 13.05.08 - 5:29 pm |
The present occupier of the White House has overseen the biggest destruction of individual liberties in modern history. And guess what?? He's a creature of the right.
Bwahahahahahah!
Which rights have been destroyed, and for whom? And compared to which part of American history, exactly? The part of the 1950s when Leftoids were blacklisted from working in many industries, and the government tolerated massive public discrimination against African Americans and Jews? The part in the 1850s, when slavery was legal in many states and Congress was more concerned about which new states would be free and which wouldn't, (when they weren't feeding at the trough and beating each other with canes, that is)?
The Constitutional rights of American citizens are under threat from the Left, not from Bush. Bush didn't un-Constitutionally ban handgun ownership in DC. Bush doesn't tell American academics to silence free speech the way they do. Bush doesn't tell people they don't have the right to their paychecks.
Bush doesn't spy on you, and he doesn't spy on me. Bush hasn't taken away a single civil liberty of yours or mine, nor that of any legal American citizen - unless they were engaged in criminal activities. I'm sure you honestly believe that many, if not most, of the people held in Guantanamo Bay are either completely innocent, or were merely guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time when Amerikkkan jackboots decided to go a-huntin' fer terrorists.
You would be wrong. You are telling fairy tales. Other haters believe that nonsense, and even try to extend their hatred of the truth to claiming that any light shed on an actual weakness or failure of Obama's is a mere "distraction", calculated to inspire hate.
You have never been under any surveillance, or in any danger of losing a single right as a US citizen for the last eight years. Ever. You have not lost any civil liberties of any kind due to Bush. Ever.
korova:
David - Is that some kind of weak joke??????? I find your kind fascinating. You are against a large state apparatus, and yet you hold everything that eminates from the state to be wholly true. An interesting paradox.
Peter:
"I find your kind fascinating"
There it is again the authentic patronising voice of the totalitarian.
Nearly Oxfordian:
"Anarchism is not a right-wing ideology by any stretch" -
err, actually it is. Since it believes in (extreme) personal freedom, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called anything but. It is diametrically opposed to lef-wingism, which requires the state to intervene in order to right (real or imagined) inequalities.
Nearly Oxfordian:
"How deep is your love for civil liberties one wonders?? Is it merely posturing??" -
what a patronising little poseur.
"The present occupier of the White House has overseen the biggest destruction of individual liberties in modern history" -
what an ignorant, pathetic poseur you are. You know a big fat zero about the USA, and yet you post this infantile, screeching nonsense. You are saying that Bush is worse than Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. You are a dumb loser, an idiot, probably insane.
Nearly Oxfordian:
"I find your kind fascinating"
You patronising tosser.
"You are against a large state apparatus"
The Stalinist one that your sympathies are so obviously with, I suppose.
Korova is a wind-up, right? Nobody can be that ignorant and stupid, right?
Anonymous:
Korova- It is telling that the only organ you can think of that may be in a position to impose a check on state power is the state. That would be a difficult contradiciton to resolve. Fortunately I do not inhabit your state-centric universe and am able to identify other possibilities, chief among them the electorate.
Pinochet: I agree completely with your analysis, which is why I dumped him firmly on the left in my above post. The only ting right wing about him was his economics, in all other respects he had more in common with Uncle Joe, Fidel and Mr. Kim than with Maggie and Ron, who whatever their faults did not spend a great deal of time fretting about crowd control. The pre-eminent example of crowd control that I can think of by the way is the Berlin wall, a masterpeice of the left, not the right.
Interesting though these digressions are, we have wandered from the initial issue: what is your definiton of left wing?
aviv:
sorry-anonymous above is me
Nearly Oxfordian:
I thought Anonymous was Galil
korova:
Really, it is quite amazing the half-witted nonsense some of you come out with.
"Totalitarian"??? I cannot think of a single totalitarian regime I support. It would kinda contradict my political beliefs somewhat.
"You are saying that Bush is worse than Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot." No, never said that actually, Nearly Oxfordian (or should that be Nearly Literate).
Pinchet was left-wing?? That is probably the biggest joke of them all. No evidence, just a simple attempt to re-write facts.
Well, I say biggest joke, I forgot Nearly Oxfordian's remarkable claim that anarchism is a right-wing ideology. Very bizarre. Not an argument I have heard before, certainly not be someone of the right. I can only assume what they were referring to is anarcho-capitalism - a branch of anarchism that may be associated with the right.
My definition of left-wing?? Simple. It is a system by which property and the distribution of wealth is subject to control of the community. This means anarchism (or libertarian socialism) or your basic socialism. How the property and wealth are controlled varies amongst the left. The anarchist left would want them directly under the control of the workers and/or the local community and communists would want them controlled by the state itself (which is why I am no communist).
I simply cannot understand the assertion that anarchism is 'right-wing'. Anarchism would wish to abolish borders (they inhibit personal liberty), would want all major corporations to be owned by the workers and not the 'bosses', capitalism would be smashed, prisons would be abolished, the application of violence to obtain mineral wealth would no longer be an option and the church would be abolished. Exactly what similiarities do you suggest there are??
Oh, and I do wish you would desist from labelling me a communist. It's really affecting my standing amongst fellow anarchists.
aviv:
Korova- so a community (lets call it an electorate) gets together and decides how wealth is distributed (lets call that bit tax) and property is controlled (law). Sounds good to me.
By the way, you did not reply to points 5,6 and 7 in my previous post regarding corporations. If you are going to hysterically fling about accusations, please have the courtesy to follow through. Unless of course you were unable to do this without reference to Noam Chomsky (and Naiomi Klein- is it too late to add her to my Index Liborum Prohitorum too?), in which case your silence is appreciated.
Regards
Aviv
Nearly Oxfordian:
korova, you sad, illiterate tosser - before you accuse others of illiteracy, go and read the mindless crap you posted yesterday, in which you did claim that Bush is responsible for the worst loss of civil liberties in modern history. Since Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot are part of modern history, and since (which evidently you didn't know) there was the minor matter of loss of civil liberties under their regime), it follows (assuming one has two brain cells to rub together, which you don't) that you are telling us that Bush was worse than all those.
Now go sue your primary school teachers for failing to teach you to read, you utter moron.
aviv:
Korova- so in an anarchist "society" one would NOT have the freedom to individually start and own a buisness and one would NOT have the freedom to worship in a church...any other restrictions you would like to impose on your future subjects?
I note also that there are to be no prisons in your anarchist-land. What what would you do with people who "applied violence" to obtain mineral wealth? What would you do to people who started a business, or secretly worshiped a God of their choice?
Nearly Oxfordian:
aviv, don't confuse korova with logic - she'll get a headache
aviv:
Nearly Oxforian- I know,I know, but it amuses me. Grant me this pleasure in my otherwise drab and colourless life...not as drab and colourless as it sounds like in Korova-land mind you...must run and exploit the workers now: so much mouth watering surplus value to be skimmed off of their labour.
Nearly Oxfordian:
Fair enough, aviv - be my guest
korova:
Oh, you guys!
korova:
"in an anarchist "society" one would NOT have the freedom to individually start and own a buisness"
Pray tell, why would one want to set up a business in an anarchist society? It would be a pretty pointless exercise, wouldn't it?
aviv:
My point exactly.
David Preiser (USA):
korova,
It seems Bush has also removed your freedom to speak out about all those civil liberties you've lost. I guess we should be grateful that you're even allowed access to a blog that occasionally uses the terms "free speech" and allows commenters to have opinions that are sometimes critical of the Bush Administration. Gosh, things sure are rough for freedom-fighters in Bush's Amerikkka!
Can't even name one, can you? Bush may have screwed up a lot of things, but destroying our civil liberties isn't one of them. Unless you're talking about the right to kill policemen, US soldiers, and US civilians, that is. In which case, I grant you that Bush has taken those rights away from some people.
korova:
Aviv - eh? I'm not quite sure what you are going on about. Of course they would be entirely free to start up a business in an anarchistic society, but why would anyone use their service, given that money would be abolished?
field.size:
korova | 14.05.08 - 4:07 pm |
Lets say it was the UK....
60 Million people operating without money, companies, telecoms(Company), banks.....etc etc
Brain dead is the only description.
aviv:
Silly me - you got me with that one. Yes, yes, I see now. Of course it would.
Yawn, stretch...I think I'll grant you the last word on this Korova.
Anonymous:
By the time Korova graduates, finds a proper job, has kids, pays bills and taxes and so on, this anarchy malarky will be seen as the immature phase that it always was.
aviv:
I don't know anonymous- I'm coming around to the idea...no money, talking dogs, fish riding bicycles and juggling sugar-plums, clouds made of marshmallows, (unbranded) beer flowing freely from the taps...and of course my favourite: no more "application of violence to obtain mineral wealth". I might just sign up.
Anonymous:
Korova,
"Of course they would be entirely free to start up a business in an anarchistic society, but why would anyone use their service, given that money would be abolished?"
So when the money system is abolished as per your utopian system, how will people actually pay for stuff? Back to ancient bartering systems? How will you pay for your ISP subscription? With a sack of corn?
The people in power probably take one look at the likes of you and give themselves high-fives.
Nearly Oxfordian:
I don't think they do, Anonymous - they are too busy rolling on the floor laughing.
Still waiting for korova to prove that Bush is worse than Hitler in the civil liberties department. I have a sinking feeling that I am in for a heck of a long wait.
korova:
Ah, you guys. You crack me up .
Aviv - I think we will never agree on this one. However, I understand where you are coming from and it is rather heart warming to see that some on the right are prepared to stand up for civil liberties. It is a shame more people on your side of the fence don't do more to defend civil liberties and speak out about the abomination that is Guantanamo. It's nice to see that the divide between us can be bridged from time to time.
Nearly Oxfordian - Again, I think we will never resolve our differences on this one. You will forever see the state's attempts to incarcerate without charge as a vital development given the 'threats' we face. And who can blame you? Whilst I disagree with your position vis-a-vis the altruistic nature of the security arm of the state, I entirely understand your position.
Anonymous - I have found your remarks entirely witty and insightful. Again, whilst I disagree with your standpoint, I appreciate your warm sentiments and your unending sense of humour.
Thank you for your time everyone, the conversation has been most.....enlightening.
Nearly Oxfordian:
"Nearly Oxfordian - Again, I think we will never resolve our differences on this one. You will forever see the state's attempts to incarcerate without charge as a vital development given the 'threats' we face. And who can blame you? Whilst I disagree with your position vis-a-vis the altruistic nature of the security arm of the state, I entirely understand your position"
What a dumb, illiterate tosser you are. I have never said anything even remotely similar to those views you attribute to me. Not once. Not on this blog. Not anywhere else. Not ever.
All I did was expose your utter ignorance about America, about history and about several other things besides - those points you are now running away from like the little coward you are, because your ignorance has been exposed and you don't have a clue how to deal with people who don't buy your lies.
korova:
Commenting by HaloScan.com
