At 09:49 1/10/99 +0200, Martin William Smith wrote:
>alister air writes:
> > Martin William Smith wrote:
> >
> > >Protesting dishonestly?  Yes, that is a cop-out.
> >
> > Deliberately misrepresenting what I said is perhaps not the best
> > debating tactic to use.  Martin, protesting is a lot more than
> > holding a rally and then going home.  You apparently don't realise
> > this.
>
>Alister, *you* deliberately misrepresented what *I* said.  I wasn't
>sure what you meant, although I think I got it.  I responded to both
>alternatives, and *you* deleted the one that addressed your meaning.
>That is not only not the best debating tactic, it is dishonest.

I've included it all again to point out what seemed clear to me.  My
initial claim was that claiming protesters are dishonest is a cop-out.  You
then wrote "Protesting dishonestly?  Yes, that is a cop-out."

This was a deliberate misrepresentation of what I'd said.  Your response to
the other alternative was not relevant, in my opinion.

>I think you should be careful about this.  My belief is that too many
>of these internal contradictions leads to depression.

Take some anti-depressants.  My work is not overly demeaning.  I am -
mostly - my own boss.  However, I also recognise that for the vast majority
of the workforce, the options are not the same.  IT workers are a very
small subset of the workforce, and a very privileged one.

>I mean, cleaning toilets is not dehumanizing.  Toilets must be cleaned.

By implication, by someone else.  Why don't you take responsibility for
cleaning up after yourself?

>If my landlord is a greedy bastard, that's his problem.

Well, no, it's your problem, if you can't afford to pay the rent.

>Don't protest.  Instead, go in the opposite direction (I'm not talking
>about bombing).  Assist the process of spreading western style
>capitalism and "democracy" so that it covers the world.  Then it will
>fail as Marx predicted it would.  It will not fail while there is
>something for it to be against.  I don't think Marx understood that.

Western-style capitalism and "democracy" won't ever cover the world.  This
is because it depends on dictatorships to survive.  Our level of
consumption is propped up by oppressed workers in industrialising countries.

Furthermore, dissent is suppressed in many cases.  In the oppressed
countries, dissent is suppressed by a police state mentality, by
disappearances, or by obviously state-sanctioned murders.  Dissent is
suppressed in more subtle ways in other countries - often by marginalising
the dissenters with a very effective propaganda system.  Calling them
"unAustralian" sometimes works.

>That's different.  They were protesting against a dictator, and they
>had the support, eventually, of the western elite.

Excuse me?  When?  They had *no* support from the Western elite when they
ousted Suharto.  The West *loved* Suharto - up until the dying days they
were singing his praises.  And even if that were not so, how is that
protest different?  They were protesting a dictator, we were protesting
mass murder.  The only real difference is that they achieved their aims.

>How is that patronizing, unless you mean you don't normally think
>about things posted to this list?

It is patronising by assuming that I *don't* think about the issues that
you've raised.  Were I an apolitical slug with not a clue about what the
UN's been doing, then concepts of reform or abolition might be new to me.

>I doubt it.  How do you know Australia would not have sent troops?
>Now you are patronizing your whole country.  Are Australians really
>just the beer swilling, sheep buggering bastards the rest of the world
>thinks they are?

Excuse me?  After a couple of decades of sucking up to Indonesia, Australia
would suddenly change its mind and act in the interests of the East
Timorese?  No, I don't think so - that conclusion is unreasonable.  The
government's line changed remarkably between the time immediately after the
referendum results were announced and the time where tens of thousands of
people took to the streets to demand action.  Sydney had 15-20,000
(depending on which news source you believe) people virtually blockade its
centre.  Melbourne had in excess of 30,000 people.  Large actions in
Canberra, Perth and Brisbane also took place.

>By futile protest, I mean one that attempts to stop what is an
>expected outcome of the basic system.  Protesting property ownership
>is futile.  Teaching children about alternative economic systems is
>not.  Protesting the NATO bombing is futile.  Demanding structural
>changes to the UN is not.

Teaching alternate economic systems while not protesting property ownership
would surely be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

>Protestors are dishonest when they are inconsistent.  They are
>dishonest when they use a double standard.  There are other double
>standards than the ones used by the US government.

This is not (as far as I'm aware) a contention for debate.  I agree with
you that double-standards have been used which are not the province of the
US government alone.  I'll leave aside the one that Australia used when
sending a few ships to Iraq.

>What does deeply committed mean?  Mother Teresa
>was deeply committed (is she still with us?) Albert Schweitzer was
>deeply committed.  Adolph Hitler was deeply committed.

Mother Teresa's dead.  But yes, commitment means different things to
different people.  If one is committed to valuing all human life, then the
invasion of Chechnya (because it's an invasion now) is of the same scale as
the invasion of Yugoslavia, or that of Kuwait or East Timor, for that
matter.  However, I for one have acted more with regard to East Timor than
Kuwait, Iraq or Chechnya.  There are probably three main reasons for
this.  As an Australian (whether I like it or not) my country is complicit
in the invasion of East Timor, and the repression of its people.  East
Timor is only 400 miles away from Darwin, so it's very local.  And finally,
the support has been there - there's a base to help organise around.  Lie
it or not, this doesn't exist for Chechnya here, and is unlikely to - not
because we don't care, but because there's only so much one person, or one
group, can do.

>All true.  but first you have to have a proposal for a better system
>and a bullet proof argument for how and why it will work.  I don't
>have those things yet.

There won't ever be a "bullet-proof" argument for why and how it will
work.  Such arguments do not exist - as I would have thought this list
illustrates :-)

>I hope I *am* being naive, but not about the problem you point out.
>This much i am pretty sure of.  When push comes to shove, the US will
>have to be thrown out of the UN before these changes can be made.  For
>a time it will be the world vs the US.  I think we are already on
>course for this to happen.  There are too many signs pointing to it.

This would be pretty good to see - but do you see it happening?  I see the
signs, but it would be an act of extreme courage for the UN to do this.  I
don't know that the UN is noted for its courage.