alister air writes:
> Martin wrote:
> >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.

You advocate taking anti-depressants to mask the symptoms of the
stress caused by doing demeaning work?  Or have I misrepresented what
you said again?  Aren't you suggesting that people who don't have
privileged jobs should take anti-depressants to lessen that stress?
Marie Antoinette lost her head for saying basically the same thing.

> >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?

There is no implication in what I said.  I do clean up after myself.
I clean my own toilet.  I am not employed as a toilet cleaner.  I
wouldn't want the job because I don't like doing it.  I don't like
doing it because it is smelly.  I don't want to eat limburger cheese
either.  I don't want to eat limburger cheese because it is smelly.  I
don't consider eating limburger cheese to be demeaning.

> >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.

In that case, my problem is to find a place to live.  The landlord's
greed is his problem.  I think this came up because you alluded to
the apparent contradiction between your willingness to pay rent to a
property owner and your belief that property ownership is wrong.  I
have forgotten the context in which this point was made.

> >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.

I agree.  That is why I argue that activists should support the
process of covering the world with western-style capitalism and
democracy.  The western-style capitalist democracies advocate
western-style capitalism and democracy for the whole world.  As in
judo, use the opponent's force against him.  When western-style
capitalism and democracy covers the world, it will stop fighting
enemies because there won't be any enemies to be against.  In that
state, evolution away from that system will be possible.  It is not
possible when the whole force of western civilization is directed
toward making it happen.

> 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.

All true.  I'm not arguing that activists should become fascists, and
I'm not arguing they should stop protesting things like environmental
destruction and human rights issues.  I'm arguing that they should not
organize to stop the spread of western-style capitalism and democracy,
because as soon as any such movement becomes big enough to be a real
threat, it will become the enemy, and it will be deja vu all over
again.

> >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.

The support I am referring to is not the kind of support you are
referring to.  I am referring to what happened when the "Asian
Contagion" began, and the economies in the far east collapsed.
Whats-his-name George Sorros was accused by (was it Suharto or
Mahatier?) of manipulating the currency.  He may well have been
manipulating the currency for all I know, but the western governments
and the IMF, etc all demanded that these countries must play by
wester-style capitalist rules.  When they resisted, western-style
capitalist support dried up, a political crisis ensued, and Suharto
and his family were removed from the A list.  I call that support from
western elite.

> >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 don't remember the context of this now.  I don't think it was what
you referred to above, or I wouldn't have asked the question.

> >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.

That's all true, but those people did not protest against the sucking
up.  Again I don't have the context of my "I doubt it" remark, but
protesting in favor of sending in troops to stop a bloodbath is not a
futile protest as I have tried to explain that term.  I am not arguing
that there should be no protests.

> >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?

No.  I own property, but I would rather live in a world in which the
rules of property ownership were much different.  I would rather have
stewardship instead of ownership.  But the system we have is based on
ownership.  I don't protest ownership.  I am not against ownership.  I
think alternative economic systems ought to be taught in school.  That
doesn't require protest.  It just requires increasing the number of
schools where such things can be taught.  If there is hypocracy in my
view, I don't see it.  I suppose it would be hypocritical for me to
protest property ownership by writing a best-selling book about an
alternative to property ownership and then use my royalties to buy a
huge country estate and post private property signs around the
perimeter.  But I have no need to own a country estate, and I have no
desire to own one either.

> >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.

I don't have any objection.  You aren't justifying your actions on
moral grounds.

> >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 think the bullet-proof arguments will become apparent when
western-style capitalism and democracy have spread everywhere.

> >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.

I think Kofi Annan came close to actually starting the process when he
threatened to throw the US out if it didn't pay up.  All it will take
is for a significant number of powerful nations to realize (according
to western-style capitalist and democratic principles) that there is
nothing preventing them from starting a new UN, with or without the
US.  In poker it's called calling the bluff.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701