Poli-Sci Digest Volume 2
Tue 01 Dec 81 Poli-Sci Digest Volume 2 Number 1
Contents: Corporate Mergers
Political Spectrum and Mergers
The Military
Basic Models of Government
Capitalism and Markets
The Middle Ages, and cultural power
The Middle Ages and Post-WWII Germany
Monopoly
Four messages remain in the queue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 1981 2106-EST
From: The Moderator
Subject: Administrivia
Hello. I think the Libertarian debate has subsided to the point,
and spin-off discussion has risen to the point, that there is a
continuum. Thus instead of issuing extras, I am merely shoving
the more hard-core stuff to the end of each number, so that those
who start choking can flush without missing anything. Your own
choking point may vary, depending on sex, national origin, religion,
and previous condition of servitude.
As I am new to the technical minutiae of digest distribution,
please report any irregularities to Poli-Sci-Request@Rutgers.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 29 Nov 1981 2237-EST
From: KING at RUTGERS
Subject: A supposition that mergers are not all black
I've been doing a bit of thinking about the recent spate of
large takeover bids and mergers.
People who have a hate for either the set of policies usually
referred to as "Reaganomics", or for oil companies, have been offering
us a lot of complaints about these mergers. The comments run like
"...see, Reagan gave them all this money and we expected them to
invest it productively and all they do is buy other corperations and
reduce competition...".
I don't think that the mergers have anything to do with new
capital being available. (It probably does in part result from a
feeling that mergers that have been desired for a long time will be
permitted.) To explain my supposition, let us follow the course of a
merger.
1) XYZ corp. announces an intention to purchase AAA corp. for
$5 billion. They establish a line of credit with the local bank, but
they don't take the money.
2) Many AAA stockholders tender their shares.
3) The offer is SUCCESSFUL.
4) XYZ borrows $5 billion from the bank, reducing the nation's
store of capital by $5 billion. They pay almost all of this money to
former shareholders of AAA stock. I concede that a modest percentage
of the $5 billion goes to fees and expenses, but people who advocate
suppression of this form of economic activity contend that ALL of the
$5 billion is being "wasted", not just a portion.
5) Each former AAA stockholder had his own reason for holding
the stock, but the main fact to notice is that s/he wanted a specific
portion of the portfolio to be invested in AAA's industry. All of a
sudden, the stockholder finds that some wealth that was formerly
invested has turned back into money.
6) $4.9 billion is poured back into the United State's
investment sector by former shareholders in AAA who really DID want to
own stock.
What do people suppose happens to merger money? Did they
think it disappears? Did they think that an investor who had made an
original decision to invest X dollars is going to decide to squander
this check that comes in the mail? If they had wanted to do that,
they could have done that earlier, merely by selling their AAA stock
and then going on their binge.
I don't like these mergers, but I am concerned with anti-
competitive aspects, not with any "waste" of the nation's capital.
Big money mergers are NOT an example or Reagan's misguided attempt to
"subsidize" big business (by letting them keep some more of the money
they earn?????) missing the mark.
------------------------------
Date: 30 November 1981 0902-EST (Monday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: political spectrum and mergers
A teacher in high school once pointed out that the political spectrum
is a circle. Starting at the middle of the road and going left, you
find increasing government programs for social programs, regulations,
etc. The leftists profess to support individual liberty, but as you
go farther and farther left, there are more and more regulations until
freedom gradually disappears and you wind up with Communism. Starting
at the middle and going to the right, you see advocacy for a strong
military and religion and economic freedom, and you wind up with
dictatorship and fascism. Was Hitler so different from today's
Russia? Both seem pretty totalitarian to me.
I guess that I believe giant mergers don't have much effect on the
economy except possibly for a temporary increase in the money supply
if one company goes into debt taking over another. If the companies
are both big, as was the case with Dupont, competition isn't affected
much. The spare cash that Dupont had is now in the hands of Conoco
stockholders, who presumably will reinvest it.
When talking about tax cuts, I was thinking more in terms of
individual tax cuts. These don't directly enrich corporations. If
this spare cash was put into venture capital, then small companies and
new ideas would be encouraged. I believe this did happen after the
1978 tax law change. While it is indeed true that high interest rates
encourage lazy investment, you can still make a hell of a lot more
money investing in an Apple or DEC than just taking the 18% interest.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 1981 0002-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: The Military
One comment on a recent message by Bill. You need not worry about the
US military becoming directly involved in politics ala South America
or much of the third world. The system is designed with a lot of
safegaurds to prevent this, and the military itself is strongly
indoctrinated with the belief that they have to obey the government.
Note that while the US military has not proved itself to be the best
fighting force in the world, it has proven to be highly loyal. Only
if civilian government was physically unable to give orders (say in a
nuclear war with Washington, et al knocked out with everyone in it)
would the military take independent action. And even here I bet they
would elevate some unknown civil servant to civilian government head
so they can take orders from him.
This verges off into another topic, the volunteer army (no, please,
no mail!!) Historically volunteer armies have tended to be more
difficult to control in that their loyalty is not as firmly invested
in the government as a citizen army's is. Thus if you wanted an army
that would obey political leaders thought to be legitimate by the
general population, you want a citizen (draft) army. Of course, it
you elect idiots to office you still lose, but then you deserve to.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 30 November 1981 0111-EST (Monday)
From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A
Subject: Basic models of government
One reason that no side is making headway in the Libertarianism debate
is that we cannot even agree on basic questions, such as what
constitutes government action. For example, JoSH states that below
the fief level, feudal society was far removed from anarchy. Yet I
could make the case that the lords were operating under the same
property rights that JoSH would likely grant owners in a Libertarian
society. Conversely, I believe someone mentioned that anarchy
prevailed at various points during the settling of the American west.
However, it is not obvious that a free enterprise bounty hunter, or
even a free enterprise sheriff did not constitute government force;
they certainly used coercive, physical force.
Without debating these points, I want to discuss the issue of what
constitutes government. Take, as an example, an old west village,
complete with ranchers, dry goods store, saloon, prostitution, and all
those neat things, but no sheriff, jail, or any other indication of
government. Being a pure free enterprise system, the village thrives,
and attracts some free enterprise profit sharers- cattle rustlers,
horse thieves, and the like. Now some set of the local residents
become outraged. They proceed to hire, on the open market, a gun
slinger. The gun slinger proceeds to restore law, order, and police
brutality to the area.
Question: Does the force involved in the hiring and the actions of the
gun slinger constitute "government"?
I have deliberately omitted details about the set of residents that do
the hiring. It could be just one local rancher, in which case the gun
slinger is called a bounty hunter, and we would probably not consider
it government. Or it could be action taken by 90% of the residents,
with the remaining 10% forced to chip in through coercive force
(taxed) or through economic coercion (say the dry goods store refuses
to sell seed to a farmer unless the farmer pays part of the sheriff's
salary). It might even be unanimous consent, in which case none of
the law abiding citizens are forced into anything. Or it could be
anywhere in between. Hence, a
Better Question: What parameters determine the boundary between free
enterprise and governmental actions? (Hint: coercive force on law
abiding citizens is not the answer-- remember that this committed acts
of police brutality on law abiding, but perhaps unpopular citizens.)
Wake up all you people who have wanted political science, and give me
one or more thorough answers.
My answer: I don't think it matters. Instead, I think JoSH hit the
nail on the head when he said that the liberated serfs would just find
a new lord. In the absence of a commonly accepted libertarian
philosophy, anarchy is going to degenerate into government. But then,
my only disagreement with libertarianism has been the belief that you
can't get there from here.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: 29 Nov 1981 22:28:44-PST
From: E.jeffc at Berkeley
JoSH: you are being picky with definitions - the rich are
few, or the few become rich.
Pistritto: the free market system /does/ satisfy desires
rather than needs, and it satisfies needs only in so much as they
correspond to desires. Furthermore, "capitalism" and "free market"
are not the same things. If you don't believe that, read Alexander
Hamilton, his report on the subject of manufactures to the Congress
(or something like that) in 1791. The point is that it is immoral
for a economic system to satisfy desires precisely because then it
will only incidently satisfy needs.
The creation of new markets: when this occurs through techno-
logical innovations, it is nothing but good. It is far more pro-
ductive to create a new market than to fight tooth and nail over a
limited existing one. This is the source of true prosperity and
wealth. I have read Adam Smith, who is even more boring than Mil-
ton Friedman, and I notice that he has not one word to say about
the role of scientific research and development in the generation
of a nation's wealth. Smith reveals the true source of Britain's
wealth at the end of his book, where he proposes a whole new set of
taxes to be imposed on the American colonies. Apparently, the
taxes were to be paid out of agricultural revenues, as Smith "sug-
gested" that manufactoring should be left to England, and that it
would not be right for us to engage in it when we had all this
wonderful land to farm. In any case, I notice that the Wealth of
Nations was published in 1776 (that year sounds familiar), and that
George Washington did not follow Smith's policies.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 1981 0013-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: The Middle Ages
JOSH is understandably upset at the shot taken at him for his remark
on the Middle Ages - let us be civil folks, not medieval!
[Not upset, just surprised at the choice of target. I have
in the past taken a no-quarter-asked-or-given approach, and
not regretted it. As moderator I will freely pass spirited
attacks *in subject matter* but frown on outright personal-
ities. Please send objections to Poli-sci-request@Rutgers.
--JoSH]
The problem here is that the POWERFUL were both causing trouble and
trying to maintain order. The power of society was not controlled
by proper (ie reasonably peaceful) feedback, and much of it was
considered illegitimate by many.
A sociologist who tells you social power can be equated to money
(wealth), military power, religious force, public opinion, tradition,
communications, etc... is a fool. One of the central problems in the
social sciences is to more precisely define power. All the forgoing
are examples, but which is more important? Can one source of power be
converted to another?
Some examples - what we think of as China has been invaded several
times. The outsiders used military power to gain wealth. But then
Chinese culture absorbed most of the invaders' culture in subsequent
generations, so cultural power had the last(?) word. Also, in many
societies economic power cannot be directly converted to nearly the
same 'quantity' of military power (the US is a fair example). In
other places and times the wealthy people DID directly convert
economic power to military power.
The point here is clear - the world is a complex place, and trying to
make a simple, general, and highly predictive statement seems doomed
to failure. Most people on this list make general and simple
statements. People then are confused when they read them, since they
are not clear when and where these statements can be demostrated to
work (since most of us are scientists, we like to compare theories to
experience). I am not sure what the solution to this problem is, but
people should at least realize there is greater difficulty here in
communicating than meets the eye.
Jim
PS: J G March wrote a good paper on Power I read a while back. Do not
have the reference here, and will try to forward it if I find it.
------------------------------
Date: 30 November 1981 0923-EST (Monday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Random comments
First, it is a definitely *false* but widely held idea that
castles were made useless by cannon fire. At the time that they
declined, there were very few large cannons, and these were very
difficult to haul around. Almost all warfare was still conducted
without artillery. Also, when the English had a civil war around
1400, many of the old castles were temporarily re-occupied, and were
found to be quite effective against cannon fire (one held out nine
months, until they were out of food). THE major cause was the rise of
a stable society.
As for trees, they grow back. Virtually all of the forests
here are second growth.
As for Post-WW-II Germany, this was a very tightly controlled
economy. Foreign occupation forces (us) made virtually all major
economic decisions in a very centralist fashion. This has been cited
as one of the major reasons that their economy was better than the
surrounding countries - while neighboring countries were turning out
nylons and automobiles, we were forcing Germany to rebuild its
industrial base first, ignoring consumer demand. One of the amusing
stories from this period is how the U.S. command investigated VW's new
car they wanted to market, decided it was not likely to be profitable,
and therefor allowed the company to retain control of it (rather than
seizing it for a British company). This was, of course, the legendary
VW Beetle.
Finally, I don't understand the Libertarian court system.
What good is a free-market court (what *is* a free-market court?) ?
How do they enforce their decisions? What is to prevent them from
auctioning off their decision to the highest bidder?
I'm beginning to suspect you don't know what you're talking
about, since every time you mention something I know something about,
your facts are wrong. Or maybe we just disagree on some fundamental
level.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 1981 11:15 PST
From: Sybalsky at PARC-MAXC
Subject: JosH's reply to E.Jeffc (V1/179)
"Can you give me a single example of a non-government-supported monopoly?"
Please to consider Standard Oil, friend of John D.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Wed 02 Dec 81 Poli-Sci Digest Volume 2 Number 2
Contents: Religion
Organized Crime
Capitalism, Socialism and Flames
The queue is growing fairly fast. I shall issue an extra shortly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 1981 0350-EST
From: JoSH < JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Religion
to James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC> :
"He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame:
and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot."
- Proverbs 9:7 (KJV)
I don't get it. You quote me as saying, "I would be a fool to hold
someone in contempt ...," and then assume that I do. I do not
consider religion worthless: I consider some of its tenets to be
incorrect and some of its side effects to be harmful, a completely
different proposition. You say, "I think we all know how you feel
about religion." YOU certainly don't. My original remark implied
that I thought religion was a crutch, and that as long as people
continued to depend on it, they wouldn't be perfect. To infer from
that that I am contemptuous of crutches, or of people who need them,
goes well beyond what was said, and is incorrect. The use of arti-
ficial aids is a universal human trait; the difference between a
crutch and a tool is purely a relation to a fairly arbitrary norm.
You still haven't presented any reason for feeling that way.
If religion is a "misbelief," explain why. If a religion is
true, then there's nothing wrong with "schooling" it into a
person from an early age; we do it with other things that are
considered true, e.g. Darwin's theory of evolution.
A vast oversimplification. Religion, the theory of evolution, the
phlogiston theory of heat, you name it, all should be taught in terms
of "Here's what is said; these are the people who believe it, and
these are the reasons they do; these are the people who disbelieve
it, and here are their reasons; here are the best ways I know to test
this belief; go decide for yourself."
... Every thinking person who is religious has his "moment
of truth," when he must decide whether his religion is REALLY
true or not.
If you're talking about the person who, raised as an agnostic, reads
the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, Bullfinch's Mythology, and so forth,
and decides after much thought that Mohammed really was the prophet
of the Lord, and begins praying toward Mecca, I respect that person's
grounding in his code of ethics fully as much as the atheist who has
"rolled his own". (Do not think I am being silly. Although I have
changed the religions, this is true of at least one person I know.)
On the other hand, all too often the question is posed to the person
who has been brought up with the beliefs: accept it or reject it,
accept the faith, accept the love, accept the personal savior, accept
us, your family and friends, be like us, be GOOD, be SAVED.
--Or reject it, and them, and us, and all we hoped for you; hate, be
evil, be damned, and cast into the outer darkness where there is
wailing and the gnashing of teeth... Against this kind of emotional
blitz the abstract consideration of ethics and metaphysics doesn't
have much of a chance.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 30 November 1981 06:58-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Religion
To JoSH:
You should have read a little further into Proverbs, because I
think you missed the significance of what you quoted.
"Whoever corrects a mocker brings on insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning."
- Proverbs 9:7-9
I assumed you fit into the category of wise man, not wicked man or
mocker.
"I don't get it. You quote me as saying, 'I would be a fool to
hold someone in contempt ...,' and then assume that I do. I do
not consider religion worthless: I consider some of its tenets
to be incorrect and some of its side effects to be harmful, a
completely different proposition. . . ." - JoSH
Okay, okay, I'll take back what I said about your feeling of
contempt for religion and religious people. That wasn't a main
point of my message, and it isn't worth this much argument.
However, when I said "We all know how you feel about religion,"
I didn't mean (chiefly) that you felt contempt for it. I was
referring to the passage I quoted, in which you said religion
was a "misbelief . . . ."
"'You still haven't presented any reason for feeling that way.
If religion is a "misbelief," explain why. If a religion is
true, then there's nothing wrong with "schooling" it into a
person from an early age; we do it with other things that are
considered true, e.g. Darwin's theory of evolution.'
"A vast oversimplification. Religion, the theory of evolution,
the phlogiston theory of heat, you name it, all should be taught
in terms of 'Here's what is said; these are the people who
believe it, and these are the reasons they do; these are the
people who disbelieve it, and here are their reasons; here are
the best ways I know to test this belief; go decide for
yourself.'" - JoSH
Well, this sounds all right in theory, but I think if you tried to do
this with everything, you'd end up with some very confused children.
I think it would foster what I call "intellectual agnosticism" --
the children would have no firm conceptions of the important things
in life, ending up with the general feeling that every point of view
is of equal value (and, of course, every point of view is NOT of equal
value), and that the truth is either unknowable or non-existent.
In a society filled with people like these, all kinds of things
become permissible, and the society, having no strong understanding
of right and wrong, disintegrates. (I hope there is some comment
on this, because I have strong feelings on this subject, and I
haven't said nearly as much as I want to about it.)
"'... Every thinking person who is religious has his "moment
of truth," when he must decide whether his religion is REALLY
true or not. '
"If you're talking about the person who, raised as an agnostic,
reads the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, Bullfinch's Mythology, and
so forth, and decides after much thought that Mohammed really
was the prophet of the Lord, and begins praying toward Mecca, I
respect that person's grounding in his code of ethics fully as
much as the atheist who has 'rolled his own'." - JoSH
Well, to begin with, I don't think agnosticism is an intellectually
respectable position. (To clarify, agnostics believe that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to know if God exists or not. A person who doesn't know
and is "searching" may be a non-believer but he isn't an agnostic.)
An agnostic (or an atheist, for that matter) who becomes religious
is abandoning one faith for another. So therefore, is the point of
your example that a person must leave the faith he was brought up in
and choose another in order to merit your respect of his code of
ethics? And as for the rest, I don't need to read all of Aristotle
in order to reject his notion that objects need a continuing application
of force in order to maintain a constant speed.
"On the other hand, all too often the question is posed to the
person who has been brought up with the beliefs: accept it or
reject it, accept the faith, accept the love, accept the
personal savior, accept us, your family and friends, be like us,
be GOOD, be SAVED. --Or reject it, and them, and us, and all we
hoped for you; hate, be evil, be damned, and cast into the outer
darkness where there is wailing and the gnashing of teeth...
Against this kind of emotional blitz the abstract consideration
of ethics and metaphysics doesn't have much of a chance."
- JoSH
Ahhh, that must be why all the intellectuals I meet are such
religious people.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 1981 12:49:03-PST
From: menlo70!hao!woods at Berkeley
Subject: Organized Crime
Date: 28 Nov 1981 1344-EST
From: JoSH < JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Random replies
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
For that matter, consider the behavior of organized crime
today. A great many legitimate businesses pay protection to
them out of simple fear. Who's stopping them? Why would that
be any different if the government were weak?
Unless there's a whole lot more organized crime in North Carolina
than New Jersey (unlikely), this isn't true. Organized crime
flourishes because they provide services (drugs, gambling, sex,
etc) that are NOT opposed by society as a whole but which the
government tries to suppress.
I wish to lend emphatic support to JoSH's viewpoint here. I have
said this before in this digest during a discussion on (il)legality of
drugs, when I said that one of my reasons (other than the moral ones)
for legalizing drugs was to cut off the income sources of organized
crime. As long as the government insists on legislating morality, i.e.
forcing the people to do/not do things against their wills that they
really don't/do want to do (resp.), there will always be a market for
organized crime. And as long as there is a market, you can believe
there will be organized crime. A side effect of this, as I have also
said before, is that it brands many otherwise law-abiding people (such
as pot smokers or customers of prostitues) as criminals, creating
resentment towards authority and in some cases outright rebellion
(remember the 60's) that might otherwise not have been there.
------------------------------
Date: 30 November 1981 05:23-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < fenway.link@xx>
Subject: capitalism, socialism and flames
Boy, what fun:
If you haven't the time to read all of this now, save it, but read
what's delimited by ********* and think on it. -Bill
[This is the last message in the digest --JoSH]
Third World free markets:
Yes, capitalism's expansion into unpenetrated markets would
benefit some companies here. And yes, this was certainly a part
-- a very small part -- of Reagan's motivation for saying what he
did. But the important reason was a genuine interest in seeking
the development of the Third World. As JoSH has pointed out,
just about everywhere the free market has been tried, it has
proved an astounding success. If we were interested in keeping
the Third World backward, so that, in the Marxian way, we could
force our manufactured products on their citizenry while stealing
their natural resources, then we would advocate the continuation
of the policies of the present socialist governments. They are
doing a fine job at blocking any progress. [APPLE@MC]
Since I'm not privy to the workings of Reagan's mind, I can't really
be sure of the truth of your second and third sentences. However, I
must take exception to the rest of the paragraph. Perhaps you could
enlighten us on what ``in the Marxian way'' means in the context you
use it.
****************
Here's what happens to the Third World (at least inside the US
sphere): first world industries use the Third World as a source of
cheap, relatively docile labor. Combined with IMF- and US-encouraged
absence of significant social services and labor protection, costs in
the Third World are extremely low. Most of the ICs we use are
manufactured in the Third World. The ``world cars'' are made in
plants all over the world for a number of reasons. It reduces the
bargaining power of US labor, keeps costs down, and if things get
rough in one country (because of popular unrest), you just switch to
another plant. Much clothing is assembled in the Third World, thus,
Lee jeans (I think it's Lee) are assembled in, of all places, El
Salvador. The workers are paid pittances compared to US wages, so
there is no way *they* could afford consumer goods. There is,
however, a local elite (the managers of the Ford or Intel or ...
plants, the local bankers, etc.) who adopt the US lifestyle
wholeheartedly. *That* is the market for consumer goods.
****************
As far as most Third World countries following socialist policies, I
don't know what world you're talking about. Point one out to me. Not
Jamaica. Certainly not El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil, Taiwan,
Indonesia, or S. Korea. The ones that have socialist governments in
any sense of the word have been bending over backward to accommodate
Western capital.
Economics and Detente:
Naturally, the capitalists in this country conspired to force
Russia to invade Afganistan, threaten Poland, install SS-20's in
Europe, and spy on Sweden with nuclear-carrying submarines in
order to stop detente and close off the market to other economic
interests. [APPLE]
In case you hadn't noticed, detente was on its last legs *before*
Afghanistan (which predates all the other things). As far as
installing SS-20s, I'd invite you to read Alexander Cockburn in this
week's The Nation. (turns out that the SS-20 is about as much of a
loser as the newest Chrysler tank) As far as threatening Poland, see
FORTUNE, Oct. 1980. Seems that the immediate cause for all the
troubles was Western bankers' demands for fiscal austerity, and
implicit threats if the measures weren't carried out. (P.S.-I'm no
fan of anyone's armed intervention)
Tax Cuts:
The key point you make is that investment ``will go wherever the
prospectives for reward are greatest.'' Just what I said, although
put more succinctly, I will admit. Let's also make a distinction
between `productive investment' and `investment which increases
innovation.' I still hold that risk is what a capitalist (as opposed
to an entrepreneur) fears most, and thus innovation will not be aided
by these cuts. As far as market psychology goes, I'm told that the
Atlantic Magazine interview with Stockman (while friendly to Stockman)
has some points to make on those rewards of investment in business you
talk about. *I* was surprised to see you ignore my comment that
defense spending is non-productive.
****************
Let me rephrase it, and toss it back to you: Defense spending (in the
form of stupendous defense budgets or in investment in defense
contractors (who are businesses, by the way)) is the form of ULTIMATE
waste, producing nothing of value for consumption, serving only to
inflate the economy and drug production. Thus, one of the reasons why
W. Germany and Japan (whose societies are much more governmentalized
than ours) are whipping us is that they spend far less of their GNP on
defense spending.
****************
China:
"In China [the right wing] is dismantling most of the
advances and only a few of the regressions of the
revolution."
That's the first time I've heard ANY avowed Communists
called right-wing. But one must realize that this comes
from a man who doesn't think Ted Kennedy is a radical. I
won't even bother to comment on the rest of this statement.
Its absurdity is obvious.
Maoists are fond of calling it ``bourgeois revisionism'' for the
simple reason that it is decidedly pro-capitalist (as much as they can
be pro-capitalist and keep up any sort of rhetoric) (P.S.: you didn't
catch that typo in bourgeois). Avowed or not avowed, anything can
have a left- or right-wing. One of Lenin's famous pamphlets is
entitled: ``Left-wing Communism: an infantile disorder.'' And
certainly the leading supporters of the Cultural Revolution were
left-wing communists (infantile or not).
I hate to break it to you, but Teddy Kennedy is about as much a
radical as Ronald Reagan is a feminist. Liberal, even strongly
liberal, I'll grant him, but not radical. He strongly supports the
status quo, or mild variants thereof, and his record on a number of
key issues is pretty dismal from a radical's point of view (just ask
one--s/he'll tell you).
It is simply a lie to say that the Chinese revolution brought no
advances. Almost anything is an advance over the feudal relations
under the last of the emperors. The revolution brought a major
increase in health care, living standards, and education to the mass
of sick, malnourished, illiterate peasants in the countryside. And
William Hinton, recently returned from study in China, noted in a talk
at MIT that the production in the (highly-successful) agricultural
communes has dropped immensely since Deng et.al. started on their
de-collectivization program.
Business Confidence:
Business confidence moderates both ways. Wall Street was none too
happy with Reagan's programs, judging by how the bottom fell out of
the market. By the way: things have gotten *worse*, not better in
the UK under dear Maggie. Check New Statesman, last week for details
(Peter Kellner's column).
Sorry about the length of this, folks. Hope you made it through.
-Bill
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Wed 02 Dec 81 Poli-Sci Digest Volume 2 Number 3
Contents: Tom Lehrer
David Stockman and the Recent Tax Bill
Airline Deregulation; Foreign Oil Nationalization
The Transient Response of the Free Market
Cooperation vs Conformity; Models of Control
Corporate Mergers
Three messages remain in the queue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Dec 1981 21:52:33-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
Subject: Tom Lehrer
"Tomfoolery", a revue of Tom Lehrer's songs, has just opened in N.Y.,
and I recommend to all true fans of the Odd Bard. The troupe does a
lot of his old favorites, including "The Vatican Rag", "Dixie" (the
version from the original pressing of the first album), "Elements"
(performed with the aid of a periodic chart -- and we're told that
some new elements *have* been discarvard [sic], such as lawrencium,
linoleum, librium, and valium), "Werner von Braun", "National
Brotherhood Week", and "Pollution". A few songs have been updated
("We'll try to stay serene and calm/When Jerry Falwell gets the
Bomb"), but most haven't been touched -- and that's good, because to
anyone who knows his albums by heart, the slightest changes of
wording, emphasis, etc., are rather disconcerting. The revue also
contains two songs not on any of his records: "Silent E", which
originally appeared on "The Electric Company" TV show, and "I Got it
from Agnes", which definitely didn't.... Much of the commentary is
taken from Lehrer's own, or from the album jackets; this, too, is
disconcertingly different in spots.
With the exception of Joy Franz, the cast was merely adequate; she,
however, was excellent, and really seemed to appreciate Lehrer's
songs, and take them in the vein in which they were written. (I
realize that some people may not take that as a compliment.) The show
will be traveling to Washington, D.C., and perhaps a few other cities.
Also of interest to Tom Lehrer fans is a songbook, "Too Many Songs By
Tom Lehrer (with not enough drawings by Ronald Searle)". It contains
words and music to most of his songs, though a few are missing ("It
Makes a Fellow Proud to Be a Soldier", "Clementine", "Oedipus Rex"
(though this one was part of the revue), "Alma", "George Murphy", and
"Whatever Became of Hubert"), and includes guitar chords and a
discography. Three newer ones are included as well -- the
aforementioned "Silent E" and "I Got it from Agnes", as well as
another educational song, "L-Y". As for the possibility of more songs
in the future, I can only quote from the forward:
Revisiting these lighthearted and heavy-handed songs (some say
it's the other way around) was somewhat like looking at one's
own baby pictures: was that me? (Before I began spending so
much time in California, I would have said 'Was that I?') I
haven't written any songs of this type lately, and probably
won't be doing so, so this volume may be regarded as a
definitive agglutination. (Well-wishers, however, are
constantly suggesting hilarious subject matter, such as the
Viet Nam war, the gradual destruction of the environment, our
recent presidents, etc., so that I have often felt like a
resident of Pompeii who has been asked for some humorous
comments on lava.) Anyway, what good are laurels if you can't
rest on them?
There was also a column about Lehrer in last Friday's "New York Times",
and a short piece in "Newsweek".
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 1981 1812-PST
Subject: David Stockman and the recent tax bill
From: Mike Leavitt < LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
For those who like reading as much as flaming, let me
recommend the famous interview with David Stockman in the
Atlantic. I'd be curious as to various reactions. DS might be
foolish for speaking candidly, but there is good reason to
believe that his political and philosophical insights are as wise
as those of anybody now active in politics. As one example, his
identification of the tax law as neither the supply-siders' dream
nor the Kennedyites' bete noir is about the only honest comment
on that Xmas tree that I've read. Any comments?
Mike < Leavitt at usc-isi>
------------------------------
Date: 1 Dec 1981 05:18:19-PST
From: menlo70!hao!cires!harkins at Berkeley
re: airline deregulation
I would claim that the airlines' current fiscal problems are mostly
just the increase in fuel prices finally coming home to roost.
re: foreign oil nationalization
You might take note of the fact that when such U.S. company assets are
taken over, the company gets a HUGE tax write-off; likewise, they are
able to totally write-off all foreign taxes, which are usually rolled
into or added to the price the company pays per barrel, so don't cry
too hard for the energy companies.
ernie
------------------------------
Date: 1 December 1981 11:18 cst
From: VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan)
Subject: The Transient Response of the Free Market
This forum has seen a lot of flaming both for and against the free
market. Those in favor of the free market seem to be claiming
that it provides an optimal allocation of goods and services. For
the purpose of argument, I will grant this assumption (though I
harbor some doubts as to its truth).
But I will not further concede that the free market provides such
an allocation immediately. It is, after all, a feedback control
system, and consequently it must have a transient response that is
worth investigating.
Now I don't want to get into a lot of technical detail here; those
who are interested can try Deshpande and Ash, "Computer Process
Control", ISA, 1981, or Shinskey, "Process-Control Systems", 2d
Ed., McGraw-Hill, 1979, or any other reasonable text on control
theory. But here are some very rough statements that can be made
about nearly any feedback-control system.
(1) Most physical processes can be modelled with first-order,
second-order, and dead-time lags. Simple first-order or
steady-state processes are rare.
(2) Any process higher than first-order exhibits a damping factor.
If the damping factor is too small, the process overshoots; that
is, it swings wildly in response to a step change in input. If
the damping factor is too great, the process responds sluggishly
to step changes.
(3) Any process containing a dead time or transport lag oscillates
at one or more natural frequencies when subjected to feedback
control.
(4) The damping factor, frequency and amplitude of oscillations
are quite sensitive to the control strategy: that is, the gain of
the various feedback loops and the transfer function of the
feedback component with respect to the output deviateion, in
particular the integral term.
You just can't look at physical processes in the steady state.
The free market is a physical process and is not immune from the
laws of mathematics. Unfortunately, the swings of the economy as
it responds to changes in supply and demand have an impact in
human suffering.
An off-hand look at the fluctuations of the business cycle from
the nineteenth century to the present would seem to indicate that
the main effect of governmental controls on the marketplace has
been to modify the damping factor of the system, from underdamped
in the 1860-90 time frame to overdamped today.
There was at least as much governmental interference in the
marketplace in the "good old days" as there is now (subsidies to
the railroads, deliberate "cheap land" policies, manipulation of
money for the benefit of the silver interests, establishment and
protection of monopolies, etc.). Nobody knows how the system
would behave in the absence of interference.
That is, nobody knows exactly how it would behave. We do know
some things, specifically that it would oscillate. It oscillates
now. It oscillated in the 1880's. That's because it has feedback
and transport lag. So I hope nobody claims that a really free
market wouldn't have booms and busts.
Questions that no economist has yet answered: how do you control
the damping factor of the economy? What is the contribution of
governmental meddling to the system's transfer function? What are
the natural frequencies of oscillation? Would more free trade
increase or reduce the natural controllability of the system? (It
could either introduce higher-order terms, decreasing
controllability, or decrease the transport lag, increasing
controllability.) Even the fundamental questions of whether
capacity or dead time is dominant in the economy's transient
response have not been answered.
We are dealing with a complex subject. It's obvious that today's
economists are incompetent to deal with it: it is simply beyond
their present power. So maybe the economists should stop
meddling, as the free-marketeers contend. But those free-market
advocates are themselves powerless to predict what the economy
will do without meddling. They must rest on the quasi-religious
faith that governments are the root of all evil, or they must
admit their ignorance of the consequences of their prescription.
(I personally doubt that we'd be worse off in a free market, but I
could be wrong...)
------------------------------
Date: 1 December 1981 21:47-EST
From: Gavan Duffy < GAVAN at MIT-AI>
Subject: JoSH's responses to my responses to his responses to my
comments.
1. "American schoolchildren, you [gavan] claim, conform and
are mediocre because they are encouraged to excel and be
different. Furthermore, you opine, the way to have them
excel and be different is to encourage them to conform and
be mediocre.
"Bullshit."
I would agree that my point is counter-intuitive to a degree, but I
did not claim that the way to get schoolchildren to excel and be
different is to encourage them to conform and be mediocre. I said
that they should be encouraged to cooperate rather than to compete.
Now competition does not necessarily entail excellence and difference.
More likely, inter-student competition means competition for the
attention and affection of the teacher as the classroom representative
of social authority. In the classroom, then, competition means
conformance to the teacher's ideals. By cooperation I do not mean
conformity and mediocrity, but rather cooperation. Encouraging
inter-student cooperation would certainly encourage difference because
students would be less likely to regurgitate what teacher wants to
hear. They would be more likely to come up with something innovative.
The encouragement of inter-student cooperation would also encourage
excellence since, as in the real world, they would be able to test
their ideas for the reactions of their peers. This would teach them
to think critically. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said
"cooperate," not "conform."
2. "A market has a wealth of relationships and connections,
which change dynamically. It is much more complex than a
simple hierarchical model of control; that's why it works
better.
"I've read part of tWoN [Adam Smith's *The Wealth of
Nations*]; I keep a copy at my desk and browse through it
from time to time. This is exactly the same answer given by
the chairman of the economics department at my university
when I asked him the same question."
I agree with the first statement here, but I'm not suggesting a
"simple hierarchical model of control." A plausible alternative might
be "heterarchical" models, in which superordinate nodes are
represented as subordinate to their subordinates. In the firm, for
example (and it's a good example, since this is what you would
presumably free from the shackles of governmental regulation), such a
structure might be implemented as a policy wherein each layer of
employees decides whether to push for the retention or the firing of
the bosses of its boss. Such a scheme would afford sufficient
constraint upon the activities of the firm by providing communication
feedback loops from lower levels. The modern firm is itself organized
under a "hierarchical model of control." And that's precisely why
governmental interference is required. Otherwise they gain too much
power and create negative externalities (such as monopoly and
pollution) with very real social costs. While I would agree with
anyone who would criticize heterarchical models on the grounds that
they are unrepresentable in von Neumann machines, the cellular
automata currently under development might make them possible. They
certainly would make possible the implementation of models capable of
representing "a wealth of relationships and connections, which change
dynamically."
If you ever get around to reading Adam Smith straight through, look
for his prescription for the role of industry in the State. I believe
you will find that he not only wants government to stay out of the
private sector, but that he also wants industry to stay out of the
public sector. Would you agree with this? Or would you just rather
have no public sector at all?
My point is simply this. In any complex, dynamic, flexible system,
whether it be an artificial intelligence or a political economy,
organizing principles are required. Required also are mechanisms
which ensure that those principles are not abrogated. The view that
an intelligence or economy can operate on its own, like some perpetual
motion machine, is simply incoherent.
3. "I don't need a federal grant in order to think; nor am
I surprised [sic] to find statist thoughts in the minds of
those paid by the government to think them."
I'm not suprised when I find this either. The Sociology of Knowledge
is a fascinating subject, especially in the social sciences. Many
academics are nothing more than hired guns for either the government
or for private interests (I know one transportation "expert" who wants
to dismantle rapid transit systems because they are "inefficient."
Are you suprised that he has a grant from General Motors?) But I'm
not one of those. I have no grants from either the federals or from
any private company. Moreover, my ideas are hardly "statist." If by
"statist" you mean, in support of the state, I would respond "HARDLY!"
("If my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a
guillotine.") If by "statist" you mean static, I'd respond the same
way. Call me a "dynamist." I try to think in terms of processes and
relations rather than in terms of states and objects. Cheers.
------------------------------
Date: 01 Dec 1981 2357-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Mergers
Just wanted to agree with the statement by King in regard to mergers
and to clarify things a bit.
Essentially in a merger you have several things happening:
Transaction costs of the merger (lawyers, etc...) which are true
costs and are not recoverable.
The redistribution of capital (which could be good or bad,
depending on your outlook).
The consolidation of two or more companies in one organization.
This is supposed to gain in the long run by increased savings and
thus better economic preformance.
A concentration of economic control, although a decrease in
concentration of wealth.
Generally, if the financial system can handle it, mergers between
companies like USS and Marathon or Du Pont and Conoco are probably
wise investments and good for the overall economy. Mergers are not
bad in themselves - the mismanaging of the merging of two companies or
restraint of trade are the primary considerations one should have when
considering if a particular merger is a good one.
Jim
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 03 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 4
This is a libertarian-mostly issue.
Contents: Post-war Economies
Government vs Business
Organized Crime and Capitalism
Demise of Castles; Germany
We had system software problems with distribution: If you missed
number 2 or 3 let me know: Poli-Sci-Request@Rutgers
Three messages remain in the queue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Dec 1981 20:32:04-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
Subject: Post-war economies
It's nonsense to say that Japan's post-war economy was free of
government constraints. While the country was not self-governing, the
U.S. occupation forces worked pretty hard to restructure Japanese
society. A recent article in Forbes (I think -- I saw it reprinted in
the Eastern Airlines on-board magazine) pointed out that the
much-vaunted co-operation between unions and management was
specifically introduced by MacArthur's experts. And in Europe, the
Marshall plan provided some not inconsiderable help....
Subject: Yet more on libertarianism
Ever seen a riot? It isn't the police that keep them from
happening; it's the people, by not rioting.
Oh, you mean Watts, Harlem, Detroit, etc., *didn't* burn in the late
1960s because of riots, but simply because a herd of statist cows
kicked over a few lanterns? It was the *army* that stopped the riots.
Unless there's a lot more organized crime in North Carolina
than New Jersey (unlikely), this isn't true. Organized crime
flourishes because they provide services (drugs, gambling, sex
etc) that are NOT opposed by society as a whole but which the
government tries to suppress.
Yes, the mob flourishes selling sex and booze (quite popular here also).
But they do an excellent business in extortion and blackmail as well.
When I lived in Brooklyn, there were any number of fields that were
completely controlled by them, many of them quite legitimate otherwise.
Guess how they achieved this? (I'll give you a hint -- it wasn't a
purely monetary transaction.)
Who is to decide what is a tort, if not the courts
(government)? ... And you can't just rely on the claim of
injury, or I'll claim that your brand-new steel mill generates
noxious pollutants that are injuring me, when my old-fashioned
plant doesn't injure you.
The courts (free-market). This isn't really different from any
other kind of disagreement over a damage claim.
What courts? I won't accept your judge; he's being paid more under the
table by you than I can afford just now, because my own judges are too
expensive. More seriously, I have no recourse against anyone who isn't
willing to be bound by an arbitrator's decision, or who choses to ignore
such a decision if it comes out unfavorable.
Politicians who don't do well don't get re-elected. Look at what
happened to Herbert Hoover, as compared with FDR's landslide in
1936.
I personally think Hoover wasn't all that bad, and FDR was the very
devil incarnate.
*Exactly* my point.
Don't be so sure my example is wrong. AT&T -- a monopoly, and
monopolies can arise from something as praise-worthy as tech-
nological innovation -- refused to permit MCI to interconnect
its long-distance lines until they were forced to by the FCC.
AT&T's monopoly is protected by law, and has been throughout this
century.
My point is that once monopoly is achieved, *by any means*, it can be
quite stable. And your claim that no monopoly has ever come to be
spontaneously is nonsense. I suggest that you consider Kodak's former
domination of *all* phases of photography, until they were barred from
selling bundled packages of camera, film, and processing. There are
other examples as well. (By the way, I never saw an answer to my
purely informational query on the libertarian view of patents. Are
they government interference, or are the property rights? If the
former, what is to protect the technological innovator; if the latter,
who sets the term?)
------------------------------
Date: 1 Dec 1981 1533-PST
From: Lee W. Cooprider < COOPRIDER at USC-ISIB>
I am surprised that people have permitted the distinction between
business (dominated in the US by the large corporations in the present
period) and government to be honored in the recent discussions. It is
as if the discussants actually believe that governments get
established in a vacuum "by the people" rather than by the existing
power holders as a mechanism for legitimizing and perpetuating their
power position.
Example 1: The US Constitution was established by some businessmen who
had gotten far enough away from the King of England to be hard to
control. Remember that only property owners were voters in early US
history.
Example 2: When corporations had grown to a size that they had the
potential to become monopolies, they succeeded in influencing the
government (both directly and by shaping popular opinions) that the
government took the actions JoSH cites to permit their full
development.
The expression of power, be it derived from wealth, religion, or
whatever, is a rather natural phenomenon. The construction of an
organization with the express purpose of expressing the power of a
fairly large group such as the current US oligarchy, is a fairly
recent development. The restrictions Libertarians propose on the
government will in no way inhibit the expression of power by the
powerful, they will merely de-institutionalize it.
I tend to prefer the institutionalized form in the current era because
it is easier to indentify and counteract. The only strategy that I
think has a hope of increasing the liberty of individuals (or,
expressed differently, reducing the power of the currently powerful)
is by increasing the power of the class of "individuals". We can do
that either by attempting to modify the power organization (thru the
ballotbox loophole left by the "original" political compromise -- the
"inside the system" approach) or by abandoning as hopeless the current
governmental structure and attempting to construct another from the
outside (the "revolutionary" approach).
-- Lee
------------------------------
Date: 2 December 1981 16:13-EST
From: BSL at MIT-MC
Subject: organized crime and capitalism
It seems the vocal libertarians have again stumbled on another huge
blind spot. Though it is true that the illegality of drug, sex, and
gambling spawns organized crime, this is just one minor source of
income for them, maybe on the order of 10%.
Probably their major income (besides "normal" entrepreneurship) is
"protection". Envision the following scenario:
Some person has amassed a wealth of > = $ 1,000,000. One day he
receives a call from some gangster telling him that the local Mafia
franchise has decided that he should pay them 5%/year for protection
or suffer the consequences. That is, $ 50,000 a year for every
million. He first ignores it but the second warning is that he finds
his car bashed in. There is a note on his car saying if he doesn't
comply, somebody will walk up to him someday and dump hot lead into
his scull. The warning also says that if he squeeked to the police he
will also be murdered.
If this person alerts the police, the gangster may be captured, but
then a contract will be produced on his head for the rest of his
life!
Now there is nothing in a capitalist system that would prevent this
from happening as described above, or in a subtler form such as
threat to property or physical violence, harrassment,
discrimination, etc. The beauty of this scheme is that wealth
begets power: the money received by the mafia is then used to hire
hit men to carry out contracts, to bail them if captured, to bribe
police officers and police chiefs, to buy off local bureaucrats,
politicians, lawyers and journalists, to influence elections, and
to extend their operations in legal and quasi-legal capitalist
activities and speculations. Their sophistication has reached new
levels. One big PR coup was the movie Godfather I and II. It
depicted the gangsters as noble men of honour, who were popular in
their neighbourhoods because they sided with the poor against local
bullys (Godfather I), and who had nothing better to do but to shoot
gangsters belonging to the other clan (Godfather I and II), in order
to keep their extended family happy and prosperous. How romantic!
The topping came in Godfather II when Corleone went to Cuba to set
up business. After observing the poverty of the people and the
repression perpetrated by Batista and his army, he declared that
Cuba is a risky investment because the people are unhappy and will
rightfully overthrow Batista. Even after seeing numerous reruns on
TV, I still could not help myself from "siding" with the Corleones
in the gun battles, and in the U.S. Senate trial of the family.
My whole point here is that crime, organized or to a lesser extent
if not, is a consequence of a capitalist society. If capital could
only be controlled democratically by the people with the profits
distributed back to the people, then the feeding ground for crime,
exploitation, and speculation will be abolished.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Dec 1981 1821-EST
From: JoSH < JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Demise of Castles; Germany
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
First, it is a definitely *false* but widely held
idea that castles were made useless by cannon fire. At the
time that they declined, there were very few large cannons,
and these were very difficult to haul around. Almost all
warfare was still conducted without artillery. Also, when
the English had a civil war around 1400, many of the old
castles were temporarily re-occupied, and were found to be
quite effective against cannon fire (one held out nine
months, until they were out of food). THE major cause was
the rise of a stable society.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th ed) disagrees with you:
"The adoption of the concentric system precluded any such mischance
[as the weakness of a side-situated keep], and thus, even though
siege-engines improved during the 13th and 14th centuries, the
defence, by the massive strength of the concentric castle in some
cases, by natural inaccessibility of position in others, maintained
itself superior to the attack during the later middle ages. Its
final fall was due to the introduction of gunpowder as a propellant.
`In the 14th century the change begins, in the 15th it is fully
developed, in the 16th the feudal fastness has become an anachronism.'
"The general adoption of cannon placed in the hands of the central
power a force which ruined the baronial fortifications in a few days
of firing. The posessors of cannon were usually private individuals
of the middle classes, from whom the prince hired the materiel and
the technical workmen. A typical case will be found in the history
of Brandenburg and Prussia (Carlyle, Frederick the Great, bk. iii
ch. i), the impregnable castle of Friesack, held by an intractable
feudal noble, Dietrich von Quitzow, being reduced in two days by the
elector Frederick I. with `Heavy Peg' and other guns hired and
borrowed (February 1414). The beginnings of orderly government in
Brandenburg thus depended on the guns, and the taking of Friesack
is, in Carlyle's phrase, `a fact memorable to every Prussian man.'
In England, the Earl of Warwick in 1464 reduced the strong fortress
of Bamborough in a week, and in Germany, Franz von Sickengen's
stronghold of Landstuhl, formerly impregnable on its heights, was
ruined in one day by the artillery of Philip of Hesse (1523). Very
heavy artillery was used for such work, of course, and against
lighter natures, some castles and even fortified country-houses or
castellated mansions managed to make a stout stand even as late as
the Great Rebellion in England."
As for trees, they grow back. Virtually all of the forests
here are second growth.
Unless you think I really believe Pa. is uninhabited, you should see
the sarcasm when I claim that it is because the "despoilers" cut
down all the trees.
As for Post-WW-II Germany, this was a very tightly
controlled economy. Foreign occupation forces (us) made
virtually all major economic decisions in a very centralist
fashion. This has been cited as one of the major reasons
that their economy was better than the surrounding countries
- while neighboring countries were turning out nylons and
automobiles, we were forcing Germany to rebuild its
industrial base first, ignoring consumer demand.
This doesn't even make sense. You need a significant industrial
base to make either nylons or automobiles. From Fisher's Concise
History of Economic Bungling:
"At the end of the second world war, Germany had been reduced to the
physical level of an underdeveloped country, as films taken at the
time demonstrate. The population of the western protion, about half
of the Germany of 1939, was 13 percent larger bythe addition of some
twelve million refugees. Although by 1947 other European countries
were recovering rapidly from the war, the situation in Germany
remained abysmal. By 1948, industrial production was only half the
1936 level. Exports were one tenth, and imports one quarter the
level in 1938. Infant mortality was high and food consumption was
low. ...
"Before the 1948 currency reform, the German economy was blanketed
by a network of controls, especially price and wage controls intended
to offset the substantial monetary expansion of the war. At artif-
icially low prices, however, goods failed to move except via black
markets. In Erhard's words, the economy `had returned to a primitive
state of barter.'
[Dr. Ludwig Erhard, the German minister of economic affairs,
was the instigator of the currency reform.]
"Economic observers expected that Germany would be permanently
weakened ecomonically. Indeed, in the immediate postwar years
policy-makers made it a definite objective of policy to reduce the
country to a permanently rural state. The Morganthau Plan envisaged
that ten million workers would be shifted from industry into
agriculture, while the Potsdam Declaration advocated the restriction
of German industrial output to a level of some 45 percent below that
of 1936. The later Anglo-American Plan of 1946 would have permitted
the level of output to equal that of 1936, although the population was
larger.
"It was against this bleak background that Dr. Erhard introduced his
radical economic reforms of July 1948. They replaced the inflated
Reichsmarks with a smaller supply of Deutchemarks and threw `into the
wastepaper basket, at one swoop, hundreds of decrees, promulgating
controls ...' The immediate impact of this release of market forces
was striking:
`The black market suddenly disappeared. Shop windows
were full of goods, factory chimneys were smoking, and
the streets swarmed with lorries. Everywhere the noise
of new buildings going up replaced the deathly silence
of the ruins. If the state of recovery was a surprise,
its swiftness was even more so.'"
Fisher goes on to show how socialists of the day decried the reform,
predicting ruin, but how within 5 years they (the same individuals,
for example Lord Balogh) had completely forgotten and were pointing at
Germany's high investment rate as an example to be followed in their
own programs. The quotes in the section above are all from Erhard.
Finally, I don't understand the Libertarian court
system. What good is a free-market court (what *is* a
free-market court?) ? How do they enforce their decisions?
What is to prevent them from auctioning off their decision
to the highest bidder?
Apparently you don't understand our present-day court system too well,
either. There is nothing, ultimately, to prevent someone "buying" a
judge. It does happen from time to time. There are a number of
forces which operate to prevent it, however, and keep it to a minimum:
(1) Many judges are honest. One major motivation people have besides
greed is pride, and many judges are proud of dispensing good, honest,
*just* justice. (2) It is against the law. If anyone can prove a
judge has taken a bribe, he (the judge) will be debarred (disrobed?),
fined, thrown in jail. These forces would be just as present in a
libertarian society as here. In fact, there would be another force:
(3) The free-market judge has to maintain a high reputation for fair-
ness, and for knowing what he is doing. This is because his business
depends on disputants agreeing on him as the arbitrator beforehand.
The *suspicion* of corruption will cause a rush to his competitors.
*Already* in our society the ruling of an arbitrator agreed on by
both parties is considered legitimate. It has been legally binding
since 1920 in some cases. Thus, the problem of enforcement is not
a problem: if I win a judgement against you, I can legitimately
hire any protection company to enforce it, and you cannot legitimately
resist. Everyone knowing this in advance, it would rarely be
necessary, just as it is rarely necessary for the police to physically
force you to pay a ticket.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't know what you're
talking about, since every time you mention something I know
something about, your facts are wrong. Or maybe we just
disagree on some fundamental level.
Funny--I feel just the same way...
--JoSH
========
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 04 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 5
Contents: Economics
Religion
Two messages remain in the queue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 December 1981 09:41-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: capitalism, socialism
(This is a response to Bill Hofman's comments of November 30th.)
"Here's what happens to the Third World (at least inside the US
sphere): first world industries use the Third World as a source
of cheap, relatively docile labor. Combined with IMF- and
US-encouraged absence of significant social services and labor
protection, costs in the Third World are extremely low. . . .
The workers are paid pittances compared to US wages, so there is
no way *they* could afford consumer goods."
Everything you say is true, except that you imply that there is
something wrong with paying lower wages in underdeveloped
nations. I think you'll find that in every case, the wages paid
by U.S. corporations are far above local standards. Most
corporations operating in underdeveloped nations benefit those
nations greatly.
The IMF requires fiscal moderation as a condition for its loans.
This is simply a matter of business; a country is more likely to
have the money to pay back the loan if it hasn't squandered it
on measures for "social justice." The IMF has the money; it can
require whatever conditions it wants on the loans.
"As far as most Third World countries following socialist
policies, I don't know what world you're talking about."
Here are a few: India, Nigeria, Seychelles, Nicaraugua, Libya,
VietNam, China, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Iraq,
Guinea, Algeria, Tanzania, Madagascar, Guyana, Mexico, Cuba.
The last time I looked, they were a part of this world right
here. I didn't say most, I said many. I think 19 qualifies as
"many."
"In case you hadn't noticed, detente was on its last legs
*before* Afghanistan."
Not true, at least as far as direct discussions between the
superpowers on arms control. Salt II might well have passed
if it weren't for Afghanistan. It's true that scientific
exchanges were curtailed before, but largely because of negative
reactions among American scientists to various things in the
Sov. Union like its treatment of dissident scientists, and the
use of mental institutions for holding political prisioners.
"As far as threatening Poland, see
FORTUNE, Oct. 1980. Seems that the immediate cause for all the
troubles was Western bankers' demands for fiscal austerity, and
implicit threats if the measures weren't carried out. (P.S.-I'm
no fan of anyone's armed intervention)"
Western bankers were well within their rights in demanding conditions
for deferment of payment of loans. Soviet Russia is emphatically not
within its rights in threatening armed intervention. You may
criticize the bankers for short-sightedness, but you may not brand
them as the cause of the USSR's behavior.
"I still hold that risk is what a capitalist (as opposed
to an entrepreneur) fears most, and thus innovation will not be
aided by these cuts."
No investor will risk his money unreasonably. But it's silly to say
that risk is what he fears most. Investors ("capitalists", in your
sense of the word) naturally seek to minimize risk while maximizing
return. Of course, as investments go, those with the least risk also
have the least (possible) return. How much risk an investor will
accept is a personal factor. I can say truly that there is no lack of
capital for oil exploration -- a very risky business -- in Oklahoma
(where I was born).
"Let me rephrase it, and toss it back to you: Defense spending
(in the form of stupendous defense budgets or in investment in
defense contractors (who are businesses, by the way)) is the form
of ULTIMATE waste, producing nothing of value for consumption,
serving only to inflate the economy and drug production. Thus,
one of the reasons why W. Germany and Japan (whose societies are
much more governmentalized than ours) are whipping us is that
they spend far less of their GNP on defense spending."
Any government spending is inflationary, defense included. But I
think defense spending is justified by a higher principle:
namely, defending the country.
"Governmentalized" West Germany won't be whipping us much longer
unless it reduces drastically its swollen government. I disagree
that Japan is more governmentalized than the U.S.
"It is simply a lie to say that the Chinese revolution brought no
advances. Almost anything is an advance over the feudal
relations under the last of the emperors. The revolution brought
a major increase in health care, living standards, and education
to the mass of sick, malnourished, illiterate peasants in the
countryside."
I'm not arguing that the feudal emperors were better than the
Maoists. You'll remember that the original revolution of 1929
was a democratic one. I judge that a capitalist China would have
brought even more advances. What's more important, it would not
have ruined the higher education system, and sent educated people
to work in the communes as peasants. Maoist society was probably
the best rural, communal society that it is possible to create.
But it reached a plateau. With no scientists, engineers, or
other educated people, advancement into the 20th century was
impossible. Now certainly China today is having problems and
will have many more. Development always means social dislocation
to a degree, especially for a traditional society like China's.
"Business confidence moderates both ways. Wall Street was none
too happy with Reagan's programs, judging by how the bottom fell
out of the market."
I'd hardly describe it as the bottom falling out. Even so, there's
hardly any comparison with the situation in France now.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 1981 1041-PST
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: Post-War Japan
I have long been wondering something about post-war Japan, and
now that the topic has been raised, I will be happy to jump in
feet-first. Thanks for the reference to the Forbes article on
the subject; I will look for it. Anyway, the question is:
Much media coverage has been devoted to the trade imbalance
between the US and Japan, discussing how our balance of payments
is impaired by the disparity between what we import from Japan
and export to them, especially considering artificially high
tariffs and duties which limit the US markets in Japan, so that,
for example, California oranges cost $1.50 (or some such
ridiculous amount) each, due to the protection of Japanese
farmers by trade barriers. There have been numerous other
examples.
OK. After WWII, we were in total control of the Japanese
economy, government, society, whatever. Under the Occupation,
such things as the Japanese constitutional provisions against
armed forces, limiting them to "Self-Defense Forces", were made
part of the Japanese legal/social/governmental system. So, why
on earth weren't provisions made at that time to forever prohibit
and forestall any restrictions to American business dealings in
Japan? Why was not Japan made some sort of "Free-trade" area
with respect to US business? Why were not customs duties and
tariffs in Japan against American goods forever elimininated? We
could have arranged it so that the US could impose any duties or
restrictions it wished on Japanese goods coming in, but Japan
couldn't have done a thing against any American products (or
goods from any other Allied power, or any countries we chose to
name).
It seems that, since we had the power to do this and didn't, we
have nothing to complain about in terms of Japanese restraint of
US trade. We blew it. We are being punished for our failure to
do this when we had the chance, and therefore we deserve any bad
effects.
Anybody have any comments or facts to offer about this? Was this
sort of thing proposed by contemporary economists or anyone? Was
it ignored or rejected by short-sighted administrators who felt
that Japan was so beaten down that it would never rise to be a
manufacturing force again? (I recall a plan for post-war Germany
which would have turned it into a totally agrarian farming
society.) Or didn't anybody even think of it?
Will Martin
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 1981 1954-EST
From: Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator
Subject: FLAME Warning!!! FLAME Warning!!! FLAME Warning!!!
The remainder of the digest (about half) consists of discussions
about religion and morality. Those who already know the ultimate
secrets of the universe may not wish to read any further.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Dec 1981 0744-PST
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
Subject: Teaching values
I agree with JoSH; schools should teach kids how to acquire values, not
what they are. Parents and other role models have done the important
part of personality formation before age 6; this includes most of the
important ROM type value system.
Dave C
------------------------------
Date: 2 December 1981 1138-EST (Wednesday)
From: "frederking" < Robert Frederking at CMU-10A>
Subject: Politics and Religion
There is a very interesting article on a study of the
effects of the religious beliefs of members of Congress on their
voting in this month's Psychology Today. Basically, your view on
how religion affects your life is much more important than what
religion (if any) you belong to in determining your voting. They
came up with 6 types of religious views, which correlated 75% with
people's voting records.
Other interesting facts: Congress is *more* religious than
the rest of the country (this was *before* the 1980 election, Moral
Majority, etc). Liberals tend to be as religious as conservatives,
though they have a different viewpoint on things.
All in all, well worth reading.
------------------------------
Date: 2 Dec 1981 1446-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.FEN at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI>
Right and Wrong:
"...Religion, the theory of evolution, the phlogiston theory
of heat, you name it, all should be taught in terms of
'Here's what is said; these are the people who believe it,
and these are the reasons they do; these are the people who
disbelieve it, and here are their reasons; here are the best
ways I know to test this belief; go decide for yourself.'"
[JoSH]
"Well, this sounds all right in theory, but I think if you
tried to do this with everything, you'd end up with some very
confused children. I think it would foster what I call
"intellectual agnosticism" -- the children would have no firm
conceptions of the important things in life, ending up with
the general feeling that every point of view is of equal value
(and, of course, every point of view is NOT of equal value),
and that the truth is either unknowable or non-existent."
[APPLE]
Confused or not, you'd end up with a lot of people who better
understand the basis for whatever belief system they may adopt, and
hopefully will be more tolerant of others. I'd argue that [within
broad limits] every point of view IS of equal value, apart from
technical considerations of consistency and scope.
``Intellectual agnosticism'' ISN'T nihilism. The way I view these
situations is: I now know what I believe to be the truth [whatever
that means], but I realize that most anything I know must be placed
within the context of my viewpoint. This viewpoint is influenced by
my education, cultural backround, economic backround and very
strongly by the historical context of my existence. Thus, someone
with a different set of influences may see the truth in a different
way. How these divergent ``truths'' are resolved is by free
discussion and (if applicable) by negotiation. It doesn't bother me
to feel that the concept of an independent Right and Wrong is
meaningless. [remember, of course, that I may be wrong about
this...]
-Bill
[There have been complaints about the re-inclusion of so much text,
especially two levels deep. Personally I feel that it is useful
for context and helps prevent misquotation; however I'm blessed with
9600 baud lines. So moderation and use of elipsis may get our
letters a less aggravated response on the part of some. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 3 December 1981 0040-EST (Thursday)
From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A
Subject: Re: religion
(The discussion on religion doesn't seem to fall under the heading
of politics, although connections could be made. If most people are
uninterested in this discussion, I would be glad to continue it in
private among the few interested parties.)
To James Cox:
I find three things wrong with your "Moment of truth" remark. I
suspect that more people than you might anticipate never have that
moment of truth. Secondly, stating that something is true does not
make it ethical. Finally, when we get to the people who actually do
choose religion on the basis of ethics, I have to believe they just
evaluate some prominent points and then swallow the rest of some
religious code.
I know of no way to determine how many people choose religion for
purely theological reasons. Parents frequently return to church in
the belief that children should be brought up in some religion, even
if the parents' have no strong religious feelings. Many Jews are
returning to religion for the sake of maintaining their heritage,
again indepently of theology. I consider it unfair to label all of
these people "un-thinking" simply because their reasons don't
correspond to yours.
The difference between "truth" and "ethical" is a key point that
Bible thumpers frequently miss. Many people sincerely believe that
the devil truly exists and can provide material wealth in exchange
for souls. That doesn't seem to justify making deals with the
devil. Even if you convince me that Jesus is the son of God, you
still have to convince me that it is right to worship him.
Finally, the common religions all seem to have huge bodies of dogma.
Analyzing each and every passage of the Bible is such an
overwhelming job that I doubt that most ministers have done it. Did
you think about the injunction against harvesting the corners of
fields before you became a Christian? (If so, how do you apply it
to your current profession?) What about the prohibition against
graven images? Every time someone says "x is wrong because the
Bible says so" (a frequent occurence, these days) that person is
making an ethical decision on the basis of religion, and not on the
basis of the ethics involved.
Re: a way to raise confused children.
True. Your statement reminds me of the teenager whose parents were
of different religions, and brought her up without any religion, so
she could choose for herself. She admitted that she was to confused
to decide, and wished that her parents had just chosen one for her,
so she would know what to do. This girl understood that religion
was difficult to understand, so she wanted to take the easy way out
by having someone else decide for her. She should have just tried
harder.
Confusion is a seed of knowledge. People get confused because they
have questions without answers. If we teach understanding, then
people will have the tools with which to accept responsibility and
find answers for themselves.
If we do things your way, and teach one religion from an early age,
children will be brainwashed into believing things before they are
old enough to ask the right questions. Being brainwashed into the
"true" religion is not enough, because no religious doctrine
explicitly answers all questions of life; they just provide
principles. Hence all we need to teach are the principles, and let
the children deduce their own religious beliefs. (Children are
quite capable of learning the golden rule without any reference to
God or the Bible; I don't think anyone ever said that kids shouldn't
be taught not to steal.)
Re: agnostics.
I don't agree with your definition. Most agnostics that I know
claim that it is impossible to decide about God given the current
body of knowledge. They don't preclude the possibility of more
facts being introduced at a later date, which would enable them to
revise their opinions. Citing lack of empirical evidence is a
perfectly respectable scientific position.
Re: all views are not equal.
Your statement is meaningless in the absence of context, since there
are both ways in which views are equal and ways in which they are
not. By law, all views have an equal right to be heard in a public
forum. For the sake of logical consistency, all views have an equal
right to be evaluated by the same set of criteria. Finally, while
some views may be true and others false (both rare), there is no
reason why many views, possibly contradictory, cannot all fall into
the class "believed true by many, but awaiting positive
confirmation."
Sorry for the length. I repeat my willingness to move this
discussion to private channels. Gary
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 05 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 6
Contents: More material for the Libertarianism debate
Castles; Germany; Courts
Libertarians and Organized Crime
The right to restrict someone's personal freedom
Free Market Theory of Mind
Workers of the world, Unite
Confusion, Ignorance, Tolerance; Religion
Eleven messages remain in the queue. I shall issue an extra shortly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 Dec 1981 1547-PST
From: Paul Dietz < DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: More material for the Libertarianism debate
Airline Deregulation: Airline ticket price wars are a small price to
pay. Many airlines have been shielded for years from competition and
are now paying through the nose for it. For example, the old airlines
had no reason to restrict union demands for high wages. So, with
deregulation new local airlines come along that pay their pilots
$30,000 instead of over $100,000 a year. Their tickets are naturally
less expensive. They often charge separtely for (or don't provide)
many services that the older airlines always force on the passenger:
meals, drinks, baggage handling and routing. This also reduces the
basic ticket prices.
Money and Libertarian Monetary Policy:
I'm suprised no one jumped in here. Libertarian monetary policy
would be quite simple. There would be no centralized currency.
Instead, anyone could issue money. The value of the money would be
determined by what the issuer says he'll exchange it for. The money
could be backed by gold, or silver, or uranium, or computers, or etc.
These exchange rates could be fixed, or they could float. In the
latter case, people can keep their money in many different currencies,
and bail out of one if it starts going bad. No one is forced to use a
currency that is constantly being devalued.
I have heard that the reason we don't have this situation today is
that at some point (the civil war, I think) the government made it
illegal for anyone else to issue their own currency. This is one of
the more blatant examples of a government imposed monopoly.
------------------------------
Date: 3 December 1981 1429-EST (Thursday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Castles; Germany; Courts
What an interesting combination of topics.
It appears that our basic problem is that there is more than
one way to interpret history, and it can be difficult to tell which is
right, except to listen to the one that sounds best to your previous
beliefs. For example, in Europe guns showed up about the time central
governments did (probably a causal relationship). It would be
informative to know whether castle building ceased when it was
demonstrated that the king could quickly subdue a noble (it was pretty
inevitable previously, but more time and energy consuming), or if
people kept fortifying until the area was well-controlled (since, as
Britannica notes, regular guns were still at a disadvantage for
awhile). Or perhaps cross-cultural studies.
As for Germany, once again, it depends on your point of view.
The article you quote says that the pro-socialism types claimed
victory as well, and I suppose they might argue that the results of
investing more of your GNP in capital have a delayed effect. In any
case, post-war Germany doesn't sound like a Libertarian set-up to me,
unless a free market co-existing with a government counts.
This sounds like it relates to the idea of teaching people to
question authority, etc., brought up re: education. This certainly
wasn't encouraged in the schools I attended (at least not until
college). Inicdentally, I am pro-free market, to a point, that point
being where market forces want to do something that the majority of
the people don't want.
I still don't see a libertarian court working. Perhaps you
could demonstrate how it would work on an example: a neighbor of mine
slips on the snow on my sidewalk, is severely injured, and spends
$30,000 on medical bills. He tells me that I have an obligation to
keep my sidewalk clean, and I say I don't. He sues me in a court, and
wins. I pay $5000 to a hired gun to keep the court away from my
property. [Or pick your favorite situation where people disagree on
rights or obligations]. What happens? Does the community rise up in
righteous wrath and pay $15,000 for a small army? What if nobody else
is interested in siding up with either of us?
------------------------------
Date: 3 December 1981 17:26 est
From: JRDavis.LOGO at MIT-Multics
Subject: Libertarians and Organized Crime
It has been claimed that Organized Crime derives the bulk of its
income from activities that would be prohibited even in a libertarian
system (e.g. extortion, murder, kidnapping, robbery) as opposed to
victimless crimes such as sex, drugs. But does anyone have any
evidence for this? (Not that I'd take the FBI's word too strongly)
Would a libertarian society be more or less hostile environment for
organized crime of this sort (as opposed to other organizations not
now considered organized crime, such as Exxon, GM, or the USArmy)? I'm
not sure what the rational, self-interested response is to an
extortion threat. If I pay, I'm safe, and it only costs me 5%. If I
call the cops, I have a non-zero chance of injury, in any event have
major hassles, and the major beneficiaries are other people (potential
victims that he hoods didn't have a chance to get to). Would people
contribute voluntarilly to fight crime if they weren't taxed to do it?
And *gosh* the scenario of "Pay this tax, and we will catch the mafia,
so you'll be safe, but if you don't pay, you go to jail." seems to
differ from extortion only in that taxation is more or less universal.
So: Will libertarians fight extortion?
or will organized crime fade, deprived of sex/drugs income?
or maybe it doesn't matter (remember the optimal parasite!)
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 1981 1751-EST
From: WATROUS at RUTGERS (Don Watrous)
Subject: The right to restrict someone's personal freedom
I'd like to to ask this question of people to see where personal
freedom fits into people's political philsophy. Under what
circumstances does one have the right to hold someone against their
will? I ask particularly in the instance where you question the
mental processes of the person involved. This gets into the area of
protecting an individual from himself. Should you stop a person from
taking drugs if the likelyhood is that he will be dead in a year or
two if he continues? If someone wishes to sit in a gutter and freeze
to death, do you have the right to stop him?
The reason I ask this question is not even a life-threatening
situation. I just saw a Canadian film called "Key to Heaven" which
graphically depicts a man's indoctrination and subsequent rescue from
a religious cult. (The film is excellent and I highly reccommend it.)
Does the family of a Moonie have the right to kidnap and deprogram
him? Saying yes is a dangerous position to take and disagrees to some
extent with current laws on the books. If not, then how should one
(or should one at all) fight organizations such as this?
Would a libertarian argue that you should not impose your own views of
right and wrong (the value of living or of some religion over another)
so you should allow suicide or devotion to apparently destructive
religions? Would someone who believes he knows what's morally right
feel free to impose his will on others?
What is the legal status of kidnapping (ie, holding someone against
their will without the law's approval)? It seems that you must have
the kidnapee's cooperation to prosecute. Could the SLA have been
prosecuted for kidnapping without Patty Hurst's cooperation? Can the
family of a cultist be prosecuted if they successfully deprogram him?
Please excuse my glaring prejudice against Moonies, but my respect for
a religion varies inversely with their efforts to impose their beliefs
on others. But then, if you know the truth, which includes danger to
the immortal soul of another being, shouldn't you do everything within
your powers to "save" that person? Is believing that you know the
truth enough to impose it on another dangerous?
Don
------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 1981 15:32:51-PST
From: ihnss!houxf!hfavr at Berkeley
Subject: Free Market Theory of Mind
Being busy these days, I waited for someone else to touch on
this; but as no one did, here it comes. There exists a fairly
extensive body of control-theoretic work on self-organizing
heterarchical systems. Most of it came out in the late fifties and
early sixties, and was motivated by questions of theoretical
neurophysiology. In the late sixties empirical work in physiology
established that the organization of the brain was for the most part
genetically pre-programmed, and the cyberneticists who used to think
about self-organizing systems went on to other work. The major result
- that heterarchical systems composed of objects (called homeostats)
seeking their private optima did in fact achieve, in the absence of
external intervention, coherently organized structure characterized by
stable dynamic equilibria - was by then quite solidly established. A
very easy-to-get-into account of this work can be found in the book
"Design for a Brain", by W. Ross Ashby (anyone not already familiar
with discrete control theory should probably read his "Introduction to
Cybernetics" before tackling "Design for a Brain").
The theory of self-organizing systems seems to me an excellent
model of social and economic interactions in a politically
free/libertarian/anarchist society. (It might also be a good model for
the evolution of natural ecosystems. Natural ecosystems, however, are
much more likely than human societies to behave cyclically as a result
of entrainment to cycles of tides, weather etc.) The most likely
reason that the mathematical theory of self-organization has remained
largely unknown to libertarians and anarchists is that many
libertarian economists share with the rest of the "Austrian School" a
rather obscurantist prejudice against mathematics. (The Austrians
appear to have valid arguments against macroeconometrics, which they
unfortunately confuse with mathematical models in general.) Anyway, I
recommend "Design for a Brain" to anyone who doubts that, as Prudhon
said many years ago, "liberty is the mother of order".
Adam V. Reed
(houfx!hfavr)
------------------------------
Date: 4 December 1981 01:55-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < WDH at MIT-MC>
Subject: A reply of sorts
(Yet another episode in the Cox-Hofmann debate, wherein Hofmann wimps
out for the moment, but provides alternate references)
That first line about sums it up. Being a grad student, and because
it's the end of the term, I haven't the time to respond to your
comments of December 3. However, don't think that you've driven me
away, tail between legs. I just haven't the time to argue this
extensively.
However, I still have some ammo left. Real socialism (in my mind) is
a rare thing in the world. Socialism to me means the control of the
means of production (equivalently, the means of subsistence) by the
people who work, not by the capitalist. Thus, I don't think that
"Soviet Russia" (Jim-was there danger we'd confuse it with Capitalist
Russia?) is a socialist state, merely (loosely quoting Trotsky) a
bureaucratic worker's state. Workers there no more control the means
of production than they do here.
["Russia" taken strictly refers only to the Russian Empire
prior to 1917, or to the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist
Republic, one of the member states of the USSR. "Soviet"
restricts it to the latter. --JoSH]
The reason I do not approve of so-called "development" is because it
is a disorganic growth on the surface of the Third World, not the
organic development of the First World. To quote someone I'll refer
interested readers to, "The economic development that capital has
superimposed on the peripheries has been unaccompanied by capitalist
culture or capitalist democracy.... Peripheral capitalism is not an
organized body of connected, interdependent parts sharing a common
life--it is not an organism....The economic system...is not mediated
by culture or legitimated by politics, as in the center."[citation
below]
I firmly believe that the development should be guided by the
inhabitants of a country, and should serve their interests, not ours.
Perhaps our interests will coincide, perhaps not.
Indeed, it is wrong for Russia to threaten intervention in Poland. But
it is equally wrong (more wrong, in many ways) for the US to intervene
in Latin America, the Persian Gulf and Asia. Alexander Haig's refusal
to rule out military intervention in Nicaragua and Allen's suggestion
of a blockade of Cuba are equally to be denounced.
In case any of you are interested in reading a good, short article
about development, I'd recommend the article by A. Sivanandan in the
July, 1980 issue of Monthly Review. If you're at MIT, the copy of
that issue is on reserve at Dewey Library. Other places, you'll find
it in whatever section of the journals section deals with politics.
If you can't find it, and you ask nice, I'll send a copy. Send me
mail.
Enjoy!
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 4 December 1981 02:10-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Confusion, Ignorance, Tolerance
"Confusion is a seed of knowledge. People get confused because
they have questions without answers." - Gary Feldman
"Confused or not, you'd end up with a lot of people who better
understand the basis for whatever belief system they may adopt,
and hopefully will be more tolerant of others." - Bill Hofmann
Having questions without answers is called ignorance. Ignorance can
be "a seed of knowledge." Confusion is the result of not knowing the
questions.
Mr. Hofmann misunderstands the nature of tolerance. From the Portland
Statement from Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: "Tolerance CAN be exercised
only by those who have well-grounded convictions (although it will not
always be exercised even by them). For such people tolerance is
an act of self-abnegation; although they are convinced that those who
differ from them must be wrong, they nevertheless will protect their
rights. Those who have no such convictions, but who espouse polite
doubt, agnosticism, skepticism, or downright nihilism, can only be
INDIFFERENT, not tolerant. The two are by no means the same, and
history has demonstrated the intolerance of those who claim that
truth either does not exist or is humanly unattainable. In the name
of doubt they have persecuted or repressed those defending well-
grounded convictions." (see National Review, Oct. 16, 1981).
(In response to Gary Feldman)
I found it difficult to understand much of the reasoning of your
message, so if I make any wrong interpretations, please inform.
"Finally, when we get to the people who actually do choose
religion on the basis of ethics, I have to believe they just
evaluate some prominent points and then swallow the rest
of some religious code."
I really don't know why anyone would choose a religion on the
basis of ethics. The ethics of (for example) Bertrand Russell
are very similar to those of Christianity. If you're simply
in the market for an ethical system, why burden yourself
with all that annoying metaphysical baggage? Religions
(generally) attempt to explain "first principles" -- things
that bear only indirectly upon ethics.
"I consider it unfair to label all of these people [who
attend church for non-religious reasons] "un-thinking"
simply because their reasons don't correspond to yours."
When did I label anyone "un-thinking?" People who attend church
for non-religious reasons aren't necessarily unthinking -- just
hypocritical.
"The difference between 'truth' and 'ethical' is a key point
that Bible-thumpers frequently miss. Many people sincerely
believe that the devil truly exists and can provide material
wealth in exchange for souls. That doesn't seem to justify
making deals with the devil. Even if you convince me that
Jesus is the Son of God, you still have to convince me that
it is right to worship him."
I really don't understand your point. I haven't met a single
thumping fundamentalist yet who coudn't tell you the difference
between truth and ethical (to begin with, one is a noun and
the other is an adjective). "Ethical," of course, has meaning
only in the context of an ethical system. "Truth" is an absolute
term.
Christians have no trouble understanding the difference between
accepting Christ as the Son of God and worshiping Him. The devil
was probably the first to do the former but refuse the latter.
"Every time someone says 'x is wrong because the Bible says
so' . . . that person is making an ethical decision on the
basis of religion, and not on the basis of the ethics
involved."
Neither do I understand this. When someone says "x is wrong,"
he means that x is proscribed by his ethical system. His
ethical system may or may not be supported by religion.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sun 06 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 7a
Contents: Organizational structure (3 msgs)
The Constitution (1 msg)
Japan, Germany, & Trade (4 msgs)
Tolerance vs Indifference (1 msg)
This is just only the first half of the digest. (The various mailing
software limits the size of individual messages.) The second part
concerns primarily crime and money. --JoSH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 03 Dec 1981 2316-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: (I am not going to extend the string of responses further!)
I disagree with your most recent message in that you seem to indicate
that present firms are hierarchical. That is by no means clear,
especially if you wish to qualify that by describing which dimensions
your remark applies to (control, communications, etc...?). Although
formal chains of command, and even communication, are usually
semi-hierarchical (remember matrix organizations and bridging between
sub trees), the 'real' control and communications pathways are not
nearly as neat usually. I know of no organization (even the military)
which is truely hierarchical, although many people in governmnet and
business still believe this is the 'correct' form of organization in
the abstract.
Please do not believe every Table of Organization. For the case
studies that have been done, they often prove to be very misleading.
Also, any organization can be thought of as an undirected graph. As
long as the nodes are finite and the number of possible messages are
finite (reasonable restrictions in the real world), there is no
problem in modeling the organization. Of course, your model may not
be 'efficient' (in that the techniques used to transform input are
very complex) and it may not correspond to reality - but as far as I
know no one has every demostrated that any breakthrough in computing
theory is needed - just better understanding of the practical
computational difficulties and the social reality.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 03 Dec 1981 2341-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Response to message (again)
The correspondence between social systems and a perpetual motion
machine is not clear (remember, physical 'laws' are enforced by, for
lack of a better name, God, not any human institution - the same could
be true for social systems).
On the tendency of 'experts' to be corrupted by their funding source -
this is a rather well known fact that only policy fools ignore. And
it is by no means clear that either 1) this is undesirable, or 2) that
it can be prevented. The best advice here is still 'let the buyer
beware.'
Jim
PS Allison's work on the Cuban Missle Crisis has a very reasonable
account of the events as seem through different decision making
models, one of which essentially says that the source of input is
always biased by where the source is in relation to the other
components in the system. Recommended reading.
------------------------------
Date: 4 December 1981 05:31-EST
From: Gavan Duffy < gavan at MIT-AI>
Subject: (I am not going to extend the string of responses further!)
I agree with JPM generally. Organizations are rarely organized in the
ways their "leadership" intends. One point I wished to make was that
there is, indeed MUST BE some form of functional organization, whether
planned or not, whether intentional or not. Even libertarians and
other atomists would grant this. But I also wanted to stress that any
organization, if it is to be a PERSISTING organization (which is to
say it would be legitimate), must operate on some set of ordering
principles. For social systems, the traditional ethical principles of
organization are those with which we all would agree were we to enter
into a particular social system. I assert that we WOULD NOT agree to
principles representing any so-called "law" of the "free" marketplace.
There are no such laws. Acceptance of the libertarian/atomist social
model would mean the acceptance of the principle that each individual
(atom) fight for survival in a hostile environment, where each atom's
survival depended upon its destruction of all other atoms that might
hinder its self-maintenance.
Hobbes called it "the war of all against all," and argued that such a
war could only be averted through submission to kingly authority.
Hierarchies. Is this what would result from a libertarian/atomist
society? Rousseau argued that people were not immoral in the
pre-social state of nature, as Hobbes had assumed. Instead he saw
people as moral agents in the pre-governmental situation. Only after
entering into feudal society were they perverted (made immoral).
Rousseau's solution was to fashion a society on whose ordering
principles we would agree in the state of nature, with no
foreknowledge of our particular places in society. Democracy (at
least Rousseauian democracy).
As I understand libertarianism, I would not agree to it *a priori*. I
would not like to live in such a society if I had no foreknowledge of
the particular advantages (e.g., educated, white male) I happen to
have. Since I would reject libertarianism, we would not all agree to
it. Therefore, it would not be legitimate. I stand ready to be
convinced, however. JUST WHY SHOULD I ACCEPT LIBERTARIANISM? WHY
WOULD I OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THE ABSENCE OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND
ADOPTION OF *LAISSEZ-FAIRE* AND *CAVEAT EMPTOR* PRINCIPLES MIGHT MEAN
MY OWN DEATH?
[The issue of crime and its relation to society is discussed in the
second part of this number --JoSH]
The example I put forward was only meant as that, as an example. It's
more Leibnizian than compuitational (although Leibniz came up with it
only after asking something like, "What if the mind were like a
millhouse and we could walk in and inspect its operating parts? What
would it look like?"). I don't think I meant anything more by it,
really.
------------------------------
Date: 04 Dec 1981 0028-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: The Constitution
I agree with many of your general comments, but disagree on the
following example:
Example 1: The US Constitution was established by
some businessmen who had gotten far enough away
from the King of England to be hard to control.
Remember that only property owners were voters in
early US history.
Beard may think so, but most modern historians are in disagreement
about the economic influences on the Constitution. May I also remind
you that there was still a sharp difference between landowners (those
'property owners' were usually still 'land owners') and merchants -
while there was an obvious concern about the financial health of the
Union, there was a fair division between landowners, merchants,
traders, industrialists, hard money advocates, and soft money
advocates (to mention a few positions).
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 4 December 1981 0735-EST (Friday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: trade with Japan
Obviously the trade deficit is our own fault. After all, two can play
at the tariff game. They're in a worse position because they have to
pay for all that oil and food that they import. We just have to pay
for the oil. I would put other problems, such as the steel industry,
consumer electronics, etc, down to laziness and stupidity on the part
of the US companies that lost out. For example, steel is a
capital-intensive industry. US companies didn't invest sufficiently,
so they died. Oh yes, how many Japanese-speaking salesmen do these
whiners have over in Japan? Probably many fewer than they have
English-speaking salesmen in the US.
------------------------------
Date: 4 December 1981 0936-EST (Friday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Dismantling Japan, Germany after WW II
The reasons I have heard that the Allies allowed Germany and
Japan to rebuild is that they actually learned something from WW I and
WW II. One of the main reasons why the German people elected Hitler
was that they were sick and tired of paying huge war reparations and
living under all kinds of rules about what they were and were not
allowed to build (9mm Lugers, Zeppelins, etc.). After WW II, some
remarkably far-sighted people realized that the best way to keep
Germany from starting another war 20 years down the road was to allow
the German people to live nice normal lives in a nice normal, fully
functional democracy, without being punished for their parents' sins.
------------------------------
Date: 4 Dec 1981 19:24:38-PST
From: E.jeffc at Berkeley
Why didn't we turn Japan into a colony of U.S. business? It
would have been immoral, to start with. Any case, the only com-
plaint that anyone has with the Japanese is that they are /too/
successful. However, punishing them for our own stupidity is insane.
Rather than telling them to be less successful, we should become more
successful.
Germany: claiming that the post-war governmental control
/inherently/ caused all of Germany's problems is absurd - the
post-industrial future of Germany was the official policy of the
occupying forces, as was stated earlier in this digest. As for
government control being the cause of Germany's problems today:
Chancellor Schmidt has entirely different ideas. He blames Germany's
economic woes squarely on high interest rates in the U.S.. In any
case, Germany has done far better than WE have been doing.
Government spending inherently inflationary? I have news for
you: /what/ the money is spent on is infinitely more important than
/who/ spends it. If you go to Las Vegas and spend a thousand dollars,
that's inflationary. If the government spends money on capital
improvements such as highways, canals, dams, and so forth - that is
not inflationary. As for defense spending, it is pure inf- lationary
waste, with one proviso: any new technologies which are developed as
part of the defense effort can readily be used by the private sector
to increase productivity. Thus defense spending could increase the
productive capacities of industy providing a significant amount of
that spending is on R&D. Nuclear power comes to mind as a ready
example. NASA has a similar impact on industry, even if one were not
to consider the Space Shuttle as something "productive".
Drugs: I'm tired of hearing about how much the price of drugs
would come down if only it were made legal. As everyone is apparently
so concerned with the supply side of the issue, no one has seemed to
think about the demand side. Has anyone stopped to think that people
are /willing/ to spend hundreds of dollars on stuff like heroin, and
that some people are willing to go to /any extreme necessary/ to
obtain the required money in order to get the drug? This is a thought
completely independent of supply/price considerations. What is it
about these drugs that would induce this kind of behavior? What
valuable thing do drugs give to these people, that they are /willing/
to pay the price? In what fashion have these people "gained" by
taking these drugs, such that the price is worth it? I have never
taken any "recreational" drugs, nor do I ever intend to, and so
perhaps I am not qualified to answer these questions. But in any
case, the only answer I can come up with are these: escape from
reality, from their problems, from the world, from themselves -- at
the very best, for the fun of it. I consider none of these answers to
be valid, especially the last: there are far better ways of "having
fun" that don't involve turning yourself into an irrational being, so
as to all the better feel pleasure.
------------------------------
Date: 4 Dec 1981 2019-PST
From: Mike Leavitt < LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
Germany and Japan have low [high? -J] GNPs, not because they are
peace-loving, free-market industrial wonders, but rather because
we provide the military protection at a very, very low cost to
them. If we were to announce that over the next ten years, we
were going to withdraw our security blanket, close the nuclear
umbrella, and let them pay for what they value, two things would
happen immediately: 1. They would develop a substantial defense
budget paid for, in part, by their auto industries' taxes, and 2)
Our auto industries would start being more competitive because of
their consequent lower taxes. Sounds good to me.
Mike < Leavitt at usc-isi>
------------------------------
Date: 4 Dec 1981 1808-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI>
Subject: Tolerance, indifference and doublespeak
To: Apple at MIT-MC
"Tolerance CAN be exercised only by those who have well-
grounded convictions....For such people tolerance is an act
of self-abnegation; although they are convinced that those
who differ from them must be wrong, they nevertheless will
protect their rights. Those who have no such convictions,
but who espouse polite doubt, agnosticism, skepticism, or
downright nihilism, can only be INDIFFERENT, not tolerant.
[Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, quoted by APPLE]
The wording there suggests that one must be licensed to be tolerant.
But aside from that, I have some differences with Mr. Kuehnelt-
Leddihn. I would suggest that it is only a relatively indifferent
person who can allow others to think otherwise than s/he does. Take
the growth of religious tolerance in England. Stone, an eminent
historian of the English Revolution, suggests that it was only the
rise of a multitude of competing relgious sects and the relative
indifference of the Reformation monarchy which caused this growth.
Strongly-held convictions [and thus the absence of doubt] are more
likely to breed intolerance than skepticism is. I'd suggest that it
was this rise of RELIGIOUS tolerance [with its source in indifference
and a multitude of conflicting ideologies] that strongly influences
modern POLITICAL or ETHICAL tolerance.
"The two [tolerance and indifference] are by no means the
same, and history has demonstrated the intolerance of those
who claim that truth either does not exist or is humanly
unattainable. In the name of doubt they have persecuted or
repressed those defending well-grounded convictions." [More
of the same]
I'll agree that they aren't the same, but I take STRONG issue with the
rest of this statement. I'd ask Kuehnelt-Leddihn [or alternately,
APPLE] to point out significant examples of this. As Mr. Cox and I
seem to have been doing a lot lately, we hold diametrically opposite
opinions on this point. I'd suggest that far more blood has been
spilled and more innocents persecuted in the name of firmly-held
convictions [well-grounded or not] than by doubters. Let's take
examples from, say, 1000 AD.
*The Crusades [rescue the home of Christianity from the infidels]
*The Spanish Inquisition [stamp out heresy]
*the genocide of Native Americans [they're nothing but ignorant, lazy,
shiftless savages--WE have a Manifest Destiny]
*the enslavement of Africans [ditto here]
*the genocide of Jews and other "deviants"(gays, etc.) [WE are the
Master Race]
*the destruction of Southeast Asia (turning the landscape into
something representing the moon, and driving the population
into "strategic hamlets" (read "concentration camps") and
into the brothels and gutters of Saigon to serve the needs
of Our Boys) [The Truman Doctrine, ``We are the guardians of
civilization'']
*endorsement of genocidal regimes [``We truly appreciate your devotion
to democracy,'' VP Bush to Marcos, etc.]
Need I go on?
Secure in my doubt,
Bill Hofmann.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sun 06 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 7b
Contents: Money and the free market (6 msgs)
Crime (3 msgs)
This part is more Libertarian-oriented than the other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Dec 1981 20:31:21-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
Subject: Re: The Transient Response of the Free Market
Bill Vaughan's comments were quite interesting. I would add one
further observation: the oscillations of various sectors of the
economy can "bottom out". For example, the increase in OPEC's oil
prices will eventually cause other sources of energy to be
discovered/become more competitive -- but there's no guarantee that
the oil consumer will survive until that happens.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Dec 1981 13:13:44-PST
From: Onyx.jeffc at Berkeley
Airline deregulation: I see, because they were protected from
competition, it only serves them right that they should now go ban-
krupt! That makes all the sense in the world (or what's left of it
anyway). If when exposed to competition, the industry goes belly
up, perhaps then it never could have got off the ground without it.
In particular, why should anyone have used an airplane when they
didn't go anywhere, but then why should an airplane go somewhere
when there is no one to take it? The old chicken and egg problem.
We'll see it again with space travel. As a side note: under the
deregulation plan, the capital of New Hampshire no long has an air-
port. (It might have been some other state, but I think my point
is clear!)
Monetary policy: The Federal Government asserted its monopoly
over money when it came into to existence! (Or have you read the
Constitution recently?) As for everyone and his brother plus his
pet dog being able to issue their own currency - THAT'S INSANITY.
With such a system, money would never be used at all, and we would
be back to barter. Why in hell should I accept the currency of
someone who lives in Nowhere, Arizona? And, under such a system,
what is to prevent someone from becoming an instant billonaire by
simply printing a lot of "personal currency". Claiming that anyone
who would do that will soon be found out and discredited is absurd!
There are 200 million+ people in this country, and I can't check
the currency worthiness of every currency I come across. Multiple
currencies DOES NOT WORK. Why do you think the federal government
was given a monopoly over monetary policy in the first place?
Under the Articles of Confederation, every state had its own
currency, and even under such limited conditions, multiple curren-
cies caused too many problems. POINT TO ONE COUNTRY WHICH HAS SUC-
CESSFULLY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME HAS HAD MULTIPLE CURRENCIES!!!
For the purposes of the above argument, it is irrelevant
whether it is people, banks, or both who issue currency; if only
because a person could simply start his own bank. Naturally, there
would not be any "government standards" to weed out geniune banks
from the frauds.
------------------------------
Date: 5 December 1981 17:42 est
From: Bob Frankston < Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-Multics>
Subject: Re: More material for the Libertarianism debate
I've been deleting most of the libertarian discussion, but did
happen to read Dietz' comments on monetary policy. I've got
enough things to worry about without having to choose my
currency for each transaction and bargain about the exchange
rate. The basic tenet of libertarianism seems to be that I
should be able to make all my own choices and not rely on a
government. I am too busy to worry about these choices.
(By the way, what is the attitude about the railroads and the
government conspiring to impose time zones on people?)
------------------------------
Date: 5 December 1981 1004-EST (Saturday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: money and personal freedom
I believe the money topic was touched upon in HN some time ago. You
don't actually need to back up your money with a tangible good. After
all, money is just bookkeeping. Gold has no intrinsic value except
for its industrial uses, and that value is no where near its cost.
All you have to do is set up an electronics funds transfer system,
similar to a barter system now. No money involved, just credits and
debits. All the existing banks can get together and wire up. It
might be hard for an individual to do this, but easy for Visa,
MasterCard, American Express, etc.
On personal freedom. When someone is crazy, they aren't responsible
for their own actions, and need help. Crazy is defined by me, not
them. Like they said on NBC magazine last night, asylums are full of
people who claim to be perfectly normal. My brother said the same
thing when he WAS schizo. Moonies are the same thing. They're crazy
in my book. I don't care what the law says, if my sister joins them,
I'll go all out to get her back.
BTW, what ever happened to the CA Moonie case where the court said
that the girl had to show up or the judge would throw the top Moonie
officials in the slammer?
------------------------------
Date: 4 Dec 1981 2019-PST
Sender: LEAVITT at USC-ISI
Subject: Random comments
A few random comments--my apologies for not repeating the words
of those whose points I am disputing. (My editor doesn't seem to
do that too well.)
Libertarianism does not rest on the efficiency of the free market
for its justification. I agree that most libertarians think that
a free market would be more successful in providing things to
everybody who lives under it, but I also agree that we really
don't have an empirical basis for being confident about that
thought. Libertarians rest their case on the morality of
noncoercion. The highest value is not using physical force to
tell people what to do and what not to do. The free market is
the only system consistent with that principle, and that is why
libertarians support the free market.
There was some question about who is or is not a statist. My
definition of statism is not binary, but rather a continuum. A
statist is someone who prefers to see the state, as represented
by a government, control something(s): utilities, banks, money,
dope, post offices, schools, etc. The more things a person wants
governments to control, the more statist that person is.
Conservatives are often statists; liberals, too; socialists, for
sure. Tell me what you want a government to control, and I'll be
happy to rank you on the statism scale!
------------------------------
Date: 5 Dec 1981 2200-EST
From: JoSH < Josh at RUTGERS>
Subject: Monopolies
These figures are to support my contention that the free market
tends to an equilibrium. They are the market shares of Standard
Oil of New Jersey (John D. Rockefeller's giant monopoly) before
it was broken up by the government in 1911. Note that the
governmental action came only after the monopoly had been
significantly eroded by market forces.
Percentage control over crude oil supplies:
fields 1880 1899 1906 1911
Appalachian 92 88 72 78
Ohio-Indiana 85 95 90
Gulf Coast 10 10
Mid-continent 45 44
Illinois 100 83
California 29 29
% control of 90-95 82 70 64
refinery capacity
Percentage of major products sold:
1880 1899 1906-1911
Kerosene 90-95 85 75
Lubes 40 55
Waxes 50 67
Fuel oil 85 31
Gasoline 85 66
From Ralph Andreano, "New Competition in the Petroleum Industry
Before 1911" (phd diss, Northwestern, 1960) quoted in Bringhurst:
"Antitrust and the Oil Monopoly"
Note that Standard Oil was given an impetus by interventionist
oligopotropic forces, since they dealt largely in transportation,
where they took advantage of trade-restrictive policies of the
ICC.
Note also that IBM's market share has dropped from 50% to 25% in
the past ten years (Sol Libes in Byte), in a free market (even
though Justice claims they used unfair trading practices during
that period, and their suit hasn't done anybody any good yet).
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 04 Dec 1981 0022-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Crime and capitalism(???)
My whole point here is that crime, organized or to
a lesser extent if not, is a consequence of a
capitalist society. If capital could only be
controlled democratically by the people with the
profits distributed back to the people, then the
feeding ground for crime, exploitation, and
speculation will be abolished.
I would really like to see support for this statement from any source.
1) I do not know anyone who really knows the ultimate source of
crime, 2) the societies we have today which are closest to socialism
have a huge crime rate, 3) you really do not mean capitalism and
democratic control of resources at all. Thus you should not say
you do. What you are really talking about is alienation of labor
(ala Marx - read The German Idology for a good discussion). Many
people BELIEVE (not KNOW) this to be a source of much modern social
unrest (crime obviously included). But alienation is originally
caused by a change in the MODE of production. Thus INDUSTRIAL
societies, not capitalists ones, are affected. The solution to
this problem is by no means clear, and redistribution of profits, while
it may help, is not an obvious solution to this problem.
Jim
PS If you were not talking about alienation, I apologize. In that case
I simply flatly disagree and cannot see any truth in your statement.
------------------------------
Date: 5 December 1981 16:52-EST
From: Gene Salamin < ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Libertarianism and the Mafia.
The basic problem in the current state of affairs is a failure of
the normal feedback mechanisms which check the growth of crime. As
long as the courts set criminals free, and throw in jail people who
defend themselves and their property, we can expect the crime rate to
continue increasing. Organized crime needs to be fought with
organized greater violence, and private police forces seem to be the
best approach in view of the vacuum created by the ineffectual public
judicial system.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Dec 1981 2200-EST
From: JoSH < Josh at RUTGERS>
Subject: The Gods of the Copybook Headings
From: Gavan Duffy < gavan at MIT-AI>
I assert that we WOULD NOT agree to principles representing
any so-called "law" of the "free" marketplace. There are no
such laws. ...
Hobbes called it "the war of all against all," and argued
that such a war could only be averted through submission
to kingly authority.
The laws of the marketplace are mathematical models like the laws
of physics; they may be correct or incorrect but there is never
any question of people agreeing to them.
You have a profound misconception of libertarianism in your continued
description of it as "atomistic". The only basic atomism in the
libertarian philosophy is with regard to rights--ie, that all rights
are individual rights. There is no rejection of social structure per
se; only of structure based on physical coercion.
As I understand libertarianism, I would not agree to it
*a priori*. ... WHY WOULD I OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT
THE ABSENCE OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND ADOPTION OF *LAISSEZ-FAIRE*
AND *CAVEAT EMPTOR* PRINCIPLES MIGHT MEAN MY OWN DEATH?
Boy have you got it backwards! Libertarianism explicitly claims you
have rights protecting you from coercion and fraud. Democratic
principles claim only that you have the right to vote--if the people
around you decide to ditch social welfare, > poof< there it goes. Why
DO you ignore the fact that you could be drafted and served up as
cannon fodder as a political favor to an ambitious sheik? Why DO you
ignore the fact that martial law could be declared and you lose your
civil rights before I can finish typing this letter?
You're comparing apples and oranges. You see death and destruction
in the abuses you imagine without a government; you assume that it
will not work before evaluating it. On the other hand, you seem to
be assuming that these bad things cannot happen to you in a democratic
system, even though they are perfectly allowable within the democratic
framework. So you assume that it not only works, but works the way
you want it to. It doesn't.
--JoSH
ps--the subject line is a reference to Kipling.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 07 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 8
Contents: Germany, Japan, Europe, and Defense (2 msgs)
Inflation
Private Money
Statism (2 msgs)
English Revolution, Tolerance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 December 1981 23:07-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Germany, Japan, Europe, and Defense
(This is a response to Mike Leavitt's message of December 4th.)
Germany and Japan have [high] GNPs, not because they are
peace-loving, free-market industrial wonders, but rather because
we provide the military protection at a very, very low cost to
them."
Partially true. Japan spends less than 1% yearly of its GNP on
defense. Germany spends about three and one-half percent, about the
same as France and about half the U.S. rate. France, by the way,
spends a good portion of its defense budget on its \force de frappe/.
Germany, of course, builds no nuclear weapons of its own.
"If we were to announce that over the next ten years, we
were going to withdraw our security blanket, close the nuclear
umbrella, and let them pay for what they value, two things would
happen immediately: 1. They would develop a substantial defense
budget paid for, in part, by their auto industries' taxes, and 2)
Our auto industries would start being more competitive because of
their consequent lower taxes. Sounds good to me."
Don't be too sure you know what they value. Let me suggest another
possible reaction that Europe might have to a neo-isolationist U.S.
Finding itself face to face with Soviet Russia [aside to JoSH: "Soviet
Russia" means Russia after the revolution of 1917. To refer to the
Russian S.S.R., one uses the term "Russian S.S.R."], it begins to
develop "understandings" with the Communist giant. We here in the
U.S. witness the Finlandization of western Europe.
[I was quoting the Columbia Encyclopedia. --JoSH]
Judging from the recent huge pacifist demonstrations, I see no
evidence of any European resolve to defend itself. I decline to
comment on whether this means we should continue to do it for them.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Dec 1981 1338-PST
From: Mike Leavitt < LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
Subject: Re: Germany, Japan, Europe, and Defense
When I said that they would purchase the amount of defense
that they value, I meant just that, and I did not presuppose how much
that would be. I fully accept the possibility that they would come to
an understanding with the USSR, and I support that outcome. It is far
past time for us to continue to pay for what they no longer want, if
they no longer want it. And they are rich enough to pay for it
themselves, if they still want it. Are you suggesting that we should
be over there with arms and troops if they would rather have us out?
Mike < leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: 5 December 1981 23:33-EST
From: Gene Salamin < ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Inflation
Defense spending, or any other kind of spending, is not
inflationary. What is inflationary is the legalized counterfeiting
by which the government spends.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Dec 1981 1109-EST
From: JoSH < JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Private Money
Private money (banknotes) were common in the U.S. until 1864, when
(Britannica) "The creation of the national banking system was mainly
the outcome of the financial necessities of the Federal Government
in the Civil War." Moreover, "The state banking systems in the
older states were so firmly entrenched in the confidence of the
commercial community that it became necessary to imposing a tax of
10% upon the face-value of the notes of state banks in circulation
after the 1st of July 1866." "State banks" here means banks which
were authorized under state charters; New York, for example, where
a large number of major banks existed, had a "free banking" law:
"This system permitted any body of persons, complying with the
requirements of the law, to form a bank and issue circulation
secured by the deposit of various classes of public bonds."
The national(ly authorized) banks continued to issue notes after
that, but were closely enough controlled that you could argue
that they were government money.
It can be argued that spending money on the wrong things reduces
productivity and thus causes inflation; but this is only true
when output is declining, however. Through most of this century
that hasn't been true in the U.S., and the other cause of inflation,
increasing the money supply, has been.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 6 December 1981 11:37-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Statism
Webster's says statism is: "the doctrine or practice of vesting
economic control and planning in a centralized state government."
I think you would find little statism among conservatives. The amount
increases as you proceed further to the left. (That branch of
conservativism known as libertarianism would probably contain none.)
------------------------------
Date: 6 Dec 1981 1404-PST
From: Mike Leavitt < LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
Subject: Definition of Statism
There are two problems with relying on dictionary definitions
for technical terms: dictionaries disagree and their definitions are
often written be nonexperts. The \American College Dictionary/ has
something more akin to the (obvious) way I and very many others use
the term \statism/: "the principle or policy of concentrating
extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at
the cost of individual liberty." With this definition, any
conservative policy that regulates drug use (economic and political),
reading material (pornography, radical politics--both ecnomic and
political issues), ability to form labor unions that can bargain, for
example, for union shops (economic), tarriffs (restrict economic
liberty), etc. (need I go on?) is statist. But I do agree that
libertarians don't support such things.
Mike < Leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: 6 December 1981 12:55-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: English Revolution, Tolerance
Bill Hofmann uses the example of the development of religious
toleration after the English Revolution to dispute my thesis
about toleration. Since this is a subject I know something
about (thank goodness he chose it!), I'll respond in some length.
"Stone, an eminent historian of the English Revolutions,
suggests that it was only the rise of a multitude of
competing religious sects and the relative indifference of
the Reformation monarchy which caused this growth [of
religious toleration]. - Bill Hofmann.
I'll quote directly from \Causes of the English Revolution/, by
Lawrence Stone, because Mr. Hofmann mixed up an important fact.
". . . . The mere existence within a society of a number of
actively competing religious sects and churches inevitably
raised the question: What is the right road to salvation?
To this the answer might be: Any; or even perhaps none.
If toleration is bred of indifference, indifference is bred
of religious pluralism. As the religious fanactics on all
sides shouted louder and louder as they peddled their wares,
so more and more sober men began to adopt a latituinarian
attitude of watchful scepticism and to tansfer their allegiance
from the competing churches and sects to the secular State."
(Stone, Lawrence. \Causes of the English Revolution/. New
York, 1972, p. 109.)
What Mr. Hofmann has mixed up is his reference to the "Reformation
monarchy." I assume that the "Reformation monarchy" refers to
the reign of Henry VIII, during which the Reformation occurred.
Stone is talking about the latter 16th and early 17th centuries,
during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I. Mr. Hofmann doesn't
know what he is talking about in saying that ANY Tudor-Stuart
monarch was "indifferent" to religion. Yes, Elizabeth I introduced
moderate reforms to the Anglican church, allowing it to incorporate
more of the "sects" into the Church of England, but she would
hardly be called tolerant by today's standards; she certainly
wasn't indifferent. The case for indifference is much less
persuasive for the other monarchs.
What about Stone's supposition that "sober" men began changing
their allegiance from church to state? Francis Bacon, certainly
anyone's idea of a sober man, was also a good Anglican and Tory.
So were most other scientists and advocates of science during that
period. The fact is that, as far as most people were concerned,
there were only three important religious groups: the Anglicans,
the Roman Catholics, and the Presbyterians.
So what did cause the eventual development of religious toleration
in England, if it wasn't monarchial indifference and religious
pluralism? It was the general rise of science, that eventually
gave birth to the Age of Reason. This encouraged scrutiny of
beliefs, and religious people began to give consideration to the
much more fundamental questions of religion. The final result
was the decline of fanaticism. You'll remember that Mr. von
Kuehnelt-Leddihn said that tolerance could be exercised by
those who have WELL-GROUNDED belief. Religious people in the
late Stuart period had much better grounded beliefs than those
of several decades earlier. They were therefore much less
fanatical about them. (John Locke wrote his \Letters on Toleration/
at about this time.)
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 08 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 9
Contents: English Revolution, Tolerance, Indifference (2 msgs)
Crazies and Non-crazies
Reason for Government Coining Money (3, uhh, 1 msg)
More on Japan
Funding Organized Crime
And What's Wrong with Finlandization? (2 msgs)
One message remains in the queue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 6 Dec 1981 1841-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Re: English Revolution, Tolerance
Date: 7 December 1981 02:14-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Tolerance, Indifference
[The following is an editorial experiment. I have two stages in what
is very much of a dialogue between Hofmann and Cox. Instead of
reproducing half of one letter in quotes in the one directly after
it, I have interspersed the two. Note in reading that all of
Hofmann's comment were written first, ie without seeing the replies.
Comments, criticisms welcome. --JoSH]
[Hofmann:]
Touche!
(quoting Cox from previous digest:)
What Mr. Hofmann has mixed up is his reference to the "Reformation
monarchy." I assume that the "Reformation monarchy" refers to
the reign of Henry VIII, during which the Reformation occurred.
Stone is talking about the latter 16th and early 17th centuries,
during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I. [APPLE]
Yes indeed, I misspoke myself. Sorry for my poor grasp of the history
of the English monarchy. Thanks for pointing that out. Thanks also
for pulling the quote from the source I didn't have handy (don't have
handy):
"...The mere existence within a society of a number of actively
competing religious sects and churches inevitably raised the
question: What is the right road to salvation? To this the answer
might be: Any; or even perhaps none. IF TOLERATION IS BRED OF
INDIFFERENCE, INDIFFERENCE IS BRED OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM. As the
religious fanactics on all sides shouted louder and louder as
they peddled their wares, so more and more sober men began to
adopt a latituinarian attitude of watchful scepticism and to
tansfer their allegiance from the competing churches and sects to
the secular State." (Stone, Lawrence. \Causes of the English
Revolution/. New York, 1972, p. 109.) [quoted by APPLE, emphasis
added]
Here we see the source of religious toleration--the abominable
indifference, bred from religious pluralism. I hold that Mr. von
Kuehnelt-Leddihn is defining toleration to suit his own purposes. If
well-grounded belief is grounded in the religious pluralism that could
only exist for long (i.e. > 50 years or so) in the presence of
toleration, then how can toleration only be exercised by those with
well-grounded beliefs? Was there a hard-core group of well-grounded
tolerants running things? Not that Mr. Cox tells us.
[Cox:]
I thought I disposed of that. The source of religious toleration in
England was NOT "indifference, bred from religious pluralism." In
case you did not notice, I did not quote Mr. Stone with approval.
The source of religious toleration was a decline in fanaticism, con-
committant with the rise of science.
[Hofmann:]
This business of well-grounded beliefs bothers me a bit. If you are
more dead sure that your beliefs are THE correct beliefs, what makes
you MORE able to be tolerant than if your beliefs are ``ill-
grounded?''
[Cox:]
"Well-grounded" means grounded in reason. A person with well-grounded
beliefs is not necessarily more "dead sure" that his beliefs are the
correct ones. There are many Christians whose beliefs are not grounded
in reason, for example. There are also many whose beliefs are
grounded in reason, such as C.S. Lewis. Both groups are probably just
as sure that they're right. But C.S. Lewis is more likely to be
tolerant, since he recognizes that the best basis for religion is
reason, and a person does not acquire a reasoned basis for his
religion if it is beaten into him. (Note: I am not claiming, as did
Aquinas, that it is possible to PROVE the existence of God, much less
the truth of Christianity, by reason. I am saying that there is a
reasonable basis for Christianity.)
[Hofmann:]
By the way, do you have any significant examples of persecution of
people ``well-grounded'' people by the hordes of intellectual agnostic
doubters? [See my message in the last Poli-Sci, dated 12/4 1808 EST.]
I am truly interested in comparing notes.
[Cox:]
Since I quoted von Kuehnelt-Leddihn with approval, this is a
legitimate question to ask. I happen not to agree with him when he
makes his claim that "history has demonstrated the intolerance of
those who claim that truth either does not exist or is humanly
unattainable," at least insofar as their having been any more
intolerant than anyone else who holds a strong belief. (The next time
I see him I'll ask him for some examples & report to you.) I still
think that indifference is something different from tolerance, and
that indifference on important issues is not an intellectually
respectable point of view. Are YOU indifferent on religion? I
suspect not; you probably feel that, at the least, it is wrong, and at
most it is a great cause of evil in the world. Even so, I would hope
you are tolerant of its exercise. By the way, although scientists are
ideally impartial, they are by no means indifferent (they woudn't be
scientists if they were). Also, as a group, scientists have been no
more tolerant than anyone else when their fundamental views have been
challenged.
[Hofmann:]
Question authority!
-Bill
[Cox:]
Spoken like a true conservative!
------------------------------
Date: 6 December 1981 22:12-EST
From: Steve Kudlak < FFM at MIT-MC>
Subject: crazies and non-crazies
This is something that's very hard to decide. The whole process of
figuring our how and when a person is incapable of making their own
decisions is not easy.
On one side there are people who are clearly dangerous who have been
allowed to float free in the world and have done some horrible things,
both to themselves and others. On the other side there are just as
many cases of people who were put into the protective custody of the
state for no other reason than that they held unpopular beliefs and
voiced them.
Luckily the later does happen too much any more because it is much
harder these days to have someone committed. The state hospitals used
to have a significant part of their patient population composed of
people who had disagreed with their parents in strong (but non-violent
ways), espoused unpopular beliefs, and the like. These things did
happen and to a certain extent still do.
I really feel we have to be very careful about committing people into
state protective custody. There are a few general guidelines (in my
estimation) mainly dealing with whether the person presents a real
danger to others. There are people who have a compulsively violent
orientation to a specific person and believe that someone "deserves to
die" for some semi-real or imagined reasons. Even here it is difficult
to initially know if someone is a jilted lover who will cool off after
a couple of months or someone who really has become fixed on the idea
that some other person "doesn't deserve to live" and that they should
kill them and try repeatedly to carry this out. It is cases like these
that start up the hew and cry for < < make it easier to commit people to
the state hospitals because there too many dangerous crazies running
around free> > .
Beyond those with compulsive violent fixations (or whatever you want
to call them), there are those so much in another world that they
can't do enough to get food and other necessities; I feel there are
few people who deserve (in any sense) involuntary committment.
I really feel there is no simple solution to these problems and since
we are a society that values our freedoms, it is advisable to only
limit peoples' freedoms in cases where something very bad will happen
otherwise, not inconvienient, not bothersome, BAD.
A curious thing that I have noticed is that when someone who had
psychological problems in the past for which (s)he was treated does
something bad there are headlines to the effect of < < former mental
patient does this bad thing> > ; however when someone of the same type
does something good, there is no mention of their 'mental patient
history' much less putting in the headlines.
Also in general if you put a relatively normal person among a bunch of
'crazies'; the 'crazies' know the normal person doesn't belong there.
SO in some sense they know they are at least different from 'normal'
people.
Enuff flames for awhile...
Have fun
Sends Steve
------------------------------
Date: 07 Dec 1981 0318-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Reason for Government Coining Money
[Edited together from three letters at Jim's request. --JoSH]
First, the US government always had the power to coin money (see the
Constitution, Article I). However, this was not determined to be an
exclusive power until the bank failures around the mid 1800s.
Private banknotes were, if I am not mistaken, actually not currency in
the sense that they were not legal tender. That is, I was not
REQUIRED to accept payment of a debt with a private banknote (which
was in many respects similar to paying a debt with a check), while I
am required to accept greenbacks.
Of course, while the actually coining of currency (you know, silver
(now clad copper) coins, dollar bills, etc...) has always been the
exclusive concern of the government since 1787, the creation of money
has not. Remember, by creating a new demand deposit (offset by a loan
for that amount) a bank has increased the money supply without coining
money.
Since the physical coining of money is growing even less important in
a world ready for electronic funds transfers, we should direct our
attention to the simple creation of money.
Even today that creation is not directly controlled by the government.
True, the Fed requires certain percentages of assests to remain on
deposit, thus keeping banks somewhat checked, and have a whole host of
other mechanisms to control (in a haphazard way) the money supply.
But most of the money you folks use is NOT US currency, but the
product of Bank of America, CitiBank, etc...
To make a long story short, the Bank of the US acted as a stabilizing
force for many decades until it was put out of business. The Bank had
the effect of restricting the money supply, so soft money people hated
it.
The problem with a purely private control of the monetary supply is
that the banks are tempted to expand the money supply at a fast rate.
That is, you, as a banker, are always tempted to loan out money to
people, increasing the amount of money in circulation. This is fine
until the economy slows down (for whatever reason). Then it is good
old inflation and collaspe time, with bank runs all over the place.
The simple problem is that what is rational for private banks to do in
the short run (and they have to be rational in this sense in order to
survive) can, and eventually does, result in a economic collaspe.
Now, one may say that the freedom vs economic stability tradeoff
favors freedom, so to hell with stability. However, you have to admit
the instability factor. A Libertarian society was never claimed to be
safe - only free.
Once again, the world is not black and white.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 7 Dec 1981 0721-PST
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: More on Japan
To flesh out the issue I brought up about the trade imbalance with
Japan:
There is a possibility that, as was obliquely mentioned by some
contributors, it made better economic sense and was in our best
interests to let Japan develop without making it an American captive
market; that we gained more from having a somewhat protectionist Japan
producing and innovating as it saw fit. If that is true, I was hoping
to see some comments that showed evidence that this was analyzed and
the decision consciously made, and that this past analysis SHOULD have
been brought up in the media stories about our trade imbalance. Every
time I read or saw one of those stories, I kept waiting for the
background information that would state something like, "In the post-
World-War-II period, Gen. MacArthur's economic advisors recommended
that Japan be allowed to develop trade policies on its own without
control by the Occupation authorities," or the like, if that was truly
the case, and that we HAD had the opportunity to change the situation
but decided not to, or that we DID try to dictate trade policies and
the Japanese changed them back after the Occupation ended, or
whatever. No story ever mentioned it; it was very frustrating. Part
of the general media conspiracy to control our thoughts and pollute
our precious bodily fluids, no doubt. (Or lazy reporting.)
Regards, Will
------------------------------
Date: 7 Dec 81 12:16:21-EST (Mon)
From: Ron Minnich < minnich.EE@UDel>
Subject: funding organized crime.
In Pennsylvania they get a lot of money from the pizza business.
I kid you not. They control the distribution of mozzarella cheese.
Near the restaurant my family ran was an Italian restaurant that
burned almost yearly. The Pa. government looked into the whole mess
but were helpless to do anything in the face of people who refused
to be witnesses.
I am not sure by what means government over-regulation caused the
problem.
ron
[Touche! -J]
------------------------------
Date: 7-Dec-81 19:38:20 PST (Monday)
From: Newman.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: and what's wrong with Finlandization?
In his message to Poli-Sci Digest V2 #8, APPLE fears that a
"neo-isolationist" U.S. might result in "the Finlandization of
western Europe".
So? Despite (because of?) its policy of "understanding" with
the Soviet Union, Finland remains a Western-style democracy with
a mixed economy. Its standard of living is one of the highest in
the world.
The "Finlandization" of other European countries could have equally
pleasant effects on their economies. If you want to strike fear
into my heart, you'll have to come up with a better example than
this.
/Ron
------------------------------
Date: 8 December 1981 00:00-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: and what's wrong with Finlandization?
The fact is that Finland is severely constrained in its options by the
ever-present threat of the Soviet Union. Here are some excerpts from
an article in TIME about the recent resignation of Findland's
president since 1956, Urho Kaleva Kekkonen.
"The oldest head of state in Europe, Kekkonen governed Finland for
well over a third of its 63 years of independence. . . . He was the
father of a peculiarly Finnish policy that he dubbed 'active
neutrality' and that his critics scorned as 'Finlandization.' In
essence, Kekkonen blended Finland's foreign policy with Moscow's,
endorsing a Soviet-promoted nuclear-free zone in Scandinavia, refusing
to criticize the invasion of Afghanistan and keeping silent on Soviet
human rights abuses in Eastern Europe. In turn, Moscow allowed
Finland autonomy on most internal affairs, although quietly insisting
that the Communist-dominated Finnish People's Democratic League be
included in government coalitions. Kekkonen's supporters insist that
he alone was able to work out a relationship with Moscow that kept his
country from simply being absorbed by its neighbor.
. . .
"After his initial presidential victory, Kekkonen's three re-elections
were never seriously contested. [Interesting and humorous point: a
Finnish schoolgirl, asked to describe her country, wrote 'Finland is a
democracy. We elect a president every six years. His name is
Kekkonen.' - Apple] Moscow even presured the Finnish parliament into
adding four extra years to Kekkonen's third six-year term as a price
for allowing the country to work out a preferential trade agreement
with the EEC. In 1980, Moscow awarded Kekkonen the Lenin Peace Prize
for successfully arranging the Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe that produced the 1975 Helsinki accords, which recognized
Soviet domination in Eastern Europe. . . ."
". . . The Soviet Union has expressed no preferences in the [coming
election] contest. There is no need to. Whoever is elected is
expected to be bound by the precedents of Kekkonen and thus follow a
foreign policy line that will be approved in Moscow."
(quotations from TIME of November 9, 1981)
It's obvious to me that the Finland of today, unlike the valiant
country that resisted overwhelming Soviet force before succumbing
in 1939, has "sold out" to Soviet threats. While it is allowed
considerable internal autonomy, it comes only at the price of
restrictions that no free and independent nation can accept and
still remain free and independent.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 09 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 10
---Short issue---
Contents: The cheese mafia
This issue should also have contained Jim Cox's reply
to Mike Leavitt about statism, but I lost it.
My apologies to all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 December 1981 1014-EST (Tuesday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: the cheese mafia
Is that why I have to pay cash when I go down to the cheese terminal
on our department's monthly cheese coop run? And I mean a lot of
cash.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 11 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 11
---Short---
Contents: Essence of Lib.
So What's Wrong with Finlandization?
There was no digest yesterday because no messages.
I am pleased to have found the mail handler bug which lost
Jim Cox's message, and it's being fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 December 1981 01:39-EST
From: Mario Capitolo < BELLS at MIT-AI>
Subject: Essence of Lib.
Ok, "crazies" have gotten into the picture, and Steve's fine
message brings up many good points. I have a question though, how do
we judge what is right and what is wrong? A typical answer to this
question takes up the philosophy that I had many years ago:
It is moral (correct, ok, whatever) for someone to do
something to his or her person as long as it does not significantly
affect others. Unfortunately, ideal as this is, what about the
example of suicide? Is it ok for one to destroy their $10 worth of
chemicals? From an athiestic or agnostic standpoint, it may be YES.
From a religious standpoint, it is NO; because the religious
standpoint says that one does not own one's body. Here we have two
different views, is only one of these views right? Can't they both
be?
Here is where we get into the "crazies." How do we define
someone as incapable of deciding what is best for oneself? Is logical
suicide impossible? What about duel morality? A libertarian
veiwpoint might say:
"You can kill yourself, IF you do it so that it does
not significantly affect others." Give your boss a
2 week notice?!?
Comments?
< < Bells> >
------------------------------
Date: 10 Dec 1981 10:45:58-PST
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: So What's Wrong with Finlandization?
Better Finlandization than Wastelandization!
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 12 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 12
---105 lines---
Contents: The `vale of tears'
Cheap Drugs
No digest tomorrow, I'll be out of town. At current submission rates
this should be no problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 December 1981 12:01-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < WDH at MIT-MC>
Subject: The `vale of tears'
I thought I disposed of that. The source of religious toleration
in England was NOT "indifference, bred from religious pluralism."
In case you did not notice, I did not quote Mr. Stone with
approval. The source of religious toleration was a decline in
fanaticism, concommittant with the rise of science. [APPLE]
What is religious pluralism? Could it be the acceptance (or lack of
immediate persecution) of more than one sect? If then, as you say,
``The fact is that, as far as most people were concerned, there were
only three important religious groups: the Anglicans, the Roman
Catholics, and the Presbyterians'' indicate that there was in fact
religious pluralism, and thus tolerance? Would most people in the
Reformation (got it right this time!) have felt this way about 3
sects? If not, then what would the cause for the change be but
tolerance?
I still think that indifference is something different from
tolerance, and that indifference on important issues is not an
intellectually respectable point of view. [APPLE]
Sure, I'd agree very strongly with that. Who defines what the
important issues are? That seems to me to be the key to this problem.
You think that one thing is important, I think that it is unimportant,
and vice versa. Thus, I am indifferent on your topic and you on mine.
One of the things I've always noticed is that the classical debate
format (i.e. in high school or college debate, etc.) is somewhat
bogus. Significant arguments are almost never along the lines
``Here's the question, let's argue about it,'' but rather along the
lines ``No! You've got it all WRONG! The important question is
[...]!''
Are YOU indifferent on religion? I suspect not; you probably
feel that, at the least, it is wrong, and at most it is a great
cause of evil in the world. Even so, I would hope you are
tolerant of its exercise. [APPLE]
Someone more eloquent than me had this to say about religion:
\Religious/ suffering is the \expression/ of real suffering and
at the same thime the \protest/ against real suffering. Religion
is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the
\opium/ of the people.
The abolition of religion as people's \illusory/ happiness is the
demand for their \real/ happiness. The demand to abandon
illusions about their condition is a \demand to abandon a
condition which requires illusions./ The criticism of religion is
thus \in embryo a criticism of the vale of tears/ whose \halo/ is
religion. [Marx, \Toward the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of
Law: Introduction/][Marx always goes overboard on italics]
"Question authority!" [me]
Spoken like a true conservative! [APPLE]
Remove authority!
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 11 December 1981 1325-EST (Friday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Cheap Drugs
In answer to the question as to whether legal drugs would be cheap:
The main reason drugs are expensive is that they have to be
smuggled against considerable odds. Police even judge the
effectiveness of their suppression by the street value of a drug.
I've read that one reason a large number of Viet Vets became heroin
users is because it was so cheap there that people would put it in
cigarettes and smoke it (it was also purer, safer, and more potent).
It is easy and cheap to produce enough of most of the common street
drugs to incapacitate anyone so desiring. The only justification for
outlawing drugs appears to be public scruples.
Most of this comes from "The Consumers' Union Report on Licit and
Illicit Drugs" (an excellent book, by the way). They try to be as
objective as possible, studying all known substances that affect
moods: heroin, tobacco, caffein, alcohol, etc. They cover the history
of drug usage, and come up with very interesting conclusions (one of
which is that countries that outlawed tobacco after it was popular
ended up with tobacco junkies almost identical to heroin junkies,
including prostitution and massive thefts to support $100 a day
tobacco habits, etc.). The main difference they found between the two
substances (other than cultural biases) was that heroin is more
universally addicting (99.9% vs. 25% of steady users), but that
tobacco is actually harder to kick (for someone in the 25% that are
true addicts).
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 14 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 13
Contents: Maoism, libertarianism, and the stability of governments
So What's Wrong with Finlandization?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 December 1981 16:44 cst
From: VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan)
Subject: Maoism, libertarianism, and the stability of governments
Libertarians extol the virtues of minimal government. Marx said that
the ideal Communist state would wither away. Throughout history,
communal movements have tried to govern by consensus, rather than by
fiat. On the other side of the coin, authoritarian movements (such as
Socialism, Fascism and the French monarchy) have promoted the
concentration of power in the state.
How has history treated authoritarians and anti-authoritarians? Let's
take a look.
Anti-authoritarian paradigms are hard to find. I'd like to examine
Maoist China and the medieval Decapole of Alsace - partly because each
of these is an anti-authoritarian island in an authoritarian ocean,
whether it be the modern Socialist bloc or medieval Feudalism.
Let's establish credentials. How dare I call Maoist China
anti-authoritarian? Wasn't the Communist Party supreme? Wasn't Mao
an authoritarian dictator like Stalin, Hitler or Franco? Maybe not.
Some say that Mao, as a Communist theoretician, believed in the
withering away of the state. He surely thought ill of the
bureaucratic Soviet state. Though Marx said you can't get to
Communism without going through Socialism first, Mao seems to have
felt that there might be another way - recurring revolution.
Revolution tears down bureaucracy and tradition: things that would
inhibit the growth of Mao's Communist society (remember: "Communist
state" is a contradiction in terms).
But this revolution had to be internalized - external revolution might
harm those guiding the emergence of the "new China." This is the true
anti-authoritarian paradox: how do you keep enough authority to be
able to deny its own legitimacy?
Mao could keep his authority by his own charisma. Let him speak
against the bureaucrats, and they were deposed. He could close the
universities and abolish the officers' corps (hotbeds of paternalism!)
not just de jure, but de facto. He could and did disperse the
intelligentsia to the four corners of China.
And all this vanished authority - how did he replace it? With
personal rule? With new cadres loyal to Mao alone? With a Gestapo,
a Sicherheitsdienst, a GPU, a Cheka, a Guardia Civil? (For all you
Hitler, Stalin and Franco fans out there) No. His authority was a
faceless, nameless, anarchic rabble called the Red Guards, without
permanent members, cadre or chief.
That sounds anti-authoritarian to me. Not Libertarian; Maoists didn't
believe in individual liberties, or individual rights. But they
didn't believe in authority either.
***** ***** *****
Alsace is a strip of land on the left bank of the Rhine. It's nice
fertile country, separated from Germany by the river and from France
by low mountains. The inhabitants once spoke a Germanic language
related to Swiss; many still do.
Alsace contains one large city (Strasbourg) and several less-important
ones. In the Middle Ages, these were closer in size than they are
now. Ten of these cities constituted the Decapole, which was the
entire government of the region.
Alsace was part of Lotharingia, the kingdom given to Lothar, the
middle of Charlemagne's three grandsons. Lotharingia would have been
an interesting administrative district in a modern state, but it was
utterly indefensible, and it collapsed under the onslaughts of
Charlemagne's other two grandsons, Charles the Fat and Louis the
German, and their descendants.
The French and German states formed slowly, over the course of
centuries. During that time, Alsace belonged nominally to the Empire
but in fact ruled itself. The Empire was not interested in the area,
and as there was no local prince, most of the cities were granted
Imperial charters of freedom. Some cities, for example Wissembourg,
belonged to the Church.
The "libertarian Army" question of a few digests ago has an
interesting answer from the Decapole. The castle of Berwartstein in
the Hardt mountains commanded the road from northern Alsace to the
western Palatinate, an area ruled by numerous feudal nobles.
Berwartstein was occupied at one time by a notorious robber knight,
whose true name escapes me, but who still frightens Alsatian children
under the name of Hans Trapp, the local bogeyman.
Berwartstein preyed viciously on this trade route for several years.
Eventually Wissembourg and two other nearby cities couldn't take the
losses any more. Putting together an ad hoc militia, they besieged
Berwartstein, at length taking the castle, torching it and
slaughtering the inhabitants. Then they went home and back to their
occupations.
The Decapole wasn't actively anti-authoritarian - it's just that there
wasn't much authority there, and nobody seemed to miss it. They
weren't Libertarians either, but individual liberty was stronger in
the area than in most of contemoporary Europe.
***** ***** *****
Neither of these states is around any more. Maoist China was taken
over by bureaucrats even before Mao's bones were cold. The Decapole
was conquered (without a fight) by the first real king who took an
interest in the area (Louis XIV, as it happens).
Non-authoritarian states are extremely vulnerable to authority. They
just aren't stable. They can fall in many ways, from within or from
without. The Paris Commune and the U.S. under the Articles of
Confederation both fell to more authoritarian forms of government.
Soon the French had Napoleon. Later we got LBJ.
I don't like to say something has never happened, because immediately
somebody finds the counterexample I never heard of. So I'll just say
I don't know of any authoritarian government gradually becoming less
authoritarian. Authoritarian states only fall by revolution or war.
Marx had it backwards. It's not the Socialist state that would wither
away to be replaced by a Communist society; in fact a Communist
society, or any other non-authoritarian society, would wither away to
be gradually replaced by a state (sigh).
------------------------------
Date: 11 December 1981 23:45-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: So What's Wrong with Finlandization?
"Better Finlandization than Wastelandization!"
I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I think it's related
to "better Red than dead."
If so, then I think this reflect a basic incompatibility in our
thinking. I know of no argument to use to convince you that these
rights are worth fighting (and dying) for, except to point out that
some people in Poland, who have a much better idea than you or I of
what it is like to live under totalitarian rule, agree with me. It is
one of the great ironies of our time that, at the same time people in
the West are seriously advocating policies that bring Communist rule
closer, millions of others unfortunate enough to be already under that
rule are fighting desperately for freedom from it. Perhaps those
pacifist demonstrators would be willing to solve the problem by
switching places with the members of Solidarity? Somehow, I doubt it.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 15 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 14
Contents: So What's Wrong with Finlandization? (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Dec 1981 09:14:22-PST
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: So What's Wrong with Finlandization?
"Better Finlandization than Wastelandization!"
I know of no argument to use to convince you that these
rights are worth fighting (and dying) for, except to
point out that some people in Poland, who have a much
better idea than you or I of what it is like to live
under totalitarian rule, agree with me.
Who said anything about totalitarian rule? I thought we were
talking about Finland. The article you read into the record about the
"domination" of Finland by Russia sounded substantially less alarming
than either the situation in Poland or the prospect of a radioactive
homeland. I too regret that Finland was dissuaded from protesting the
Russian invasion of Afghanistan, since that would so clearly have
caused the Russians to withdraw.
Incidentally, since you speak with such authority about the views of
the Poles, I might point out that my wife is "refugee" from Poland,
agrees with both you and me about how obnoxious the Russians are and
is just as jaundiced about the US military view of the world as I am.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: 14 December 1981 21:30-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: So What's Wrong with Finlandization?
"Who said anything about totalitarian rule? ....."
The thing is there's not a fine line between Finlandization and the
imposition of totalitarian rule. History has demonstrated that the
only effective response to an aggressor is a strong military.
Appeasement only whets the appetite of nations seeking aggrandizement
(remember Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time").
This is something that peaceniks forget. They would do well to
remember Lord Acton's observation that "eternal vigilance is the price
of liberty." Personally, I would love to see, for example, nuclear
weapons reduced in Europe. This would have to be a bilateral
reduction, though. This is why I support President Reagan's unique
initiative.
Apparently your sarcasm indicates that you have little respect for the
sovereign right of nations to determine their foreign policy.
"Incidentally, ...."
About one third of the Polish population belong to Solidarity, and I
find this authority enough to say that many Poles oppose totalitarian
rule. No one would question that they do this at great risk to their
lives and well-being.
I would describe the Russians as slightly worse than "obnoxious." The
ONLY thing that has kept them out of Poland (at least for the time
being) is the threat of Western retalitation (in various forms). And
the measure of autonomy that Finland is presently allowed wouldn't
last long at the slightest deviation from Soviet expectations.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 16 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 15
Contents: The Situation in Poland (2 msgs)
Withering non-authoritarians
What communism?
So What's Wrong with Finlandization?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 December 1981 07:38-EST
From: Gail Zacharias < GZ at MIT-MC>
Subject: the "situation in Poland"
Let me just point out that the workers in Poland are not fighting
against socialism. That is not just a phrase used to appease the
Russians -- the people really do not wish to give up the gains made
under socialism, such as paid-for vacations, free medical care, etc.
And while they want LOCAL control over food distribution, industry,
etc., they do not want PRIVATE control (except possibly for the
farmers, who do want to own their land).
------------------------------
Date: 15 Dec 1981 0716-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Poland
Well, anyone want to take bets on when the Russians invade? If
things get out of control (which it looks like they are doing),
then it probably will happen. The union just pushed too hard on
demanding a non-socialist state. The only good that will come of
this is to paint the Soviets in their true colors - paranoids
who, if they had their way, would crush the rest of the world in
the name of "defense." Maybe some people in Western Europe will
learn from this - but somehow I doubt it.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 15 December 1981 0907-EST (Tuesday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Withering non-authoritarians
I think that you may be right, unfortunately. The two
examples I've heard of of semi-democratic government from those times,
Holland and Venice, were both re-monarcised (?) in fairly short order.
However, there is this idea of a "mood of the times", where for some
reason different periods lead to different styles of government.
Middle Ages -> monarchies, 1700s -> democracies, 1900s ->
dictatorships. Mind you, this is all in terms of what form of
government arises after revolutions, and I'm not necessarily endorsing
this theory, only bringing it up for consideration.
------------------------------
Date: 15 December 1981 12:52-EST
From: RT at MIT-MC
Subject: What communism?
It is one of the great ironies of our time that, at the same
time people in the West are seriously advocating policies
that bring Communist rule closer, millions of others
unfortunate enough to be already under that rule are
fighting desperately for freedom from it. [Apple]
The greatest irony of our time is the myth that somehow Russia,
Poland, China, etc. are communist countries. This is as close to
the truth as America is to Adam Smith's capitalism or the Vatican is
to the kingdom of God.
Communism by definition means COMPLETE POLITICAL and ECONOMIC
DEMOCRACY. That is elections and mass participation in decision
making from the workplace (yes, you will vote for your boss,
manager, and how to run your workplace) all the way to local,
regional, and global management (no, communism does not believe in
artificial boundaries of country, race, religion, etc.) To make
this happen, the control of capital (i.e. the productive wealth of
humankind) must become democratic.
The systems of Russia and China are mockeries of communism. What
they really are are centralized bureaucracies imposing their
complete authority over the people. The leaders of the Russian
Communist Party (sic) have as much control over capital as the
owners and the elite of America do. The scientific name for the
Russian and Chinese systems is Stalinism, named after the famous
butcher of history who turned against his revolution and vowed to
manipulate future revolutions in his rivalry for world domination.
[My Random House defines communism as "(1) a theory or system of
social organization based on the holding of all property in com-
mon, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole
or to the state. (2) a system of social organization in which
all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian
state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
(3) (cap.) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
(4) communalism. { < L communis + ism, coined in 1840 by Goodwyn
Barmby}"
Communalism has a definition essentially equivalent to #1. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 15 Dec 1981 13:24:14-PST
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: So What's Wrong with Finlandization?
History has demonstrated that the only effective response to
an aggressor is a strong military. Appeasement only whets
the appetite of nations seeking aggrandizement (remember
Neville Chamberlain and "peace in our time").
I'm sure that Ghandi would be amused to hear you explain the massive
force he used to expell the British from India.
The assertion made here is that the only alternative to
"fighting and dying" for freedom, is appeasement and capitulation. In
other words, people who question the former logically must endorse the
latter. Not only is this a vicious slander against such people, but
it betrays an unflattering lack of imagination and determination to
find alternatives.
Let me respond for you: "Well, what other alternatives are there?"
I say, look at your own message:
About one third of the Polish population belong to
Solidarity, and I find this authority enough to say that
many Poles oppose totalitarian rule. No one would question
that they do this at great risk to their lives and
well-being.
I don't see the Poles "fighting and dying" for their freedom. I see
them making effective, explicitly non-violent resistance. In fact, it
is even reasonable to say that a large part of the moral capital they
enjoy comes from that non-violence. Do you imagine that their cause
would be advanced by fighting a nuclear war over it? Do you believe
that it is only the threat of invasion from the West that prevented
the Russians from interfering more actively with Solidarity? Of
course not. Then why do you equate skepticism about the need for
violence/war with desire for subservience? The fact is that Finland
is doing much better than either Europe or the USA would do after a
nuclear exchange. So is Sweden. So is Turkey. So is Switzerland.
So is Iran. So is Pakistan. So is India. None of these powers are
capable of resisting Soviet aggrandizement, none have other nation's
nukes on their soil. And none seem very cowed to me.
There are two points of disagreement here. The first is that if you
don't want to fight, you have to capitulate, to surrender all of your
freedom and plunge your nation into a Soviet hell. This is nonsense.
The second is that nuclear conflict is somehow "worth it". This is
worse than nonsense. Yes, I admit it: I think Finland is better off
tolerating a certain amount of interference from abroad. But if you
think that fighting a nuclear war will preserve your freedom, you are
dead wrong. I just hope your relatives will know what it is they are
dying for. I certainly hope you get a chance to explain how their
deaths are advancing the cause of freedom before they burn up.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 17 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 16
Contents: Soviet Goals and Strategies, and What We Should
Do about It (three long messages)
2 messages remain in the queue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Dec 1981 2049-PST
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
Subject: Soviet goals and strategies
[The piece below was sent to ARMS-D a few days ago. My apologies
to those on both lists who have seen it.]
I think a discussion of how nuclear weapons fit into national goals
and the strategies for achieving them might be valuable. Let me
start with the USSR, for which I will make what I believe to be the
conservative assumption that the leadership of the USSR will not be
constrained from any action because of negative or fatal effects on
large groups of people.
Positive Goals of USSR Leadership
1.0 Preserve and extend the power of the Soviet leadership; increase
the political, economic and military power of the USSR.
The subheadings below suggest a spectrum of goals, from optimistic
(1.1) to pessimistic (1.4).
1.1 Make as many countries as possible socialist republics, directly
ruled by the Moscow Politburo. Priority given to countries in
geographical proximity to the USSR.
1.2 Make as many countries as possible socialist, client states tied
to Moscow economically and ideologically. Priority given to countries
in geographical proximity to the USSR.
1.3 Maintain and consolidate the present group of socialist client
states now lead by Moscow; strengthen economic and military ties.
1.4 Maintain and consolidate the existing geopolitical position of the
USSR.
2.0 Negative Goals of USSR Leadership
2.1 Prevent Maoist/Chinese influence from spreading.
2.1.1 Deal with the dissident/heresy problem as characterized by
Sakharov and Walesa (out of power forces) as well as Mao, Tito and
Sadat (in power forces).
2.3 Prevent the Islamic Revolution from influencing the large number
of practicing moslems inside the USSR (I believe they constitute 20%
or so of the Soviet population; I also seem to recall that their
fertility is greater than the non-moslem part of the population).
3.0 Some Goal-Achieving Strategies
3.1 Ordinary - accepted as possible Soviet courses of action by the
Pentagon and other traditional analysts.
Higher numbers are extreme and have high risk; lower numbers generally
have less risk.
3.1.1 Isolationism - ignore affairs outside Soviet borders while
building a 'Fortress Motherland' whose economic and military power
cannot be challenged by the imperialists.
Potential gains - KGB can be unleashed to crush dissidents.
The economic cost of client support drops to zero.
Potential losses - influence in present client states; growth
of US influence in the world.
Risks - long term possibility of economic/technological/
military threat from a hostile world dominated by the US.
3.1.2 Maintain the status quo - Continue support for existing clients
(Cuba, South Yemen, Iraq, selected African states, Eastern Europe,
etc) but undertake no new and questionable projects like Afghanistan.
Potential gains - Economic cost of client support is
stabilized.
Potential losses - USSR freedom of action is constrained.
Risks - USSR military security could be threatened if buffer
states are taken over by hostile regimes.
3.1.3 Foster 'Wars of National Liberation'. Aid existing socialist
rebels if possible, use client state military forces if necessary, and
use Soviet forces if required. Avoid situations in which
confrontations with the US might arise. [I believe this to be the
present Soviet position - D.C.]
Potential gains - Continued expansion of Soviet influence.
Potential losses - Economic drain of client support. Loss of
prestige/influence in failure situations.
Risks - Minimal
3.1.4 Major diplomatic offensive - make the arab states (especially
the Saudis) clients and combine them into an effective anti-Israel and
anti-US force which will use the oil weapon against the West.
Potential gains - New oil source for USSR; a new set of USSR
client states; major negative economic impact on US and
countries within its sphere of influence.
Potential losses - Expensive and difficult project; loss of
USSR prestige on failure. Probable loss of existing
economic and technological benefits from the West.
Possible unrest among Soviet moslems if a positive approach to
the Islamic Revolution is used.
Risks - Excessive economic dislocation in the West might
provoke a strategic military confrontation with the USSR.
3.1.5 Use military threat or action (preferably by client proxies) to
cut off the flow of oil from the middle east to the West.
Potential gains - major negative economic impact on US and
countries within its sphere of influence.
Potential losses - Probable loss of existing economic and
technological benefits from the West.
Risks - Military action by and/or excessive economic
dislocation in the West might provoke a strategic military
confrontation with the USSR. See 3.1.9.
3.1.6 Conquer the middle east and its oil.
Potential gains - New oil source for USSR; a new set of USSR
client states; major negative economic impact on US and
countries within its sphere of influence.
Potential losses - Probable loss of existing economic and
technological benefits from the West.
Risks - Military action by and/or excessive economic
dislocation in the West might provoke a strategic military
confrontation with the USSR. See 3.1.9.
3.1.7 Blitzkrieg conquest of Europe by conventional forces while
deterring any imperialist nuclear weapons use with Soviet
nuclear forces.
Potential gains - European countries made clients (or parts)
of the USSR.
Potential losses - Large short term expenses in prosecuting
the war and in administering/organizing Europe afterward.
Risks - Deterrence may not work; see 3.1.9. The blitzkrieg
may not work - a long war would be very expensive and with US
on the side of the Europeans the USSR might eventually lose.
Eastern European states may be unreliable as a corridor for
logisitic support.
3.1.9 Conquer Europe in a limited nuclear war.
Potential gains - European countries made clients (or parts)
of the USSR.
Potential losses - Large short term expenses in prosecuting
the war and in administering/organizing Europe afterward.
Major damage to Europe and the western USSR from nuclear
weapons use.
Risks - Escalation into a full scale nuclear war. Especially
risky if deterrence fails and there is a first strike by the
US. See 3.1.9.
3.1.9 Defeat the US in a general nuclear war starting with a Soviet
first strike.
Potential gains - The USSR dominates the world.
Potential losses - The USSR and much of the dominated world
devastated; tens or hundreds of millions of casualties.
Risks - If key operational parameters in the first strike
are slightly off calculated values, the population and
industry of the USSR suffer massive damage. The Chinese are
in the best position to survive a nuclear war; they are
likely to be the dominating force in what is left of the
world.
3.2 Innovative - strategies apparently not considered by the US.
3.2.1 Major diplomatic offensive - make Japan a client state. Japan
is close to the USSR and could be a source for technology and consumer
products. Japan is a major world industrial power.
Potential gains - Big economic win for the USSR; corresponding
loss for the West. Japan is a natural enemy of China and
could assume some of the burden of containing the Chinese.
Potential losses - Expensive and difficult project; loss of
USSR prestige on failure. Probable loss of existing economic
and technological benefits from the West.
Risks - Could provoke a military confrontation with the US
and/or China.
3.2.2 Conquer Japan
Potential gains - Big economic win for the USSR; corresponding
loss for the West.
Potential losses - Japan would require amphibious operations
for an invasion; this would be difficult and costly with
conventional forces, verging on impossible in the face of
nuclear opposition.
Risks - Both the US and China would view this as a major
provocation; probability of escalation is high. See 3.1.9.
4.0 Conclusions
The risks and/or costs of strategies involving or even getting close
to nuclear weapons use are quite high. Cost/benefit ratios and
prudent risk reduction would seem to incline the Soviets toward
strategies that avoid Cuban-missile type confrontations with the US.
Comments ?
------------------------------
Date: 15 December 1981 23:29-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Finlandization and Related Topics
"I'm sure that Ghandi would be amused to hear you explain the
massive force he used to expell [sic] the British from India.
The British DECIDED to leave India, and left willingly. Events in
Algeria and Indochina demonstrate that when a colonial power wants
to stay, the only way to drive it out is by force.
"The assertion made here is that the only alternative to
'fighting and dying' for freedom, is appeasement and
capitulation."
Exactly.
"I don't see the Poles 'fighting and dying' for their
freedom. I see them making effective, explicitly
non-violent resistance. In fact, it is even reasonable to
say that a large part of the moral capital they enjoy comes
from that non-violence. "
I would say that the Polish people are just in the first stages of
their struggle against tyranny, although from recent events, this
struggle is rapidly advancing. You may very well see Poles "fighting
and dying for their freedom" within the very near future. In fact,
there is no way Solidarity will realize its objectives without a
fierce struggle, in my opinion. Totalitarian governments just work
that way.
"Do you imagine that their cause would be advanced by fighting a
nuclear war over it?"
This is patently ridiculous.
"Do you believe that it is only the threat of invasion from the
West that prevented the Russians from interfering more actively
with Solidarity?"
I believe it is only the threat of reprisals by the West that has
prevented (until now, at least) a more active Soviet role in Poland.
These reprisals would have no credibility were it not for Western
military security. Do you see any possibility of, for example,
Finland's having a decisive influence on Soviet behavior? Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan have all tried to deviate from the
Soviet line. None of these countries had the military power to deal
with the Soviet Union, or guarantees from those who did. The results
speak for themselves.
". . . why do you equate skepticism about the need for
violence/war with desire for subservience?"
No one desires subservience. I say that the result of insufficient
preparation for war/violence is usually subservience. Had Britain and
France prepared themselves better before World War II, it might never
have taken place. Had they occupied Germany in 1932(?) when that
country re-fortified the Rhineland (in violation of the Versailles
Treaty), or had they declared war upon the Anschluss of Austria in
1938, or had they even objected to the later annexation of the
Sudentenland, the war might never have taken place; it would certainly
have been shorter. In summation, if the Allies had not compromised
with (appeased) Nazi Germany, there would have been much, much less
destruction perpetrated upon the world.
"The fact is that Finland is doing much better than either Europe
or the USA would do after a nuclear exchange. So is Sweden.
So is Turkey. So is [etcetera]. None of these powers are [sic]
capable of resisting Soviet aggrandizement, none have other
nation's nukes on their soil. And none seem very cowed to me."
The Soviet leaders are ruthless, opportunistic men, who will do
everything they can safely do to increase their power and influence in
the world. This is recognized by people whose political views range
from Francois Mitterrand's to William F. Buckley, Jr.'s. President
Carter learned this lesson; unfortunately, it took him three years to
do so. The Soviets stop only at the limit of U.S. tolerance. I
repeat that the only reason any of the countries you mentioned is safe
(to whatever degree) is the threat of Western retaliation.
"The second [point of disagreement] is that nuclear conflict is
somehow "worth it.' This is worse than nonsense. Yes, I admit
it: I think Finland is better off tolerating a certain amount of
interference from abroad. But of you think that fighting a
nuclear war will preserve your freedom, you are dead wrong.
I think the preparation and will to fight a war, if necessary,
will preserve my (and your) freedom. I pray to God that nuclear war
is never necessary. I don't know whether I would be able to "press
the button" if I were President, even in response to a massive Soviet
strike. But any opponent of the U.S. must believe that we can and
will use whatever force may be required to preserve our freedom
and security.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Dec 81 14:03:02-EST (Wed)
From: J C Pistritto < jcp@BRL>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V2 #15
About appeasement vs. nuclear war:
While it is true that the choice is usually not simply between
armed resistance to aggression and total surrender, there ARE
situations, (and I believe the Western world finds itself in one),
where these are the only viable alternatives.
It is the avowed intention, restated hundreds of times daily,
(just listen to Radio Moscow), of the Soviet Union for 'the Socialist
Revolution' to spread throughout the world. The means they use to
further this goal vary depending on the situation. Most nations are
not simply presented with the choice 'surrender or die', because most
individual nations, in and of themselves, do not constitute an asset
valuable enough for the Soviets to start a war over. The Soviets
consider the cost of war extremely high, and therefore avoid it at
almost all costs in their policy. If one examines the record of
Soviet advances around the world, one finds that rarely are Soviet
troops used, and NEVER where effective resistance is expected.
(Afghanistan was a surprise for them.)
This does NOT mean, however, that the Soviets can ever be
dissuaded from dominating the world, rather, that they will use less
direct methods wherever possible. This is the primary reason that
Western resistance to Russian advances is so important, because the
Soviets will use absolutely ANY technique necessary to further their
goals, provided the expected benefits outweigh the costs. A rational
person would not engage in a nuclear war with a superpower, witness
the fact that one hasn't occured. This means, to me, that rational
people control the superpowers, or at least their military mechanisms.
A rational (Soviet) person, might, however, invade Poland, as it is
well known that what is happening in Poland is an embarrassment to the
USSR, further, one which has caused many third world countries to
doubt the propaganda handed out by Moscow about 'the successes of
Socialism.' Therefore, it is perfectly logical for Russia to invade
Poland, execute all the Solidarity leaders, etc., merely to remove a
costly thorn in their side. They will, of course, minimize the cost,
which is where the West comes in. The costs of such an action, from
the Russian point of view, are almost entirely composed of the costs
relative to the West, ie. loss of trade, political loss of face, etc.
Hence, they have found a method which involves less potential cost,
getting the Polish military to do all this for them, under the
watchful eye of Quisling Jaruzelski.
In conclusion, my main point here, which may have gotten lost
in the fray, was that the important principal is to MAXIMIZE the cost
of aggressive action by the Soviets, including, but not limited to,
military costs in the form of actual resistance. In some cases, this
is not practical, (the Polish situation), military power is not very
useful, so other methods must be used.
-JCP-
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 18 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 17
Contents: Maoist China
Polish Workers and Socialism
Nonviolent Resistance
Force Between Nations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 December 1981 18:12 est
From: Seth A. Steinberg < SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-Multics>
Subject: Maoist China
Claiming that Mao's China was even slightly anti-authoritarian
is incorrect. Mao's key power base was always the army. His
group avoided major confrontation with the Japanese unlike the
Nationalist forces whom Mao later forced out. As usual the
Mao slowly replaced the inner army cadre, removing most of the
survivors of WW-II. The country was always totalitarian and
ineffectively governed (in the sense of providing for the needs
of the people). Mao was not a lot different from Stalin in his
attacks on the intellectual class and his murder of any rivals.
The Red Guard was under very tight control. While it was made
up of "rowdy" teenagers, they were tightly organized and under
the control of party cadre's who were finally responsible to
Mao. The Red Guard had little or no impact on the army which
still retained the real power. The Red Guard was part of Mao's
purge of the "traditional" elements still extant in China.
Terrorizing those standing in the way of the "new socialist
(wo)man" is not particularly anti-authoritarian.
It is not a good idea to confuse the rhetoric of an ideologue
with his actions. Remember, Qaddafi claims to have (almost)
removed all government in Libya.
------------------------------
Date: 16 December 1981 17:12-EST
From: Bill Swartout < Bill Hofmann < WDH at MIT-MC> at MIT-AI>
Subject: Polish workers and socialism
As Gail Zacharias points out, Solidarity is not anti-socialist.
Consider the 21 Demands (the agreement at the end of the August 1980
strike). (To my knowledge, they've never been printed in mainstream
US press.) Among the results of this agreement was the agreement to
allow workers to elect managers in all but strategic industries,
Solidarity access to television and 3 year paid maternity leave. If
these are anti-socialist, then I'm Ronald Reagan. (P.S.-they were
printed in the July (?) issue of Radical America, not to mention in
LINK this fall)
The threat that Solidarity poses to the USSR (and on down the road to
the US) is obvious--it is the threat of collective decision-making.
The USSR is about as collectively-run as the US, and any strong
popular bid for decision-making power is a real threat. The USSR
isn't alone in fearing such threats--the whole US policy towards the
Third World (especially Latin America) is designed to contain popular
control of government institutions. From Indonesia and the Philipines
to South Africa to Turkey and Pakistan to Saudia Arabia and Egypt to
Chile, Argentina, Guatelmala and El Salvador, US power supports
brutal, authoritarian regimes. And while we're at it, (since it will
no doubt be pointed out to me) let's not forget most of Eastern Europe
and Afghanistan.
-Bill
P.S.--to JoSH--Since when is the Random House dictionary an authority
on communism? The terms socialism and communism have widely varying
meanings. RT's usage represents that of a strong current of
socialism. The countries that call themselves socialist (esp. USSR
and China) have an interest in what is called conceptual embezzelment,
just as the countries that call themselves democratic. If a state
says ``WE are truly (socialist)(democratic), and if you don't agree
with us, you are a (counter-revolutionary)(communistic (or as Richard
Allen would put it, bolshevik) traitor,'' and presents in its
educational system a systematic reinforcement of that, then if you
disagree, you immediately become one of the enemy.
[Websters also, defn 2b, begins "A totalitarian system of government
..." I merely wished to point out that there may be definitions of
communism that are "necessarily democratic", the generally accepted
definition does not *necessarily* imply democracy. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 17 December 1981 0930-EST (Thursday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: nonviolent resistance
Solidarity can certainly do many nonviolent things that will cause
Poland immense troubles. They were already doing some of those
things. The army tells you to go to work or they'll shoot you? No
problem. Just go to work. They didn't tell you that you actually had
to do any work, or that you had to work very hard. There are 59k
militia and 10 million Solidarity members. They can't watch everyone
at once. There are all sorts of little "accidents" that can happen.
In short, if Solidarity members wanted to, they could cause
productivity and industrial production to drop near zero, and food
production too. Unfortunately, the SU doesn't like to have one of its
"allies" in a state of chaos, so it would have to go in and clean
things up. But how? They'd wind up having to man the factories and
farms. The people would be more like slaves that would have to be
constantly watched. The experience would probably seem like trying to
get someone who's gone limp to stand up. Everytime you let go, he
falls down. Sounds like Vietnam. The result would be continuing
great expense for the Soviet Union with no end in sight. They can't
just go around shooting people who don't work hard. The West wouldn't
tolerate murdering people who aren't violently resisting.
If Solidarity members really mean what they say, I'd say that the
above is what is going to happen in the near future. The Polish Army
hasn't used any real violence (killed nobody), and the workers haven't
resisted violently (or at least not real violently).
What do you think that the average Pole, standing in a food line half
thew day, every day, in the winter, thinks of the government and SU?
How easy do you think it is to govern people that are that mad at you?
------------------------------
Date: 17 Dec 1981 12:31:07-PST
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: Force between nations
The British DECIDED to leave India, and left willingly.
I see. Obviously, the British left voluntarily because no force was
used to expel them. Therefore, force is the only way to expel
invaders.
Events in Algeria and Indochina demonstrate that when a
colonial power wants to stay, the only way to drive it
out is by force.
I don't know where you learned logic, but not only is this untrue, it
CANNOT be logically true. Such events can only demonstrate that force
is ONE WAY to get an invader to leave. It says nothing about any
alternatives.
"The assertion made here is that the only alternative
to 'fighting and dying' for freedom, is appeasement
and capitulation."
Exactly.
The only reason any of the countries you mentioned is safe
(to whatever degree) is the threat of Western retaliation.
This kind of thinking reminds me of the guy who carried around his
neck a 50-pound charm to ward off wild elephant attacks. Why? Seen
any wild elephants lately? This might be called ratchet thinking, and
comes from the fact that danger is easy to prove, and safety
impossible. The Russians haven't invaded Turkey yet? Well, they're
just waiting for their chance. They have a "massive" superiority in
conventional forces in Europe but they haven't used them? It's only a
matter of time. The Poles haven't had to pick up guns yet? Just you
wait.
"That their cause would be advanced by fighting a
nuclear war over it" is patently ridiculous.
Then why do you equate nuclear disarmament with surrender?
"Do you believe that it is only the threat of invasion
from the West that prevented the Russians from
interfering more actively with Solidarity?"
I believe it is only the threat of reprisals by the West...
These reprisals would have no credibility were it not for
Western military security.
In other words: "yes". But it was not military might that dissuaded
the Russians from invading Poland. As you and the President are so
fond of pointing out, the Soviets enjoy a large advantage in
conventional military force in Europe. Only an idiot believes that
the Russians expected either Carter or Reagan to invade Poland. What
kept them out of Poland was 1) the desire to avoid alienating the
third world even more than had been the case than with Afghanistan, 2)
the fear of uncontrollable dissent in their other satellites, and (to
a lesser extent) 3) negative economic consequences. All these have
only a peripheral relationship to the might of the West.
Let's face it. The Soviet empire is economically incompetent and
morally corrupt. This has led not to more security, as you would have
us believe, but to less. They are surrounded by neighbors who are not
only invitations to sedition by their success, but who are actively
unfriendly, not because of the fear of being invaded but because of
moral differences with the Russians. China is the canonical example:
they became more, not less, likely to be invaded when they split from
Russia, yet split they did. Military force has not bent them a bit.
On the other hand, what do you think has been responsible for the
respect the Soviets enjoy in black Africa? It has been their support
of movements of black liberation and their fight against the white
regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia. America's stock there went up
immeasurably during the Carter administration, not because we sent
troops there, but because Andy Young TALKED to them as if they were
real nations with real concerns. If you think the ONLY thing the
Russians understand is force, then I'd appreciate it if you'd send me
a troop count of the army Sakharov used this week to get the Kremlin
to back down.
It is not military force which makes nations strong, but moral
force. And moral capital is not gained by idle speculation about the
"survivability" of nuclear war. It is not gained by bellicose
rhetoric directed at our enemies. It is not gained by asserting our
willingness to fight and die in a nuclear war. It is gained by being
a good world neighbor, by making sure the world and the Soviets know
that NOTHING will stand in the way of our efforts to make the world
safe from nuclear conflict.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 19 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 18
Contents: Force Between Nations (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 December 1981 03:00-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Force between nations
Expelling Colonial Powers:
Perhaps I wasn't clear in making my point. When a colonial power
has a large interest in staying, force is the only thing that will
drive it out. This was the case in Indochina, and it is the case in
Poland now. It didn't take much Indian protest to make the British
decide it wasn't worth the candle. The British were growing tired of
their international responsibilities, and the independence of India
was just one element of their withdrawal from first-rate power status.
The Indochinese and Algerian experiences DO say something about
the relative effectiveness of armed resistence and non-violent
resistence. After years of the latter, the French were still there.
Long, bloody wars finally drove them out.
Western Retaliation and Safety:
I based my conclusions on strong evidence that Soviet
interference in various countries is highly correlated with the laxity
of Western opposition to such interference. The Soviets have moved
very cautiously in Poland precisely because of repeatedly voiced
statements from the West warning of the serious consequences of not
doing so. On the other hand, the Soviets felt free to instruct puppet
Fidel Castro to pour in troops to Angola. You see, the Congress of
the United States had just passed a bill forbidding aid to people in
that country resisting the threatened imposition of totalitarian
Communism. And with the incompetent Jimmy Carter in office, the
Soviets knew that all they had to fear was a silly boycott of the
Olympics and an ineffective grain embargo, and so went ahead with
their plans for the invasion of Afghanistan.
Nuclear Disarmament:
The Polish cause would not be advanced by fighting a nuclear over
it. On the other hand, our cause would be retarded by giving the
Soviets nuclear dominion over the world, which would be the result of
unilateral disarmament. Why do you think so many countries in the
world are so hot after getting nuclear weapons themselves? There must
be some benefit in them unless you think that most of the leaders in
the world are insanely irrational. I refer you to a line from Tom
Lehrer's song "Who's Next?":
Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self-defense.
"The Lord's our Shepherd," says the Psalm
But just in case we better get a bomb!
In place of Israel, you may substitute Pakistan, Iraq, India, Libya,
South Africa, and a host of others, and the stanza is just as true.
Soviet Union and China:
In case you didn't realize it, at the time of the Great
Disagreement, China had quite a formidable military force. The U.S
found that out in Korea.
Soviet Union and Black Africa:
Yes, it's true that the Soviet Union enjoys a good reputation in
parts of Black Africa. It so happens that many of those states that
look with favor on the Soviet Union are the ones that have socialist-
leaning governments. They liked Andy Young because he told them what
they wanted to hear, which often wasn't what President Carter wanted
him to say. That's why he was fired. The Soviet Union doesn't have
that problem, since it has ALWAYS had the policy of telling people
what they want to hear.
I never said "the only thing the Russians understand is force."
Having such a recognized figure as Sakharov go on a hunger strike was
naturally a great embarrassment to them, and it didn't cost a whole
lot to give his daughter-in-law the exit visa. But if you think
Sakharov would have won if he'd asked for something which would have
been hard for the Soviet Union to do, you're wrong.
Moral Force:
I agree that moral force is important, and contributes to the
strength of a nation. But I also think that, unfortunately, military
power is more important. You yourself admitted that the "Soviet
empire is . . . morally corrupt." Yet it is also immensely strong.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 1981 11:21:31-PST
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: Force between nations
Let's look at the issue of military force vs. moral force this way:
Call military force a lever, and moral force the placement of the
fulcrum on which it rests, so that a corrupt government requires a
bigger lever to maintain control, while a popular one needs to apply
practically no force. Vietnam is the perfect example of this; the
massive force the US applied to that nation compared to that of the
opposition was overcome in a very real sense by the determination of
the opposition, and by the weakness of fighting a war not popularly
supported either at home or abroad.
Well, right there you have the answer to the question of why the
Russians maintain such an egregiously large militia; they need it to
keep their "allies" in line. Unfortunately, a large militia is not
without cost. Thus, in addition to their economic incompetence, they
have to pay to keep their regime crutched up. The result is a waning
empire, perhaps one within a decade of collapse.
Now, if we want to oppose them, we can do it with moral force,
military force, or both. We can apply moral force by being better
than they are, by basing our alliances not on power-bloc
considerations but on the degree of civilization a regime exhibits.
We can be better than they are by acting reluctant to apply military
force, rather than appearing anxious, as Haig and Reagan do (I'm
talking about appearances now), to storm the world in defense of
democracy, to prove our national manhood. And we can be better than
they are by setting out to make the world safe for peace. I feel you
are perfectly justified when you point out that a world in which only
our enemies have nukes is less safe than the world today. The
struggle we should be engaging is to shift the battleground between
the East and West from the military sphere to the economic, to the
rhetorical, to the political, to ANYTHING but military. I realize
this will take a good deal of cleverness and determination, and likely
a bit of pride-swallowing as well (giving up blaming is a good place
to start).
Throughout this long discussion, I have been trying to get you to
admit that military force is not the only way to accomplish one's
ends. This is extremely difficult to do. Now the discussion can move
to the more important topic: how much military force does an
angel-state need?
I'm perfectly willing to admit that a defenseless state is a
hopeless one. However, there is a vast difference between defense and
Defense. I might add to the list of moral qualities we might be
offering the world, a dedication to the concept of a purely defensive
militia. Granted that the line has been a blurry one in the past, it
seems that the distinction is getting easier and easier to make, at
least in conventional forces; for example, instead of building tanks,
you build anti-tank precision-guided munitions (incidentally at
radically reduced cost). The goal of defending and the goal of
"projecting a global presence" are two very different things, and we
explicitly pursue the latter, at great economic and, I would say,
moral cost.
I sure wish somebody else would take up this discussion; I need to
get some work done...
Steve
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sun 20 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 19
Contents: Force Between Nations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 December 1981 0704-EST (Saturday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: force between nations
A parting shot before Christmas vacation. It was mentioned that you
have choices in defense spending, such as building PGMs instead of
tanks. This is true to a degree. PGMs were demonstrated as being
quite successful in the October Mideast war. But it should be pointed
out that the war took place in a nice climate, where the sensors had
no problem. Changes in tactics greatly reduced the effectiveness of
PGMs as the war progressed.
Europe has the unfortunate habit of having bad weather occasionally.
If I were the SU, I'd attack in bad weather, when PGMs aren't too
effective (with optical sensors). Don't put all your eggs in one
basket.
The Russians are conservative. They take advantage of any situation
where they see a net gain for little cost. They were wrong in
Afghanistan.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 21 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 20
Contents: Communism/Socialism (2 msgs)
Poland, et.al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 December 1981 12:44-EST
From: RT at MIT-MC
Subject: What communism?
[Websters also, defn 2b, begins "A totalitarian system of
government ..." I merely wished to point out that there may
be definitions of communism that are "necessarily democratic",
the generally accepted definition does not *necessarily* imply
democracy. --JoSH]
You have aptly proven my point. My point was that the
institutionalized belief is that socialism is somehow undemocratic.
I frankly find it hard to believe that a system where people have
collective (i.e., equal and deliberative) control over the most
important factor of our lives, namely productive wealth (not to be
confused with personal or consumptive wealth), can be undemocratic.
In fact the prerequisite for real political democracy has to be
economic democracy.
It is obvious that the class of capital owners as a whole will be
extremely hostile to such an idea. Considering their considerable
and historical control over social norms, education, and the mass
media, it is not surprising that socialism has a bad name (in this
part of the world at least). To add to injury, certain
authoritarian regimes such as USSR, Poland, China, People's
Democratic Republic of Yemen, etc. also claim to be socialist,
reflecting only the early origins of the movement that resulted in
their creation. "Social Democratic" countries such as Sweden and
France should also not be confused with socialism, since in these
countries capital is essentially held in private hands.
No matter what the "generally accepted definition" of socialism is
claimed to be, the fact is that there is a scientific definition for
socialism as put forth by Marx, Engles, Luxemburg, Spinoza (later
writings) etc. No constructive purpose is served by saying
"socialism is human bondage, just look at Russia."
Rob
------------------------------
Date: 21 December 1981 0241-EST
From: JoSH < JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Socialism
Socialism by its very nature implies ultimate and repressive
totalitarianism. Of what use is the right of free speech,
when the state owns all the printing presses, all the radio
stations, even all the soapboxes? Of what use is the right
to assemble when the state owns all the land? The freedom
of religion when the state runs all the schools? The citizens
under a socialism are utterly dependent on the state (whether
the state is run by an autocrat, a bureaucracy, or referendum).
And someone who is utterly dependent is a slave.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need" is the dictum of a fool, one who cannot see that people
will act in their self-interest as much his system as any other,
but that his system makes their self-interest to minimize their
abilities and maximize their needs -- a fool who cannot see that
the same people would come to power in a state-run system as
would come to wealth in a private one.
Those who cry, "Property is theft!" would do well to remember
that THEFT is theft.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 20 December 1981 19:10-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < WDH at MIT-MC>
Subject: Poland, et.al.
With the recent martial law in Poland, with an unknown (~10-20) number
of Poles killed, and with Reagan's suspension of aid to Poland until
the government removes martial law, I've been doing some thinking.
I'm strongly in support of Solidarity, and it pains me to see what is
happening there. But I'm bothered with the way it's getting covered.
Or rather, I'm glad it's producing the response it is, but the
international context it is in bothers me.
Reagan deplores martial law, but George Bush lauds Marcos in the
Philipines, whose martial law has now transformed into emergency law,
after many years of oppression. Reagan deplores the imprisonment of
trade union dissidents in Poland, but Jean Kirkpatrick greets S.
African officials, Pinochet of Chile, Duarte of El Salvador, and
Garcia of Guatemala (the Salvadoran Defense Minister's brother), whose
countries all imprison, torture, and kill trade unionists. Haig warns
of the International Terrorist Conspiracy, but who terrorizes more
people? Not the Red Brigades, nor even the Red Army Faction, but the
Spanish police (who now torture not for information, but for terror
only), the Turkish government (where dissidents have acid poured on
their faces while still alive, and left to die), the Salvadoran
government (where they now use slaugherhouses to decapitate people,
and mix up the heads and bodies when they drop them at the roadside),
the Chilean government, etc., etc., etc. I'm glad that people are
shocked that strikers are being killed in Poland, but I'm reminded of
the strikers killed en masse by the Army in the US.
Thus, the valiant Polish people are fighting for their freedom from
the Russian oppressors. But what about the valiant Salvadorans?
They've been fighting since the 30's. What about the valiant
Guatemalans? They're all Commies. So let's forget them, not write
about the hundreds killed for no reason other than being peasants and
wanting to be free. That's what bothers me. To be honest about
supporting the right of Poles to self-determination, you must also
admit that ALL peoples have the right to self-determination.
Merry Christmas,
Bill
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 22 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 21
Contents: Socialism (3 msgs)
Poland & Self-determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 December 1981 1541-cst
From: Bill Vaughan < VaughanW at HI-Multics>
Subject: socialism
It's upsetting to see so many supposedly rational people flying off
the handle at a buzzword, and spouting quasi-religion rather than
political science.
Let's discuss socialism with a lower-case S and forget the
"scientific" definitions by Spinoza et al, or the fact that some
totalitarian states (e.g. Nazis) call themselves Socialist. I'm also
going to deny my temptation to quote Webster or Larousse - dictionary
writers aren't always right, either.
The idea behind socialism is ownership by the people of the means of
production. This is a very broad idea - but socialist thought and
theory are also broad, encompassing Labor socialists, democratic
socialists, State socialists, etc. Indeed, by this definition (though
many Socialists may take umbrage) communism may be considered a
compartment of socialism.
"Ownership by the people of the means of production." All three terms
in this definition must themselves be defined.
The easy one: "means of production." Capital in the classic sense,
including land, factories, heavy machinery. Not consumer goods or
personal property. (Some advocate the collective ownership of all
kinds of goods: but this is not a "mainstream" socialist position.)
Now a tougher one: "the people." Most socialists mean by this a State
acting on behalf of the people. Democratic socialists (e.g. the
old-time Norman Thomas crowd, the German SPD, or the new British SDP)
care a lot about making sure the state really represents the people -
in the late Fifties when I belonged to such a group, we pushed
proportional representation and other ways of assuring "fair"
elections and minority representation. (I no longer think that even a
representative democracy can be counted on truly to act in behalf of
its citizens, but that's a different argument.)
Many socialists are not democrats (lower-case "d") - the concepts are
orthogonal except that both presuppose a State.
Finally: "ownership." This is the one nobody thinks about, and it's
hardest to define. Say I own a book - I can read it when I want to,
and I can dispose of it. That defines two flavors of ownership,
formal (I can dispose of it) and beneficial (I can enjoy it). These
kinds of ownership can be split up and separately dealt with.
But there's a third kind of ownership when dealing with something
autonomous: controlling ownership. Say I own a company - I can enjoy
income from it (beneficial); I can sell it or liquidate it (formal);
and I can tell it what to do (control). All three of these can be
separated, but most laws (including ours) do not recognize control as
a kind of ownership.
If you own 100 shares of AT&T, you beneficially and formally own a
very small fraction of that company - but you have zero (not a small
fraction) control over it. In fact, those who do control AT&T can
make your beneficial ownership nearly meaningless by reducing
dividends and so on. The officers and board of AT&T do control it -
but many of them own very little stock. Even so, they can vote
themselves salary increases and thus convert their control ownership
into beneficial ownership.
In a socialist system, though formal ownership of the means of
production may be vested in the people, beneficial ownership is only
partly vested in them - and control ownership never. (And can a
Briton dispose of her share of British Railways? So even formal
ownership is denied...)
Mack Reynolds' science-fiction books about his "State Capitalism"
system really describe a socialist state where beneficial ownership,
and much formal ownership, is vested in the people through a huge
national mutual fund. Even in this system, which probably distributes
income better than any real socialist state, control is totally vested
in bureaucrats and technocrats - and I can't imagine a socialist who
would consider Reynolds' world utopian. (No corresponding
libertarian-dystopian novels exist yet, I fear.)
Socialist systems seem always to be Statist. Considering how hard it
is to democratize control ownership, this may be inevitable.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 1981 1705-PST
From: Mike Leavitt < LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
Subject: Scientific Socialism
To follow up on JoSH's point that without economic freedom,
political freedom is a hoax, let's place the idea of "scientific
socialism" in the spotlight for a while. Why, for example, is it more
desirable to have an elected group of people tell me what I can and
cannot do with my body and mind (the sources of any wealth), than to
have a single Politburo, or Committee on Wage/Price Controls do it?
The point is that when someone says I can't produce this, or can't ask
a high price for that, they are repressive--plain and simple. Why are
their motives and sources of political power made the issue, when the
action itself --the repression--is the important item?
Mike < Leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 1981 16:44:39-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
Subject: socialism vs. (?) democracy
Might I point to the Israeli kibbutz as an example of a completely
communalistic (to avoid offending any of our sematicians) yet
democratic organization? To be sure, many of the early settlers
didn't *like* living that way; they founded moshavim, wherein the land
and major capital equipment was communally owned, but the individual
members did own some private property. And I will also agree in
advance that a collection of individual kibbutzim differs in a major
way from a communalistic state: if you're sufficiently unhappy, you
can always leave a kibbutz; leaving a country is much harder.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 1981 2053-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Poland Message
Bill,
the Turkish government
My impression was that before the Army takeover there was a lot of
random violence. True, it was not (usually) directed by the
government - but your average citizen in the street does not really
care WHO is killing him and his family - he just wants it to stop
(that applies for female citizens as well). The new government DOES
abuse human rights - but the situation has improved. They should be
encouraged for this improvement.
I'm glad that people are shocked that strikers are being
killed in Poland, but I'm reminded of the strikers killed
en masse by the Army in the US.
Where and when? There was a lot of labor violence at the turn of the
century, and a lot of violence period during the depression. But tell
me where and when the US army was firing upon the workers?
Moreover, even if the US Army HAD fired upon the workers in the US -
nay, even if we had done EXACTLY what the Polish government is doing
today - WE never claimed to be a workers paradise!
To be honest about supporting the right of Poles to
self-determination, you must also admit that ALL peoples
have the right to self-determination.
Not true. While the US has always placed a higher value on self
determination than the other big powers (see WWI and WWII for
evidence), that value is not infinite. It is quite possible that
other values may counteract our love of promoting self determination.
True, I do not think that in many of the particular cases you have
cited that our decision was wise. But there is no problem in theory
with supporting self-determination in one country and not supporting
it in another.
Merry Christmas,
Jim
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 28 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 22
Contents: Socialism (2 msgs)
Army vs civilians (3 msgs)
Season's Greetings!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 1981 2106-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Socialism
I have to agree with JoSH. Socialism/Communism (whtever you want
to call it) is just like Christianity (cira 200AD) - both depend
upon a fundamental restructuring of the human mind to work. Now
you may think it is desirable to do such a restructuring (I
personally question that quite a bit) - but it is foolish to think
that such a restructuring has taken place. Socialism/Communism
simply does not work presently for a very good reason - an economic
democracy, implying direct state control of economic resources
in the name of the people, with the people directing the state -
does not exist. People cannot exercise true political control
over institutions with mass economic control. You cannot separate
the political from the economic - while lack of economic control
obviously implies a lack of freedom, lack of political control
also implies the same lack of freedom. You need both.
Western Europe is a rich area. Thus it has a lot of economic
slack. Also note that Social Democracy works best in countries
where the people in the basic economic-political unit (usually
the nation-state) are homogenous. This implies that less political
freedom can be tolerated, since there are less dissenting veiws.
Altogether, they are trying to get a reasonable compromise between
economic and political freedoms. If you can accept the things
they have to sacrifice to get there, fine - but do realize that it
is a compromise, and that neither true economic nor true political
freedom prevails.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 22 Dec 1981 17:22:31-PST
From: ihnss!ihps3!urban at Berkeley
12/22/81
Re the articles in the poli-sci digest of 12/21/81 on Communism,
Socialism, etc. Remember, Socialism is an economic theory,
while Communism is a political theory. It is true that Communist
political theory embraces Socialism, but not vice-versa. There
are varying degrees of Socialism, as demonstrated by Great Britain
often enough. However, I have never heard of a country being
"a little bit communistic". In this context, the concept of
"Democratic Socialism" makes sense. Also note that Communism
has no lock on Totalitarianism; witness the current govenments
of several South American countries, or even Chicago, for that
matter.
I do not mean to defend Socialism. Ideally, it is a wonderful
system. In the real world it fails due to lack of built in
incentives to perform.
A parting shot: The suggestion was made that Communism was
the ultimate in democratic government (true government of
the people, by the people, ... ). All governments must be
judged by what they are rather than what they are supposed
to be. If you read the constitution of the USSR, you
will find it to be more "democratic" than our own. However,
the reality of the situation cannot be denied. Nixon, by
holding himself above the law, demonstrated that it can
happen here as well.
Mike Urban
ihps3!urban
------------------------------
Date: 22 December 1981 0742-EST (Tuesday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: U.S. Army vs. U.S. workers
The fact is that the U.S. Army did fire on workers. While I
am sure it happened elsewhere, I know that it definitely did in
Pittsburgh. I've seen reprints of newspaper articles. The
powers-that-were thought it was completely justified, and a good
example of what happens when you let those ignorant masses have a
little free time and money (or so it has been represented to me). I
believe it was around 1880, but I'm not sure of the date. I also
don't remember the immediate cause of the unrest that they were
stopping.
Understandably, American history books gloss over really
unpleasant parts of our history (at least they don't deny them
entirely: you do hear that there was labor unrest). Similarly, the
U.S. Government had a policy of genocide against native Americans
(the mass killing of buffalo (the main food, clothing etc. of Plains
Indians) was no accident).
Then again, some things depend on how you look at them. What
about the times the Army took over some strike-bound industry that was
threatening "national security"? What about Kent State? I can
imagine the Soviet news stories: students murdered by Army for
protesting the draft and the racist war against the Vietnamese people.
Almost true. Just don't mention that they were burning down buildings
and throwing rocks at the Guard. The Polish Government claims that
the workers that were shot attacked the troops with axes. Who knows?
I suspect we'll eventually find out.
It seems that the main difference is whether you believe in
the government's righteousness or not. Kent State was a disaster, but
many people feel the government was in the right because it was
carrying out a democratically supported war. On the other hand, we
feel that the Polish government can't be justified in declaring
martial law (even though the continued existence of the country
probably was at stake), because we feel that Solidarity had a better
claim on being "on the right side".
------------------------------
Date: 22 December 1981 11:12 est
From: JRDavis.LOGO at MIT-Multics
Subject: US Army firing on civilans
I object to Jim McGraths use of the term "labor violence", because I
think it connotes violence BY the labor movement, but the bulk of
violence associated with organized labor has been committed AGAINST
them, on behalf of management, by a variety of forces, ranging from
hired guns through city police to the national guard, depending on the
power of the owners.
Two instances I know of:
In the spring and summer of 1932, the "Bonus army" marched on
Washington. This was a group of unemployed WWI veterans and their
families, marching to call for early payment of their service bonuses.
20,000 or more were camped around the area. Hoover called in the Army
- Douglas MacArthur, aided by Eisenhower and Patton. With tanks and
tear gas they dispersed the veterans. There were three deaths among
the bonus army. (The Bonus Army was not a labor movement, this
incident is reported as an instance of the US Army killing US civilans
needlessly)
In the General Motors strikes of late 1936 and 1937, police fired on
strikers on several occasions. The National Guard patrolled the
streets with machine guns. I do not know if the N.G. had occasion to
fire or not.
Although deplorable, this violence is like nothing compared to what is
said to occur in El Salvador or even Poland.
I suppose that the National Guard must have fired on people during
random riots since 1936, although I have no documentation. And of
course there was Kent State.
The above info came from Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the
United States". Also I have seen newsreel footage of the GM strikes
showing the NG.
There were many more occasions where unions were fired upon, or where
lesser violence was committed against them. But I am no historian of
labor, these are just some isolated reports I know of.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Dec 1981 21:14:38 EST (Wednesday)
From: David Mankins < dm at BBN-RSM>
Subject: labor troubles
On the subject of labor violence at the turn of the century....
There was a lot of labor violence at the turn of the
century, and a lot of violence period during the
depression. But tell me where and when the US army was
firing upon the workers?
From Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" (more
examples can be culled from Jeremy Brecher's "Strike!", but my copy is
hundreds of miles away):
[President] Cleveland, facing the agitation in the country
caused by the panic and depression of 1893, used troops to
break up "Coxey's Army," a demonstration of unemployed men
who had come to Washington, and again to break up the
national strike in the railroads the following year. [p.254]
One of the railroad strikes alluded was the Pullman strike, in
which Federal troops, state militia, and Chicago police killed 34
people, and seriously wounded almost a hundred. The strike
started when Pullman reduced wages, while raising rents and
prices for food and water (Pullman owned the town, "Pullman,
Illinois").
State militia ('the National Guard') were used more often than
federal troops to quell labor struggles--in the Homestead strike
[1892] (against one of Andrew Carnegie's steel mills) the state
militia, equipped with Gatling guns, protected the import of
strikebreakers.
In September, 1913, 11,000 miners went on strike against the
Rockefeller- owned (there's a reason he has a bad name) Colorado
Fuel & Iron Corp. When the strike began, the miners were
forcibly evicted from their shacks in the mining towns. They set
up tent-cities in the nearby hills, and carried on the picketing
from these.
The gunmen hired by the Rockefeller interests--the
Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency--using Gatling guns and
rifles, raided the tent colonies. The death list of miners
grew, but they hung on, drove back an armored train in a gun
battle, fought to keep out strikebreakers. With the miners
resisting, refusing to give in, the mines not able to
operate, the Colorado governor (referred to by a Rockefeller
mine manager as "our little cowboy governor") called out the
National Guard, with the Rockefellers supplying the Guard's
wages. [!]
...Guardsmen beat miners, arrested them by the hundreds, rode
down with their horses on parades of women in the streets of
Trinidad, the central town in the area....
In April 1914, two National Guard companies were stationed in
the hills overlooking the largest tent colony of strikers,
the one at Ludlow, housing a thousand men, women, children.
On the morning of April 20, a machine gun attack began on the
tents. The miners fired back. Their leader, a Greek named
Lou Tikas, was lured up into the hills to discuss a truce,
then shot to death by a company of National Guardsmen. The
women and children dug pits beneath the tents to escape the
gunfire. At dusk, the Guard moved down from the hills with
torches, set fire to the tents, and the families fled to the
hills; thirteen people were killed by gunfire...[thirteen
others were killed in the burning tents]. [pp. 346-348]
All told, 66 men, women, and children had been killed.
The Marines were used to quell the general strike in Seattle in
1919, General Douglas MacArthur led a cavalry attack on the
Veteran's Bonus March in the summer of 1932 (two veterans were
killed). The Bonus March was a march of WWI veterans, asking
that Congress redeem the bonus certificates given them on
discharge from the military. The certificates wouldn't mature
for several years, but the bonus marchers hoped to get them
redeemed at full value then, in the midst of Hard Times. They
set up a tent city across the Potomac from Washington.
MacArthur's troops cleared them (and their families) out with
tear gas and gunfire.
Moreover, even if the US Army HAD fired upon the workers
in the US - nay, even if we had done EXACTLY what the
Polish government is doing today - WE never claimed to be
a workers paradise!
No, but we did claim to be the land of opportunity, and a land of
Freedom. Throughout our history it has become clear that freedom
is something for the rich, if the poor get uppity, they get
imprisoned or shot at. [Before WWI, members of the IWW would get
thrown in jail just for speaking out--not for inciting riots--in
transparent violations of their First Amendment rights.]
I heartily recommend Zinn's book, it sure is different from the
history they taught you in high school.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 29 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 23
Contents: Introduction to Objectivism
Civil Violence; Self-determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Dec 1981 1150-PST
From: Paul Dietz < DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Introduction to Objectivism
I read "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand over the Christmas
weekend. I found it to be one of the most interesting books I've ever
come across. Here is the introduction to the book, which explains
what it's all about.
Try not to dismiss anything in this introduction by thinking "Well,
her conclusions conflict with some of my values, so she must be wrong;
I won't bother to actually decide WHY she is wrong." The fundamental
idea behind Objectivism is that our beliefs must be RATIONAL, and
derivable from first principles, not based on unfounded, murky
emotionalism.
------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to
"The Virtue of Selfishness: a New Concept of Egoism"
The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear
once in a while: "Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote
virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many
people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?"
To those who ask it, my answer is: "For the reason that makes you
afraid of it."
But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the
moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formulate my actual
reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to
them that I will give a more explicit answer.
It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice.
The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word "selfishness" is not
merely wrong: it represents a devastating "package-deal," which is
responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral
development of mankind.
In popular usage, the word "selfishness" is a synonym of evil; the
image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of
corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and
pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any
immediate momment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word
"selfishness" is: @i(concern with one's own interests).
This concept does @i(not) include a moral evaluation; it does not
tell us whether concern with one's own interests is good or evil; nor
does it tell us what constitutes man's actual interests. It is the
task of ethics to answer such questions.
The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its
answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any
concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these
interests might be, and (b) that the brute's activities are @i(in
fact) to one's own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce
for the sake of his neighbors).
For a view of the nature of altruism, its consequences and the
enormity of the moral corruption it perpetrates, I shall refer you to
@i(Atlas Shrugged) -- or to any of today's newspaper headlines. What
concerns us here is altruism's @i(default) in the field of ethical
theory.
There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one
"package-deal": (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary
of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades
the task of defining a code of maral values, thus leaving man, in
fact, without any moral guidance.
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is
good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the
@i(beneficiary) of an action is the only criterion of moral value --
and so long as the beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything
goes.
Hence the appalling immorality, the chronic injustice, the grotesque
double standards, the insoluble conflicts and contradictions that have
characterized human relationships and human societies throughout
history, under all the various of the altruist ethics.
Observe the indecency of what passes for moral judgements today. An
industrialist who produces a fortune, and a gangster who robs a bank
are regarded as equally immoral, since they both sought wealth for
their own "selfish" benefit. A young man who gives up his career in
order to support his parents and never rises beyond the rank of
grocery clerk is regarded as morally superior to the young man who
endures an excruciating struggle and achieves his personal ambitions.
A dictator is regarded as moral, since the unspeakable atrocities he
commited were intended to benefit "the people", not himself.
Observe what this beneficiary-criterion of morality does to a man's
life. The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy: he has
nothing to gain from it, he can only lose; self-inflicted loss,
self-inflicted pain and the gray, debilitating pall of an
incomprehensible duty is all that he can expect. He may hope that
others might occasionally sacrifice themselves for his benefit, as he
grudgingly sacrifices himself for theirs, but he knows the
relationship will bring mutual resentment, not pleasure -- and that,
morally, their pursuit of values will be like an exchange of unwanted,
unchosen Christmas presents, which neither is morally permitted to buy
for himself. Apart from such times as he manages to perform some act
of self-sacriice, he possesses no moral significance: morality takes
no cognizance of him and has nothing to say to him in the crucial
issues of his life; it is only his own personal, private, "selfish"
life and, as such, it is regarded either as evil or, at best,
@i(amoral).
Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of
survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the
doctrine that concern with one's own intersts is evil means that man's
desire to live is evil -- that man's life, as such, is evil. No
doctrine could be more evil than that.
Yet that is the meaning of altruism, implicit in such examples as
the equation of an industrialist with a robber. There is a
fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest
in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of the
robber does @i(not) lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests,
but in @i(what) he regards as to his own interest; @i(not) in the fact
that he pursues his values, but in what he choses to value; @i(not) in
the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live
on a sub-human level.
If it is true that what I mean by "selfishness" is not what is meant
conventionally, then @i(this) is one of the worst indictments of
altruism: it means that altruism @i(permits no concept) of a
self-respecting, self-supporting man -- a man who supports his life by
his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means
that altruism permits no view of man except as sacrificial animals and
profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites -- that it permits
no concept of benevolent coexistence among men -- that it permits no
concept of @i(justice).
If you wonder about the reasons behind the ugly mixture of cynicism
and guilt in which most men spend their lives, these are the reasons:
cynicism, because they neither practice nor accept the altruist
morality -- guilt, because they dare not reject it.
To rebel against so devastating an evil, one has to rebel against
its basic premise. To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept
of @i("selfishness") that one has to redeem.
Th first step is to assert @i(man's right to a moral existence) --
that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and
the fulfillment of his own life.
For a brief outline of the nature and the validation of a rational
morality, see my lecture on "The Objectivist Ethics" which follows.
The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose
of morality is to define man's proper values and interests, that
@i(concern with his own interests) is the essence of a moral
existence, and that @i(man must be the beneficiary of his own moral
actions).
Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any
breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the
sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of
the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach,
and no one ever has.
The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a
preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not
a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value, as altruism
has made it. Neither is it a moral @i(primary): it has to be derived
from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system.
The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the
beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own
@i(rational) self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from
his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life
-- and therefore, is applicable @i(only) in the context of a rational,
objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which
define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license
"to do as he pleases" and it is not applicable to the altruist's image
of a "selfish" brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions,
feelings, urges, wishes or whims.
This is said as a warning against the kind of "Nietzschean egoists"
who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the
other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action,
regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one's own
benefit. Just as the satifaction of irrational desires is @i(not) a
criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one's own
irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims.
A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that
since man must be guided by his own independent judgement, any action
he chooses to take is moral if @i(he) chooses it. One's own judgement
is the @i(means) by which one must choose one's actions, but it is not
a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only a reference to a
demonstrable principle can validate one's choices.
Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover
and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man's
self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims,
but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational
principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of
@i(rational) self-interest -- or of @i(rational selfishness).
Since selfishness is "concern with one's own interests," the
Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense.
It is not a concept that one can surrender to man's enemies, nor to
the unthinking misconceptions, distortions, prejudices and fears of
the ignorant and the irrational. The attack on "selfishness" is an
attack on man's self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the
other.
------------------------------------------------------------
The copy I picked up is from Signet, and cost $1.95. I consider it an
"absolutely must read" book.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Dec 1981 2306-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Re: Poland Message
On Turkey:
My impression was that before the Army takeover there was a lot
of random violence....The new government DOES abuse human rights
- but the situation has improved. They should be encouraged for
this improvement. [Jim McGrath, 12/21/81]
I'm not sure we're talking about the same government. As soon as they
came into power, they rounded up [not necessarily arrested...]
thousands of leftists and not-so-leftists, and shut down many of the
newspapers. They did NOT act to reduce the actions of the Grey
Wolves, the right-wing paramilitary group [in most military
governments in at least the US sphere, the right-wing paramilitary
group in generally composed mostly of off-duty police and National
Guardsmen and supported financially by local business, so it isn't
suprising they aren't stopped].
About troops firing on strikers--
Check me, but I think it was in the Pullman strike [i.e. in that
period, circa 1870-80].
Moreover, even if the US Army HAD fired upon the workers in the
US...WE never claimed to be a workers paradise! [JPM]
No, but as I recall, we're fond of calling ourselves a government ``of
the people, by the people and for the people.''
It is quite possible that other values may counteract our love of
promoting self determination....But there is no problem in theory
with supporting self-determination in one country and not
supporting it in another. [JPM]
I'm not sure that I can say that the US loves self-determination. Can
you quote me some significant examples of US support for self-
determination in the US sphere? I, too, can think of other values
that may counteract our love of promoting self-determination, say,
support for our economic interests.
How can you REALLY support self-determination [n.b.-it needn't be a
whole current country--countries disappear, e.g. Poland, the Kurdish
homelands, Eritrea, etc.] and say that it shouldn't be supported in
some countries? Who decides? Do we? Is it still self-determination
then?
Happy New Year,
Bill
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 30 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 24
Contents: The Collectivist Cargo Cult
Means of Production; Self-determination
Objectivism (2 msgs)
All the messages are have a bearing on Objectivism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 Dec 1981 0840-PST
From: Paul Dietz < DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: The Collectivist Cargo Cult
Many of you have heard of that strange religion occuring in the
South Pacific called the Cargo Cult. The followers of this religion
believe that all material goods (food, airplanes, coca-cola) are
produced by God, who then gives them to man. The cargo cultists
believe that westerners have unfairly preempted their share of the
cargo. Naturally, the cultists try to figure out how to get back
their fair share of the loot.
All in all, a ludicrous system of beliefs. No educated person could
fall for anything like that!
Oh yeah?
Let's replace "god" by "society" and "westerners" by "the rich", and
you end up with something that looks a lot like modern collectivism.
Material goods are the product of Society, and belong to everyone.
Somehow, though, those nasty rich folks have diverted more than their
fair share of the goods. We've got to figure out how to share the
wealth.
These religions, the cargo cult and collectivism, are based on a
common fallacy. They apply when the goods being considered are
produced naturally, like nuts and roots, with little or no
intellectual effort. They are suitable for stone-age cultures.
Modern, rational man produces not by working harder but by using his
faculty of reason. Unlike the gathering of a limited resource, this
is a non-zero-sum situation. If I invent a new machine, does this
cheat those who did not invent it? Hardly.
When applied, collectivism causes stagnation. There are no rewards
for using the mind, so no one does. Production does not increase even
though the rulers proclaimed 5 years ago that it would. In the end,
the only way to get people to simulate thinking is at gun-point. This
process is most clearly demonstrated in Poland.
In small doses collectivism is also poison. A person convinced of the
truth of collectivism (or the cargo cult) spends his time trying to
take from others, rather than do valuable work. He blames Society, he
blames the rich, he blames Fate -- but he does not blame himself.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Dec 1981 1055-PST
From: Paul Dietz < DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Some random comments
Socialism & means of production: Bill Vaughan said the "easy" part of
socialist theory was the identification of "means of production". In
fact, he glossed over this point. What are means of production? Not
physical labor: without direction and coordination, labor is useless.
Not machinery: machines are not naturally occuring objects, they are
the result of human creativity. So what are the means of production?
Simple: knowledge and rational thought. Treating the means of
production as "givens" to be redistributed is to hold hostage those
human minds that imagine, design and operate the machinery. You end up
with what we see today in the communist countries: inefficient
factories owned by "the people", implying that the workers without
whom the factory is so much scrap metal are also owned by "the
people", implying that they are slaves.
US aid and self-determination: An excellent way to destroy
self-determination is to convince the country that it *deserves* aid,
and, in fact, has a *right* to aid. Since most third world
governments believe this, giving them aid only reinforces this
parasitic relationship.
If we really wanted to support self-determination we would be
encouraging the overthrow of totalitarian regimes all over the world.
The fact that we are not convinces me that our government believes
self-determination to be impossible. This has omminous implications
for our own freedom.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Dec 1981 11:51 PST
From: Deutsch at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V2 #23
I have read two of Ayn Rand's books (Atlas Shrugged and Anthem) and
find them thought-provoking but ultimately inapplicable to actual
human existence, since her chief point -- that we don't sufficiently
consider the extent to which the good of society as a whole consists
of the individually produced well-being of its members -- always gets
overwhelmed in her writing by polemics, emotionalism, and
exaggeration.
The so-called Objectivist philosophy suffers from exactly the kind of
distortion of word meanings that all other dogmatic philosophy suffers
from. Observe that the introduction quoted in the last POLI-SCI
digest begins by falsely equating "altruism" with the tenet "that any
concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these
interests might be". This is neither the dictionary nor the common
meaning of this word, nor is it the way that even the most altruistic
person actually lives. Having set up this straw tiger, Rand proceeds
to vilify it in the most "murkily emotional" terms I can imagine. She
then proceeds to assign a new (neither dictionary nor common) to the
phrase "self-interest", by claiming "man's self-interest ... must be
discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles," i.e.
by the application of rules originating outside of the person
him/herself. And who do you think sets herself up to decide what
these principles are?
Since the quoted introduction does not reveal the content of the
Objectivist ethical principles, I will refrain from further comment
until someone contributes a good statement of them to the digest.
------------------------------
Date: 29 December 1981 0908-EST (Tuesday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Objectivism
My main question about this is, how do you decide which first
principles are valid? Suppose someone decides that "feeling good" is
his primary goal? Would this be considered irrational? I can't see
anything wrong with it as far as being a rational choice, and it would
appear to (possibly) lead to the kind of "brutish" behavior Rand
deplores.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 31 Dec 81 Volume 2 Number 25
Contents: Collectivism and Objectivism --
(these may sound like different subjects, but since most
of Rand's writing is a reaction to collectivism, and
her characterizations of it form the take-off point for
the discussions here, I have left the messages mixed for
the nonce. --JoSH)
3 messages remain in the queue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 December 1981 0930-EST (Wednesday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Re: Collectivism
First, I'm surprised at the notion that state owning of
factories implies state owning of the workers who make the factory
productive, thus making them slaves. Does that mean US steel workers
are owned by the steel companies, since they own the factories here?
An interesting idea, which I'm told scares union leaders,
capitalists, and communists, is of a free-market democratic society in
which the workers in a factory buy controlling interest in the
corporation that owns the factory. I'm told that in the relatively
few cases where this has happened in the US, productivity goes up,
strikes go away, and the union leaders are out of a job. Hmmm. The
easy road to economic democracy?
Finally, it seems to me that a lot of the reason for moves in
the US that might appear on the surface to be collectivist might
actually be the conflict between the ideals of equality of opportunity
and personal freedom, both widely touted, and seemingly conflicting,
virtues. There have been many stories on how the only obvious way to
get equality of opportunity is to hamstring the rights of those born
into good society, while if left completely uncontrolled, personal
freedom leads to gross inequalities of opportunity.
[As an interesting sidelight, the following from David Friedman in
"The Machinery of Freedom": --JoSH
"... The total value of the shares of all stocks listed on the
New York Stock Exchange in 1965 was $537 billion. The total
wages and salaries of all private employees that year was $288.5
billion. State and federal income taxes totalled $72.5 billion.
If the workers had chosen to live at the consumption standard of
hippies, saving half their after-tax incomes, they could have
gotten a majority share in every firm in two and a half years,
and bought the capitalists out, lock, stock, and barrel, in five.
...
"When you buy stock, you pay not only for the capital assets of
the firm -- buildings, machines, inventory, and the like -- but
also for its experience, reputation, and organization. If the
workers really can run firms better, these are unnecessary; all
they need are the physical assets. Those assets -- the net
working capital of all corporations in the United States -- in
1965 -- totalled $171.7 billion. The workers could buy that much
and go into business for themselves with fourteen months' worth
of savings."
]
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1981 0808-PST
From: Lee W. Cooprider < COOPRIDER at USC-ISIB>
Subject: the Cargo Cult fallacy
The Cargo Cult analogy is completely bogus. The production of goods
and wealth in a society is neither by the society (as an external
god-analog) nor is it by the intelligencia (through their invention of
machines or whatever). Nor are the means of production merely the
ideas and knowledge any more than they are merely the factories.
Production is a result of the combination of labor (generally paid),
physical resources (both capital and consumed), organization (both
management and investment) and legality. The debate between the
socialist and the capitalist is on how the value of the resulting
products should be distributed among those who provide each of the
items that contribute to production.
Socialists (as collectivists) agree that the people who provide the
capital resources get more reward than they deserve. No one is so
naive as to believe that one can produce without capital, but many of
the contributors to this forum seem not to understand that the rewards
for providing capital are not designated in the laws of physics or the
human DNA but are rather the result of historical power plays.
And, as has been noted here, those power plays have degenerated into
physical force on a number of occasions with the major armaments
deployed by the owners of capital and the major casualties suffered by
the providers of labor. One can draw some tentative conclusions from
this.
The rewards for taking various roles in a society are determined by
the complex political processes in the society. Tax laws, social
stigma, criminal law enforcement practice, religious dogma, and
racial/sexual/etc oppression all contribute to those processes. Many
of the contributing forces are maleable and therefore the relative
rewards can be modified without contradicting universal law. There
are possibly even more than one configuation of rewards that result in
high productivity and creativity!
Let us not confuse the early 20th century success of industrial
capitalism in the United States with the rules of nature. A multitude
of social structures different from all that have come before await
selection and development. We need not accept the limitations of the
social developments that have existed here, in the USSR, in the South
Pacific (real or apocryphal), or anywhere or anywhen on this planet.
What laws must we observe (e.g. is the development of the state truly
unavoidable?) This seems to me to be a necessary discussion if we are
to investigate as freely of possible of the preconception and
misconceptions with which we have been educated.
-- Lee
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1981 09:43:49-PST
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: collectivism and cargo cults
Generalizations about disincentives and decay aside, I'd like to
propose a simple behavioral reason why collectivism (defined as
'sharing the fruits of production') does not work.
Consider when I am working for myself. Every little bit extra that
I work has a tangible, relatively immediate feedback: I get paid more,
I have a nicer house, etc etc. More importantly, the reward I get is
(modulo taxes) proportional to the effort I make.
Now, if I am married, with both partners working and spending apace,
the fruits of my effort are divided two ways. Thus, when I work
extra, we both have a little extra reward. If I'm on good terms with
my wife, I'll get somewhat more than half back, but the default is
that my effort earns a 'reward' for two people.
Induction holds. If I live in a commune, my effort is diffused N
ways, for N around a dozen. The reinforcement becomes a smaller and
smaller fraction of the effort. I'd have to be completely compulsive
to want to earn that reward. And on a societal level, the outcome of
my effort (to me, that is) is like a bucket in the reservoir. The
only POSSIBLE way I can get a reward is if the rest of the society
behaves likewise. This is the first flaw of collectivist
organization: it implicitly assumes a kind of cooperation which is not
motivated by behavioral considerations, but by the rational
realization that if everybody performs in concert then the whole body
of people benefits.
If unified collective effort were the only way to get a reward in a
collectivist society, who knows? It might work. But it is not, as can
be seen by making a distinction between productive effort and
consumptive effort. Call productive effort that which increases the
resources at hand, and consumptive effort that which makes them
available. In our society, earning a wage is productive, withdrawing
it from the bank is consumptive. Growing food is productive, cooking
it is consumptive. The distinction is difficult to make for us
because they are so closely allied. Not so in a collectivist society.
My productive effort enters a massive pool to which everyone,
theoretically, contributes. However, withdrawal is not so simple as
writing out a check. I have to prove my need. Or, in terms other than
money, I can simply fail to do my part.
The second flaw of collectivism is that consumptive effort is much
more rewarding than productive. If I decide to shirk my collective
duties for a day and read a book, I get all the benefits of not
working and the society as a whole pays for it. In my commune, if I
decide to weasel my way out of doing the dishes, the house as a whole
has dirty dishes (or somebody as altruistic as I am selfish has to
take up the slack).
And so, as the size of the 'marriage' grows (and with it, its
impersonality), the relative advantage of consumptive effort over
productive grows. I think a lot of the characteristics of
collectivist societies can be explained this way.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1981 09:53:13-PST
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: The problem with objectivism
I reserve a soft spot in my heart for movements like Objectivism
which point out the absurdity of some of our implicit beliefs by
acting as if those beliefs were actually true, than carrying them to
reasonable conclusions.
Ayn Rand proudly points to the 'single' founding principle of
Objectivism: That man is a rational being. And she even goes on to
actually build her philosophy so that it depends crucially on that
tenet! Amazing. It seems to me that reason is used for one thing by
modern rhetoricists: as a replacement for virtue as the quality the
good guys have and the bad guys fail to achieve.
I don't know. It might be possible to make a world and a society
sticking rigorously to rationalism. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't
want to live there.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1981 1313-PST
From: Paul Dietz < DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Objectivism
Deutsch has some interesting comments, so let's address them.
Rand's polemics, etc.: I see. You say objectivism is inapplicable to
the real world because she was emotional about it?! I suppose that if
someone tells you that, say, Fermat's last theorem is true, and then
offends you during his argument, this proves to you that it is false?
By the way - a polemic is "an aggressive attack on or a refutation of
the opinions or principles of another". If being a polemic
automatically invalidates an argument then you've found the perfect
defense for you beliefs.
Altruism: Webster's says altruism is "an unselfish regard or devotion
to the welfare of others". If we base a system of ethics on this
definition of altruism, identifying an action as good if it is
altruistic, and bad or evil otherwise, we get something that is pretty
close to Rand's definition.
The reason most "altruistic" people don't live this way is simple:
they're not altruistic! The proper adjective is "hypocritical".
If anyone out there has a different definition of altruism, send it
in.
Rational principles: The advantage of using rational principles to
derive a moral system is that if someone disagrees with your
conclusion they must either reject one or more of your premises, or
reject reason and logic itself (mysticism).
There are two principles behind Objectivism. The first is that
emotions are not tools of cognition. Any scientist should agree with
this principle. The second is that no person has the right to
initiate the use of physical force against another.
An ethical system is a code of behavior -- a strategy for existence.
I hope you agree some such strategy is necessary, because existence is
not guaranteed.
If you reject Objectivism, you must accept one of the following.
(1) Moral principles based on feelings or emotions. This view asserts
that if I feel something is right, it is right. No matter that I
can't justify it to others.
This is ethical subjectivism, and is quite prevalent today. The
problem is that our feelings and emotions are not guaranteed to
reflect reality, and are not even guaranteed to be consistent.
Ethical subjectivism is a rejection of rationality: the
subjectivist either does not want to make the effort to justify
his beliefs, or is afraid that they cannot be justified, or
doesn't feel the need for justification, or doesn't believe
justification of ANY system of beliefs is possible.
Closely related are ethics derived from mysticism (religion) and
social ethics. This last is the belief that no justification for
a belief is necessary, as long as most people believe it.
I will point out that anyone who believes any of these
immediately separates ethics from science; the spiritual from the
material. No one has ever justified such a separation.
If ethical subjectivism is accepted, appeals to reason fail, and
conflicts between different ethical systems are resolved by
force.
(2) Moral principles based on force. This is the rejection of the
second principle of objectivism. It somes in several flavors.
Totalitarian governments are one form. Another form is majority
rule. The advantage of majority rule is that the opposition is
always numerically weaker, so outright conflict is averted.
The flaw in this is that you cannot force someone to think. Our
civilization is based on rational thought applied to everyday
problems. Without the incentive to think, innovate and solve
problems we'd collapse quickly.
Support for this claim can be found in today's world. Most
obviously, look in Poland. The workers cannot be forced to
rebuild the economy. Look in the USSR. Their factories are
inefficient; no one cares. Their topsoil has been stripped of
organic matter by irrational agriculture; no one cares. Some of
their oil wells produce 90% water because of mismanagement; no
one really cares. There is an epidemic of alcoholism there --
because the citizens don't want to think.
It is not supprising that in societies based on this kind of
moral system science, where noncoercion is extremely important,
has suffered. Examples: Lysenko, Mao's cultural revolution, Nazi
persecution of "jewish science".
Rand deciding what you should believe: She was not deciding what you
should believe, she was issuing a challenge, saying "if you disagree,
refute my argument or forfeit all claims to reason".
Summing up: Here's what you should do. Sit down and state your moral
principles, your strategy for existence. Then try to justify it.
Can you?
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1981 1632-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI>
Subject: Cargo cult-itis
The capitalist cargo cult (after DIETZ at USC-ECL):
We can all play this sort of game. Let's replace "god" by "business"
and "westerners" by "the government" and you end up with something
that looks a lot like modern right-wing ideology. Material goods are
the product of business, and belong to business. Somehow, though, the
nasty, big government has diverted more than its fair share of the
goods. We've got to figure out how to get the government off of
business's back, so we can Make America Strong.
Terminology:
Means of production: Physical labor isn't, nor is mental labor. As
it is defined in socialist theory, the means of production are the
tools and machines used to produce (note that a tool isn't a machine,
not in the economic sense). Thus, in the capitalist mode, the means
of production are controlled by capitalists, a major break from the
feudal mode, where the worker controlled the means. Without control
of the means of production, the worker is forced to sell his labor,
since that is the only commodity that he possesses. The transition
from feudalism to capitalism was possible in England only because of
the expropriation of the peasantry from the land (sparked by the
enclosure movement) and (and as Marx notes, this is what makes the
modern proletariat different from the Roman plebes) the coercion of
the landless mass of people to sell their labor.
Worker control of the means of production: This is where socialists
disagree. The Soviets hold that worker control means control by the
worker's state (which, as in Poland, is often a farcical
characterization of the apparatus of power) and centralized planning.
Syndicalists suggest that this view is horseshit, and that worker
control means worker control, not bureaucrat control. Each workplace
is controlled by its workers, who, if they want, elect (hire, fire)
their managers (a concession won by Solidarity).
-Bill
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 01 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 26
Contents: Reds
Objectivism and Collectivism (8 msgs)
Political Physics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1981 14:01:54-PST
From: menlo70!hao!cires!harkins at Berkeley
Subject: "Reds" the movie; a comment and a mini-review
All of you who seem to advocate one of the non-capitalist ways
of distributing goods and services from your ivory towers should, I
think, go see "Reds."
What "Reds" is not: pro-communistic propaganda; I realize that
I was actually a bit paranoid about subjecting myself to 3+ hrs of
this, but it's not.
What it is: A hell of a good story, and in these days maybe a
bargain at the going price. Without being a spoiler, some teasers:
the story is about one John Reed, a semi-typical liberal do-gooder
journalist who finds himself across the line between reporting and
being reported on after becoming deeply involved in the "workers'
revolution."
In a sense, the story is not so much about Reed as about his
time, the WWI era. Beatty has masterfully interspersed the cinema
story with personal reminiscences by oldsters such as Henry Miller,
Will Durant, George Jessel and others who knew either Reed or Keaton's
character, Louise Bryan. From that standpoint, it should be required
viewing for history buffs and maybe even history classes.
The really interesting thing is that the good-guy/bad-guy,
black-white sort of us-them dichotomy that we all tend to have
ingrained in us breaks down. Our guys don't look so hot, but then,
neither do theirs.
All in all, well worth the time and money; wouldn't be
surprised to see a couple of Oscars out of it either.
Happy New Years, ernie
[I second that--Reds is excellent. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1981 13:56 PST
From: Deutsch at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Objectivism
"Objectivism" is not inapplicable to the real world BECAUSE Rand is
emotional about it. Objectivism is inapplicable to the real world
because, like all closed systems, it fails to deal with the actual
diversity of human personality. Rand's emotionalism discredits her
claim that her system can be defended purely by reason. If her claim
were true, she would not find it necessary to engage in polemics in
all her writings. Being a polemic does not invalidate an argument,
but it certainly casts doubt on its validity if the argument's
defender consistently resorts to polemics as opposed to calmer
methods.
Rand's paper tiger is a system of ethics in which altruism is the
only, or the supreme, value. Taking to its unrealistic extreme a
viewpoint one wishes to attack is a common debating tool, but I
consider it dishonest. To say that a person is altruistic, without
further qualification, commonly means that that person acts in an
altruistic way notably more often than most. You are using the same
debating tool when you say that an "altruistic" person is hypocritical
if he/she does not behave altruistically 100% of the time.
You make further assertions I don't agree with.
(1) You assert that "reason" and "logic" are universal truths,
universally recognizable, and universally applicable, i.e., that the
premises of an ostensibly logical argument can always be made
agreeable to all parties, and that the steps of the argument can
always be made agreeable to all parties, i.e. that there is an
absolute standard by which premises and steps can be judged. Most
philosophers, linguists, and psychologists would disagree, when human
affairs are involved. I tend to side with them.
(2) You state that "no one has ever justified ... a separation [of the
spiritual from the material]". That is a consequence of your belief
that your system of logic is the only allowable form of argument or
discourse, not a universal truth.
(2) You claim that Rand does not set herself up to judge what I may or
may not believe. However, the form in which your argument is cast
indicates the exact opposite. According to you, she says "if you
disagree, refute my argument or forfeit all claims to reason". But
she (and you) define "reason" as being argument in accord with your
premises and axioms. Given this, her assertion is, "if you disagree,
refute my argument (using my rules), or forfeit all claims that you
are playing by my rules". Even this is a slightly extreme position,
but it is no different from the claims of any other philosophy.
Summing up: maybe Rand's rules work well, maybe they don't, but they
aren't qualitatively different from anyone else's. If you're happy
with them, if you can point at people and societies that live by them
and work well, that's great; if you can't, but have to argue them on
paper, I'm entitled to be skeptical. If you choose not to respect
people who don't live by them, that's your problem: I don't have to
live by them, or even measure my life by them, for me to respect
myself.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 81 16:24-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Ayn Rand fiction
Ah yes, dear Ayn. The only two books of hers which I have read were
excellent. ANTHEM is a novella about a rather unpleasant future.
The second book, THE FOUNTAINHEAD, is on my top 10 list.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Dec 1981 0439-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Power Plays
On Lee's recent message. Let us concede the point (for discussion)
that the division of goods and services in the past has been a result
of power plays. Now the next logical thing to ask is "must this
happen?"
And of course, it DOES have to happen.
Reasoning here is simple - if you define social power as the capacity
to influence society, then those with the most power are the ones who
will dictate the division of goods and services (to a greater or
lesser degree). If these people are fragmented, then the division
will be far from clear. But if these people have some identity as a
group (a "class"), then their actions in dividing the goods and
services can be coordinated and a common, standard policy worked out.
Even if they ignored each other, they would tend to duplicate each
others decisions because that share a set of common beliefs.
Market economies suffer the same fate here - the relative economic
worth of contributions is determined in the marketplace. If the
people who have the power control the market, they can set the prices.
Even if they do not, their resources will naturally be considered to
be more valuable than those of others (since it is the source of their
power).
Thus owners of land, once identified as a class, have control of an
agarian economy, merchants of one based on trade, and capitalists one
based on capital. The industrial revolution IS one based on the
accumulation of capital - not even machines, but also of ideas. A
class which controls the capital and identifies itself as a group will
dominate the society.
So far this seems perfectly reasonable. What I would like to know
is how you CAN alter it. There seems to be ways:
1 Alter the source of power. Example - land based economies
to capital based ones. This requires some technical
innovation, or an enlargement of existing resources.
It is not easy to do.
2 Splinter the class. Socialists actually seem intent on
UNIFYING classes, not splitting them.
3 Change human nature. ie make it so that those in power
will do what you want, such as divide goods evenly
between all people, even when they could get away with
another distribution. Possible, but like 1 extremely
difficult. Ironically, the best way to do this is through
religion, while is so disliked by many communists.
Anyone thing of other ways of altering the outcome?
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 31 December 1981 1132-EST (Thursday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Collectivism again
First, in regard to the dis-incentive to do work in a communal
atmosphere, I would agree that if control is centralized everything
falls apart. While I'm not necessarily in favor of worker control of
factories, I find it intriguing. The claims I've heard say that
people work hard because if you don't, the guys on either side of you
bitch at you for cutting into the profit margin. The feedback loop
from production to consumption is still small enough that if you sit
around, the people who see you shirking know that you are hurting them
directly. The same is true for a communal house. These work (when
they work) because of social pressure. "Hey, Frank, it's your turn to
do the dishes". A true loser, who consistently refuses to work, gets
evicted.
I think I spotted the logical flaw very clearly in the
inference going from Webster's definition of atruism to the "good,
bad" definition: good = altruistic acts, bad = not ( altruistic acts
). Very few altruistic people would really claim this. You need
tri-state logic: good = altruistic, bad = something that *harms*
others, neutral = things done for yourself that don't harm others.
Rand's version only applies to the severest forms of monasticism.
Finally, I don't think that those two principles are
necessarily workable in real life. Emotions are very much a part of
life, unless you are an automaton who only lives for science. If
someone asks me not to do something because it makes them feel bad, I
consider this a valid request, and weigh their expressed unhappiness
against how badly I need to do it. And it seems to me that there are
cases where it is okay to initiate force (someone very gently carrying
away my stereo, and politely refusing to surrender it). If they elect
to be immoral, it may require force to stop them.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Dec 1981 1125-PST
Subject: Reason vs. emotion in Objectivism
From: Mike Leavitt < LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
It's probably a mistake to set Rand's ideas up as a
simple "reason vs. emotion" dichotomy. In most of the
Objectivist epistemology I've read, the distinction is more
properly "reason vs. unreason." There's an important
distinction.
A properly integrated and functioning mind is in concert
with it's emotions--the emotions have been "trained" to have the
right responses. In such situations, if reasoning leads to one
conclusion but your "gut" leads to another, the indication is for
sitting down and doing some serious thinking about the split.
There's a kind of background processing that shows itself as
an emotional response that, again, in a well-developed intellect,
deserves attention.
Mike < Leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 31 December 1981 11:49-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
There is a difference in kind from saying "the government owns
allof the factories and thus owns all of its employees" and "U. S.
Steel owns all its factories and thus owns its employees." The
difference is that if an employee comes to dislike U. S. Steel he can
work for someone else or start his own company. This is not possible,
even in principle, in a country where all means of production are
owned by the state.
Where means of production are owned by the state, the only
response to state policies is to emigrate. The "friction" associated
with a decision to emigrate is far greater than that associated with a
decision to change jobs. (Even in the U.S., where there are no
restrictions on emigration, many fewer people emigrate than change
jobs every year. In countries where the means of production are owned
by the state, emigration tends to be restricted.)
------------------------------
Date: 30 December 1981 17:35 cst
From: VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan)
Subject: objectivism
It bothers me when someone claims that thus-and-so should be
deduced from "first principles." Arguing about just what
constitutes "first principles" is probably as tough as arguing
with a Catholic theologian over "natural law" or as it might have
been in the 18th century to argue over Euclid's fifth postulate.
"First principles" seems to mean "those things which I cannot
prove but which are necessary to the rest of my argument."
In any case, it's fruitless to try to deduce the universe from a
finite set of axioms. Please read "Goedel, Escher, Bach: an
Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter --- that is the true
"must reading" for anyone who would consider philosophy in modern
scientific terms.
You don't have to use math to do philosophy: but if you choose not
to use math, then you mustn't use deductive logic either, or the
whole predicate calculus jumps in on your reasoning. And in doing
so, it says "this is math, and it's finite, and it's incomplete
--- and it can't express truth! so don't be pompous and claim
your philosophy is based on it."
------------------------------
Date: 31 December 1981 18:47 est
From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-Multics
Subject: cargo cults
My favorite cargo cult example involves the worship of the
golden days of business. All we have to do to achieve an
earthly paradise is to abolish all laws controlling business
practices, eliminate taxes, cut wages back to 10 cents a week
and .... Very popular among Reaganites.
I keep wondering how Ayn Rand came up with her basic axioms,
she sounds suspiciously like a number of ancient Greek
geometers describing the parallel postulate as an inate truth.
If I have to accept human truth from an author I'll pick truths
from someone who can develop some characters.
Rand is as bad as the Marquis de Sade in that he picked a set
of reasonable sounding axioms and applied them rationally to
various situations and wrote awful novels. As the
mathematicians found out, reason can get you pretty far but it
can't tell you where to start.
------------------------------
Date: 01 Jan 1982 1352-EST
From: JoSH at RUTGERS
Subject: Political Physics
Any orderly and reasonable discussion of political behavior must
take as a starting point a set of principles of motivation and
organization. I just happen to have such a set with me ( > presto< ),
and will lay them out in an attempt to discover how much grounds
we on the list have for rational argument.
First, we have basic motivations. These include such things as
basic biological needs like food, shelter, sex, lack of boredom,
security, social status. Then there are secondary motivations
such as esthetics, morals, and "enlightened X" where X is one of
the above. These secondary motivations don't directly fulfill
basic needs but are connected to them by reasoning and/or training.
Without making any claim to a complete list or even a proper
categorization, we'll go on to the question of range. I have in
mind here a vague analogy to physical forces, where there are
strong but short-range nuclear forces, and then weaker but longer
range electric ones, and differences are responsible for the
structure of atoms, molecules, and so forth.
We have several ranges of motivation, for example: first, that where
the other person is as important as oneself, ie in a "nuclear" family;
then a nearby range like friends or housemates where one acts in the
interest of the group. The operational limits of the range of
motivations in this class are important to discover.
"Nobody ever died for dear old Rutgers" but people have died for
family at one extreme and country at the other. Thus there is
something qualitative as well as quantitative about the ranges.
A lot of this has to do, of course, with one's conception of the
relationships, ie, for most secondary motivations, the precise
connection in reason or training to one's basic motives.
I personally think that most social designers have completely
ignored the "physics" of the "matter" they are working with,
particularly the socialists.
--JoSH
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sun 03 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 27
Contents: Objectivism, altruism, making political science a science
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 January 1982 02:46-EST
From: Michael Travers < MT at MIT-MC>
Subject: Objectivism, altruism, making political science a science
Rand's argument seems to recognize only the mock altruism that results
from ideology or guilt. She is correct in attacking this but errs in
presuming it to be the real or only form of altruism.
Altruism is merely regard for the welfare of others, and in no way
requires placing the welfare of others above the welfare of one's
self. It seems obvious to me that for a social being, the welfare of
one's self is directly dependent upon the welfare of others, and hence
concern for others is completely rational. All human societies, save
pathological cases, exhibit altruistic behavior.
I suspect that the health of a human society can be measured be
observing the degree of altruistic behavior among its members.
Heavily competitive economies discourage altruism and may thus
prove to be the social analogue of cancer.
I think what JoSH means by "political physics" is to try to make
political science an actual science. A big job. Physics doesn't
really provide a useful model for human social behavior though. We
should look to biology (particularly ethology and sociobiology) and
anthropology to give our arguments some objective status. Most of my
feelings about altruism are derived from Kropotkin, the Russian
anarchist and naturalist. His book "Mutual Aid" is a fascinating
study of altruism as an evolutionary force in animal and human
societies. A rather horrifying description of a totally
non-altruistic society can be found in "The Mountain People" by
anthropologist Colin Turnbull.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 04 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 28
Contents: Objectivism (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 1982 23:15:55-PST
From: decvax!watmath!cbostrum at Berkeley
Subject: Ayn Rand errors, US Army violence.
Many of the problems with Rand have already been pointed out in
other messages to this digest, but quite a few are still missing.
A lot of these are very fundamental in nature.
First, the so called principles. The trouble with setting up any sort
of "axioms" from which one can use "reason" and "logic" to decide what
can be "justified" is that one can never be sure exactly what these
axioms mean. They are not mathematical, with well defined syntactical
rules of inference, but depend for their meaning upon a complicated
social milueu. Pretending you are "rational" because it looks like
you are doing math is not that laudable. In fact, it shows you to have
an overly simplified world view.
I assume that the two mentioned principles (of Dietz') also include a
third saying something like "Anything not excluded by the two above
principles is okay". It's strange the way that physical force is so
bad, and that it's great to use economic force, and psychological
force. Of course, the latter is needed so that the big business can
hire brainwashers to get us to buy things we didn't really want or
need. Her simplistic view that the only evil force is that of the
club, i.e. that which can be seen, is a necessary result of her
pre-scientific and mystical view that man is an autonomous being who
has some inexplicable "self-determination" and "free will", and who
cannot possibly be influenced by things beneath his rationality and
consciousness.
After one has decided what the principles are, you have to get
everyone to accept them. Rand's are so minimal one might think that
once we were clear on their meaning, that would be easy. Not so. As
far as I can see, it would often be "rational" to use all sorts of
physical force on people to get things that I want. I have seen her
trying to justify the "no physical force" principle, and she hasn't
done a very good job. I seem to remember that she ends up insisting
that it is **irrational** to want to use physical force! (Check Intro
to OE). This is silly enuf, but jump to her book on so called
"Objectivist Epistimology", and you will find her telling us that "man
is rational" is an **analytic** truth, which suggests that she should
go back to her elementary philosophy texts, unless her extension of
"man" is different from everyone elses! Any acceptable justification
that I have seen of this "no physical force" principle can usually be
used to justify even stronger moral rules.
I will finally note that it is difficult to apply any of Rand's
"philosophical" claims to the way things are now. This is due to
things like the "power play" way in which present property
distributions came about, and are sustained. However, she thinks this
can be done, and speaks of the glorious days of free business during
the industrial revolution, apparently unaware of the amazing suffering
that was going on amongst the masses of poor then. And her "no
physical force" principle being violated all over the place by
capitalists and the government doing their biddings. This attempt to
read justification for her principles from the real world discredits
her almost as much as her rabid, emotional and polemical style, and
her taking over of words such as "rational" and "objective". At least
Robert Nozick, in his "Anarchy State and Utopia", after arguing for a
similar view, admits it is hard to apply it to today's real world.
A good place to mention about government interference: US history is
full of the police, army, national guard, ignored-by-the-forces-of-
justice company hired thugs, etc. laying beatings and even killings on
peaceful workers and ocassionally innocent bystanders. I don't have to
mention particular cases, that having been done admirably already, but
just say there are a **lot** more; a good reference is
POLITICAL REPRESSION IN MODERN AMERICA, by robert goldstein.
---cbo
------------------------------
Date: 4 January 1982 02:42-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Objectivism
It seems to me that there are several fundamental flaws in Ayn
Rand's presentation of Objectivism as quoted by Paul Dietz. Some of
these have been touched on before, especially by Deutsch, but I think
I can contribute something also.
To begin, Ayn Rand seeks to challenge what is ordinarily connoted
by the words "selfishness" and "altruism." To do this, she natuarally
proceeds along the following course: first, she explains selfishness
and altruism as they are commonly interpreted; she then tells us
what's wrong with that; and finally she gives us her new definitions.
According to Ms. Rand, the dictionary defines selfishness as
"concern with one's own interests." Later, we are told that
selfishness is synonymous with evil in the minds of most people, and
therefore that any act performed in the interest of oneself is morally
wrong: thus her example of the industrialist and the robber. Both
seek to profit only themselves, she says, and so both are condemned by
ethics ("the ethics of altruism") which consider selfishness as evil.
First of all, I believe Ms. Rand has got her definitions wrong.
Selfishness is *not* simple concern for one's own interests. It is
*inordinate* concern for one's own interests. And unlike Ms. Rand's
straw man "ethics of altruism," the ethics that most people hold do
not consider all acts that do not benefit others to be evil.
Ayn Rand states that "altruism lumps together into one
'package-deal'" the folowing questions: "(1) What are values? (2) Who
should be the beneficiary of values." The important thing to notice
here is that Ms. Rand is the one posing the questions. Naturally, she
poses them in such a way as to facilitate her point. In particular,
the second question is improper. Under many ethical systems, it is
immaterial to ask cui bono; Kantian duty ethics is one example. In
such systems, bono is the only important element, and "good" exists
apart from someone's receiving a benefit. Of course, under other
systems the answer to that question is crucial. Those ethical systems
which tie together the two questions mentioned earlier are ones which
are concerned with effects. Both egoism and altruism are so
concerned, and the evil effects of an altruistic society -- a pure
altruistic society -- are no more pernicious that those of a pure
egoistic society. The difference between altruism and Objectivism is
not that the former lumps together the two questions, but that
Objectivism is egoism tempered by reason. Notably, Ms. Rand does not
compare her system with altruism tempered by reason, which is closer
to the ethics of most people.
Later, Ms. Rand says that "altruism permits no view of man except
as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and
parasites ... it permits no concept of benevolent coexistence among
men ... it permits no concept of justice." The self-supporting,
self-actualized man is immoral under the principles of altruism, Ms.
Rand tells us. At this point, the difference between most people's
ethics and Ms. Rand's altruism is great. Neither Judaism nor
Christianity nor any other widely-held ethical system entreats us to
behave altruisticly under all circumstances.
Next comes Ms. Rand's attempt to get around the great question of
egoism: what are the limitations of one's self-interest. According to
her, ethics must be based upon fundamental moral principles that are
derivable from man's nature (shades of a "natural law?"), and
self-interest is not simple gratification of emotional desires. Using
this as ammunition, she indicts "Nietzschean egoists" (true, or pure,
egoists) on the grounds that "the satisfaction of irrational desires
is not a criterion of moral value." Adherents of Nietzsche would
undoubtedly disagree with her assertion that their philosophy has to
do with *irrational* desires.
The difficulty here is that Ms. Rand has admitted the existence
of moral principles. Unfortunately, since I haven't read any of her
work except this introduction, and she doesn't bother to mention
within it what they are, I can't comment on them. I can say that
many other philosophers, trying to come up with fundamental moral
principles, have produced ones inconsistent with Objectivism. Indeed,
the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of *deducing* principles
from man's existence is manifest. Reason and rational thought are
*tools*, through which truth can be discovered. But they must start
from these fundamental principles, or axioms, whose truth must be
presumed. Ms. Rand recognizes this, but she also must recognize that
there are many conflicting sets of principles which have not yet been
shown inconsistent. Objectivism may be one of them, but it is not the
only one. Whether or not one of them is the truth, and the others
not, is a question that is beyond the scope of logic and reason, and
any claim that one system or another is completely based upon reason
is fraudulent.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 05 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 29
Contents: Altruism (1.2 msgs)
Real-world question for libertarians (.8 msgs)
Worker Ownership (2 msgs)
Collectivism
Labor
Political Science
Self-determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 4 Jan 1982 0855-PST
From: Paul Dietz < DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Altruism
To: mt at MIT-MC, poli-sci at RUTGERS
Rand attacks a mock version of altruism, but this mock altruism is what
most governments enforce today. In a free society voluntary altruism
would of course not be illegal. What would be illegal is involuntary
altruism. A moral justification is the usual defense for this kind
of altruism, and this is what Rand rebuts.
------------------------------
Date: 4 January 1982 17:56-EST
From: Michael Travers < MT at MIT-AI>
Subject: Altruism; Real-world question for libertarians
Rand's statement doesn't mention governments or states, nor does it
make a distinction between voluntary and involuntary altruism. She
seems to have it in more for altruism motivated out of guilt than for
really involuntary "altruism" such as taxation.
---
Congress is debating a bill that would force states to remove lending
interest ceilings. Consumer groups are calling it "The Loan Shark
Revitalization Act". Since an interest ceiling qualifies as
government intervention in the market, I assume libertarians are
against them. But this bill poses subtler issues.
Paradoxically, the bill would increase the power of the Federal
government to intervene in the economy while superficially lessening
such intervention. The bill's language is restrictive; it is a
limitation on the powers of the state governments. Now, I assume that
the libertarian position is that state governments don't have
"rights", only individual human beings do, so there is no reason to
get upset. But consider the real political consequences.
Government power to intervene has not been eliminated, it has been
transferred from individual state governments to the Federal
government. Even if the current supporters have libertarian
motivations, the government as a whole cannot. It is pretty safe to
assume that if this bill passes, sometime in the future there will be
a Federal interest ceiling. This is a net loss of freedom--right now
you have an option of moving to another state if you don't like the
law in your own; or you can attempt to change the law through
politics, which is hard, but orders of magnitude easier on the state
level than on the federal level.
So, what would all you libertarians do in this situation? Or, more
generally, how do you interface your ideals to the real world?
[How would this bill give the Federal Govt. any ability to dictate
interest ceilings it doesn't have now? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 4 Jan 1982 17:09:12-PST
From: ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!presby!aron at Berkeley
Subject: Worker Ownership ; The Wall Street Journal
Recently, several people have mentioned how they've "heard" how worker
owned industries have led to greater worker satisfaction etc.
However, no one cited any specific case. Recently, in the *Wall
Street Journal* there was an article on one such worker owned company
- Rath, which is in the meat-packing line. The upshot of the article
is that at least in this case, worker ownership led to *greater*
dissatisfaction. There are many causes of this, including the
apparent co-opting by management of the union leadership. The article
pointed out that in general worker ownership has not proven too
successful.
While on the topic of the *Wall Street Journal* I'd like to sing its
praises. In my opinion, it is the only honest, reliable and accurate
news source left in this country. This is true both in regard to its
"straight" news and its news analysis. The former is the only place
where one still finds news and not journalism. The latter is always
balanced, bringing all competing views on the subject.
As for editorial material, the editorial line is pro-freedom, whether
it be freedom of enterprise or freedom of national expression. They
are probably the moast analytic and thought provoking editorials of
any newspaper in the country. For those of you who think the WSJ is a
pro-business mouthpiece, you're in for a big surprise. As for op-ed
material, it ranges in ideology from Alexander Cockburn of Village
Voice fame to Irving Kristol. They're also very good reviews of
movies, books, theater, sports etc.
For people who read this newsletter, no matter what ism you subscribe
to, no matter what your race or religion, the WSJ is a must read.
Both facts and opinions relevant to the debates carried on here can be
found in it in great abundance. As an aside, I've found more coverage
of computer related news in the WSJ than in any other daily newspaper.
Not surprisingly, the WSJ has the largest circulation of any daily
newspaper in this country. Try it. You'll like it.
(No, I am not a Dow Jones stockholder!).
------------------------------
Date: 4 January 1982 2256-EST (Monday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: workers owning factories
If I recall in my reading the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette over the past
couple of years, the Jenette (sp?) Glass Works was bought by former
workers after being shut down. Everything was hunky-dory for awhile,
but now they seem to be acting just like a normal company. The
workers who became managers act like managers. The workers act like
unionized workers. Things don't always work out well. Lack of
business hasn't helped.
------------------------------
Date: 4 January 1982 2236-EST (Monday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: collectivism
The problem with collectivism isn't dividing things N ways, with large
N, and getting 0 return. If everyone provides an equal share, you
wind up getting the full benefit of your effort. The problem comes
when some people don't pull their own weight, and things get too
unequal (whatever that means). Socialism in funding works fine here
at CMU because things don't get too unequal (theory at the low end,
VLSI, Robotics, etc at the high end). Would you like to do some work
and then give part of it to someone who's just sitting around, and not
even trying to work? I wouldn't.
------------------------------
Date: 4 January 1982 2249-EST (Monday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: labor
In the previous discussions, it seems to me that labor has been
assumed to be physical labor. Being one who does mental labor, I'm
curious how the socialism/capitalism/etc arguments would change if
any. It's fairly easy to see how hard someone is working on an
assembly line by measuring their number of parts meeting some quality
standard. How do you measure mental labor, especially creativity (the
subject of a Bill Moyers TV show this Friday, 1/8/82)?
In a system where mental labor becomes more important than physical
labor (if robots building robots drives costs down to raw material
limits), then an increasing percentage of capital must be devoted to
increasing the productivity of creativity (a new buzz-phrase). This
might be office automation, office wall hangings, isolation tanks,
etc. But again, its really hard to trace the economic value of an
idea. You can just get a general feel of who's good and who's
average.
Here's the rub. You can easily tell when workers go on strike, start
sickouts (gasouts in LA during the gas shortage in the City Attorney's
office), or an Italian strike (slowdowns, presumably what is happening
in Poland now). But how do you tell when people go on a thought
strike. I've had lots of days when I haven't come up with any truly
worthwhile ideas. I've spent months going down deadends. Who's to
tell? If a bunch of engineers decided to do work that was subtly
wrong (like a horrendously bad microcode bug that wouldn't be
discovered until years later), how could this be stopped? In my
opinion, companies based mostly on the creation of new ideas (as
opposed to selling soap) can only survive by being nice to their
employees.
This seems to shift the balance of power to mental labor doesn't it?
Good mental labor appears much rarer than capital, etc.
------------------------------
Date: 4 January 1982 2259-EST (Monday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: political science
Most science progresses by doing experiments and coming up with a
theory to explain the results, make predictions, do more experiments,
etc. No controlled political experiments have been done (unlike
experimental economics at Caltech). There have been numerous SF
stories about using space colonies as places for such experiments.
Until then, there may not be much science in poli-sci, as anyone on
this mailing list can tell.
------------------------------
Date: 5 January 1982 03:01-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Poland Message
Bill Hofmann asked several questions in his message of Dec. 28
about self-determination that have gone unanswered.
"Can you quote me some significant examples of US support for
self-determination in the US sphere?"
Considering most Latin American countries as belonging to the US
sphere of influence, I can think of at least three examples.
(1) The fall of Batista and the rise of Castro in Cuba.
(2) The fall of Somoza in Nicaragua.
(3) U.S. support for free elections in El Salvador, as
supervised by the present ruling government.
In the first two cases, I grant that our support consisted
chiefly in failing to aid the opposing party. But the reason for that
was that we thought Castro was bringing democracy to Cuba, and that
the Sandinistas would bring, if not democracy, at least something
closer to it than the Somoza government. In the third example, there
can be no doubt that the U.S. wants a return to democratic government
at the earliest stage that is practicable.
"How can you REALLY support self-determination . . . and say that
it shouldn't be supported in some countries?"
By supporting self-determination in some countries and saying that it
shouldn't be supported in others. Self-determination, like democracy,
is not the only good thing in the world. Sometimes other
considerations are paramount. In Turkey, for example, violence had
reached intolerable levels before the take-over of the present
military government. Afterwards, the Turkish people had lost
democracy, at least temporarily, but had gained the security of their
lives: a pretty good exchange, in my opinion.
"Who decides? Do we? Is it still self-determination then?"
Self-determination is self-determination, irrespective of whether we
or anyone else approves. The U.S. has the right to determine what
courses of action are in its interest and proceed thusly, just as the
Soviet Union does. As I said before, self-determination is not an
unqualified good, and we are not bound to support it in all cases.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 06 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 30
Contents: Federal interest-rate control (3 msgs)
The Wall Street Journal (2 msgs)
Worker Control of Business (2 msgs)
Turkish Violence
Political Science
A debate between Cox and Hofmann (3 msgs) remains in the queue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 Jan 1982 0710-PST
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: Federal interest-rate control
As an interesting counterpoint to the bill to REMOVE state
interest ceilings, I recall reading recently of a bill (or at
least proposed federal legislation) which would IMPOSE a federal
ceiling and also over-ride the states, with the intent being to
limit all rates to some lower figure than the current range, such
as 10%. The title was vaguely something like "The Federal Usury
Act". I don't recall the sponsor or other details.
The intent was to overcome the damaging effect of high interest
rates on small business, and I believe it was written about in
the US Chamber of Commerce's "Washington Report".
Anyway, I wonder what the actual effect of such control would be.
Let's assume that it mandates a rollback of all existing CD's and
other accounts paying higher rates to 10% interest payments, and
also forces financial institutions to limit all loans (existing
and future) to 10%. For some good portion of the money they have
control over (I almost said "their money", but realized it's not
really "theirs"), they would get no return, it being borrowed at
the same rate as loaned. For other money, such as that still in
savings accounts at 6% or so, they would get a respectable
margin, though less than they get now.
Would the effect be to dry up all sources of loan money? Or
would the fact that NOTHING could get a better return make the
loaning at 10% the only way they could get any return at all?
(Let's also assume that the legislation is so worded as to
prohibit all ways of getting around interest ceilings without
calling it "interest"; such things as "points" charged parties in
the transaction and the like.) Would banks and S&L's just stop
loaning and use deposited funds to play the market or go to
foreign investments without limitations? Or would not loaning
endanger their charters or whatever other authorization they have
to operate? It would cause a large outflow of foreign funds --
what would this do?
Like wage/price controls, it has a certain appeal, but hidden
problems. Would such a move cause more trouble than it cures?
Will Martin
[It is just a particular kind of price control, no? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jan 1982 0909-PST
From: Paul Dietz < DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Re: Altruism; Real-world question for libertarians
Rand is against involuntary altruism, and guilt is often used as a
weapon by its proponents. After all, if you are guilty, you should be
punished.
Interest rate ceilings: On the other hand, you could say the same
thing about civil-rights legislation. I think it will be easier to
battle interest rate controls in Washington than in 50 states
simultaneously. After all, if the law passes at the federal level it
will hold no matter where you move. If the laws vary from state to
state, if you don't live in a state that has interest rate controls
you have zero say about it, even if you want to move their later.
Interfacing an ideology to the real world is tricky. There are plenty
of pitfalls you have to look out for. For example, there is the
problem of going halfway. Just because it is desirable to reach state
X doesn't mean that it is going to be an improvement to get half way
to X. For example, unilateral disarmament. Another problem is
stability. That is, X might be a desirable state, but it could be
unstable in the face of small perturbations. An example is a society
of people that shun violence always. This society is unstable:
introducing one violent person upsets it. A final problem is realism:
is X really desirable? A totally altruistic society would be an
example here.
You are right about states' rights: this is nonsense to a libertarian.
The rights of a group are the rights of the individuals in the group.
The same applies to "nation's rights".
------------------------------
Date: 5 January 1982 16:47-EST
From: Michael Travers < MT at MIT-AI>
Subject: Interest ceilings
[How would this bill give the Federal Govt. any ability to dictate
interest ceilings it doesn't have now? --JoSH]
Right now it may have the ability to do so in some abstract sense, but
it hasn't excercised that ability, leaving it to the state
governments. By removing the ability from the states, a power vacuum
is created that can only be filled by the federal government (either
by imposing federal controls or by repealing the new law). The
libertarians would like to maintain the vacuum, but power abhors a
vaccum even more than nature does (how's that for political physics?).
I'll second the recommendation of the Wall Street Journal; my
information on this topic is from an article in Monday's issue (which
also featured The Three Stooges on the front page).
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jan 1982 1644-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI>
Subject: WSJ as paragon of virtue
On the unimpeachability of the Wall Street Journal:
I agree with you that the WSJ is an excellent source for news. After
all, the WSJ ran the first article in mainstream press questioning the
veracity of the State Department White Paper on El Salvador, an
excellent piece. As for why this is so, Chomsky suggests that
businessmen NEED to know the truth in order to do business
effectively. That's why I read Far Eastern Economic Review for news
of Southeast Asia. As for the editorials, I hasten to disagree. They
are intensely right-wing, and, as several commentators have noted,
often read as if their writers hadn't read the front page of their own
paper.
But as always, I'd always suggest that if you really want to know
what's going on, you won't find out by reading only one paper, from
one country. That's why I find the NYT and the Boston Globe useful,
and numerous weeklies from the US and elsewhere essential to give me a
perspective on the news.
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jan 1982 1656-PST
From: Mike Leavitt < LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
Subject: Wall Street Journal
Second the motion on the WSJ. It is the only daily newspaper I
get, now. It has been the only daily newspaper I've trusted for
years. They keep their "line" out of their stories, and this is
the heart of what I consider to be good journalism.
------------------------------
Date: 5 January 1982 10:08 cst
From: VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan)
Subject: The Fallacy of Worker-Controlled Business
Why do we persist in confusing ownership with control? In all
cases so far cited of worker-owned businesses (save one), the
workers were owners, not controllers.
In several cases former workers became managers; some seem
surprised that they then behaved as such. But a manager is not
the same as a worker. When you make a worker a manager, he is no
longer a worker - he is an ex-worker (for all the good that may
do).
(I suppose the worker-owners would have better off to hire
professional managers than to live through a period of poor
management while a set of rookies came up to speed.)
The notion that ex-workers make more humane managers is
fallacious. It stems from denying the basic conflict between labor
and management. But that conflict is real.
A primary goal of management must be efficient production of
goods. ("Efficient" in this case simply means using fewer
resources than the competition does to produce the same goods.)
One of the resources that management must use is labor. This is
true both in production of material and intellectual goods.
Efficiency in this restrictive sense is clearly not a primary goal
of labor. Labor must perforce have goals such as making the job
interesting, worthwhile and comfortable. There is usually a
tradeoff between these factors and efficiency -- especially since
labor is not the only resource that must be efficiently used.
(Multiple shifts are clearly more efficient than letting physical
plant stand idle two-thirds of a day; yet when I worked rotating
shifts I didn't know any workers that liked it.)
The resolution of this tradeoff is classically done by adversary
proceedings between labor (union) and management negotiators.
Since there is a true conflict between the sides, it constitutes a
conflict of interest in law and in fact for one side to purport to
represent the other.
I'm just trying to show that the lion and lamb can't lie down
together. And changing lambs into lions doesn't fix things
(except eventually the lions starve to death).
The exception I noticed in the digests was the case where workers
elected their management. I'd like to hear more about the success
or failure of this business -- coercion through the vote may work
better than labor-management negotiation.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jan 1982 0816-PST
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: JoSH's quote from Friedman
Back in Vol 2 #25, JoSH included an interesting quote from
Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom". The image of a concerted
effort by the workers to buy out the "capitalists" leads to an
interesting series of conjectures...
Let us assume this happens. As the workers buy stocks with their
saved salaries, there will always be those who won't sell --
foundations, trusts, institutions of various kinds, little old
ladies, whatever. Therefore, due to traditional supply and
demand, the value of stocks go up as fewer are available for this
mass of workers to buy. Eventually, the workers offer so much
that everybody except the little old ladies feels they HAVE to
sell to get this enormous return.
However, then the foundations and institutions have all this
extra cash lying around with nothing left to invest it in. What
do they do? Offer the workers more and more for some of the
stocks back. All along, this intense demand has caused all stock
prices to soar and people can't start new corporations fast
enough to issue more stock to sell. Eventually, the high offers
from the institutions induce at least some workers to sell their
stocks and live in the luxury they have denied themselves in
order to start this cycle in the first place! The total "value"
of all shares has ballooned to some staggering amount but now the
shares are spread out somewhat more broadly, and everyone is a
paper millionaire. The government acquires great assets from
estate taxes and capital gains taxes as people die or sell...
But what has been going on in the meantime? Remember, all the
workers have "chosen to live at the consumption standard of
hippies" and save half their incomes to buy stocks. Well, the
country is immediately plunged into a tremendous depression, as
no one except the few rich are left to buy any consumer goods, so
all the workers lose their jobs and have no income to buy these
stocks in the first place and have to sell what they have bought
in order to eat. Stock prices fall drastically and the rich and
the institutions buy up the stocks at bargain prices for their
future appreciation or liquidation at book value or whatever.
Since even the blue chips stopped paying dividends, the little
old ladies have starved to death and even their shares come on
the market. After a painful period of recovery, the stocks are
now even more concentrated in the hands of the power
structure/ruling elite/our kind/them (pick one depending on your
ideology).
Gee, aint speculation wonderful?
Will Martin
PS - There's no moral here -- I just liked the conflicting
images going on at the same time... WM
[Anyone interested in this, please remember that it is David Friedman
we are talking about (not Milton). The point of the passage is to
point out that if all the workers really had common goals and the
ability to work together to meet them, they could perform any social
transformation they liked without violence.]
------------------------------
Date: 5 January 1982 1220-EST (Tuesday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: Turkish violence
In the LA Times yesterday, the head of the Turkish junta said that
before they took over, 20 people a day were being killed. He said
that there has always been torture in Turkey, and he was powerless to
stop some policeman out in the provinces from torturing someone. The
best that he could do was investigate later and punish. I believe
that he said this to Amnesty International. BTW, the previous
statements about the Right still being allowed to run loose aren't
correct. They clamped down on everyone and placed all political
leaders under house arrest.
------------------------------
Date: 5 January 1982 21:16-EST
From: Michael Travers < MT at MIT-AI>
Subject: Political science
Science progresses by 1) taking an unordered set of observations and
forming a model or theory to explain a subset thereof, 2) using the
model to make predictions beyond the original observations, and only
then 3) devising and performing experiments to test those predictions.
Political science is somewhere in 1) above. What we need are better
models of social systems. A scientific model must be descriptive
rather than prescriptive (that is, free of "should"s). Most
ideologies that have been discussed start off with an overly simple,
overly vague model and proceed to hang a lot of prescriptive argument
onto it. Libertarianism has a relativly explicit model, but it is too
limited to be of much use, as it doesn't take into consideration any
entities other than individuals or any relationships other than
economic.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 07 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 31
Contents: This issue is entirely a back and forth between
Cox and Hofmann starting out on self-determination
but touching on a host of subjects as it proceeds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 January 1982 21:47-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Self-determination
"The key feature of the examples [of self-determination cited by
Apple] is I think not a support for self-determination, but
rather an inability to prevent any other outcome.... Certainly
the Bay of Pigs and CIA attempts to do all sorts of things to
Castro (put out a contract on him, make his beard fall out) and
to Cuba (crop and livestock poisoning) don't indicate any
willingness to support self-determination." - Bill Hofmann
All of this is, to be succinct, wrong. As far as the fall of
Batista is concerned, the U.S. State Department ignored its own
observers and chose to believe the glowing reports of a young,
idealistic reporter named Anthony Lewis (of NY Times fame) about the
great democratic changes planned by Castro. There was plenty we COULD
have done, had we chose to do so. All that money we spend on defense
does buy something, you know. As for the CIA's poisoning crops and
livestock in Cuba, I think you've been reading Monthly Review too
long. Why don't you try, for a change, a magazine that has some
regard for the facts?
"In the case of Nicaragua, it is important to note that Carter
supported the Sandanistas [sic] only after significant elements
in the business sector threw in their support.... Certainly the
repeated use of Marines to keep Somoza and his father in place
don't [sic] show support for self-determination"
Carter "supported" the Sandinistas after they gained significant
support among the population. You wouldn't expect him to support, on
the grounds of self-determination, a *minority* group that wanted to
take over the government, would you? As far as what happened in the
past with the Marines, it's not material. You asked me to show an
example of U.S. support for self-determination. I believe this is
such an example.
El Salvador: while it's true that right-wing death squads have
killed many people, and that center and left candidates are unwilling
to brave running for election due to fear of these squads, the coming
elections offer the best hope for the most stable and democratic
government possible in this country, assuming that Duarte's party
wins. The FDR is NOT a "broad-based opposition front"; it is a
Marxist revolutionary army, similar in many ways to the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua. Unfortunately, many Social Democrats in Europe refuse to
see this; but then they are refusing to see a great many things these
days. We cannot support negotiations with the FDR any more than we
can support them with the PLO. We do support, as I said before, the
only way to bring a measure of democracy to this troubled country:
the government-sponsored elections.
Re your remarks about freedom and expediency: The purpose of the
United States Government is best stated in the preamble to the
Constitution. You'll remember that it says "We the People of the
United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish
justice, etc., and secure the blessings of liberty TO OURSELVES AND
OUR POSTERITY do hereby etc." It does not say that the government
must do all this for all people in the world. Certainly we have a
moral obligation to support freedom in the world, but we are not
required to do so, nor should we, when such support threatens our
interests. Now I am not saying we have the right to do everything
that would advance our cause; there are certain negative moral
imperatives prohibiting us from, say, starting an agressive war for
territorial aggrandizement. But we are under no positive imperatives,
compelling us to support "freedom fighters" throughout the world,
ignoring our interests. The U.S. is not the moral policeman of the
world.
There are two points which, I believe, you are ignoring. First,
everyone who calls himself a "freedom fighter" will not necessarily
bring freedom to his country. Second, you equate "self-determination"
with democracy. To you, any country not ruled through democratic
process has not had the benefit of "self-determination". For example,
you call our support of Marcos in the Phillipines antagonistic to
self-determination. But the U.S. had nothing to do with Marcos's
nominating himself dictator; it was purely a Phillipine affair. Is
this self-determination? Is certainly isn't democracy, but then the
Phillipines managed it all by themselves.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jan 1982 2320-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Cuba, wrongness
CIA actions in Cuba:
For things such as CIA-sponsored hit-squads and plots to make Castro's
bearc fall out, I'd refer you to documents received under the Freedom
of Information Act from the CIA, by the New York Times, I believe.
Other funnyness includes exploding cigars, poisoned cigars,... As far
as mud-slinging (or red-baiting, have it as you will), Monthly Review
has at least as much regards for facts as National Review, whose
founder has been charged with misdeeds by the SEC. Indeed, we didn't
move to crush Castro immediately, but all the actions since point to a
sincere regret of this inaction. Support for self-determination isn't
a one-time thing...
El Salvador and Nicaragua:
What is significant support? Business support? Centrist support?
Notably, is there no support for the FDR in El Salvador? I think the
military success of the FMLN points to a high level of support
(certainly when compared to active support for the junta). Guerrilla
armies require a fairly high degree of support, especially in a small
country like El Salvador, where it is very difficult to hide a large
force without cooperation.
Elections in El Salvador:
El Salvador: while it's true that right-wing death squads have
killed many people, and that center and left candidates are
unwilling to brave running for election due to fear of these
squads, the coming elections offer the best hope for the most
stable and democratic government possible in this country,
ASSUMING THAT DUARTE'S PARTY WINS. [APPLE-emphasis added]
And if a large percentage of political groupings are effectively
disenfranchised, and if voters (such that will register) fear for
their vote, is it a fair election? Imagine if being or voting
Democrat in the US were enough to get you dragged away in the night.
That's a comparable situation to the one in El Salvador now.
FDR:
The FDR is NOT a "broad-based opposition front"; it is a Marxist
revolutionary army, similar in many ways to the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua. [APPLE]
Bullshit. The FDR is the political arm of the opposition forces. It
is a coalition of some marxist groups (gasp), some populist groups,
much of the SDP of El Salvador, and a significant portion of the CDP.
The FMLN is the military arm, and is also a coalition, of several
marxist groups, and several non-marxist ones. See ``El Salvador-A
Revoltion Brews,'' a special issue of NACLA Reports, available from
(in addition to me) your local CISPES, for a description of the FDR
and the FMLN. The FDR doesn't describe itself as a ``Marxist
revolutionary army,'' nor is it one. And, might I add, it has
expressed a willingness to negotiate, something the junta hasn't.
Freedom and expediency revisited:
Good point about self-determination not necessarily leading to
democracy. A prime case in point is Afghanistan, where the prime
opponents to the Soviet-supported junta aren't democratic at all.
Perhaps what I should have said is that self-determination is
analogous to democracy. About your example--the Phillipino people
certainly had nothing to do with Marcos' martial law, and certainly
didn't support it.
I guess there isn't much more I can say about this. WHOSE interests
determine US interests? Need you have precedent to be moral (or
support freedoms, moral or immoral)? Indeed, we are not required to
do anything should we choose not to do it (after all, we've got enough
clout, and we've always got the bomb). What I am suggesting is that
as people, we ought to support the struggles for freedom of other
peoples. Indeed, governments often seem to get in the way of this
struggle. That is one of the many weak points of government.
Who is the ``we'' you constantly refer to? Sounds like the State
Department. Certainly doesn't include Bill Hofmann.
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 6 January 1982 02:23-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Buckley, El Salvador, and Freedom
William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder of the *National Review*:
Was NOT charged by the SEC; it was his family's company, which is
run by his brother. While he may be his brother's keeper in the eyes
of God, the law does not consider him responsible for his brother's
actions. In any case, many people get charged for a crime; only some
of them are convicted.
By the way, since you live here in the Boston area, you might
wish to come up to Sanders Theater in Memorial Hall at Harvard,
Thursday night at 8:00, to see Buckley debate John Kenneth Galbraith.
Sponsored by the Harvard/Radcliffe Conservative Club (bet you didn't
know there was such an animal here at the Kremlin on the Charles!).
El Salvador:
Archbishop Rivera y Damas, the highest-ranking Catholic official
in El Salvador, says "the guerrillas do not have the support of the
people." And El Salvador may be a small country, but it is also a
sparsely-populated one, thus making guerrilla operations easier.
"And if a large percentage of political groupings are effectively
disenfranchised, and if voters (such that will register) fear for
their vote, is it a fair election? Imagine if being or voting
Democrat in the US were enough to get you dragged away in the
night. [!] That's a comparable situation to the one in El
Salvador now." - Bill Hofmann
I agree wholeheartedly. The elections will be a far cry from
fair, as that word is interpreted here in the US. But I still
maintain that they are the best way to move the country toward real
democracy and real freedom. There exist the following options for El
Salvador:
1. Negotiation with the guerrillas, presumably leading to a
coalition government and integration of the army with the guerrilla
forces. There are two problems with this. First, as I said before,
the people who control the FDR are revolutionary Marxists. In my
opinion, compromise with them would be foolhardy, and would probably
result eventually in a Communist-dominated state, "another Nicaragua."
Second, the "death squads" of the extreme right continue to be a
powerful force in El Salvador. They would not be likely to accede
peacefully to such a compromise. This would undoubtedly lead to
further violence.
2. Elections supervised by the government, combined with
continued government operations against the guerrillas. If Duarte's
party wins, he will have a more broad-based support, and will be more
able to control the extreme right. Also, the land reform will
continue to erode support for the guerrillas among the clergy and the
people. Eventually, with both the right and the left having abandoned
violence, real democracy and freedom can be implemented. If Duarte
loses, and the real right-wingers take complete control, the situation
will be much worse, and will necessitate further consideration by the
United States.
Therefore, I feel that the second option is preferable.
Freedom:
"What I am suggesting is that as people, we ought to support the
struggles for freedom of other peoples. Indeed, governments
often seem to get in the way of this struggle. That is one of
the many weak points of government."
I agree that this is in general a good rule; we should support "the
struggles for freedom of other peoples." But many times we can't make
our support as vocal as we would like. It does little good to go
about the world ranting and raving at friendly governments' violations
of rights, especially when such inviting targets as the U.S.S.R. and
Poland, to name two, are available. It is unfortunate that Jimmy
Carter failed to learn that lesson throughout his four years. It
would be stupid for the U.S. to advocate overthrow of, say, the junta
in Argentina and the authoritarian government in South Korea because
they violate the human rights of their citizens. And the
ineffectiveness of Carter's approach of public invectives has been
satisfactorially demonstrated. Reagan's quieter approach may be less
satisfying to "moral police" advocates, but it might end up being more
effective. It certainly is less damaging to our relations with those
countries.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Jan 1982 1443-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Re: El Salvador and Freedom
El Salvador:
Not true that it's sparsely populated. It's one of the
densest-populated countries in the Americas. Archbishop Rivera is the
sucessor to Archbishop Romero, who was assassinated by a right-wing
sniper (at his funeral, government troops fired on mourners, killing
several). Archbishop Romero was a strong supporter of opposition to
the junta (he appealed to Carter not to send arms to El Salvador just
a few days before he was murdered). Not suprisingly, Rivera is more
wary.
The two options:
1) Seems like you don't read (or at least don't believe) what I said
in my previous message. The FDR certainly has a broader base of
support than the junta (if perhaps not richer...) and is not
controlled by ``revolutionary Marxists.'' The death squads of the
right don't exist in a vacuum. They receive personnel, materiel and
strategic support from the Army and National Police. In fact, the
Army and ORDEN have conducted joint operations in the countryside and
in the refugee camps across the border in Honduras.
2) My objection to election remains. If an election is unfair (and
potentially, as in the past, fraudulent) it serves only to legitimize
the regime (as do one slate elections in many countries) without
offering anyone a choice, which I've always understood to be the
purpose of an election. And a prime characteristic of government
operations against the guerillas is that the major victims of the
operations AREN'T guerillas, but non-combatants. NO ONE has suggested
that there are more than 5000 (give or take a few thousand) guerillas,
and yet OVER 25,000 have been assassinated (ignoring those killed in
Army operations). And the search-and-destroy operations harm ALL the
people in the countryside. Indeed they (as did ops in Vietnam) deny
the guerillas the resources, but they also deny the civilians them
too. There have also been several documented massacres of refugees
(mostly aged, women and children) attempting to make it to Honduras
(an estimated 250,000+ Salvadorans are now refugees) by Salvadoran
troops and by Honduran troops.
One key to understanding El Salvador is to realize that the RIGHT IS
THE GOVERNMENT. The Army controls the government, kills the peasants
and supplies the death squads. The government(s) of El Salvador have
been using violence to achieve control since the 1930s, and the
mass-based opposition is very recent, and forced to violence when
conventional expression provoked government violence (see also the
NACLA report I refer to in my previous message).
Freedom:
Simply put, silence means tacit support. Indeed, Carter was wrong to
ignore the Soviet bloc, but I would suggest that it is better to take
action (which Carter never REALLY did) where we can expect to have
more effect. Reagan's ``quieter approach'' means normalization of
relations to FACILITATE human rights violations. What can sending
Army jeeps to Guatemala do but increase the violence and repression?
What can open support for aparthied do but give this odious form of
racism the support it needs to survive? (and so forth) ``Reagan's
quieter approach may be...more effective,'' but effective only for the
US armaments industry and multinational interests, not for the people
of the countries in question.
-Bill
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 08 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 32
Contents: Manager-owned Company
Interest Ceilings
Objectivism Info
Libertarianism and Marxism
Turkish generals and the WSJ
Corrigendum on El Salvador (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 6 January 1982 1129-EST (Wednesday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
To: Poli-Sci at Rutgers
Subject: manager-owned company
In-Reply-To: JoSH's message of 6 Jan 82 08:49-EST
Probably the largest manager-owned company is UPS. All stock is owned
by company managers (which they have to give up when they leave). In
addition, they have generous profit-sharing. A typical route driver
makes more than $20K after a couple of years (starting with a
high-school education) and upward mobility abounds. This data comes
from my mother talking to her UPS man. Anyone with eyes can see that
UPS is much more efficient than the Post Office. Those guys drive
like maniacs, double-park, and run with the packages. They probably
cover a route twice as fast as the Post Office.
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 6 January 1982 09:09-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Were the usury laws originally meant to "protect the consumer"
or were they meant to provide some provable charge against loan sharks
in cases where the threat of physical violence is almost unprovable?
These laws, at least the ones in New Jersey, were quite old, they had
a cieling of 18%, and this was in a time before the "truth in lending
act" where the typical method of stating interest charges understated
them by a factor of 2. (remember the 5% car loan? These loans were
discounted and the actual APR was about 11%.)
It seems to me that jailing loan sharks is a good idea. Let's
have an interest cieling of 100%/yr. or, if you fear that this law,
too, will become a cieling on clean loan transactions as the interest
rates rise in the future, a cieling of twice the current federal
treasury bill rate plus 10%.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Jan 1982 1359-EST
From: Rob Stanzel < Uc.Rob at MIT-EECS>
Reply-to: STANZE@MC
Subject: Rand
For an interesting and light historical view of objectivism and other
"right-wing" movements in the '50's and '60's, try Jerome Tuccille's
"It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand". Hard to find, but still in print.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Jan 1982 11:07 PST
From: Deutsch at PARC-MAXC
Re MT's final comment about Libertarianism, that "it doesn't take into
consideration ... any relationships other than economic":
I have always found it very amusing that Libertarianism and Marxism
have this flaw in common!
[Weren't you the one who was complaining before that Libertarianism
was only concerned with physical coercion and was blind to the
effects of "economic coercion"? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 6 January 1982 18:39-EST
From: Bern Niamir < BERN at MIT-MC>
Subject: Turkish generals and the WSJ
Don't believe the Turkish generals. The Shah used to make similar
claims that torture was not sanctioned and all that occured were a
few random incidents in the provinces. If at the Shah's time you
would query the state department, they would say: there has been
allegations made but no conclusive evidence has been demonstrated.
And thus was the story given by the New York Times and the networks.
Now that the Shah has no use-value, everybody is denouncing that
poor bastard for his atrocities!
The truth is that torture was an instrument of policy in the Shah's
time. (It is exactly the same now with the religous-fascist regime
of Khomeini.) Those who survived the tortures and became freed when
the Shah was overthrown have horror stories to tell of these
tortures. You will not be able to read their accounts without tears
in your eyes.
Torture is used as a policy instrument because it is a very potent
tool. First and foremost it terrorizes the opposition. Because of
international pressure, the Shah ordered a stop to torturing in the
prisons in 1977. Consequently, political activity blossemed and
became overt. The opposition was not afraid anymore to go to jail.
The second goal of torture is to extract information to track down
other members of the opposition. The third goal is to force the
victim to cooperate in order to discredit the opposition (e.g., the
Guatemalan peasant leader who escaped to Mexico recently and was
able to reveal how the torturers forced him to denounce the peasant
movement in front of a delegation of US Congressmen.)
The Shah's secret police had many of its torturers trained by the
CIA and the Israeli intelligence service. Modern torture equipment
were imported from the US. Many documents on torture in Iran are
available. Many accounts have appeared in less publicized journals
and progressive magazines. Amnesty International has documented
torture under the Shah and recently under Khomeini. For a vivid and
literary account of one case, read: "The Crowned Cannibals, 100
Days in the Shah's Prisons" (drop me a note if you want the
publisher and the Author).
It is obvious that the generals have no interest in admitting
torture in front of international opinion. The media will not
report it either (or they will downgrade it as isolated incidents)
because US policy is not served by such publicity. But the fact is
that torture is happening and is being reported (by journals that
don't have a vested interest in ignoring it) in less-circulated
journals that never reach the hands of average Joe and Jane. The
best way to find out is to talk to a politically conscious citizen
of the country.
The problem with the Wall Street Journal being the only source of
news is that it only reflects the news which is of interest to its
business community. Thus a topic like torture or political
repression will never see the light of day in the WSJ because the
business community is not interested in them. It just shows that
balance is as important as accuracy.
------------------------------
From: LEVITT@MIT-MC
Date: 01/06/82 19:55:35
Cox: Enough! Where do you get your crazy "information"? Hofmann is
dripping with documentation, and you simply flat-out contradict him,
apparently hoping to get the last word in. Now, when you come up with
statements like `El Salvador is sparsely populated' -- when nothing
could be further from the truth -- I have to assume you are making up
your evidence as you go along, and reporting it as fact to support
your views. Such bold misinformation is a grave disservice to the
POLI-SCI audience. Have you read *anything* on the subject, aside
from State Department releases and some of Duarte's more optimistic
interviews?
------------------------------
Date: 6 January 1982 22:59-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: I am wrong
Bern at MIT-DMS, as well as Bill Hofmann, pointed out that I was
grossly wrong in my statement about the population of El Salvador.
While El Salvador is not the most populous nation of Central America
-- that honor belongs to Guatemala -- it is by far the most densely
populated. This, of course, completely invalidates the point I made.
I apologize for my error. Here are the population densities for a few
countries, taken from the "Descriptive Map of the United Nations."
El Salvador 222 persons/sq. km.
Guatemala 64
Costa Rica 44
Honduras 32
Panama 25
Nicaragua 19
United States 24
Japan 311
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 09 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 33
Contents: UPS: Manager-owned Company
Libertarianism (2 msgs)
Torture as an Instrument of Policy
El Salvador (5 msgs)
One message remains in the queue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 January 1982 10:27-EST
From: Thomas L. Davenport < TLD at MIT-MC>
Subject: manager-owned company
UPS delivery drivers "drive like maniacs, double-park, and run with
the packages" because their managers make them do it that way. I get
this information from an article that appeared in the Washington Post
about a year ago, and I'm sure that your mother's UPS man can confirm
that.
------------------------------
Date: 7 January 1982 21:09-EST
From: Michael Travers < MT at MIT-AI>
Subject: Libertarianism
Date: 6 Jan 1982 11:07 PST
From: Deutsch at PARC-MAXC
Re MT's final comment about Libertarianism, that "it doesn't take
into consideration ... any relationships other than economic":
I have always found it very amusing that Libertarianism and
Marxism have this flaw in common!
[Weren't you the one who was complaining before that Libertarianism
was only concerned with physical coercion and was blind to the
effects of "economic coercion"? --JoSH]
I guess my statement should have been stronger: Libertarianism admits
of no relations other than economic, and admits of no economic
relations other than non-coercive contracts. Its only "concern" with
physical coercion is to disallow it, which is fine for an ethos but
lousy for a theory of politics.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jan 1982 21:38 PST
From: Deutsch at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V2 #32
Re: JoSH's editorial comment about my characterization of
Libertarianism and Marxism:
The fact that Libertarianism limits its consideration of human
relationships to economic ones doesn't mean that it takes complete
consideration even of those. And neither Libertarianism nor Marxism
disregards physical violence in its role as an attempted end run
around the inevitable results of economic interactions.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jan 1982 1832-PST
Sender: LEAVITT at USC-ISI
Subject: Torture as an instrument of policy
Someday someone will have to explain to me why torture--which is
a major instrument of state policy in very many countries today
--is seen as a tool of the right but not the left. The only
reason I can think of is that muckrakers on the right think
stories about raping nuns and disrupting police stations make
better press than stories about torture, while muckrakers on the
left find stories of torture make better media food. Torture is
an instrument of blatant police states of any stripe. Does
anybody believe that it is not an instrument of policy in Libya,
Syria, Cuba, etc.? Those who justify the policies of the state
in question justify "harsh methods" as necessary means to their
ends. Can't we do better than this in Poli-sci? I thought
prog-d was formed to talk about right wing torturers.
Mike < Leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: 7 January 1982 1151-EST (Thursday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
To: Poli-Sci at Rutgers
Subject: negotiation
The fact that the FDR wants to negotiate while the El Salvadoran govt
doesn't was used to imply that the leftists are more reasonable. I
might point out that the Soviets have always expressed a willingness
to negotiate, especially when they think that it will cause the
opposition to relax, stop building weapons, etc. Doesn't make them
any more reasonable though. You can negotiate until the end of the
world.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jan 1982 1526-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: El Salvador, CIA operations-sources and more info
I finally remembered to look through all the junk I had at home:
The NACLA report is Vol XIV, No. 4, July-August 1980, and is available
from North American Congress on Latin America, Inc., 151 W. 19th St.,
9th floor, New York NY 10011 for $2.50 plus $.50 postage and handling.
(It's probably also available (for Boston residents) at Red Book, on
River Street just out of Central Square, Cambridge.)
On pp. 34-35 of this issue, a `Political Map of El Salvador's
Revolutionary Forces' is presented (source: Institute for Policy
Studies). The Democratic Revolutionary Front (FDR, formed May 1980)
is composed of two councils, the Revolutionary Coordinating Council of
the Masses (f. 1/80) and the Democratic Front (f. 1980). The CRM is
composed of the BPR (People's Revolutionary Bloc, f. 1975), FAPU
(Unified Popular Action Front, f. 1974), LP-28 (People's Leagues-28th
of February, f. 1977), UDN (Nationalist Democratic Union, f. 1969) and
the MLP (Movement for Popular Liberation, f. 1979). The Democratic
Front is composed of the MNR (National Revolutionary Movement), MPSC
(Popular Social Christian Movement), UES (National University of El
Salvador), AGEUS (Assoc. of Univ. Stud.), MIPTES (Indep. Movement of
Professionals and Technicians), AEAS (Assoc. of Bus Companies of El
Salvador), FENASTRAS (Federation of Salvadorean Workers), FESTIAVTSCES
(Fed. of Food, Clothing and Textile Workers), FSR (Revolutionary Fed.
of Unions), FUSS (United Fed. of Unions of El Salvador), STISS (Union
of Social Security Workers), STIUSA (Union of Workers of United
Industries). Observers include FENAPES (National Fed. of Small
Business) and UCA (Catholic Univ. `Jose Simeon Canas'). Connected to
the FDR is the Unified Revolutionary Directorate (DRU, f. May 1980),
composed of the FPL (Popular Forces of Liberation-Farabundo Marti, f.
1970), RN (National Resistance f. 1975), PRS (The Party of the
Salvadorean Revolution, f. 1971) and PCS (CP of El Salvador, f. 1930),
with first three having military arms. (After this list, you can see
why they form coalitions and use acronyms--otherwise everyone would be
too confused to fight.) This info is doubtless out of date (for
example, I believe that the FMLN, the military arm of the FDR, is a
coalition of the military arms of the DRU).
Note that electoral fraud, violence and military rule has continued
unabated since about 1930, while most of these organizations are more
recent. The formation of the Democratic Front, in fact, can be seen
as a response to the lack of peaceful conventional avenues of
resistance, since its formation date comes after the escalation of
governmental violence. By the way, at least two leaders of the FDR
(Guillermo Ungo and Roman Mayorga) were members of the first junta
(the grandfather of the present one).
The WSJ report on the White Paper is in the June 8, 1981 issue,
starting on page 1.
On the death squads:
``Cpt. Ricardo Alejandro Fiallos of El Salvador has testified before a
subcommittee of the House of Representatives on his escape from El
Salvador. Contradicting US State Department opinion, he says that the
highest-ranking Salvadoran officers direct the so-called death squads
that are believed to have killed thousands of Salvadoran civilians in
recent years....He contends that all theses forces [the government
security forces] come under one command, and that the death squads do
not act independently of the security forces or the high
command....Fiallos said that after he criticized the high command and
security forces for a lack of professionalism and for committing
atrocities, he began to receive anonymous death threats. The captain
received a typewritten note under his door that said, ``The death of
you friend was not enough for you. You're going to be next, you
communist.'' [Christian Science Monitor, 5/5/81, from CISPES Monitor
No. 6 (PO Box 525, Astor Station, Boston MA 02123)] See also the NACLA
Report issue and other articles in this CISPES Monitor.
On CIA covert activities:
The quickest source is ``Reported Foreign and Domestic Covert
Activities of the United States Central Intelligence Agency:
1950-1974,'' prepared by Richard F. Grimmett for the Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress, dated 2/18/75. Report UB250
USA 75-50F. It's based on Colby's Statement before the Senate Armed
Services Committee (1/16/75), NYT reports, Washington Post reports,
and several books and journal articles. It starts with CIA operations
on Formosa in 1950 under the cover of Western Enterprises, Inc.,
training Nationalist Chinese commandos for raids on the mainland. Of
particular interest to us MIT folks, according to NYT 4/14 and
4/27/66, in 1950, the Center for International Studies at MIT was
established, receiving a CIA grant of $300,000. Additional grants in
substantial amounts were provided until 1966. (By the way, one of the
classic texts on the Vietcong, written by Pike, was done at CIS and
was funded by the CIA. He produced a special classified conclusion
which wasn't included in the published edition).
CIA and Cuba:
``1960 - In early 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower gave his approval
to a CIA-sponsored project to train Cuban exiles for the purposes of
overthrowing Cuban leader Fidel Castro...(1)
``1961 - Prior to the scheduled invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles in
April 1961, the CIA attempted to have Cuban leader Fidel Castro
assassinated. To help set up the assassination, the CIA enlisted
Robert Maheu, a former FBI agent....Maheu recruited John Roselli to
arrange for the murder attempt. The CIA assigned two operatives,
James O'Connell and William Harvey, to accompany Roselli on his trips
to Miami to put together the assassination teams. The first attempt
to kill Castro, made in March or early April 1961, was a failure.
Five more assassination teams were subsequently sent against the Cuban
leader in the next two years. All ended in failure. The last attempt
was made in late February or early March 1963. (2)''
There's more.
-Bill
-----------------------
(1) The Washington Post, January 18, 1971, p. B7.
(2) Andrew Tully, \CIA: The Inside Story/ (1962), pp. 243-256, Wise
and Ross, \Invisible Government/ (1964) pp. 9-11, 70-1, Wise, ``Colby
of CIA--CIA of Colby,'' NYT Magazine, 7/1/73, p. 9, Marchetti and
Marks, \The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence/ (1974), pp. 33-4.
------------------------------
Date: 8 January 1982 00:37-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: El Salvador
Hofmann says "The formation of the Democratic Front, in fact, can
be seen as a response to the lack of peaceful conventional avenues of
resistance, since its formation date comes after the escalation of
governmental violence."
This may be true, but there is much more to the story. Under the
brutal regime of General Carlos Humberto Romero, the guerrillas were
very active, and 500 Salvadorans died due to their violence from June
to October of 1979. In October, he was deposed by a group of moderate
army officers led by Colonels Jaime Abdul Gutierrez and Adolfo Arnoldo
Majando. They proceeded to implement such programs as a drastic land
reform (estates over 1200 acres expropriated; those from 250 to 1200
acres were required to be sold), and nationalization of the banks (20
per cent of the shares going to employees). The land reform was
initiated in March, 1980, six months after the new government took
power. Yet in 1980 eight thousands Salvadorans were killed,
indicating that in response to these liberating influences, guerrilla
activity had *increased* rather than decreased.
Why did the left not support the implementation of the very
programs they had clamored for in the past? The reason is very
similar to that which made Salvador Allende, when he was a senator in
Chile, vote against Cristian Democratic President Eduardo Frei's land
reform bill, which contained exactly the provisions demanded
previously by Allende. The problem is that the left cares more about
who implements its programs than it does about the programs
themselves. What the left really wants is power.
What would happen if the FDR were to take over the government?
Indeed, there are "moderate" elements in the Frente, one example of
which is Jose Napolean Duarte's former coalition partner, Social
Democrat Dr. Guillermo Manuel Ungo. But then there were moderate
elements in the Sandinista junta when it took power in Nicaragua.
What has happened to them? Violeta Barrios de Chamorro is out, and
keeping silent; Don Alfonso Robelo is out, and telling anyone who'll
listen that Nicaragua is going Communist. Social Democrats have an
unpleasant suprise in store for them if they believe Dr. Ungo's fate
would be any different.
Hofmann also says that, in El Salvador, "the right is the
government." [emphasis removed] Perhaps he doesn't know that, in 1972
after the military coup against his coalition government, Duarte (a
civilian, and head of the Christian Democratic Party) was imprisioned,
tortured, and exiled to Venezuela by the new right-wing government.
He holds no love for the military's extreme right, from which the
infamous "death squads" were born. Unfortunately, Duarte is in
constant danger of a right-wing military coup. Indeed, in his own
opinion, the danger from the right is greater than that from the left.
Even so, it is important to keep in mind that the rightists are
chiefly *counter-terrorists*, responding (over-enthusiastically, to be
sure) to the revolutionary threat.
Therefore, the best course for the U.S. is the one it is taking
now. Duarte doesn't want American troops, but he does need American
economic and military aid to help him supress the revolutionary forces
(the guerrillas' January "final offensive" came, predictably, after
Carter cut off aid). Also, our continued aid gives us leverage with
which to insure that Duarte continues following a middle-of-the-road
approach.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jan 1982 1100-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Re: El Salvador
The land reform:
Indeed, the land reform law looks very progressive. There are several
things to consider, however. First is whether it was implemented to
any significant degree, and second is what happened to the
beneficiaries of the reform. [by the way, the ES land reform was
engineered by Roy Prosterman, who engineered the rural pacification
programs in Vietnam]
The unfortunate fact is that wherever the peasants were given land by
the land agency, death followed. One of the two men gunned down by
the right wing (the other was the AFLD rep...), who was (as I recall)
director of the land reform program, decried the number of peasants
who were killed by the security forces with their deeds in their hands
in a television speech just before he was shot. Another example: the
700-odd employees of the land reform agency went on strike to protest
the number of peasants killed by the Army for trying to claim their
land. One case sticks particularly in my mind. In one village, the
Army gathered the villagers together and told them that the land they
had worked on was now theirs, and told them to elect leaders and to
decide what to do with it. The next day, they came back and asked who
they had elected. When they were told, they shot them.
By the way, Majano resigned from the junta in protest of right-wing
sabotage of the reforms and went underground.
Yes, indeed, Duarte was treated just as you say. The point I was
making about the Salvadoran government was that it was controlled by
the right-wing military elements. Through several generations of the
same junta, it has been the civilians who have resigned each time
(with a few exceptions) in protest of their inability to effect
reform, while the military members remain the same.
Even so, it is important to keep in mind that the rightists are
chiefly *counter-terrorists*, responding (over-enthusiastically,
to be sure) to the revolutionary threat. [APPLE]
Indeed over-enthusiastically. To the tune of over 20,000
assassinated. They respond to any threat of reform, not just to
a threat of revolution. And they enjoy significant support from
the junta (Duarte, obviously, excepted) and the rich. Just what
is the ``revolutionary threat?'' The land relations in Latin
America are best described (and have been, by people of all
political persuasions) as feudal, and in a section of the world
where the majority of the people depend on the land for their
survival, the struggle for land becomes vitally important.
Traditionally, also, the ruling elites in any less-developed
section of the world have no interest in the education of the
people. And health care, where doctors are rarer than honest
Army officers, is only for the rich.
What is the threat of the revolution? It is a threat to the
rich, a threat that the majority will have enough to eat,
clothes on their back, educated thoughts in their head, and a
health body to live in. I'll take that threat any day.
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jan 1982 1102-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: so long
After all, I've got a thesis to work on. I've enjoyed contributing to
this digest, and I hope enlivened it a bit, and given you all things
to think about.
-Bill
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sun 10 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 34
Contents: Political Science
Libertarianism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 Jan 1982 1036-PST
From: J.Q. Johnson < Admin.JQJ at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: Political Science
Mike Travers suggests:
Science progresses by 1) taking an unordered set of observations
and forming a model or theory to explain a subset thereof, 2)
using the model to make predictions beyond the original
observations, and only then 3) devising and performing
experiments to test those predictions.
This model of the scientific process seems to run directly counter to
most recent work in history/philosophy of science. Scholars as
diverse as Popper, Lakatos, and Fierabend (or even Marx) seem to agree
that the order suggested by Mike is far to simple to describe the
actual progress of science. For example, you first need an
observational theory just to be able to identify what constitutes an
"unordered set of observations"; are statements culled from the NY
Times about Poland observations about the conditions in Poland per se,
about the filters that either the Polish government or the capitalist
system place on news, or about the reportorial process? Normally,
science seems to advance best when there are several competing
theories (or perhaps research programs?) all generating experimental
predictions; the choice between them does not necessarily depend on
better experimental results (surprisingly, a geocentric epicycle
theory of the heavens can do a better predictive job than a simple
Copernican model, at the cost of much greater complexity!). Anyone
who has worked in the sciences knows that one frequently runs
experiments not to test a particular theory but because the apparatus
or technology is available; then you look for a theory to justify the
results you got. Most important, values are ALWAYS a part of any
scientific theory.
None of these observations of mine particularly conflict with MT's
conclusions. However, the issues are much more complex than they
appear on the surface. Perhaps it would behoove this discussion group
to deal a bit with such issues?
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jan 1982 1959-EST
From: JoSH < JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Libertarianism
Travers claims that "Libertarianism admits of no relations other than
economic ... Its only "concern" with physical coercion is to disallow
it, which is fine for an ethos but lousy for a theory of politics."
Deutsch says, similarly, "Libertarianism limits its consideration of
human relationships to economic ones". Both of these gentlemen are
confusing Libertarianism, a prescriptive political system, with a
descriptive or explanatory theory of politics.
Libertarianism is based on a rather ill-defined collection of
analyses, which as far as I know does not have a name as a distinct
theory. One might refer to the Austrian school of economics, and
to such works as Von Mises' "Human Action", but no name encompassing
that and Hospers and Rothbard.
The analysis done by libertarians, as opposed to Libertarian
prescriptions, does consider physical force and other kinds of
interaction. This is obviously necessary; one can only prohibit
something reasonably if one has an analysis of its effects.
(Although it could be claimed that a purely moral position could
stand apart from this.) That is the reason that I am interested
in basic principles of human interaction; I think it is silly
to assume that a capitalist would act in his own self-interest,
but a government bureaucrat wouldn't; my intuitive analysis runs
that it is impossible to have a political system in which nobody
works, and everybody lives in luxury by stealing from each other;
I suspect that if a system admits positions of power, the same
kind of people will come in to them and do the same kinds of
things to the people under them. Can a political system really
change human nature? Before we can even ask the question rigorously,
we have to define human nature.
--JoSH
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 11 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 35
Contents: Revitalizing the CIA (event announcement)
Ghaddafy a leftist!
Torture in El Salvador (newswire story)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Jan-82 00:41:14-EST,1769;000000000000
Mail-from: ARPANET site MIT-MC rcvd at 10-Jan-82 0039-EST
Date: 10 Jan 1982 0041-EST
From: Lincoln Ross < FENWAY.LINK at MIT-XX>
Subject: Revitalizing the CIA
To: poli-sci at MIT-MC
cc: fenway.link at MIT-XX
Is the title of a series of ``forums to educate the public on the
Reagan Administration's efforts to revitalize American intelligence
agencies on both the foreign and domestic fronts'' offered in:
MIT Bldg. 9, Room 150, 105 Mass. Ave., at 7:30pm. Admission free.
All welcome.
January 11: Postwar America and the Birth of the CIA
Noam Chomsky (Institute Professor, MIT, Author of ``Radical
Priorities'' and forthcoming ``Towards a New
Cold War.'')
John Kelly (Editor, Counterspy; Chairperson APSA Intelligence
Study Group; author of forthcoming ``CIA in America'')
January 12: CIA in Latin America: Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua
Saul Landau (Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies, author
``Assassination on Embassy Row'')
Stephen Kinzer (Boston Globe Latin American correspondent,
author of forthcoming ``Bitter Fruit'')
Josh Cohen (Professor of Political Science, MIT)
Alexandro Bendana (Nicaraguan Ambassador to the UN)
Jan. 13: CIA in Asia Jan. 18: Domestic Surveillance
Jan. 14: Intelligence Agencies Jan. 19: The Agent Identities Bill
and Congressional Jan. 20: Secrecy and Propaganda
Oversight Jan. 21: CIA and the Universities
Jan. 15: Current CIA Activities Jan. 22: The CIA's Domestic Support
Cosponsored as a MIT IAP Activity by the MIT Political Science
Department and Jeff McConnell. Call 253-2639 for more information.
Just thought I'd pass it along. Judging from past things Jeff
McConnell's done, this should be very good.
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 10 January 1982 01:15-EST
From: RTT at MIT-MC
Subject: Ghaddafy a leftist!
Could somebody explain to me why certain people (and also those who
run our media) insist on calling countries like "Libya, Syria, and
Cuba" as countries on the left? I would be interested in learning
what Mike Leavitt's definition of the left is when he labels Assad's
or Ghadaffy's dictatorships as leftist. Probably by his
definitions, Brezhnev and Jaruzelski are socialists and Idi Amin is
a Marxist revolutionary!
The left is a broad spectrum, characterized by 1- Socialist economy
(i.e., mass ownership of the means of production) and 2- Democracy
(mass control of the production and distribution of goods).
I would be intrigued to find out how Libya and Syria fit either
category, or how bureaucratic control in the Soviet Union or Cuba
means Socialism.
------------------------------
Date: 9 January 1982 23:24-EST
From: Bern Niamir < BERN at MIT-MC>
Subject: Torture in El-Salvador and the role of the army
07 Jan 82
Salvadorean Says U.S. Advisers Witnessed Torture and Killings
By RAYMOND BONNER
c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service
MEXICO CITY - A former Salvadoran soldier says that American
military advisers were present at two ''training sessions'' early
last year when guerrillas were tortured and killed by Salvadoran army
instructors.
In a lengthy interview, Carlos Antonio Gomez, a 21-year-old
paratrooper who fled Ilopango air force base outside San Salvador in
May, said the men he asserts were Americans had attended the sessions
as observers and had not participated in the torture. But he said
they had apparently made no effort to stop or protest the activity.
He said that he had recognized the Americans as part of a group of
United States military advisers who had arrived in El Salvador a few
days earlier. The sessions, which he said were known as ''torture
classes,'' took place late last January, he added.
Gomez, a short wiry youth who now lives in exile in Mexico, also
charged that the Salvadoran army routinely mutilated the bodies of
suspected guerrilla sympathizers and dropped others in the sea from
helicopters.
A senior Defense Department official and a former commander of the
United States military group in El Salvador denied that American
military personnel in El Salvador had witnessed any torture session.
They also said that American soldiers sent to El Salvador were
specifically instructed beforehand to discourage the practice of
torture when talking to their Salvadoran counterparts. Each is under
instructions to report any incident of torture that he sees or learns
about, they said.
Gomez's account could not be independently corroborated, but in a
second interview after the Defense Department denial he provided
further details to support his assertion that American advisers
attended the so-called torture class.
He was also unable to provide documentary evidence that he had
belonged to the Salvadoran armed forces - he said he discarded all
proof of identity when he deserted - but in seven hours of
conversations he revealed a knowledge of military life in El Salvador
that lent credibility to his story.
In private, United States officials have expressed concern about
undisciplined violence by the Salvadoran security forces, although
under the Reagan administration, they have not publicly accused the
Salvadoran military of torturing prisoners.
According to Gomez, eight United States military advisers, some in
uniforms of solid green and others in jungle camouflage fatigues,
stood in the shade with the commander in chief of the Salvadoran air
force and several other senior Salvadoran officers during the torture
sessions.
Gomez said that the American advisers, who were about 30 feet in
front of where he and some 260 other soldiers were lined up to watch
the session, were not wearing name tags. He said he did not know
their ranks.
Before the Americans arrived in mid-January, he said, his paratroop
batallion was told by Salvadoran officers that, in addition to the
rifles and other weapons being provided by the United States, ''new
instructors'' who were members of the ''famous Green Berets'' were
being sent.
There was a military ceremony to welcome the advisers, Gomez said,
adding that some wore green berets when they arrived. But he said
they did not wear their berets when they watched the torture session.
In addition to the soldiers who were introduced as Green Berets,
Gomez went on, there were other United States military personnel at
the Ilopango air base, who wore solid green flight suits. Those known
to the Salvadoran soldiers as Green Berets did not sleep at the air
base, he said.
The Defense Department spokesmen said that at the time of the
reported incicents there were 14 American advisers stationed at
Ilopango, all helicopter technicians and pilots. They said there were
also five communications specialists in El Salvador last January, but
they were not stationed at the air base.
A United States Embassy spokesman in San Salvador said that these
five soldiers were officers from the Special Forces - Green Berets -
unit of the United States Southern Command in Panama. They were sent
to El Salvador in response to a military offensive begun Jan. 10 by
the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, the spokesman added.
Gomez said that before one of the torture sessions the assembled
troops were told by a Salvadoran officer that watching ''will make
you feel more like a man.'' He said that the officer added that the
soldiers should ''not feel pity of anyone,'' but only ''hate for
those who are enemies of our country.''
At the first torture session, Gomez said, a masked Salvadoran
soldier jabbed the tip of his bayonet into the chest and rib cage of
a 17-year-old youth. Gomez said he recognized the youth as one of a
group of nine captured the previous night in a raid on a house in the
capital in which he himself participated.
He said that the masked soldier, applying his boot as leverage,
broke the youth's arm at the elbow. After further tortures the youth
was killed.
During the second session,Gomez said was held after Sunday
mass, a 13-year-old girl who had also been captured in the raid was
similarly tortured and killed.
According to Gomez, many guerrillas or people suspected of being
guerrilla sympathizers where dropped alive into the sea from
helicopters. On other occasions, he said, bodies were discarded along
roads after the faces had been slashed so they could not be
identified.
''What happens here, what you see here, what you hear here, stays
here,'' Gomez said soldiers were told before they were allowed on
leave. They were reminded that if they talked to anyone, ''we will
find out and you know what will happen to you,'' Gomez said.
Gomez said that his paratroop unit received training from two
United States advisers, but that the Americans did not accompany them
on any combat missions.
During those missions, according to Gomez, soldiers were instructed
by their officers and senior enlisted men to kill anyone, including
old people, women and children, ''who put themselves in front of
you.'' He said that some younger officers talked about the importance
of friendship with the Salvadoran people, but the soliders were told
that ''the majority of the peasants are guerrillas.''
Gomez said that his father, mother, older brother and sister were
killed in May by National Guard soldiers because his brother was a
member of a guerrilla unit. His brother had long tried to persuade
him to join the guerrillas, Gomez said.
In November 1980, Gomez, who was working as a watch repairman, was
drafted. One of those drafted with him was promoted to sergeant a few
months later after he killed his own parents and two siblings because
they were guerrilla sympathizers, Gomez said. During a military
ceremony, he added, an air force colonel pointed to the sergeant's
act and his promotion as demonstrations of ''bravery'' and the ''hope
for progress in a military career.''
On April 8, 1981, Gomez was jailed. The previous night, while he was
on guard duty, a lieutenant and two soldiers had stolen 5,000 rounds
of ammunition, grenades and other weapons, he said.
While Gomez was in jail, he said, the same lieutenant sent him food
and soda and on May 3, 1981, helped him and eight other soldiers
escape. Two fleeing soldiers were killed and two were wounded so
seriously that they could not continue. Pulling up his blue jeans,
Gomez showed a flesh wound he received in his left calf.
After walking for three days, usually at night, Gomez said, he and
four others reached a guerrilla camp near Chalatenango, about 35
miles north of the capital. His companions elected to stay with the
guerrillas, he said. After trading his automatic rifle and uniform
for a .45 caliber automatic pistol and civilian clothes, including a
cap that would cover his military haircut, Gomez continued his escape
to Mexico.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 12 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 36
Contents: Who's On Left? (4 msgs, mostly about what's a leftist)
Torture on the Left and the Right
ihnss!ihps3!urban, your message arrived completely garbled,
you may wish to resend it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 January 1982 02:37-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Ghaddafy [Qaddafi, Khadafy, et al.] a leftist!
(This is a reply to a message from RTT at MIT-MC)
I would be intrigued to learn what the difference is between
"ownership by the masses" and ownership by the government. You see,
in the countries you mentioned, the major means of production ARE
owned and controlled by the government. And I always thought that
socialism was an economic theory, not a political one. Do you think
the title "Democratic Socialist" is redundant? (By the way, Khadafy
calls his country "Libyan State of the Masses.")
Your message reminds me of a line from Alice in Wonderland: "'When I
use a word,' the Queen instructed Alice in a scornful tone, 'it means
exactly what I chose it to mean, neither more nor less.'"
(That quote is probably not exact, but you get the idea.)
By the way, who are you? You don't have an account at MIT-MC. Are
you the same person as RT at MIT-MC, who sent, I believe, a message
on a similar topic several weeks ago?
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jan 1982 0030-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Re: Revitalizing the CIA
It looks like an interesting series, although it has a decided slant
to it from the list of topics and speakers. Thus while the speakers
may present some new data, and while they will certainly challenge the
conventional (re: Administration) wisdom on the subject, I certainly
would not look towards them for objectivity.
Re: Ghaddafy a leftist!
It is easy to explain. Terms like "left" and "right" have never
enjoyed a very precise and generally accepted definition in terms of
existing political and economic philosophy. They certainly have no
real basis in terms of the conservative-liberal scale (although their
origins during the French Revolution actually sort of places left with
radical and right with conservative). If you did accept this scale,
then Syria and Lybia certainly are Leftist since they are radical
(well, as radical as any government ever gets). The US, Western
Europe, and to a certain extent the USSR are to the right of center,
with real head in the sand governments being on the far right.
But most people think of the left in terms on communism and the right
in terms of facism. This is a well accepted scale, and once again
Lybia is on the left, with a lot of South America on the right. You
may question whether that is the terminology people on this list is
using, and may even question whether it is a useful terminology
(frankly, I think "right" and "left" have been too overworked), but
you should not wonder at why people define these terms the way they
do. They simply DO so.
As for communism and dictatorships, unfortunately many dictatorships
in the world call themselves socialist. If half the world so defines
socialism in this way, then you simply have to accept that as a
practical working definition.
Terminlogy is used to further communications by providing a common
language for discussion. As long as your terminology is consistent,
you can have no real fundamental complaints. The only other grounds
you might object upon is usefullness, which depends on you
application.
The particular definition of left you present (socialist economy and
democratic political system) is what most people call democratic
socialism. Many people in Europe would agree with your definition.
Most people in the US or the USSR would disagree. This disagreement
in terminology often clouds up otherwise clear issues.
By the way, "bureaucratic control" is a well accepted tenent of
many forms of socialism.
Re: Tourture in El-Salvador and the role of the army
Interesting story, but unfortunately there appears to be
little in the way of facts to back up the account. If people are
interested in sinking teeth into a real horror story that has been
adequately documented, read up on the use of bio-chemical weapons in
Southeast Asia by the various communist governments there.
------------------------------
Date: 11 January 1982 1029-EST (Monday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Right-wing torture; what is a leftist
Re: the media reporting right-wing torture more than left-wing
and What Is A Leftist:
The crucial distinction I think the media (and others) use is
whether someone calls himself a leftist. This generally seems to be
an anti- capitalist, pro-masses image, which is of course not always
lived up to. The definition given previously is of democratic
socialism, one element of the left but certainly not the whole thing,
no matter how much one wishes it were.
As for reporting of attrocities, I think everyone is aware
that fanatics of both the right and the left use torture. The
relevant difference is that the U.S. never supports leftist
dictatorships (I can't remember any; the only examples I can think of
are limited to tolerance, i.e., *not* overthrowing them), while we
routinely support "anti-communist" regimes with massive amounts of
weapons, no matter how repugnant their morals. The press thus feels a
need to report atrocities by our allies more than those by our
enemies.
I should mention that I feel somewhat personally involved in
the Central American brouhaha, since my wife has a pen-pal foster
child in Guatemala through a Catholic relief agency. It has been
forced to shut down operations in her area due to the violence, so we
have no idea whether she is still alive.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jan 1982 1701-EST
From: Robert P. Krajewski < RpK at MIT-XX>
Subject: "Leftist" countries
The left is a broad spectrum, characterized by 1- Socialist economy
(i.e., mass ownership of the means of production) and 2- Democracy
(mass control of the production and distribution of goods).
I would be intrigued to find out how Libya and Syria fit either
category, or how bureaucratic control in the Soviet Union or Cuba
means Socialism. [RTT at MIT-MC]
The reason why many dictators would choose to at least associate
themselves with socialism is that is it aligns them with "democracy,"
and thus gives them an opportunity to consolidate a strong power base.
Whether or not they are really socialist is besides the point. (State
capitalism that isn't called socialism is not the rage these days...)
"Democratic" socialists tend to disassociate themselves with these
regimes because they feel that power-grabbing is not Socialism.
Actually, they have met the enemy, and the enemy is they (sorry, Walt
Kelly).
I don't know about Syria, but it is evident that Libya is socialist to
some extent. There are many examples : huge government projects,
nationalised companies of all sorts, a heavily subsidised network of
consumer goods stores, fueled by the oil exports. Certainly one can
find even a trace of socialism there.
Some (probably many) would disagree with definition (2), and
especially how it relates to socialism. (Come to think of it, the
term "socialism" is a bit nebulous, too.) The left MAY be broad
spectrum, but certainly not with your characterisation.
bob
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jan 1982 10:52:58 EST (Monday)
From: David Mankins < dm at BBN-RSM>
Subject: torture on the left and the right
Someday someone will have to explain to me why torture--which
is a major instrument of state policy in very many countries
today --is seen as a tool of the right but not the left.
[Mike < Leavitt at USC-ISI> ]
Funny, I've been hearing no end of descriptions of torture
applied by Communist bloc nations since I was knee-high to J.
Edgar Hoover. Until recently one rarely heard about torture
performed by American client-states [do you remember how
horrified the American public was when they found out about the
"tiger cages" in South Vietnam?] because American client-states
have always been pictured as models of democracy, embattled by
the evil forces of Communist subversion. You perhaps missed the
fanfare with which Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago' was
published a few years ago?
Even today, our glorious leader, and Glorious, our Secretary of
State, spare no opportunity in reminding us that the Soviet Union
is a police state. For some reason they find this objectionable
in the Soviet Union, yet perfectly acceptable in Argentina,
Guatemala, etc. [does even Mr. Cox have anything nice to say
about the regime in Guatemala?--I can understand uncertainty
about El Salvador, but not Guatemala]< 1> . I'm not defending
the Soviet Union--it is a Bad Place. I'm attacking Reagan's
hypocrisy.
The major reason I think the news media are full of stories about
torture by right-wing governments is that these governments are
clients of the U.S. government, and therefore is something we
Americans have more influence over. For those (if there is
anyone) who still think we only support struggling democracies,
such influence ranges from installing them in power (witness the
Shah of Iran, installed by a CIA-organized coup in 1953 < 2> ) and
many of whose police officers were trained in the United States)
to training intelligence officers or troops (witness the 1000
Salvadoran troops arriving at Ft. Bragg today to be trained).
This is news-worthy, particularly today, as the Reagan
administration moves to improved ties with these nations.
We do not have this kind of influence on many governments of the
leftist variety (except Britain, West Germany, and Sweden--you're
right, you never hear about them torturing people ('cept maybe
the IRA, and then you don't know who to believe)).
We Americans can influence the behavior of our government.
Torture on the right makes good copy because, in a sense, it is
torture by our government.
< 1> "All Things Considered" reported last November how the Reagan
Administration had side-stepped a law prohibiting military aid to
governments who violate human rights, by reclassifying jeeps,
troop-transports, etc., as "non-military", in order to be able to
ship a bunch to Guatemala.
< 2> There was an article about "our wonderful CIA" in Fortune
Magazine in the late 1960s, that talked about how wonderful it
was that the CIA had pulled this off, instead of requiring
American military intervention to put the Shah (who had been
removed by an election) back into power. It was important to
bring back the Shah, Fortune said, because the elected government
of Iran threatened to nationalize the oil fields. I've always
liked this reference, since it dates from before the CIA's
meddling was no longer fashionable.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 13 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 37
Contents: Tired of Libertarianism?
CIA (2 msgs)
Torture (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Monday, 11 Jan 1982 20:17-PST
Subject: Tired of Libertarianism?
From: lacasse at RAND-UNIX
The Poli-Sci list has been gradually losing its general discussions
(foreign policy, American politics, etc.) in favor of libertarianism,
objectivism, or whatever-ism you want to call it. This is an
impassioned plea for the libertarians and those interested in
re-rehashing the arguments thereto to start their own list or
sub-list. Would EVERYONE please send a message to
"Poli-Sci-Request@MIT-AI" expressing their view on this question.
Mark LaCasse
[A quick rundown over the messages of the past week (7 digests)
shows the following subjects and frequencies:
El Salvador 11
What is a leftist 5
The Wall Street Journal 4
Libertarianism 4
Torture on the Left and the Right 3
UPS: Manager-owned Company 4
Interest Ceilings 4
Political Science 2
Turkish Violence 2
Revitalizing the CIA (event announcement) 1
Objectivism Info 1
(not counting any message more than once). The list has hardly been
swamped by the libertarians. There is a comfortable amount of
material submitted as a whole, no need to split it for sheer volume.
As long as this is the case, there is no need to be divisive or
derisive. The subjects discussed are determined by what people want
to discuss, not by what they don't want. If you want to talk about
something else, then do so. Your own last message was November 11.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 11 January 1982 23:37-EST
From: Herb Lin < LIN at MIT-AI>
Subject: revitalizing the CIA..
someone should please write up the happenings of the
lecture series... thanks.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jan 1982 15:25:13 EST (Tuesday)
From: Roger Frye < frye at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: CIA and NSA
Re: If people are interested in sinking teeth into a real
horror story that has been adequately documented, read up
on the use of bio-chemical weapons in Southeast Asia by
the various communist governments there.
Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
No, I don't buy the "Yellow Rain" stories and neither did the U.N.
I think even TIME suggested that the "evidence" had come from CIA
contacts.
It reminds me of the way we heard about an anthrax accident in
the Soviet Union just before we heard that the U.S. would begin
stocking biochemical weapons again. Believers can call it cause
and effect; others might recognize a calculated leak.
On another subject, what is the NSA going to do now that AT&T has
to break up? The Covert Action Information Bulletin predicted
government interference on the grounds of national security, so
that NSA could keep tapping long distance calls in the U.S. See
the Conference Tree. It's a computer bulletin board at 415-928-0641.
Use the command "READ CAIB-NSA COMPLETE".
-Roger Frye
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jan 1982 1726-PST
Subject: Coverage of torture
From: Mike Leavitt < LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
I asked for reasons for coverage of right-wing torture
stories and I got them. Thanks. I would, however, feel more
comfortable if journalists who reported them did a better job
than the story reproduced on this list. However, it reads like a
classic atrocity story, and is thus in the best journalistic
tradition.
But let me ask the next question to those would would
focus on those states that receive various kinds of aid from us.
I am troubled by US (or any other) interference in the internal
affairs of any state. Is it legitimate for the US to interfere
in the internal affairs of states whose internal policies we
disagree with? I presume that people who dislike torture would
have us either withdraw support from countries that torture or
work to change the policies of those countries. Which strategy
is preferred? I ask that with my next question being one of
consistency. Whichever choice of tactic (either withdrawal or
interference) is selected, I would then question whether it is to
be applied generally--to other countries both of the left and of
the right, with whom we have quarrels over internal policies.
Mike < Leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: 12 January 1982 20:36-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: torture on the left and the right
"Does even Mr. Cox have anything nice to say about the regime in
Guatemala?--I can understand uncertainty about El Salvador, but
not Guatemala.... I'm not defending the Soviet Union--it is a
Bad Place. I'm attacking Reagan's hypocrisy." - David Mankins
Actually, Mr. Mankins, I can find one nice thing to say about
Guatemala, as compared with the Soviet Union, Cuba, and every other
Communist country. Yes, massive civil-rights violations occur daily
in all three of the countries I mentioned. However, the big
difference is that Guatemala is not trying to export its repressive
system. Guatemala poses little danger to neighboring countries. The
Soviet Union and Cuba, on the other hand, not only pose danger to
countries around the world, but have actively attempted in the past to
impose their totalitarian system on the world. Examples that
immediately come to my mind are the Soviet Union's actions in Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan; and Cuba's actions in Angola. And
Nicaragua, whose regime has only been in place a few years, already
has by far the largest army in Central America, an army clearly
designed for more than simple defense. Indeed, as I understand it,
the very doctrine of Communism as interpreted by Lenin compels those
who espouse it to attempt to bring about its domination of the world.
Mr. Reagan's basic policy is not to inveigh publicly against
human rights violations in friendly countries, since such invectives
were shown, under Mr. Carter, to be not only ineffective but
counter-productive, usually leading to a weakening of any influence we
had in the country concerned. In addition, failure to support
friendly but authoritarian governments can often result in something
worse, as the case of Iran shows. Instead, Mr. Reagan prefers to work
through quieter diplomatic channels. And indeed, this has proved more
effective in South Korea, Argentina, and the Phillipines, where
repression has lessened since the beginning of the Reagan
Administration.
On the other hand, the Reagan policy about violations in
unfriendly countries is one of vehement protest. Here too, Mr.
Reagan's policy is designed to achieve the greatest effect. Since we
have little direct influence with the Soviet Union and other Communist
countries, our quiet protests would probably be ignored. Therefore,
why not protest these violations loudly? It might array world opinion
so forcefully against these countries that they would be compelled to
change. In any case, it couldn't be any worse than silence.
I find nothing hypocritical about the Reagan Administration's
approach.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 14 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 38
Contents: Repression (4 msgs)
Terminology; Hypocrisy
Libertarianism
Secrecy; CIA series
Yellow Rain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Jan 1982 13:25:54 EST (Wednesday)
From: David Mankins < dm at BBN-RSM>
Subject: exporting repression
I can find one nice thing to say about Guatemala, as compared
with the Soviet Union, Cuba, and every other Communist
country...the big difference is that Guatemala is not trying
to export its repressive system.
Hmm, sounds like a left-handed compliment to me.
Argentina is looking into supplying troops and arms to El Salvador,
which sounds like exporting their repressive system to me. Guatemala
and Honduras both cooperate with Salvadoran security forces in
attacking refugees. And, Honduras, at least, harbors guerillas who
occasionally venture across the border into Nicaraugua.
Why should they bother to export their systems when they have a
rich uncle like Sam to do the exporting for them?
Mr. Reagan's basic policy is not to inveigh publicly
against human rights violations in friendly countries, since
such invectives were shown, under Mr. Carter, to be not only
ineffective but counter-productive, usually leading to a
weakening of any influence we had in the country concerned.
This is true in Brazil. Although you mistake "influence with the
ruling classes" for "influence in the country." One could easily
argue (as I will in more detail, below) that Carter's FAILURE to
inveigh against human-rights violations has led to repressive regimes
in both Nicaragua and Iran.
In addition, failure to support friendly but authoritarian
governments can often result in something worse, as the case
of Iran shows. Instead, Mr. Reagan prefers to work through
quieter diplomatic channels. And indeed, this has proved
more effective in South Korea, Argentina, and the
Phillipines, where repression has lessened since the
beginning of the Reagan Administration.
I'm not going to quibble over whether Iran today is truly worse
than Iran under the Shah (things were certainly improving under
the Shah after 1977--you know, when Carter was critical of human
rights violations in other parts of the world, and the American
and world press was critical of human rights violations in Iran).
I haven't seen any evidence for a change in any of the three
countries you mention (Marcos is talking about returning to
martial law, since the unions are being uppity).
I can think of several countries where our failure to support human
rights led a nationalist liberation movement to embracing the Soviet
Union (Vietnam, Cuba--don't forget Castro was the first foreigner to
address a joint session of Congress--and Nicaragua), and in Iran,
through our support for the Shah (including inviting him into this
country) we gave the extremists in Iran a good target to use to
consolidate their power. Don't forget that Carter invited the Shah to
come visit in 1977 (remember tear gas in the Rose Garden?) and praised
him as one of our best friends.
Granted, I venture onto unsure footing when I ask "What if Truman had
answered Ho Chi Minh's appeal for help after the Potsdam Conference
(at which we claimed to support self-determination) --or at least
remained neutral--instead of financing the French attempt to maintain
their colony in Indochina?"< 1> What if we had continued our friendly
relations with Castro, despite what he did to United Fruit? What if
we hadn't waited till the last minute to dissociate ourselves with
Somoza in Nicaragua? Things might be very different today (then
again, they might not).
Discontented people are going to rise up to throw off their
oppressors. We have a choice in what actions we take--we can support
people who are dying for the freedom we have, or we can support their
oppressors. Our government has consistently chosen the latter
strategy. I don't think its unfair for people who succeed in
overthrowing their oppressors to blame us if we do choose the latter
strategy. Nor do I think its unfair for them to be friendly to powers
that aid them in their struggle (or, in the case of Cuba, aid them
after we've slapped trade embargos on them).
I find nothing hypocritical about the Reagan Administration's
approach.
Perhaps this is because you listen to words, rather than look at
deeds. If the Reagan administration were committed to human rights,
why do they reclassify troop-transports and helicopters as
"non-military", thus circumventing a law against military aid to
regimes that violate human rights? We don't have to vocally condemn
friendly repressive regimes, but we don't have to supply them with
equipment to use in killing their own people either. I'm all in favor
of letting the world know what the Soviet Union is up to, but I think
its hypocritical to condemn them for doing things we sanction in our
own client states.
------------------
< 1> By the mid-50's, the US was financing 78% of the French war
effort in Indochina [Howard Zinn, \Postwar America:1945-1971/,
p. 80]--more than a billion dollars.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jan 1982 10:51 PST
From: Deutsch at PARC-MAXC
"Instead, Mr. Reagan prefers to work through quieter
diplomatic channels. And indeed, this has proved more
effective in South Korea, Argentina, and the Phillipines,
where repression has lessened since the beginning of the
Reagan Administration." (James Cox)
Well, I don't know enough about South Korea and Argentina to comment,
but at least one scholar writing on the subject of the Philippines
makes a cogent case that the Marcos regime is so corrupt that it can't
possibly be in our best interests to support it over the long run.
(The article was reprinted from a journal and posted at a local
bookstore -- I'll look up the reference if anyone wants it.) Many
other people who don't have vested interests in the situation have
come to the same conclusion. Right-oriented presidents like Reagan
don't seem to leave themselves any options for distancing the U.S.
from repressive governments we've supported in the past. Also, what
is the source of your assertion that "repression has lessened since
the beginning of the Reagan Administration" in these three countries?
I assume you have sources other than our government or the governments
of these three countries, since both are notoriously unreliable on
such subjects. I would be more inclined to trust church sources or
Amnesty International.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jan 1982 1111-PST
From: J.Q. Johnson < Admin.JQJ at SU-SCORE>
James Cox claims that human rights violations have decreased in South
Korea, Argentina, and the Phillipines. I would be interested in
seeing some documentation of this improvement, and also some arguments
justifying the claim that the changes have any causal relationship to
Reagan's foreign policy. I know little about South Korea, but I
question the claim in the cases of Argentina and Marcos.
In the Argentine case, it is surely true that the political situation
has improved, but I see no reason to believe that this has had
anything to do with Reagan's policies. Much of the improvement took
place before Reagan took office, and corresponded more to a victory
of one faction (the right) than to support from the U.S.
In the case of the Phillipines, I'm not convinced that the repression
has really eased; does anyone have any recent AI figures? Certainly,
we no longer have "martial law" per se, but that de jure change
doesn't seem to me to have had any de facto effect. Comments from
anyone who knows the situation better than I do?
Does the argument work for other repressive regimes? For example, AI
today condemned increased repression in Pakistan since the military
took greater control; it would be interesting to try to find
connections between this change and external politics (notably US
foreign policy).
------------------------------
Date: 13 January 1982 1452-EST (Wednesday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
I think that the nail has been hit on the head. Undoubtedly
violations occur in Albania, but who in the US cares? We aren't
involved in that country, probably have no journalists there, not many
relatives, etc, so we just aren't interested. They also aren't
bothering their neighbor a whole lot.
I disagree with cutting ourselves off from torturing countries because
it won't solve the problem, may make it worse, and eliminates the
possibility of trying to eliminate the torture. Would pulling out of
El Salvador solve the torture problem? Almost certainly not. The
leftists (or opposition if you will) are nearly as bad as the
government, and would probably be just as bad if given the chance. I
am sure that the average citizen of El Salvador would be perfectly
happy if the leftists and military went off to the moon and blew
themselves up, along with the IRA and Protestant fanatics in Northern
Ireland too.
The only way the El Salvador war is going to be solved reasonably is
if the rich, upper middle class, big landowners, etc want to do it.
The land reform program worked with the few biggest guys, but stopped
dead on the next smaller farms. If the landowners won't settle
reasonably, then they are going to lose the messy way. The US can
attempt to get the landowners to reform, but if they don't, then we
are powerless to stop the war without nuking the whole damn country.
If we had the capability, I would propose putting a wall around the
country and letting them shoot it out all by themselves with no help
from us or other outside interference.
------------------------------
Date: 13 January 1982 1357-EST (Wednesday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Terminology; Hypocrisy
There is an additional complaint that is possible wrt
terminology: that of stealing a term. I find it very objectionable
when you keep inventing terms to describe movement X, and people in
movement Y keep appropriating them to describe themselves. This
appears to be at the heart of the fairly vehement complaints of the
"leftists" on the list who appear to be democratic socialists, and
don't want dictators to be called socialists or leftists or whatever.
Unfortunately, we haven't defined our terms by consensus. To me,
"leftist" embraces almost anything that is anti-capitalist, whereas
"communist" and "demo. socialist" are particular branches. In
relation to this, note that "Nazi" comes from the German for "National
Socialist Party", although most observers consider them right-wing
(anti-communist and pro-capitalist [resources were owned by the
capitalists, with the state exercising large amounts of control, but
not seizing profits]).
As for Reagan's being hypocritical or not (and whether we
ought to interfere at all), I think that if we really believe in
democracy as an ideal, we are duty-bound to promote it, even if it
causes some short-term grief. It appears to me that both Carter and
Reagan believe in it to some degree. The problem is that whether or
not Reagan is in fact hypocritical, he appears hypocritical to much of
the world when he only lashes out at non-allies. We may know better,
but "world opinion" doesn't necessarily. Is there actual evidence
that attrocities by our "allies" have decreased recently? I haven't
heard about it. On another note: it bothers me that our government is
so willing to support right-wing juntas. I don't believe that every
communist movement is really worse than some of the horrible military
dictatorships, and it seems that if the U.S. would support (with
military aid) the side that seemed to really have popular backing, the
socialists wouldn't always have to turn to Communist countries for
help. Unfortunately, we'll never know, because our government really
is controlled by capitalists (i.e., rich people who sympathize more
with a wealthy person losing his land than with a peasant being
murdered).
------------------------------
Date: 13-Jan-82 11:03:33 PST (Wednesday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re JoSH's comments on Libertarianism
It is refreshing to hear you admit now what you wouldn't a while ago
when you and I started this whole Libertarian debate - that is, that
what we are really concerned with is the POWER structure: who has it
and what they do with it. I see little difference between letting the
corporate giants control the power structure and letting the
bureaucrats control it.
In previous messages you were unwilling to admit that a Libertarian
system would allow power to be concentrated in anyone's hands to a
sufficient degree for it to be dangerous. Yet, I quote you:
"I suspect that if a system admits positions of power, the same
kind of people will come in to them and do the same kinds of
things to the people under them. Can a political system really
change human nature?"
I have seen no proof yet, by you or anyone else, that a Libertarian
system does not "admit positions of power". Until such proof is
forthcoming (I mean proof, not rhetoric!), I still remain unconvinced
that Libertarianism can do any better than Communism, Capitalism, or
what have you, towards providing a truly equitable distribution of
real power (or indeed that that concept even makes any sense).
-- Larry --
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jan 1982 1421-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: I can't resist
I can't resist making this observation:
What is the purpose of government secrecy? Aside from codes, and such
things? Is it to keep the Ruskies in the dark about what we're doing?
I'd suggest not. Rather, I'd suggest (given the backround of recent
leaks and ones in the past) that the purpose of secrecy is to prevent
Americans from knowing what the Executive (in particular) is doing.
Take the ``secret'' bombing of Cambodia. Who was it a secret to?
Certainly, as Saul Landau noted yesterday evening (more below), it
wasn't secret to the Cambodians, who certainly noticed it (about six
million of them, it was the last thing they noticed). Nor was it
secret from the Soviets, for the Cambodians told them. But it was
secret (until leaked) from the American people. What secrecy in this,
and other cases, serves to do is allow the President and his aides to
conduct the government of the US without any accountability to the
American people.
About the ``Revitalizing the CIA'' series:
So far, it's as good as one could hope for. John Kelly (Ed. of
Counterspy) should stick to writing, he loses as a speaker. And
Chomsky needs to spend more time writing newer speeches.
But last night's session on Latin America was one of the best talks
I've ever been to. The talks started on the CIA actions in Guatemala
in '54, jumped to Chile from '64 to the present, and turned to the
current example of covert action, namely Nicaragua. All of the
speakers were articulate and well-prepared with evidence. If you want
an idea of what exactly was said, read the forthcoming ``Bitter
Fruit'' by Stephen Kinzer (and a co-author), ``Assassination on
Embassy Row'' by Saul Landau, the Church committee reports on
``Alleged Assassination Attempts of Foreign Leaders'' and on Chile
(94th Congress) and the article by Landau in the Nation last
November-December (don't remember exactly when). On US actions
against Nicaragua: see 12/4/81 Boston Globe (Beecher's article) about
NSC approval of military action against Nicaragua. Also, in
mid-December, Thomas Enders (Asst. SecDef) went before Congress in
compliance with the Hughes-Ryan (Act?Amendment?) to describe current
US covert action against Nicaragua. According to Landau, former
Somozan Guardsmen are conducting raids across the border, and the CIA
has set up clandestine radio stations to broadcast disinformation to
eastern Nicaragua, in addition to the regular VOA stuff (VOA, in case
you don't remember, received large amounts of funding from the CIA).
The correspondence to the Guatemalan action is uncanny.
The UN Ambassador from Nicaragua also spoke. He said that their
government would not make accusations in public until they had firm
evidence for all of it, but confirmed in essence what Landau said
(without naming any names). He confessed that the new government
might in fact be guilty of exporting terror, noting that ``We made many
of Somoza's National Guardsmen leave the country.''
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jan 1982 1355-PST
From: Paul Dietz < DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Yellow Rain
The reason the UN "didn't buy" the yellow rain reports is simple: the
UN agency doing the investigation is headed by a russian, the agency
was not allowed to visit Laos, Cambodia or Afghanistan, and their was
severe time pressure. Finally, they concluded that they couldn't
decide one way or the other, not that the reports were false.
The evidence is actually quite overwhelming. A highly significant
report was ABC's sample of yellow rain. Not only did it contain
mycotoxins, but it also contained polyethylene glycol, a substance
that is never found naturally (but that could easily be used to
disperse biological agents). This eliminates the possibility that the
toxins occured naturally.
The sheer mass of data and the lackadaisical manner in which the US
government has carried out the investigation indicates to me that the
"CIA plot theory" should be discarded.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 15 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 39
Contents: Secrecy
Yellow Rain (4 msgs)
Torture (2 msgs)
Marxism
Quote without Comment
Freedom of the Press
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 January 1982 2227-EST (Wednesday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: secrecy
Aside from codes, is secrecy really needed to keep the Russians in the
dark? I will assume the question is serious, and provide some
examples of why it is needed. If the Russians knew the CEP of
Minuteman missiles, they could design their silos accordingly to gain
whatever probability of survival they desired. This implies that they
can eliminate counterforce attacks. Given the position of US subs,
they could attempt to zap them all at once. Etc, etc in strategic
terms.
In tactical terms, it would sure be nice to know just how to fool the
radar of the fighter of your choice. Particularly of a fighter that
hasn't been sold to some random third-world country.
It is true that many things that are classified are of marginal value
to the Russians. I can think of lots of examples of classified
material that seemed to be just common sense to me. But it might not
be common sense in Russia - can't be too careful.
Almost all classified material is of a technical or military
operations nature that is of no particular concern to US citizens.
For example, do you care which missile has which city's name on it?
The example that you cite makes up a small percentage of classified
material, and probably doesn't usually fall within the normal
classification channels.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jan 1982 1929-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Yellow Rain
Look, you have to start believing SOMEONE when they report bad things
about communists (CIA plots are not under every bed you know). Every
story in the media (and I do not include periodicals with obvious axes
to grind) has supported the Yellow Rain story. The most recent good
treatment of this appeared on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 14 January 1982 01:56-EST
From: Herb Lin < LIN at MIT-AI>
Subject: yellow rain
Science magazine has a pretty good set of articles on yellow rain in
the last few months. they make a pretty persuasive case that chemical
warfare has indeed been used; at least, they convinced this old dove.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jan 1982 1512-PST
From: Paul Dietz < DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Yellow Rain, Human Rights
In my opinion both the yellow rain stories (and the chemical warfare
stories from Afghanistan, Yemen and Cambodia) and the El Salvadoran
torture stories are sufficiently well documented for the world
community to demand onsight investigations.
I find it impossible to justify supporting regimes like El Salvador.
If we were willing to support human rights with the same vigor that
the russians support communist dictatorship the image of the US would
be immeasurably improved. But, our goverment believes that
dictatorships are the natural state of affairs, so they want friendly
ones.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jan 1982 17:31:23 EST (Thursday)
From: Roger Frye < frye at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Yellow Rain and Torture
I must admit that I suspect the Russians more than the Americans
in the yellow rain stories. When I wrote that I didn't buy the
story, I was reacting to the way McGrath had characterized the
yellow rain evidence as "adequately documented" in contrast to
the evidence of torture in El Salvador and the role of the army.
Right now I suspect both horror stories are true, but want more
evidence for each of them.
As I understand the yellow rain story: There have been many refugee
reports of chemical warfare in Southeast Asia, but our government had
been having trouble identifying the agents. Sterling Seagrave, the
author of Yellow Rain (I haven't read it) suggested mycotoxins, and
they were found on a leaf sample supplied by Soldier of Fortune
magazine. The State Department called this "firm evidence" (14 Sept),
but Nicholas Wade in Science (2 Oct) questioned such serious
conclusions based on a "single sample of material, collected without
any controls. The State Department produced three more samples and
compared the evidence to a "smoking gun" (10 Nov). They would not
identify the sources. Two samples plus controls came from a village
in Kampuchea. Seagrave says they were collected by the Thai military.
The third from Laos. The Washington Post says it came from the Khmer
Rouge. Again Wade raised serious questions (2/3 of his article in
Science 27 Nov). His last sentence was, "The evidence already in hand
is sufficient to suggest that a serious investigation of yellow rain
should begin."
I missed the recent ABC 60 Minutes TV documentary which reported an
intoxicated sample which also contained a dispersive chemical.
I can believe things which a UN investigating team headed by a Russian
can not decide on. I do not require as much rigor as scientists ask
for. I strongly suspect the Russians here, but I also reserve some
suspicion for the CIA.
What about the evidence against the Salvadoran army? The report by
ex-paratrooper Carlos Antonio Gomez is so full of detail, it demands
respect. Yes, I reserve some suspicion that he may be a well
rehearsed rebel plant. But then there is ex-captain Ricardo Alejandro
Fiallos. And others. Does anyone doubt that the torture occurs?
Perhaps the doubt is whether American advisors have observed it (in El
Salvador not just in Viet Nam, Iran, etc.). It's true that one report
need not convince us that State is lying again, but a serious
investigation should begin.
-Roger Frye
------------------------------
Date: 14 January 1982 01:08-EST
From: Bern Niamir < BERN at MIT-MC>
I disagree with cutting ourselves off from torturing countries
because it won't solve the problem, may make it worse, and
eliminates the possibility of trying to eliminate the torture.
Would pulling out of El Salvador solve the torture problem?
Yes it will in most cases solve the torture problem. Because the
dictators are unpopular. An unpopular regime, if left to its own
resources will crumble. However with U.S. support, the agony is
prolonged and the oppression continues and more prisoners will get
killed under torture. Once the dictators find that they don't have
a carte blanche to commit whatever they want, they will have to
restore freedom or suffer the consequences.
The leftists (or opposition if you will) are nearly as bad as the
government, and would probably be just as bad if given the chance.
Nicaragua invalidates your argument. The regime is highly popular,
and is doing REAL things for the country. This is in spite of the
fact that the atrocities committed by Somoza is no less than the
violence committed by the military and its rightist supporters in El
Salvador today. The more the violence continues, the less are the
chances for a peaceful and democratic solution.
------------------------------
Date: 14 January 1982 21:22-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Argentina, South Korea
Argentina:
Here is an excerpt from *The Economist*, a highly-respected British
publication with international distribution.
.... Mr Viola took over [the government] in March. His
moderation and apparent desire to talk to the political parties
were welcomed by human rights organisations but earned him the
distrust of right-wingers in the armed forces. Political
prisoners have been released at a rate of about 20 a month (there
are now an estimated 1,200 Argentines in jail for political
reasons comapred with about 8,000 at the end of 1976) and since
the middle of the year the death squads have been lying low: only
six kidnappings have taken place, and only one of these resulted
in death. Four years ago, kidnappings were averaging more than
100 a week.
- Excerpt from the 28 Nov - 4 Dec 1981 issue.
As this excerpt makes obvious, the human-rights violations have been
generally decreasing since their peak about four to five years ago.
But Mr. Viola is chiefly responsible for the releases of political
prisoners, and a great decline in the number of desaparecidos occurred
under his administration.
I have no proof that Mr. Reagan's policies were responsible for
this. I cannot read the mind of the Argentine government. I do
notice, though, that human-rights violations are lessening at an
increasing rate since Mr. Reagan entered office.
South Korea:
I have less definite figures to support my conclusion that
political liberty in South Korea has increased since the beginning of
the Reagan Administration. I based my statement on an article in
*National Review* by William Rusher, who had recently visited that
country. It is true that when President Chun Doo-hwan first took
power in late 1979 after the death of Park Chung-hee, he arrested
several student leaders who had seized the opportunity to riot. He
also abolished several (allegedly corrupt) political parties, and
banned several politicians from the previous regime from taking part
in politics for eight years. (Remember, all this took place during
Mr. Carter's term of office.) However, he then established a
democratic constitution (limiting presidents to one 7-year term, by
the way), and held free elections, which he won. In addition, a
prominent opposition leader (whose name unfortunately escapes me) had
been convicted of treason (on controversial evidence) and sentenced to
death. Mr. Carter and several leaders of other countries around the
world decried this sentence as unjust, and demanded vehemently that
the it be reduced. All this was to no avail, and the Koreans seemed
intent on executing him. That is, until President Reagan invited Chun
to Washington as his first visiting foreign head of state. The
sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. Again, I don't have
any proof that this was on account of Reagan, but the case for than
conclusion is strong.
Mr. Rusher says that South Koreans are "more prosperous than they
ever have been [in spite of the fact that American aid was
discontinued in 1979] and freer politically than at any past time save
in the dangerously unstable interstices between autocrats more
domineering than Chun." South Korea is no paradise, to be sure, but
conditions have improved, and continue to improve.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jan 1982 13:11:32-PST
From: cithep!don at Berkeley
Subject: Marxism
I realize that I am addressing a hostile audience--the technological
elite of an affluent society--but perhaps a few will appreciate the
view of internationalism and socialism. You live in a nation where
even some of the working class are comforted by the rich crumbs that
fall to them. And yet, even here you may be unaware of the armies of
toilers who build your cars, sew your clothes, and clean your toilets.
Worse yet, you may look upon the ghettos of unemployed, rendered
"worthless" by the efficiency of modern production, and utter those
scornful words, "why don't they get a job!"
Marx's most important discovery was the first truly accurate analysis
of the mechanism of Capitalism (Marx coined the term in fact), and
that it was, in fact, based on the appropriation of unpaid labor. It
works something like this: 1) The Capitalist organizes a group of
people into a social productive force, and they produce a commodity
that is, lets say, worth $200. However, he pays the workers $100 and
spends $50 on raw materials keeping the "surplus value" for himself.
2) The Capitalist explains to the workers, "I put up the money and
risked my livelyhood to make this financial venture. I deserve the
profit." 3) To this an enlightened worker replies, "Ah, but you got
the money by previous exploitation, and your livelihood is unjust."
(For this the hapless worker is fired as an example to the others.)
In addition to his moral conflict of interest, there are severe
economic difficulties with Capitalism. While profit provided the
historical motivation for socialized labor and all its benefits (for
which Marx duly thanks the Capitalists), it also leads production into
a dilemma. In order to compete and survive, the Capitalist employs
every technique of art and science to make production more efficient.
Machines replace man, and workers are forced to compete for wages.
All this has tended to push production beyond the level of the demand
side (and in cases, eroded the demand side as well). After the Great
Depression of 1929, bourgeois economists, lead by J.M.Keynes,
acknowledged this fact, and began the demeaning program of doling out
public funds to prop up the demand side.
Because of this, and the general anarchy of the "free" market, the
history of Capitalism has been a dismal succession of productive booms
and catastrophic crashes (Engels counts 6 in the years from 1825 to
1877. The last of these, the collapse of the German steel industry,
contributed to the triumph of the German Social Democratic Party.) In
Marx's words, "it [Capital] drags with it into the grave the corpses
of its slaves, whole hecatombs of workers who parish in the crises."
It soon became obvious that private ownership could not cope with the
complexity of the market, and this lead to the increasing prevalence
of joint stock companies and government regulation or ownership. Even
at the time of Engels (1890's) the actual capitalist class was
disappearing, and wage labor was taking over every aspect of
capitalist administration. "The Capitalist has no further social
function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and
gambling on the Stock Exchange." (Engels) These changes still do not
correct the class conflicts stated above.
It was the dream of Marx that the efficiency of socialized labor and
the justice of socialized ownership of that labor's production would
free mankind from toil and servitude. Machines would minimize the
necessary labor of society rather than displacing some people from
society. Production would be planned along utilitarian lines as
opposed to the pointless overproduction and tragic mishandling that
has resulted from the profit motive.
------------------------------
Date: 14 January 1982 06:24-EST
From: Philip E. Agre < AGRE at MIT-AI>
Subject: Quoted without comment
George Will in Newsweek on the sanctions against Russia:
"Conservatism that is so reverent about free trade and so unwilling to
infringe private freedoms for public purposes is incompatible with the
avowed aims of conservative foreign policy."
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jan 1982 12:51:00-PST
From: menlo70!hao!cires!harkins at Berkeley
Subject: A New Topic
re: the "New Information Order"
As some of you may be aware, the world press is (and has been)
beleaguered by very many of the governments of the world, who claim
that they have no control of the news that supposedly relates to their
countries. This school of thought has been sanctified by a number of
conferences sponsored by UNESCO.
It may (or may not) surprise you to know that the concept, and
certainly the practice, of a "free press" is a minority situation,
with the U.S. being the chief (some say only) proponent. Of course
there are probably any number of journalists in this country who would
cynically respond, "nice theory," or some such. In any case, it's
hard to say that it (our system) is not better than the rest.
The plethora of (mostly) third and fourth world countries who
are so vocal in advocating their "new information order" actually
would like to impose some sort of censorship over all "news" or other
information related to their country, citing "unfair coverage" and the
like (which may or may not be true, depending).
Not surprisingly, the few free press advocate countries are
flatly refusing to go along with this sort of nonsense, no matter that
the U.N. has sponsored it. Those who would "manage" the news are
going right ahead, but what they are really after is a U.N. sanctified
policy that essentially says that that is okay.
Phase II: there are currently feasibility studies, etc.
underway to give all these dinky countries their very own share of
Intelsat services, again under U.N. auspices. I recently asked a
researcher who is working on this feasibility study at a seminar
here(CU), "what about the very real possibility of having every
two-bit dictator being furnished with a satellite driven propaganda
bureau?" Imagine: "The Mo Khaddafy Inspiration Hour," or "Fun at Home
with Idi Amin," or "The Devil in D.C., with the Ayatollah," ...
Well, the answer I got essentially dodged the policy question,
saying that they were depending on multiple up-links to counter this
sort of abuse.
In short, I hate to think that an essentially well-meaning
organization like the U.N.-UNESCO is apparently very apt to help all
these petty dictators keep themselves in power, but it looks pretty
likely at this point.
Comments? cheers(?) ernie
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 16 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 40
Contents: Nicaragua
Secrecy
The New Information Order (2 msgs)
Marxism
Revitalizing the CIA
Exporting Repression
1982 Budget Comment/Query
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 January 1982 01:58-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Nicaragua
Nicaragua invalidates your argument. The regime is highly
popular, and is doing REAL things for the country. - Bern Niamir
The regime is nowhere near as popular as it once was. But indeed, it
is doing REAL things for the country. A list of those "REAL things"
follows:
1) The Sandinistas are making Nicaragua a Central-American
"superpower." The Nicaraguan Army numbers 22,000-33,000 (up from
8,000 under Somoza). Honduras with 12,000 in its army, Guatemala with
14,000, and El Salvador with 15,000 are dwarfed by such a force. In
addition, Nicaragua has 28,000-50,000 in "ready reserve," and plans to
increase the size of its army eventually to 50,000. This army is also
well-armed. From TIME: "The country has nearly a hundred 122-mm and
152-mm howitzers, dozens of Soviet BTR-60 armored personnel carriers,
1,000 East German and Soviet military transport trucks, and some 30
T-54 and T-55 battle tanks, the same types that are used in Warsaw
Pact countries. For air defense, the Nicaraguans have shoulder-fired
SA-7 antiaircraft missles, and four-barreled ZPU-4 and 37-mm
antiaircraft guns. US analysts expect that heavier Soviet
antiaircraft missiles will soon appear in Nicaragua." (Jan. 18th
issue). The article goes on to say that the US expects the arrival of
12 to 18 MiG-21's and MiG-23's, because Nicaragua is having pilots
trained in Bulgaria and lengthening its runways. Such planes would
pose a huge danger to countries throughout Central America and the
Carribean.
2) The Sandinista government is gradually eroding such freedoms as
existed when they originally took power. Businessmen, members of the
country's Superior Council of Private Enterprise, have been arrested.
Criticizing official policy is now a serious offense. And the
Sandinistas are thinking of declaring an internal "state of war" in
order to provide greater justification for military mobilization.
3) The Sandinista economic rebuilding program is suffering from both
the large military expenditures and wildcat strikes sponsored by the
Communist Party, which "doesn't think Nicaragua is moving fast enough
toward dictatorship of the proletariat," even though the Sandinistas
are, by their own definition, Marxist-Leninist (TIME).
In short, Nicaragua is, at present, hardly a paragon by the judgment
of any thinking person, and the situation is rapidly getting worse.
------------------------------
Date: 15 January 1982 02:25-EST
From: Herb Lin < LIN at MIT-AI>
Subject: secrecy
Date: 13 January 1982 2227-EST (Wednesday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Aside from codes, is secrecy really needed to keep the Russians
in the dark? I will assume the question is serious, and provide
some examples of why it is needed. If the Russians knew the CEP
of Minuteman missiles, they could design their silos accordingly
to gain whatever probability of survival they desired. This
implies that they can eliminate counterforce attacks. Given the
position of US subs, they could attempt to zap them all at once.
Etc, etc in strategic terms.
In tactical terms, it would sure be nice to know just how to fool
the radar of the fighter of your choice. Particularly of a
fighter that hasn't been sold to some random third-world country.
I think you're confusing two types of secrecy. I think everyone would
argue that the location of SLBM subs should be kept secret, though
it's far from clear that this alone would enable a simultaneous zap.
Secrecy about technology is another matter; take your example about
CEP. I'm pretty sure that they would try to design for the strongest
silo they could reasonably build no matter what our current CEP was,
simply because we could someday have a better CEP. Or take particle
beam weapons... you have to assume that they could deploy an effective
system so quickly that we would have no alternatives to surrender.
Technology progreses much more quickly when there is proof of concept,
(several years for us to go fromA- to H-Bomb, several months for the
USSR, and we beat "them") and it's not clear to me that secrecy buys
you very much time in which to take advantage of your discoveries.
It is true that many things that are classified are of marginal
value to the Russians. I can think of lots of examples of
classified material that seemed to be just common sense to me.
But it might not be common sense in Russia - can't be too
careful.
Almost all classified material is of a technical or military
operations nature that is of no particular concern to US
citizens. For example, do you care which missile has which
city's name on it? The example that you cite makes up a small
percentage of classified material, and probably doesn't usually
fall within the normal classification channels.
Your example is a straw man (i think). Of more importance is that
concelaing facts under the screen of national security allows all
kinds of nonsense to happen behind closed doors where it is impossible
to challenge. If you trust the Pentagon to exercise good judgment,
then OK, but I have ample reason to believe that they have an active
interest in CONCEALING the basis for their positions, because they are
in many cases NOT based on reason. Thus, much classified material is
directly relevant to US citizens.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1982 1133-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
re: the "New Information Order"
Just a small comment - I once read some columist to the effect that
the quality of information you get about a nation is directly related
to whether the local press is free or controlled (for whatever high
minded reason). Thus the US press give people a far better idea of
what real conditions are like in America than, say, the Soviet press
does about life in the USSR.
Given this attitude (which seems entirely reasonable), I cannot really
see why third world countries WANT to control what the press reports
to the outside world about their country. Don't they realize that
people always assume a controlled press is reporting misinformation,
and therefore automatically multiply reported difficulties by an order
of magnitude?
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 15 January 1982 16:28-EST
From: David A. Levitt < LEVITT at MIT-AI>
Re: Information service for "3rd world" countries
In his comment, MENLO!...!HARKINS conveyed a dangerous confusion
between censorship and diversified propaganda. The former must be
shunned by "free press" advocates, the latter to be encouraged. While
indeed the press in this country is relatively free, it is far from
balanced. Most Europeans I've encountered here (not to mention "3rd
world" visitors) are shocked by the narrowness and biases, and try
hard to get a hold of European papers to compensate. They are
typically shocked by Americans' political naivete (this includes US
politicians), and believe (as do I) that US policies would be
significantly more realistic if people here simply knew the facts.
Any program which promises easier access to a richer view should be
encouraged. If UNESCO is advocating censorship of existing American
press, that is a serious and essentially unrelated problem. Is it?
------------------------------
Date: 15-Jan-82 13:23:59 PST (Friday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Re: Marxism.
Perhaps, as a member of the 'technological elite', my views are
biased. There is no such thing as an unbiased approach to social
organization. Objectivity suffers as much from exploitation as a
worker as it does from privilege as a member of the 'elite'.
Marx's definition and much of his analysis of Capitalism has been
recognized by 'capitalist' economists for a long time. However, the
'efficiency of socialized labor' is a questionable concept at best, as
current events seem to prove over and over again. Likewise, the
'justice of socialized ownership of that labor's production' is
unclear when the Communist commitment to totalitarian thought is taken
into account.
In which countries of the world today is the amount of production per
capita highest? Communist Poland? Communist Afghanistan? (Please
supply figures.) Why does the 'efficiency of socialized labor' require
massive amounts of economic support and military intervention if it is
so obviously in everyone's interest?
I do not speak against socialism per se, but against the concept that
centralized planning (of an economy or anything) is the be-all,
end-all panacea that Communists think. I liken it to a large computer
running a time sharing system - the system requires absolute control
by the central processor of resource allocation, a dictatorship, if
you will, of the central processor. If this control breaks down, or if
certain subsystems (defense, anyone?) require too much resource, the
whole system suffers. Furthermore, critical problems in certain local
areas can result in whole-scale breakdowns which affect everyone. ANY
highly centralized system will suffer these problems. The situation in
Poland is a perfect example of this. Contrary to the Communist
propaganda line, the government there is failing of its own accord.
Mismanagement at high levels has caused disaster because there is no
room for error in a system which admits only one policy and stifles
any diversity of thought.
Economic justice is an important concept, but is not one that is
simply defined and necessarily achievable by only one type of social
organization. (Communism has shown over the past 60 years that it
can't even come close.) Nor is economic justice the only kind of
justice, though it is certainly one of the more important. Marxist
theory only deals with economic justice and leaves political justice
to be dealt with in whatever manner available. History has shown that
totalitarianism is the result, and that economic justice is often
sacrificed anyway in favor of the totalitarian ideal.
-- Larry --
------------------------------
Date: 15 January 1982 18:08-EST
From: David A. Levitt < LEVITT at MIT-AI>
Re: Bill Hoffman's synopsis of "Revitalizing the CIA"
The UN Ambassador from Nicaragua also spoke....
He confessed that the new government might in fact be
guilty of exporting terror, noting that ``We made many
of Somoza's National Guardsmen leave the country.''
I attended a panel at Harvard last winter, where he spoke and made the
same comment. He was clearly a skilled speaker and diplomat, managing
even to quiet some of the naive leftists in the audience, who wanted
to keep the US State Department representative there from speaking.
The interesting thing was, when State finally spoke, he squirmingly
volunteered that various members of the Army (which we have armed)
"do seem to be moonlighting" (his word!!) for the terrorist security
forces. He then stated, as James Cox and others do, that if there
were an election, this problem would somehow automatically be
curtailed.
Can anyone propose a realistic mechanism for this? Does anyone
seriously think that a professional terrorist, or his boss, is going
to say "Uh-oh, Duarte's even more popular than last time he was
elected -- we'd better stop killing people now."? The left will not
disappear after the election, and "counterterrorism" -- as a policy
and a rationale -- will continue to thrive. (That word must be every
pro-terrorist's favorite euphemism.)
What will Duarte really be able do to control the Army, that he could
not do before? Does winning an election innoculate him against a
military coup? Assassination? Does it empower him to tell *anyone*
who and when to shoot, and expect them to listen?
The only possible outcome of an election will be an apparent increase
in the credibility of the current Army regime (which has little
correlation with who is in office).
In a country where murder of both peasants and leaders is commonplace,
the only hope he has to gain control is by disarming the murderers.
As Bill Hoffman pointed out (and you can see it yourself if you can
catch "El Salvador: Another Vietnam"), the Army chief there won't even
admit that most of the documented murders have happened; given that,
and the myriad reports by neutral religious and human rights
observers, and the remarks of our own State Department organs, how can
we help but conclude that Army/security is responsible for the
violence?
Whether elected or installed, the only way Duarte could control the
Army would be to disarm them first -- unlikely, since they would
surely find one last bullet for him. *It must be done from the
outside*, and it can be done easily. The terrorist Army would crumble
without US support.
If the *application* of US military aid could be used to control its
use by the Army, we would have seen evidence of this by now. The US
would act in its own best interests if it withdrew all support for the
Army, and made carefully-timed plans to provide conditional support
for a more stable group -- i.e. ensuring a future ally by offering a
better deal than the Soviets or Castro. Otherwise it will indeed be
another Cuba/Vietnam/Iran.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1982 1209-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: exporting repression
David, you seem to make a mistake common by those on the left that
Hank Walker touched upon. Given a bad right wing government, the
"popular" left wing opposition may simply be worse. Saying:
Discontented people are going to rise up to throw
off their oppressors. We have a choice in what
actions we take--we can support people who are
dying for the freedom we have, or we can support
their oppressors. Our government has consistently
chosen the latter strategy.
is simply too simplistic. Need I point to Cambodia as a classic
example of where this statement simply fails? Revolutions are
not always good, even in a bad country.
Subject: on Argentina
As a side issue, they have been talking down there about supporting
us in any move to embargo grain to the USSR over Poland. This would
really hurt the Soviets, since they made up a lot of their shortfall
from South America when we imposed our earlier embargo.
Subject: Security
Bill, security really is intended to deny information to the enemy.
Usually that enemy is the USSR, although it can be another government
agancy, or even the public. Why is this wrong? Quite frankly, it would
probably be better for everyone if some decisions were made in private
without public discussion. Remember that while majority vote may rule
around here, it is often not correct.
About the ``Revitalizing the CIA'' series:
From your description it appears to be as one sided as I thought. Why
not get the ambassador from El Salvador to give a speech?
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1982 1524-PST
From: Daul at OFFICE
Subject: 1982 Budget Comment/Query
How many people know that the 1982 budget was signed on Dec. 22 and is
only about 4% (got this second hand) lass than last year? There sure
wasn't much press coverage of the event. Seems that it is an
embarrasment to the administration. I talked with a friend at the
USGS and he says the budget is almost the same as last year. Any
comments on my second hand info?
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sun 17 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 41
Contents: Government Secrecy (3 msgs)
FY82 Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 16 January 1982 02:53-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Security
It would probably be better for everyone if some decisions were
made in private without public discussion. Remember that while
majority vote may rule around here, it is often not correct.
- Jim McGrath
Good point. Before the mid-1960's, a majority vote would not
have ratified the civil-rights legislation, for example. (I don't
know for sure that the legislation would be ratified even now.)
Often, it is necessary for the governments of republican countries to
undertake unpopular actions. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why
the Congress was not made all-powerful by the framers of the
Constitution. In fact, some of the most tyrannical periods in
American history were when the Congress had the upper hand, e.g. the
Reconstruction. And for those of you who feel that J. McCarthy was an
evil man, remember that he was supported by the people for a long
time.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1982 1726-EST
From: Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI>
Subject: secrecy, CIA
Bill, security really is intended to deny information to the
enemy. Usually that enemy is the USSR, although it can be
another government agancy, or even the public. Why is this
wrong? Quite frankly, it would probably be better for everyone
if some decisions were made in private without public discussion.
Remember that while majority vote may rule around here, it is
often not correct. [JPM]
Well put. Indeed, it is telling that you'd suggest that the enemy of
(say the NSA or CIA or Pentagon, or etc.) could be the public. I'd
agree with you quite wholely. What the source of our disagreement is
is whether we should have an accountable government or an efficient
one. (This theme dominated the discussion among business circles in
the early seventies-and many privately reached the conclusion you hint
at, that democratic government may be a nice idea, but it isn't really
best for all of us folks. This is also the root of the
``governability crisis'' that Sam Huntington was so worried about.)
Without passing judgement on the rectitude of it, I can see arguments
for secrecy of such things as troop movements. But there are levels
of secrecy even here. As Drew Middleton pointed out in last Sunday's
NYT Magazine, one of the reasons that coverage of the Vietnam War
(emasculated as it was) was viewed by the military as being
detrimental to the war effort was that it wasn't censored, as had been
coverage of WWII. Would you support a censored press?
However, the illegal and immoral activities of the CIA and of other
agencies shrouded in secrecy do not deserve this cover of secrecy. By
the way, I wasn't organizing the CIA series you refer to. What other
side of CIA activities would you like to see presented? Of the
sessions I've seen so far (3 out of 5), the primary focus has been on
actions documented in rather gruesome detail by the CIA and by
Congress. I grant that the guiding sentiment in the series seems to
be that atrocities are bad, but I think that that is a fairly easily
justified sentiment. What is lacking (I imagine you feel) is an
explanation of why those activities were ``necessary'' to the
interests of the US, or to the cause of freedom. The Nicaraguan
Ambassador spoke as a representative of a government already targeted
for covert action, against its will. Obviously, this is in contrast
to El Salvador, where covert actions against guerilla forces receive
(or would receive) high-level approval.
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 82 2140-EST
From: JoSH < JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Secrecy
It is important to keep straight what all the secrecy is about.
There are straight military secrets, most of the really critical
ones of which are operational only in an actual shooting war
(examples: troop or fleet positions, orders to do X at time Y,
blueprints for some specific gadget such as radar). In peace-
time, these don't make as much sense: it is public knowlege
where our military bases are, and how many men we have; the USSR
has military equipment comparable to ours; the advantage to be
gained by rushing out with a new gadget is wasted when we can't
use it on them and have to sit and watch them redevelop it over
the next few years.
The secrets we do keep in peacetime are just the opposite.
Performance measures of our weapons (like CEP) are things a
wartime enemy would learn soon by experience, and one would
suspect they could be estimated by the Russian experts about
as reliably as the American (all of these things are estimates;
we haven't fired enough missiles at Moscow to obtain a grouping)
(yet). And under MAD we want to be sure our enemy knows we can
kill him anyway!
Thus it is much less reasonable to think secrets critical to
the national security in peacetime than in war. And so to the
other side of the coin: Having "national security" as a magic
invisibility cloak to pull over one's actions allows people
like Nixon to do things like political skulduggery. I say
Nixon to point just how paranoid people in just how presumeably
responsible positions can get. I am sure you know that the
primary law in any bureaucracy is "Cover Thine Ass." Invoking
"national security" for this purpose is very much a reflex
action for those empowered to do so.
From our local newspaper's editorial on the subject:
"...Apparently, the crackdown applies to all government agencies,
including the Department of Agriculture, where few classified
national security secrets are stored.
"...The White House has already moved to expand the category
of classified information to include things that do not threaten
national security. But putting the fear of God into some
bureaucrats over broccoli and carrot statistics and other equally
innocuous news items smells of paranoia."
(Courier-News, Bridgewater, NJ, Jan 15)
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 16 January 1982 1252-EST (Saturday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: FY82 budget
What's so surprising that the FY82 budget is 4% less than last year?
Actually I would be quite surprised if it is less than last year. The
idea wasn't to cut the absolute size of the federal budget, but to
slow its rate of growth and percentage of the GNP (from 23% to 18%).
Reagan's first TV talks about the budget clearly showed rising curves,
but at a lower slope than otherwise. I would tend to believe that the
budget actually grew by 4%, not shrank by 4%. Given 9% inflation,
that's a 5% cut. That comes to 35 billion out of a 700 billion dollar
budget, which is about right.
That's one thing that people tend to miss. While the dollar amounts
are large, the percentage is small in the total budget. The
percentage is higher in the programs involved because 75% of the
budget (DOD, Social Security, Entitlements) wasn't cut significantly,
or actually grew a lot, so the other 25% had to take a much bigger
cut.
Jimmy Carter was perfectly correct when he said that this 25% of the
government would have to be eliminated if the other 75% was left
untouched and the economy didn't grow a lot.
Since Social Security is included in the budget, it's sort of
deceptive since this is really a completely separate part with
separate taxes. I think that it should be listed separately, as it
was until Johnson or Nixon.
Since the FY83 budget and elections are coming up, how about giving El
Salvador and all those crazies a rest, and talk about economics. For
example, how many people think Reagan is to blame for the recession?
A recent TIME poll showed that most people didn't blame him at all or
only a little.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 18 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 42
Contents: Marxism
Objectivism
Bias and Narrowness of American Press (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1982 2327-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Marxism
Marx's most important discovery was the first
truly accurate analysis of the mechanism of
Capitalism (Marx coined the term in fact), and
that it was, in fact, based on the appropriation
of unpaid labor.
Not true. As I have said earlier, Marx's really important
contribution was in sociology in regard to the theory of aleination.
His economics were, quite frankly, not very impressive.
All you are saying (with the labor theory of value) is that all
commodities are valuable simply due to the amount of human processing
that went into making them. Saying that someone who works on the
assembly line actually produces the products is simply wrong (it even
contradicts aleination theory on a closer examination). The group of
workers, as organized on an assembly line, are responsible for
producing things. Thus managers in particular contribute their labor
to the final product by organizing a bunch of isolated people into a
team that can accomplish far more together than separately. And the
people who provide the tools for production also contribute. Thus the
products should be divided among all contributors, including
capitalists.
You may find this situation unfair. In that case you can only attack
property rights at a fundamental level, denying the right of ownership
of productive resources (which includes practically everything) to
individuals. But this generates more problems than it solves. In
particular ownership in any true sense really means the right to use
an item as you see fit. If no item can be owned, then its use for any
particular purpose rather than another cannot really be justified.
This would lead to the breakdown of your economy. If you say "let the
people decide how to use the items, since they own it," then you run
up to the classical political problem of devising a system that will
enable the "will of the people" to guide the decisions of society. We
have not been all that successful at solving this problem, the best
systems having been developed relying on private ownership of most
resources as a counterweight to governmenal power!
The morality of a society is dependent upon the reality under which
it operates. Lacking a system where a group of people could have
effective control over the use of property, group ownership is not
justifiable. In a society where capital is the most productive factor
of production, then those who control the capital (the owners) should
benefit.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 17 January 1982 1525-EST (Sunday)
From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A
Subject: Re: Objectivism (a little late)
While I am not exactly sure what Rand means by Objectivism, I think
that most of the criticisms of rationalism have made some mistakes.
First, being rational is not the same as working entirely within a
mathematical system of logic. For example, scientists routinely use
empirical induction, which is not at all mathematically sound. Yet,
we do not label them as irrational for doing so. Instead, being
rational merely means working within a well defined, consistent system
for reaching conclusions.
Being "purely" rational doesn't mean having no axioms, but rather
having no unjustified axioms. A justification is not a proof of
"absolute truth," but rather a proof that "this is the best we can do
under current circumstances." Physicists quite rationally limit their
studies, by axiom, to specific observable phenomena. This doesn't
prove that there are no other physical phenomena (ESP, telekinesis,
etc.) but instead recognizes that we have, so far, been unable to make
useful observations or measurements of other phenomena.
Similarly, I can state that "all people must be considered as equal."
While some "absolute truth" may indicate that people are not equal, I
know of no proof of such belief that includes no assumptions. By
specifically excluding any assumptions, I have no choice but to use
equality as working model, since I have no way of knowing (rationally)
which group should get moral superiority. [The key mathematical point
is that the negation of "equals" is "greater than, or less than, but
not both." That is, "equals" ties things down precisely, while "not
equals" doesn't determine which of two disjoint possibilities is
correct.] While this may not be "absolute truth," it is the best we
can do.
[As an aside, the notion that you need axioms to do useful mathematics
is wrong, as it ignores self contained statements. Try coming up with
a consistent set of axioms that will permit the construction of a
Turing machine that can solve the halting problem, while working in
the natural numbers.]
Gary
------------------------------
Date: 17 January 1982 06:11-EST
From: David A. Levitt < LEVITT at MIT-AI>
ps: my own opinion is that most Europeans are politically
naive in that they still believe in some form of socialism.
....[next letter, after objection]
I never said that Americans were better-informed about socialism.
I claim that the Europeans are politically naive since they
ought to know better, having experience of socialism as they do.
[JoSH, from a private communication]
Curiouser and curiouser. A European -- say, a Dane -- lives under
socialism, accepts the state's services, pays his huge tax, and still
"believes in it"; are you saying he is naive compared to a politically
ignorant American, or just compared to you? How would you go about
convincing him that he prefers another system?
Anyway, if that's really what you meant, it was a non-sequitur with
respect to my original comment: I maintain that the press here does
such a poor job of informing people about political issues -- NOT what
the County Clerk does, but *precisely* things like what Socialism
means around the world -- that very few Americans can realistically
evaluate basic political questions. I fear this includes our most
senior foreign policy officials.
For instance, in Europe, a question like "should our foreign policy
encourage a Democratic Socialist goverment in a certain unstable Latin
American country?" might be evaluated with a coherent appraisal of
examples and alternatives. In the US, the socialism-phobia is
reflected so strongly in both the government and the press, that such
an approach is never discussed. The "status quo vs. Soviet" view is
pursued so unilaterally here that opportunities for alternate
strategies quickly evaporate. In practice it has cost the US various
foreign policy disasters.
PS: This discussion is appropriate for POLI-SCI itself. If you want
to continue it, why not do it on that list, filling in the audience on
the last couple of messages.
[Here it is. Actually, this letter stands fairly well by itself.
I had inquired about Levitt's contention that the American press
was narrow and biassed in world political matters. He has sent
the following story as corroborating evidence. Briefly in reply
to the above: One can be naive without having someone else to be
more naive than; the Air Force was naive about their nuclear jet
program throughout the 50's, and no one else knew anything about
it at all. Indeed my remark didn't follow (directly) from anything
you said; that's why it was a postscript.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 17 January 1982 06:30-EST
From: David A. Levitt < LEVITT at MIT-AI>
Subject: The European press
Re: US press bias: I am forwarding a story whose equivalent you are
unlikely to find in an "equivalent" major American paper.
Subject: "El Salvador insurgents control 1/4 of territory"
(The following is a quick-and-dirty translation of an article in the
13 Jan. edition of the Paris independent daily Le Monde. The original
contains a map of El Salvador outlining regions controlled by the
guerrilla forces. I will be happy to send a photocopy to whoever
requests--SHAPIRO@MIT-XX.)
El Salvador: the insurgents seem to control close to 1/4
of the territory
San Salvador. One year after the so-called "general offensive",
launched on Jan 10 1980 by the FMLN, the gov't armed forces have lost
control of 1/4 of the Salvadoran territory. They do reign over the
larger cities and are capable of conducting operations at any point of
the country. But neither their increase in troops, nor the help in
form of men and weapons sent by Washington, allow them to keep a hold
on that part of the territory, where the insurgents are now almost at
home. Their domain contains all the northern border of the country,
along the Honduras border, and variably-sized pockets, the largest of
them being in the Northern and Eastern parts of the country, as well
as in the South-West, along the Gulf of Fonseca.
Indeed, both camps are now stronger today than last Jan. The army has
received a considerable amount of North-American aid [...] including
about 50 counselors [...]. El Salvador is the latin-american country
having received the most US aid in 1981. The number of US counselors
represents 10% of the number of officers in the El Salvador army.
These officers have, furthermore, been to schools [???] in Panama and
the USA.
The hardware they received is mostly: communication means (radio,
trucks), M-16 guns, bullets [???], airplanes and 14 Huey HH-1
helicopters. The role of the counselors is mostly: to ensure correct
use of the helicopters, which are becoming as in Vietnam the kings of
this war; to train an elite unit, the Atlacati bataillon, a rapid
intervention force (2 more units on he same model are to be formed);
to constitute an interception flotilla to control the sea-shore,
especially near Nicaragua,; and to design a global operational
planification.
In the long run, the development of the Salvadoran army [...can
continue only with] an increase in US aid.
The army has shown that it controls the cities, from which most
insurgent elements have been driven out by the repression. The army is
incapable however of stopping sabotage, which is increasing both in
the cities and in the country-side. Almost 1/2 of the important
bridges have been sabotaged; 1/3 of the population remains, on and off
or constantly, without electricity. The GNP has gone down by 25% in 3
years.
The army's main activity is to [surround and trap ???] the guerrilla
strongholds. They most often accomplish their goals; but almost
always, after their victory, they must retreat, leaving the spot for
the insurgents to take over again.
One of such operations took place last december in the department of
Morazan. Thousands of men were mobilized, with the main objective of
destroying Radio-Venceremos, the official organ of the FMLN. The
guerrilla stopped transmitting three days before the offensive
started, and started again as soon as it was over. Not only hasn't the
army been able to destroy the insurgents' strongholds, but the latter
have constantly kept the capacity to hinder the army's movements.
After resisting to the army's counter-offensive in Feb-March 1981, the
revolutionaries have, beginning in July-Aug, enlarged the zones they
controlled and to strengthen their hold on the territories they
already held. At the same time, they established circulation
"corridors" which allow them to travel freely from one end of the
country to the other.
The rebel forces are now organized as a real army. The more important
zones have their own "war schools", with programs lasting several
weeks. Elite units have been formed. Leadership and discipline are
not those of a partisan group, but as the revolutionaries say, of "an
army in the process of formation". [...]
The insurgents now have a remarkable radio communication network,
between fronts and organizations as well as inside each zone. In
Morazan, for instance, the eastern front HQ communicates with all the
other fronts by radio, and by walkie-talkie with stations outside the
controlled zone. The hardware (Canadian, American or Japanese) comes
from the tax-free Panama canal zone, where they can be bought freely.
[...] It is impossible to determine exactly the numbers of the
guerrillas. The number most often heard is around 4000 men. The new
element is that now they are real soldiers. The greatest obstacles for
the development of the insurgent forces are: poor supplies [...] in
food and military supplies, and repression in the country-side, which
drives the population away. Moreover, the links between the insurgent
movement and the population are not always well kept. It is also
largely cut from the world opinion. Finally, the unity between the
FMLN's components is not perfect.
"Neither side is capable, in the present circumstances, of beating the
other" says Mr. Ken Bleakeley, first chancellor of the US embassy.
Both sides are consequently trying to modify this situation.
FRANCIS PISANI
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 19 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 43
Contents: 3rd World Censorship
Bias of US Press vs European (3 msgs)
US Govt Secrecy (2 msgs)
Exporting Repression
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 0038-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: UNESCO
Re: Information service for "3rd world" countries
UNESCO (ie the third world majority in the organization) wants better
press in the Western media (and some help in their internal propaganda
machines). This demand for 'better and more responsible' press
translates into censorship. After all, no government needs
international action to set up its own press bureau and give out
information. Many already do. And no newspaperperson (ug!) worth
his/her salt is going to believe those press releases. They barely
stomach US government releases, and only do that because the
information can (in time) be verified (which is usually impossible in
a third world country which has no free internal press or freedom of
speech).
What these governments want to have is the right to dictate a 'fair
and balanced' coverage of events. Guess who decides what is 'fair and
balanced?' And guess how they go about doing it? Right. The only
way such coverage can result is if the governments involved dictate to
the media what they can print in the interests of 'fairness.'
Otherwise that capitalist press is going to turn on the poor little
people's governments.
UNESCO has taken such completely politically motivated actions before.
Remember Zionism=Racism? I'll bet that almost every single one of
their reccomendations will equate to censorship of the press.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 0044-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Press coverage
The US press is not very balanced simply because the US is not very
balanced. For a nation composed of peoples from all other nations, we
display a shocking lack of interest in international events. The
situation is better now than it use to be, which is a result of our
growing importance in the world (and thus the world's growing
importance in American affairs). On domestic coverage I challenge
anyone to really say that the US is not better balanced than
practically any other nation. I found European publications in
particular to be quite narrow minded when it came to domestic affairs.
Thus it is not correct to say the US press lacks balance. Rather,
it simply is bad in reporting international news, which is quite
different (although bad in its own right).
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 0056-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Basic Politics
Come on now, Europeans are no more political theorists than Americans.
They are simply more interested in international affairs, have
historically been outward looking (rather that the US, which has been
inward looking till relatively recently), and have a better grasp of
the realities of power (when your country gets smashed twice in a
century, you develope a better appreciation for warfare than if you
were living in a nation whose last major foreign invasion occurred 170
years ago (the War of 1812), and whose last taste of domestic military
action was a century ago).
While our international relations are important, until recently they
were vastly overshadowed in importance by domestic events. The
reverse has been true in Europe. Comparing the two is a bit like
comparing apples (apologies Jim!) and oranges.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 18 January 1982 1005-EST (Monday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Govt. vs. the economy; the U.S. press
Since the relationship between government actions and economic
effects is always murky, the government (no matter who is president)
compares the economy to the weather when it is bad, and then takes
credit for curing it when it gets better. Who knows? I just wish
they would stick to one story. If the recession becomes worse, it was
the democrats and foreign steel. If it becomes better, it was
Reaganomics (Finkonomics?).
Note that the press appears to contribute to the national
amnesia, since they almost never remind us of what went on 6 months
ago. I find it truly amazing when I read in the newspaper that
candidate X says that the GNP was 10% higher, candidate Y says it was
10% lower, and there is NO analysis presented as a sidebar explaining
where their figures came from and what independent observers think.
This varies from paper to paper, but is generally abysmal. As for
foreign papers, I think that they are definitely more objective about
the U.S., and so worth reading (I don't get around to it enough, but
there is a magazine called World Press Review which prints headlines
from all over, plus a number of complete articles on current events).
As for their own countries, I suspect that they may be equally myopic
(hyperopic, actually).
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 0134-PST
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Security
(James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC> )
Right, you hit the important point, missed by others, that security
may be needed simply bacause the 'people' cannot or will not make a
good (best, wise, etc...) decision.
(Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI> )
[Hofmann has gotten off the list, pleading academic urgency --JoSH]
What the source of our disagreement is is whether
we should have an accountable government or an
efficient one.
What? You mean you do not want an accountable government? Because I
sure do!
Our source of disagreement is really what constitutes accountability
and what are the tradeoffs between democracy and autocracy. You do
not need to know everything in order to hold the government
accountable - just the results of their action will do. In
particular, you can let government officials act without your
knowledge, holding them responsible if they screw up. There is a hell
of a difference between that and denying them the power to act by
having the CIA hold a public hearing every time they want to send a
new agent into the Soviet Union!
Would you support a censored press?
Of course, under certain circumstances. If the press was beginning to
give out the location of our nuclear subs, I would sure as hell muzzle
them. The press employs self-censorship in these cases, which is
better than governemnt imposed censorship, but censorship all the
same.
However, the illegal and immoral activities of the
CIA and of other agencies shrouded in secrecy do
not deserve this cover of secrecy.
And why not? If they are needed, then they have to be carried out
(and in a timely fashion). Publicity could prevent this. The plain
fact of the matter is that people in this world play rough, and they
play for keeps. It may disgust a lot of people that we have to get
our hands dirty and violate our morals, but that's the way the world
is.
What other side of CIA activities would you like
to see presented?
How about the policy analysis side, which consumes the vast majority
(80%) of manpower and resources?
What is lacking (I imagine you feel) is an
explanation of why those activities were
``necessary'' to the interests of the US, or to
the cause of freedom.
Damm right they are lacking. I'll say it again - the world is dirty,
and we sometimes have to fight dirty. There is nothing wrong with
that - it is only common sense. Remember, the CIA is working for us,
not South Americans. If they do something that hurts our interests,
then they should be kicked in the butt. Quite frankly, objections
from other nations along the lines of 'we don't like what you folks
are doing to us, so you should stop' do not thrill me.
(JoSH < JoSH at RUTGERS> )
Just because the enemy CAN figure out all your secrets given time and
resources is no excuse to hand them to them on a silver platter! Part
of the game is to force the other side to waste energy in acts that
are not overtly aggressive, like intelligence gathering. These
resources then cannot be used in an offensive capacity.
Thus the definition of national security is very broad, and has
to be so when conflicts can begin instantly and involve raw
military strength, economic power, diplomatic relations, etc...
This does prevent the danger that this power will be misused,
but there is danger in not using it as well. The British are
far tougher than we are when it comes to keeping secrets, yet
they have not degenerated into a dictatorship (only an economic
mess).
Thus the power to classify things should not be restricted too
much. However, the ease of so classifying things should be
decreased. In particular, classifications should be 'sunshined'
so that they lose protection after a set period of time. This
will force people to renew classifications at that time, hopefully
resulting in less material that remains classified simply because
no one has ever bothered to declassify it.
Naturally such a scheme is costly, but a balance has to be struck
at some point between those costs and the costs of excessive
classification. Right now there is little incentative to declassify,
and this should be corrected.
To sum up, I do not believe in giving the CIA power to do anything it
wants, but I do recognize that, as an agency serving our interests, it
should not be unfairly hindered. In particular I am pretty disgusted
with some periodicals that publish the names of CIA agents overseas
(this has already resulted in the death of one agent, and who knows
how many others). That is the sort of press I WOULD censor.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 1544-EST
From: JoSH < JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: secrecy
To: poli-sci at RUTGERS
From: Jim McGrath < JPM at SU-AI>
Subject: Security
... security may be needed simply because the 'people' cannot
or will not make a good (best, wise, etc...) decision.
If you believe this, you should seriously reconsider whether you
believe that a democracy is a good form of government. (Including
"just better than all the others." If a set of bureaucrats, acting
against the will of the people, or perhaps merely without consulting
the will of the people, can give them what they "need" instead of what
they want, perhaps the Soviet form of government (pure bureaucracy) is
better. Experience indicates otherwise.)
(Bill Hofmann < G.WDH at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI> )
Would you support a censored press?
Of course, under certain circumstances. If the press was
beginning to give out the location of our nuclear subs, ...
Censoring the press is not the right place to contain a military
secret (stipulating for the sake of argument that we are trying
to guard a truly critical military secret). Any power with an
interest in our secrets could merely open a bureau in Washington,
shipping back home all the items they were forbidden to print.
More likely, of course, they would merely have agents in all
major newsrooms. Censorship of the press is never (well, hardly
ever) a useful tool for keeping critical secrets from the other
country; it is always a tool for keeping the public in the dark
and in line. Assuming there was someone in the Navy who was
willing to give the location of the subs to a newspaper, he would
be just as willing to a spy, and less likely to be caught.
However, the illegal and immoral activities of the
CIA and of other agencies shrouded in secrecy do
not deserve this cover of secrecy.
And why not? If they are needed, ... It may disgust a lot of
people that we have to get our hands dirty and violate our
morals, but that's the way the world is.
Whoa! If "the way the world is" is sufficient justification to
violate our laws and morals, our laws and morals must be pretty
much garbage.
Just because the enemy CAN figure out all your secrets given
time and resources is no excuse to hand them to them on a silver
platter! Part of the game is to force the other side to waste
energy ...
This doesn't make much sense if you waste more energy yourself doing
it. It represents an unfortunately far too common zero-sum concept
of the world. I would personally *sell* arms to the Russians (or
anyone else not actively shooting at me). This would (a) give me
real money, instead of inflation, to pay for my own defense; (b)
increase my weapons production capability and reduce theirs, in the
event of an actual war; and (c) make the world economy more efficient,
by economies of scale and reduction of duplicate development, making
everybody richer in the meantime.
The British are far tougher than we are when it comes to keeping
secrets, yet they have not degenerated into a dictatorship (only
an economic mess).
What this has accomplished is to keep the British public in line, not
particularly to enhance their intelligence operations--wasn't there a
high-level mole there in fairly recent times? (That we know of...)
... periodicals that publish the names of CIA agents overseas
(...). That is the sort of press I WOULD censor.
See the sub case above. The CIA is criminally negligent if it allows
agent's identities to leak to the point that the press is involved at
all. In fact, my opinion is that the CIA is incompetent, and this is
what they are trying so hard to hide.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 13:56:30 EST (Monday)
From: David Mankins < dm at BBN-RSM>
David, you seem to make a mistake common by those on the left
that Hank Walker touched upon. Given a bad right wing
government, the "popular" left wing opposition may simply be
worse. Saying:
Discontented people are going to rise up to throw
off their oppressors. We have a choice in what
actions we take--we can support people who are
dying for the freedom we have, or we can support
their oppressors. Our government has consistently
chosen the latter strategy.
is simply too simplistic. Need I point to Cambodia as a
classic example of where this statement simply fails?
Revolutions are not always good, even in a bad country.
[Jim McGrath]
True, things are never black and white. I would like to argue that
our failure to support freedom fighters (e.g., Ho Chi Minh in the
1940's--whose death in the 1960's was mourned even in South Vietnam)
turns them into totalitarians. William Shawcross makes a persuasive
argument for this case in his book \Sideshow/ about the bombing of
Cambodia; Shawcross argues that the Nixon/Kissinger bombing strategy
was responsible for the rise of Pol Pot and his murderous regime. I
want to temper my praise for Shawcross, however--there was an
interesting debate between Shawcross and some Kissinger-assistant
(don't remember his name) in \The American Spectator/ last fall. Not
knowing whose facts are true, I don't know what to believe.
Revolutions are made up of lots of different people, with lots of
different ideas about how things should be run. Some of the rebels
are Marxist-Leninist, some are middle-class shop-keepers, some are
Democrats, some are peasants who are tired of being afraid to go out
into the fields because they might step on a land mine. Revolutions
against bad regimes are usually good--though they can turn out bad,
particularly if helped along by trade sanctions, and destabilized by
"counter-revolutionaries".
By supporting repressive regimes, our government gives greater weight
to the arguments of the extremists--totalitarians of whatever stripe
(Islamic, or Marxist-Leninist) as well as creating conditions where
only people with the discipline the extremists have are able to pull
off a successful revolution.
Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn (I assume others as well) go to great
lengths to point out how "the ruling class" in the US is constantly
circumventing people's struggles against injustice by channelling it
into reform movements. They consider this bad, I am ambivalent
(having seen quite a few unsuccessful revolutions, reform doesn't seem
like such a bad thing). The result (in the US, at least) is an
amazing uniformity of ideology.< 1> This is evidenced by the fact that
our political spectrum, as polarized today as it ever gets, is
represented by Ronald Reagan (extreme right), Jimmy Carter (middle of
road), and Teddy Kennedy (extreme left). Ronald Reagan and Jimmy
Carter would both be Tories in England, Christian Democrats in
Germany, and Gaullists in France (Kennedy, by grace of his support for
national health insurance would make it into the Labour party, or into
the Social Democratic). The biggest left-wing newspaper in the US (In
These Times, I guess) has a circulation of less that 25,000 (.01% of
the population).
I think the best thing to do is to disarm the extremists on both the
left and the right by setting in motion some REAL reforms. I don't
mean land-reform of the El Salvador variety (although I defer to Bill
Hoffman (or Oxfam America) for criticism of the land-reform in El
Salvador).
-----------------
< 1> It may not seem uniform to you, but just ask a visitor from
Europe.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 20 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 44
Contents: CIA and Secrecy (5 msgs)
Dealing with right-wing regimes
Bias of the press (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 14:29:06-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
Subject: government secrecy
An even better example of U.S. government attitudes towards secrecy
came out about 2 weeks ago. Immigration authorities have seized
copies of documents taken from the U.S. embassy in Teheran that were
brought in by several reporters. Where did they obtain this highly
classified material? Why, in an ordinary Teheran bookstore -- they
all carry it.
Just what "national security" purpose is being served by this? Will
anyone even claim (let alone believe) that *any* major foreign
government hasn't obtained a copy?
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1982 0:55:24 EST (Tuesday)
From: David Mankins < dm at BBN-RSM>
Subject: secrecy
In "An interview with a 100-year-old magazine" or some such, the
Nation once suggested (jokingly, I hasten to add) that we take
all our classified documents and put them in a big library, and
let spies come and check out whatever they wanted to.
The catch is, we remove all markings indicating what level of
classification the document has.
This way the spies don't have their work done for them--they have
to decide what is interesting enough to steal, rather than
stealing things marked "TOP SECRET" (and therefore very
important) while ignoring things marked "Confidential" (and thus
useful only for toilet paper at NSA).
The end result would be that our secrets would be far better
kept.
Considering as how NSA produces 20 tons of classified waste-paper
EVERY DAY, this doesn't seem so unrealistic...
------------------------------
Date: 19 January 1982 0927-EST (Tuesday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: CIA names
The incident that is being referred to here was covered by 60
Minutes a few years ago. The organization that publishes the names of
CIA field agents has been operating legally for several years. They
don't do any spying! They research public-record information on the
resumes of employees of U.S. Embassies abroad, until they find someone
who is an ex-Green Beret who studied Russian and Marxism and
Counter-terrorism for a few years before being assigned as a butler at
the U.S. Embassy in Madagascar. They then publish his name as a
suspected CIA agent, along with the story of his career.
As 60 Minutes presented it, the agent who got killed was
foolhardy. Most of the copies of this newsletter are sold in
Washington, and his name and story (and a picture of his house, I
think) were published at least 6 months before he was assassinated.
The CIA suggested that he move, but he insisted on staying at his
post. They have been trying to outlaw this group, but as of a year
ago they hadn't figured out any way to outlaw this activity, since it
is done in such a law-abiding way. Their plan is to come up with
something specifically outlawing the publishing of a CIA agents name
with intent to uncover him, or some such.
[I believe a law, or Supreme Court decision, to that effect
occurred last year. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1982 09:17 PST
From: Sybalsky at PARC-MAXC
"To sum up, I do not believe in giving the CIA power to
do anything it wants...."
[Jim McGrath]
And pray tell, what are you doing when you permit them to keep secret
all of their activities? It does no good to say "you may not do
thus-and-so" unless there's a way of making damn well sure they don't!
The problem, as I see it, is not with the original intent of
classification, it's with the way our "public servants" put it to
their own uses--to prevent embarrassing information about their
misfeasances from trickling out. The solution is expensive, but I
think it's worth it: You select some volunteers and screen them within
an inch of their lives. These people are then permitted to roam at
random through the classified files--subject to no other controls. If
one of them finds an odious datum, he can
(1) bring it to the attention of the appropriate authority, or
(2) take it public, risking imprisonment.
Pretty clearly, you have to select volunteers who have a
strong sense of when and when not to speak out. However, in the long
run, if a classifier can't be certain that he'll get away with it,
there is a strong disincentive to misfease.
"In particular I am pretty disgusted with some periodicals
that publish the names of CIA agents overseas (this has
already resulted in the death of one agent, and who knows
how many others)."
I was under the impression that the man in Greece was killed BEFORE
the issue containing his vitae hit the streets, and that it contained
incorrect information about him, in any case (wrong address, etc.).
John
------------------------------
Date: 19 January 1982 11:56-EST
From: David A. Levitt < LEVITT at MIT-AI>
Subject: Political hardball and national psychosis
Re: CIA international "hardball": Jim McGrath, in one sense, I think
you've hit a nail on the head. On the one hand, I don't think your
argument applies to the point Bill Hoffman was making -- we don't need
the secrecy so badly on the critically important political things, for
the reason you pointed out: the press is patriotic enough to it censor
itself. When a complaint against "unnecessary secrecy" comes up, it's
never someone clamoring for his right to commit and publish domestic
espionage; almost invariably, it's someone who's found abuses, where
someone or some agency is covering its ass. Your arguments have
succeeded in obscuring this point.
However, I think your point that "it may disgust alot of people that
we get our hands dirty and violate our morals" is an important,
too-often overlooked point in political psychology. People can't
mentally handle the idea that their comforts come from other people's
exploitation. Political leaders are no exception; or at least they
regulate their remarks accordingly. So you'll never here an argument
that goes "if this torturing regime is overthrown, our economy will
suffer and many of you will have less buying power or even lose your
jobs", no matter how close to the truth that becomes. Rationales like
"protecting nation from the international communist conspiracy" are so
much easier to stomach that they're welcomed and applied wherever
possible.
The problem is that once all the participants believe this rationale,
they lose sight of the original objective -- stabilizing their own
nation. Vietnam is the classic example. Of course, Ho Chi Minh was a
Communist, but he needed all the held he could get. In the late 40's,
he offered the Americans a base (I can look up where if anyone's
interested), in return for political (NOT military) support. In an
important early policy decision, the State Department refused, citing
our alliance with the French AND anti-Communist arguments. Today
there is a Soviet base there. (And last laugh: France is socialist.)
Our nation has done so many self-destructive things to fight the
International Communist Conspiracy -- which I think became the
catch-all because economic selfishness is too painful to acknowledge
-- that it qualifies as a national psychosis, very much like an
unstable belief-system in an individual.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 14:29:41-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin
Subject: Dealing with right-wing regimes
Mr. Cox claims that the Reagan administration uses different tactics
to handle repression in different countries. Fine, I can accept that
that's reasonable in principle -- but somehow, I have this nagging
suspicion that that's just an excuse, that Reagan and his crowd don't
really care. Consider, for example, Bush's statement about how
democratic the Philipines really is. Or Reagan's (abortive)
appointment of Lefevre to the Human Rights post.
As for whether or not right-wing governments interfere in the
political acts of their neighbors, I'll be watching with great
interest how South Africa treats the "Foam Blowers" -- the band of
mercenaries who tried to take over the Seychelles. At least they're
under arrest now. And haven't there been two privately-financed coup
attempts in the last year or so, one on a small Pacific island nation?
Both were apparently instigated by right-wing financiers who were
interested in a tax shelter.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1982 2241-EST
From: WALKER at CMU-20C
Subject: bias of press
I've been reading World Press Review of late, and I haven't been
surprised of any of the views in it. It samples news sources,
including individual journalists, from around the world. Papers are
labeled radical, moderate, conservative, pro-government, government
mouthpiece, etc as the terms apply. It seems to me that the opinions
expressed in them, certainly not all pro-American, find their way into
the New York Times, etc, although certainly not in as much detail. An
intelligent person, particularly one with two Indian roommates like
me, shouldn't have any trouble discerning what are facts and what are
pro-US opinions.
The fact that we haven't seen much on the news about El Salvador is
quite simple. Reagan's pollster found out that the topic was bad
news, so poof, no more talk about El Salvador, so people forget about
it. They've got better things to do like thaw out frozen pipes.
------------------------------
Date: 19 January 1982 11:21-EST
From: David A. Levitt < LEVITT at MIT-AI>
Jim McGrath:
Re: UNESCO and censorship: You still haven't given any clear
indication of a censorship proposal. Requesting(/demanding?) that an
"officially sanctioned" press release be distributed, for "balance",
is a far cry from censorship. In fact, the example you cited -- the
"Zionism=Racism" complaint -- is a perfect example of a viewpoint held
across much of the world, which Americans' coddling press had never
seen fit to inform them of. Why not know both viewpoints?
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 21 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 45
Contents: Objectivism
UNESCO and 3rd World Censorship (2 msgs)
Minor Parties and the Moons of Saturn
Sources of Foreign Policy
Yellow Rain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Jan 18, 1982 2330 EST
From: Dana Fisher < alice!dgf at Berkeley>
Subject: Objectivism
In response to recent discussions of Objectivism, I would like to
offer some sources for additional, accurate information regarding
Ayn Rand's philosophy:
1. An advertisement for Objectivism appeared in the October, 1981
issue of Scientific American. It said that you can obtain info
on Objectivism by calling (toll free) 800-257-7850. In New Jersey,
call 800-322-8650. The ad also said that you can write to
Leonard Peikoff, 86 Bloor Street West, Suite 765, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, M5S1M5. I called the New Jersey number, and an answering
service took my name, address, and phone number, and promised to
send information.
I don't know what information will be sent, but I do know that
Dr. Leonard Peikoff (Ph.D. in Philosophy) is a 30 year associate of
Ayn Rand, and for years has offered a lecture series on the philosophy
of Objectivism. Ayn Rand herself has endorsed this lecture series as
a fully accurate presentation of the entire theoretical structure of
Objectivism. The lecture series has been given live in New York City
roughly every 2 or 3 years. The series is also available on cassette
tape. It consists of 12 two hour lectures, each followed by a 30 to 60
minute question-answer period.
2. An outfit called the Palo Alto Book Service, 200 California Ave.,
Palo Alto, CA 94306 puts out a brochure titled 'The Works of Ayn
Rand.' You can obtain, through mail order, all of Ayn Rand's books,
both fiction and non-fiction, either in hard cover or paperback,
together with any or all of Ayn Rand's essays as they have appeared
over the years in her publications: The Objectivist Newsletter
(1962-65), The Objectivist (magazine, 1966-71), and the Ayn Rand
Letter (1971-76).
3. The current voice of Objectivism is a publication titled The
Objectivist Forum, which is put out bi-monthly by TOF Publications,
Inc. P.O. Box 5311, FDR Station, New York, NY 10150. The last time I
heard, subscriptions cost $20 per year (6 issues). That was in Feb
'81. I assume they are still publishing. Ayn Rand is not the editor
of this publication, but is regarded as a 'philosophical consultant'
and has promised to write letters to the editor if she has serious
disagreements with the content.
4. A book appeared in 1977 by William F. O'Neill titled, With Charity
Toward None: An Analysis of Ayn Rand's Philosophy. It is published in
paperback by Littlefield, Adams & Co. in Totowa, New Jersey.
O'Neill's affiliation (at the time, at least, 1977) was given as the
University of Southern California. As the title suggests, O'Neill is
an opponent of Objectivism. His book is a scholarly critique of
Objectivism from the point of view of contemporary philosophy. Part I
of the book (pp 1 - 80) is a presentation of the philosophy of
Objectivism. Part II (pp 81-233) is the critical analysis.
My personal opinion of O'Neill's book is that his treatment of
Objectivism is pretty fair. He certainly offers lots of direct quotes
and comprehensive footnotes. Objectivists would undoubtedly quarrel
with many things, but neutral observers I think would regard it as
fair. His critique is the only one I know of that comes close to
representing the view of contemporary philosophy toward Ayn Rand.
(The Philosphical Establishment has chosen, basically, to ignore Ayn
Rand. O'Neill, at least, has the courage to put his objections in
writing.) Any good Objectivist would probably dispense with O'Neill's
critique with little difficulty. But O'Neill's book is very readable
and is well organized. It's also lively, in the sense that O'Neill
can be almost as sneering and sarcastic as Ayn Rand can be. Warning:
I would not recommend O'Neill's book as a newcomer's introduction to
Objectivism, because it would be much better to hear Objectivism
presented by an Objectivist, as in Peikoff's lecture series, rather
than by an opponent.
I hope this contributes to an informed discussion of Objectivism.
To help prompt the discussion, here are a few ticklers (quotes from
O'Neill's book): Quote
Writing about Ayn Rand is a treacherous undertaking. In most
intellectual circles, she is either totally ignored or simply
dismissed out of hand, and those who take her seriously enough to
examine her point of view frequently place themselves in grave danger
of guilt by association. This is unfortunate, because -- for better
or worse -- Miss Rand has refused to shut up and go away...
Regardless of whether certified academics formally choose to
acknowledge her presence, Ayn Rand has made a rather significant
impact on contemporary American culture.
Much of what Miss Rand says is open to attack on a variety of
different grounds -- logical, linguistic or purely empirical. It is
far too pat, however, simply to dismiss Ayn Rand as the progenitor of
some new and exotic type of intellectual lunacy. She may be precisely
this, but merely 'labeling' her as such scarcely establishes the
point...
(In 1964 the) introductory course 'The Basic Principles of
Objectivism' was offered on board a United States polaris submarine
located somewhere in the mid-Atlantic. (Indeed, Ayn Rand once gave the
graduation address at the West Point Military Academy -- dgf)
The fact remains that -- however anyone may feel about them -- Miss
Rand's ideas are very popular today. For better or for worse, she is
winning the free competition of ideas, not only in many parts of the
public arena, but, significantly, in many parts of the academic
marketplace itself.
Close quote from O'Neill's book (pp 1-6).
Dana G. Fisher
------------------------------
Date: 20 January 1982 0931-EST (Wednesday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Re: UNESCO
As it was reported at the time (somehow I am more conscious of
my sources lately), the UNESCO proposal *clearly* stated that each
country could censor *all* information leaving it, restrict the
activities of "hostile" reporters, and do whatever it felt like
internally to make sure the world got its version of the story
*alone*. The idea was favored on the grounds that these silly stories
about atrocities were hurting their images, so it would be more
important to stop the "rumors" than to present the other side (which
is usually presented anyways: "Amin says bishop died in car
accident").
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 1982 03:58:01-PST
From: menlo70!hao!cires!harkins at Berkeley
re: Levitt's (i think) comment about my confusion between censorship
and "diversified propaganda" (whatever that means)
I am by no means confused though I may have not been clear;
the point was that UNESCO seems to be favoring "news management" which
I term censorship by definition, as opposed to a free press.
I am a journalist by training and one reason I am a non-
journalist now is the management of the news in this country, even
though we do pay lip service to free press; the difference, I assert,
is that in our case the management is a fairly loose bit of pressure
politics, whereas in most countries, it is the government that is
managing news content.
It is true that the Pentagon Papers case, among others, was a
case of our government news management, but the point I think is that
it usually fails. Of course, if the new boys in D.C. manage to gut
the Freedom of Information Act, it will be easier to pull the wool
over our collective eyes.
Then too, you might note, that fairly few journalists in this
country are killed for what they write; in very many countries writers
are routinely killed for disagreeing with the government.
The comment that our news is terribly biased against
international news is quite correct; the figures I recall are
something on the order of 10 percent International, 60 % National,
40 % local, as fairly typical.
[How's that again? --JoSH]
Do you suggest that that 10 percent is a better 10 percent
(or whatever) if the government gets to sanitize it before it is
disseminated, Mr. Levitt?
ernie
------------------------------
Date: 20 January 1982 1444-cst
From: Bill Vaughan < VaughanW at HI-Multics>
Subject: Minor Parties and the Moons of Saturn
Has anyone noticed the similarities between our minor political
parties and the small moons of Saturn? It seems that the adherents of
those parties always hope that they will somehow (by "accretion") turn
into major parties -- but instead they work to delimit the edges of
the major parties by "shepherding" the fringes of those parties into
line.
(This was just supposed to be a facetious observation, but there
may be a deeper truth in it -- if you assume that "accretion"
requires a large stock of individuals whose allegiance is as yet
undetermined.
European political parties are like solid bodies -- that is, the
political opinions of one member of the (say) CDP are about the
same as the rest of the members. If not, the European parties
tend to split, as in Italy, France, Israel or the U.K.
On the other hand, our political parties are big, amorphous,
and do not represent communities of opinion, but are two social
moieties, like the Greens and Blues of Byzantium -- or the rings
of Saturn?)
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 1982 1705-PST
From: Mike Leavitt < LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
Subject: Sources of "foreign" policy
Something David Levitt (no relation) said reminded me of one
reason we often seem to be talking across each other on this
list: he, and many other people, really believe that the
fundamental source of American (and most other) foreign policy is
economically motivated. There is a tremendous literature to that
effect, and is now a part of the gospel of the left. It also
appears to be scientifically nonfalsifiable.
An alternative view of an important (perhaps even the most
important) source of foreign policy behaviors is straight
politics/morality: the Soviet Union is an imperialist state that
is as bad in its own way as Hitler's Germany was, and that our
moral superiority requires opposing that kind of imperialism
wherever it shows up. This, too, does not seem to be amenable to
the procedures of scientific investigation.
A more realistic view of the source of foreign policy
probably includes the two motives working independently in
different groups of individuals, with a very large dose of
electoral politics thrown in. However, since many people on this
list appear to have a religious belief in one or the other
theories, it is not real surprising that little real
communication seems to be taking place.
Mike < Leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 1982 12:00:44-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin
Subject: acid rain
The October 17 issue of Science News had a lengthy article on the
State Department's "yellow rain" accusation. I summarized it at the
time (I think for ARMS-D), but in essense, the article presents
evidence that the Reagan administration was either very ill-informed,
or flat-out lied. For example, the State Department claimed that T2
toxin does not occur in warm climates; the Science News article quotes
the scientist who named the toxin as saying that it does, and cites
journal articles to that effect. Further, T2 doesn't act as quickly
as yellow rain does, nor do the symptoms quite agree. Mind you, I'm
not saying that the Soviet Union isn't using poison gas (there's
better circumstantial evidence, such as the presense of vehicle
decontamination gear); I'm just saying that the evidence presented in
that particular report does not in any way justify its conclusion.
The Sverdlovsk anthrax incident is also ambiguous. There was a long
article on it in the New York Times Magazine about two months ago
which reviewed all (publicly) known facts about it. *Something*
happened, but none of the hypotheses presented can adequately account
for everything that we know about it. None of the known forms of
anthrax have the mortality rate, the symptoms, and a vector compatible
with the idea that a biological weapon research center suffered an
accident. Nor are they compatible with the Soviet story that some
contaminated meat was consumed. One item that was not known at the
time was that an American family was living in Sverdlovsk; since
returning, they've said that they observed nothing unusual, nor were
any restrictions placed on their move- ments. It seems unlikely that
the Soviet government wouldn't have tried to evacuate them if they
were at any risk at all.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 22 Jan 82 Volume 2 Number 46
Contents: Dealing with Right-wing Regimes (2 msgs)
Checking Politicians' Facts
UNESCO Censorship
Domino Theory
Government Secrecy
Freedom of the Press (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 January 1982 02:05-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Dealing with right-wing regimes
I never said that right-wing regimes are incapable of interfering
with neighboring countries. That's silly. I did say that Guatemala,
in contrast with Nicaragua, is not a threat to any other country.
You cite the attack on the island country of Seychelles, off the
coast of Africa. You would do well to remember that the present
Marxist government there, headed by (I forget his name), was installed
not long ago, I believe, by a coup d'etat; hardly democracy in action.
Now I believe that revolutions in general are wrong, especially ones
instigated from outside, but you can hardly expect South Africa to
react with righteous indignation to an illegitimate attack on an
illegitimate government. Perhaps you'd like to show proof that the
attack was "instigated by right-wing financiers who were interested in
a tax shelter." That's a pretty serious assertion, and you would do
well to consider before making it.
A lot of diabolic conduct has been attributed on this list to people
on the right. Every time I look around, somebody's claiming that
corporations, the U.S. government, the CIA, and anyone else left of
Ted Kennedy, are displaying conduct that would do credit to Satan.
Try to remember that "right-wing" people -- like "left-wing" people --
are rarely devils, and usually try to do the right thing as best they
know how. The may be mistaken now and then, but everyone else is too.
Date: 21 Jan 1982 09:06:05-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
Full-Name: Steven M. Bellovin
Subject: Re: Dealing with right-wing regimes
From APPLE@MIT-MC Thu Jan 21 04:09:49 1982
Via: duke!decvax!ucbvax
Date: 21 January 1982 02:05-EST
From: James A. Cox < APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Dealing with right-wing regimes
To: decvax!duke!unc!smb at UCB-C70
cc: POLI-SCI at MIT-MC
Status: RO
I never said that right-wing regimes are incapable of
interfering with neighboring countries. That's silly. I
did say that Guatemala, in contrast with Nicaragua, is not a
threat to any other country.
Except, of course, Belize, though I don't believe that that quarrel is
ideological.
You cite the attack on the island country of
Seychelles, off the coast of Africa. You would do well to
remember that the present Marxist government there, headed
by (I forget his name), was installed not long ago, I
believe, by a coup d'etat; hardly democracy in action.
So what? A leftist could justify a revolt against a right-wing regime
that had received substantial U.S. support -- same argument.
Now I believe that revolutions in general are wrong,
especially ones instigated from outside, but you can hardly
expect South Africa to react with righteous indignation to
an illegitimate attack on an illegitimate government.
Their original behavior led people to believe they *instigated* it.
Perhaps you'd like to show proof that the attack was
"instigated by right-wing financiers who were interested in
a tax shelter." That's a pretty serious assertion, and you
would do well to consider before making it.
If my note implied I thought that of the Seychelles incident, I
apologize; I've never even heard that suggested. There was an
incident in the South Pacific, on a small island formerly controlled
by the British, but (I think) associated with the French as well --
possibly a federation of two former colonies. There was some sort of
coup; U.S. papers treated it fairly comically, since it involved bows
and arrows -- and indeed the leader was killed by an arrow. The
suggestion was widely reported at the time that the motive was to
financial. I don't remember the names or dates; can anyone help me
out on this?
A lot of diabolic conduct has been attributed on this list
to people on the right. Every time I look around,
somebody's claiming that corporations, the U.S. government,
the CIA, and anyone else left of Ted Kennedy, are displaying
conduct that would do credit to Satan. Try to remember that
"right-wing" people -- like "left-wing" people -- are rarely
devils, and usually try to do the right thing as best they
know how. The may be mistaken now and then, but everyone
else is too.
A plague on both houses. All I'm trying to say is that right-wing
organizations don't deserve our automatic support either. I don't
have to point out evil deeds committed by leftists; you (and others)
do a fine job of that -- and I often agree with your assessment of
particular incidents -- like yellow rain, Afghanistan, and the Gulag.
But too much of American foreign policy is based on the assumption
that the left -- all of it -- is evil, and h