What's your point Wilhelm? I think there is already a little but to much shooting in the world today. And concerning Bismarck, I wonder if there would have been two world wars if there had not been von Bismarck.
Sincerely, Walther Micke On 28 dec, 16:09, [email protected] wrote: > Radical Centrists of the World, Unite ! > > A specter is haunting America, it is the specter of Radical Centrism. > > First, there is the question of relevance of the 1848 Manifesto. > > When I taught Russian history for the US Navy in the last years of the > Cold War, > it struck me that the idea of a manifesto was brilliant. An entire > philosophy in relatively > few pages. Of course, this follows the example of another short document of > global importance, > namely, the US Constitution. But whereas one must read various longer texts > ( Locke, Hume, etc ) > to grasp the full depth of the Constitution, the Manifesto is > self-contained > --and well written to boot. > > Had some of my students try to write manifesto-like papers to see what > might be done > with the concept. Great teaching tool. > > But who was more important Karl Marx or James Madison ? 50 years ago it > was still > possible to say Marx. Now that idea is absurd, it is Madison by a mile. > > There are other considerations. Marx in his early years said things that > are still worth > a good deal. Someone could take the 1844 Manuscripts, maybe augmented with > some later essays ( perhaps his paper about Feuerbach ), and create a new > Manifesto with far greater relevance than the 1848 Manifesto. > > All kinds of assumptions in the 1848 Manifesto are simply untenable. > Among other things the proletariat is not a class of saints and the > bourgeoisie > is not a class of sinners. There are plenty of idiots in both social > classes > and we need to be completely honest about this. The whole idea of a > class theory for all politics is, IMHO, utterly absurd. > > Instead, class is just one factor among others based on culture, religion, > ethnicity, > specific kinds of occupations, etc. That is, Saint-Simon was right, we need > a science > of society --what became sociology-- as our guide, and NOT a social > ideology. > Of course, all-too-many of today's sociologists are Marxists of one kind or > another, > but that defeats the very purpose of social science, which ought to be > objectivity, > NOT championship of an economic class of people > > We need to reward ability and accomplishment and if there are people > who do not contribute productively to society, to hell with them. > This assumes allowances for disability, age, and involuntary incapacity, > but it also means no affirmative action based on anything but merit. > > Marx stole Saint-Simon's motto and corrupted it. Here is the original : > From each according to his ability, to each according to his work. > > I agree with you on the immorality of disparities of wealth. But if it is > understood that if someone does become wealthy he or she automatically > has the responsibility to use a significant part of that wealth for social > betterment > then the terms of debate change accordingly. > > Otherwise it is obscene for finance capitalists to reap rewards that are > hundreds of > times that of productive workers. The question is how to do this. Marx had > no > answer except --at least by implication-- revolution. Far better to > bring > this about through a Constitutional Amendment. > > What could also be done is to write an Anti-Communist Manifesto. > However, were I to do this it would NOT be based on pure laissez faire > nor on pure Keynes, or pure anything else, it would be Saint-Simonian > in inspiration. Je juis Saint-Simonienne > > My French is not so hot, but the meaning is that I am a Saint-Simonian, and > proud of it. But, in a sense, there already is a Saint-Simonian manifesto, > it > was written by Kelso and is called the "Capitalist Manifesto," even if a > better > title might be the Stakeholder Manifesto since the gist of it is that > workers > should own the means of production jointly with the bourgeoisie. > > In any case, we must be clear that we are not only anti-Fascist but also > anti-Communist. > This includes being strongly opposed to Gramsci and Cultural Marxism. The > damages done > to society and culture by Gramscian criminals --often tenured academics-- > has been > enormous and will require decades to correct. > > To get the process started we should round up all the Cultural Marxists and > take them out and shoot them. While we are at it, we should also take out > all the > finance capitalists we can find and shoot all of them also. > > No more playing games with politics, we need to get serious about this. > Verstehen sie ? > > Baron Wilhelm von Rojas > fan of Otto von Bismarck > > ;-) > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > 12/27/2011 7:32:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] > writes: > > "Communism lite." > _ > > “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his > own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of > the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek > > On 12/25/2011 3:23 AM, cornucopianow wrote: > L.S. > > Herewith I send you the Civil Manifesto. Please send comments: > > [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > > CIVIL MANIFESTO > > (Referring to “Civil Society”. “Civil Rights”, “Communist Manifesto”) > > In the view of the authors of the Communist Manifesto the expulsion > > of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat was a natural phenomenon. It > > would be the unavoidable result of the development of the forces of > > production as free enterprise not longer being able to > > satisfy the needs of the wage earners (“salary-slaves”) whereby > > subsequently the bourgeoisie would be removed with force and the > proletariat would triumph. > > Meanwhile the communist experiment, besides having caused immense > > human suffering, has proven that, contrary to the expectancies of the > > authors of the Communist Manifest, the market is in a better position > > to satisfy the needs of the people than the centralized plan economy. > > In countries where the centralized plan economy is still functioning > > (North Korea, Cuba) the people suffer a wretched existence. And > > citizens of the former communist countries in Eastern Europe hope to > > profit by the prosperity in Western Europe. > Today there is again discussion about the market economy. But the > > uncurbed spread of the Casino-capitalism is not a natural phenomenon. > > The neo-liberal ideology is deliberately produced by humans. And Alan > > Greenspan, greatly inspired by Ayn Rand, has occupied (sic!) a > > central position in this process. He is greatly responsible for the > > development of the financial crisis by rejecting the regulation which > > could have prevented the crisis. Furthermore the government in the > > United States has passed tax laws according to which millionaires pay > > less tax than the man in the street. > > Conclusion: The market must not be substituted by the plan (however > > some privatisation having gone to far should be pushed back) but must > > be regulated by law such as to prevent the destructive functioning > > which the market can assume in certain instances. > > In the present crisis-situation several people make proposals for a > > more just and humane society. Think about the Occupy Movement, but > > also about the “Patriotic Millionaires”. > But sometimes the “Occupy Movement” is accused of being unclear about > > goals. A clear programme may be clarifying. A shortlist of goals for a > > couple of areas may be useful. Individuals and groups may specify > > their position regarding those goals. Thus the Civil Manifesto could > > be an instrument for the attainment of political power. > > Income > > -Specification of minimum income. > > -Specification of the ratio: maximum/minimum income (for instance not > > bigger than 10). > > DRB: Implicit redistribution with the suggestion of a minimum income for > simply existing?? Their existence is not my responsibility. > > Pensions > > -Specification of age for retirement > > DRB: Against a mandatory retirement age. Seems to imply that after that > age ones contributions are not wanted or needed. > > Worklessness > > -Specification of unemployment benefits > > -Specification of duration of the payment of unemployment benefits > > DRB: This already exists, with discussion over the duration. Should the > benefits equal the salary that was once held? if so, what is the incentive to > go back to the workforce? Should it be a set amount, no matter previous > salary or position? > > Banks > > -Split of savings-banks and investment banks > > -Prohibition of harmful derivatives > > -Establishment of a national bank > > DRB: Sleep through the savings and loan debacle in the 1980s???? This > would basically undo what the Bush and Obama Administrations did in reaction > to > the 2008 meltdown. Not all derivatives are harmful. They shouldn't have > been playing with people's living quarters, however. > > Housing > > -Integral housing policy > > -Equal positions for renting and buying > > -Maximal mortgage of 400 $ > > DRB: Don't want the government to have a housing policy, they've screwed > it all up beyond all recognition. The second point is not spelled out well > enough, but I have to say no to what I think it means. If that is $400 per > month, that's not even a $50,000 house. Get real for a minute... > > Healthcare > > -No privatisation of healthcare (no profit generation for hospitals). > > -Affordable healthcare of a good quality for everybody > > -Elimination of superfluous layers of management > > DRB: 1) No. 2) Nice goal, very expensive to get there. 3) We are going to > build a giant government department but reduce the superfluous layers of > management??? That's contradictory. > > Education > > -Good education for everybody. No restrictions for people with low > > incomes > > DRB: Let me tell you the tale of my daughter and her student loans. She > cannot find a job in the field that she has been educated for. So she is now > working in retail, and does not make enough to pay the principal and > interest on her student loans. Even while living rent and car payment free > in my > house. We even buy her food. She repays us for gas and cell phone. > Universities have become administration heavy. Fire several layers of > administrators and that would lower the cost of college. > > Sustainability > > -Furtherance of the efficient use of energy > > -Furtherance of vegetable consumption, restriction of meat > > consumption. > > DRB: One has to produce the raw materials (coal, oil, natural gas) or > efficiency does not matter. Why are we still buying Saudi oil instead of > Canadian oil? Why stop the Keystone Pipeline? The oil ticks (think blood > sucking > animals that feed on cattle, dogs, cats, etc) in the Middle East have > enough money. We will be stupid, and Obama the MOST stupid, if we do not > pursue > this pipeline. > > DRB: I'll eat what I damn well please, thankyouverymuch. > > - -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
