My First Final Thread in the Pitch..Are or Were West Indian Whites Superior....

the comment that the people are anarchic and stupid makes little sense TD

you are the people..are you anarchic and stupid ::confused::

and life is disciplined by forces/laws outside the stupidity you talk about.  you have to eat, make a living, be safe, cure your illnesses etc ..or not even the anarchy you fear is possible.  you would be dead,,the species dead.  there is and can be no ccease and pause to that process or if there is we know the interruptions that have occurred and the costs of them in lives, death and disruption

it is the process of survival itself that disciplines and systematizes life always.  the opposite is death. there will be no anarchy but always  a system by which we can live and do live. that is what humanity makes all the time.  there can be no vaccuum..there must always be something going on or its done and something else takes out place

got to go

What a load of nonsense this threat is! Judging people as superior base on their skin color says a lot about a person's character. Poor management is what has lead to West Indies' demise and not the lack of white men! Did the West Indies dominated world cricket with an all white team or managers???  > >

"Bureaucracy" is just a fancy word for people working together and following certain codes to achieve certain aims. There is nothing inherently wrong with "bureaucracy" (imagine a hospital functioning without "bureaucracy", imagine Green Peace functioning with "bureaucracy"). The opposite of "bureaucracy" is something aimless and anarchistic. Bureaucracies work best when individuals are given the leeway to be spontaneous and anarchistic, but you always need a superstructure of rules, laws, moral codes and control.

I'm an architect. No I don't work for any corporation or government.

Here's an essay by Einstein...

monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

A Marxist will say the "basis of the evil" is a state which sanctions private property, private control of production and debt based money.

We already have computer simulations that show that in any computer model with a simulated society and simulated market, the sheer mathematics of "profit" means that your wealth pools one way, debt increases, poverty increases, and the only way to prevent this little economy from collapsing is bankrupcy, bailouts/inflation, death, theft or constant market expansion/production/consumption/immigration, most of which are unsustainable factors.

But you know that already because...

...you are a pure communist.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that. 80 percent of the world is poor and most of the planet doesn't own any land. Most humans would agree, for example, to work, say, 4 hours a day for 4 days a week for 15 years (non profit work = full employment = less work per individual) if it meant "free" land, home, food and the rest of your time free to do as you please.

Social agreement.


Russia turned into a dictatorship because it had to to survive. It was surrounded on all sides and being attacked from within by the old monarchs and Tsars. If it did not become mad and paranoid, if it did not waste billions on a military, if it did not elect a war-leader like Stalin, it would have fallen anywhere between the 1920s and 1950s. It's madness was a reaction to outside factors (Japan, China, the US, France and Germany were all expanding around it), and its internal inability to conceive of running itself without the normal capitalist markets it hoped to transcend, not an "inherent product of bureaucracy ".

monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/


jeeezzz.....I had forgotted this '49 essay !

good usage and context , TD : top class debate 

skidso sketchim.  weh yuh pull Einstein on socialism from ::confused::

but you suppose to be against all such ::confused::  you and dr joseph nye and all them capitalist bums you always add for support

hear nuh TD:

reality is king, experience is sovereign!  we have a had a whole long experience with bureaucracy to examine and we have seen how it always turn out.  what it reveals among much much more is what underpins social relations..and it is how we make our living, the way and means of it.  this is what determines the way of society.

no guess, if and and but.  we know what drives social evolution from age to age and what is likely to drive t into the foreseeable future.

no matter the intention and purpose upon which a bureaucracy arises the principle remains the same..it does not produce its own wealth.  if it does not produce its own wealth, then means must be found to feed it.  the bureaucracy by its nature begins with power..it is administrative, directs the life around it.  that power will expand even as the development of the purpose for which they bureau came into being renders the bureau less and less necessary.

the bureau is less necessary yet it expands..because it is now conscious of itself as an entity that exists and upon which all their livelihoods is based in the bureaucracy itself and it seeks to perpetuate itself to secure the lives of those who man it.  and he bigger it gets the more assured it can be about its own continuation.  the bureau seeks to ensure it own continuation and that can only be accomplished by enslavement of those who produce the means by which the bureau survives.  the results have always been fascism/police state..the merger of the capitalist and the bureaucrat for the purpose of making their dual exploitation of the people permanent.

we have had a whole lot of experience with the history of this.  the most studied example has been the Russian revolution and the rise of the Bolshevik bureaucracy and the dictatorship of the communist party.  but these were in principle to carry though the revolution by enhancing the democracy and bringing the people forward, so that they begin to run the process increasingly as the party faded under the direction of its own policy to ensure this development..to the day when the party and its bureau would no longer be needed.  that was the intent and purpose of the communists bureau and the communist political party.  but that is not what happened.  the party solidified a domination/dictatorship, became a massive draconian police state, extended itself as a dictatorship and enslaved the Russian people, to ensure that they worked to provide for the new elites..the communist party.

it is upon this the George Orwell based his tremendous 1984 critique of communism..the transformation of a progressive movement and revolutionary change into another dictatorship.  and a solution to this was what CLR James attempted to provide by the work of the Johnson Forest Tendency that in the failure of Bolshevik Russian came together to assess what had happened and how to avoid such failure.  obviously the Party was the problem..so how to avoid the party phase of social change.  there had to be a step fully to the people directly effecting  revolutionary change without the party.

James of course was a bit hypocrite for that had already happened in Russia.  the people created their evolution in 1917, fully so, created forms of social organization that were absolutely democratic, broke the monarchic power, met their immediate needs and were on their way. the Bolshevik essentially carried out a coup and usurped the revolution and established their dictatorship.  all the talk about the withering away of the party was just cover.  the usurpation of the revolution..or the bureaucratic police state that evolved was a planned thing long before. 

James agreed with and supported Lenin and the Bolsheviks..and he was dead wrong.  in 1953 James released a book called 'Facing Reality' in which he  explained that to avoid the party phase and go straight to socialism required a spontaneous revolution..exactly what had happened in Russia in 1917..creating their society as they went..no bureau..the work of society organized in ways in which the people carried out all that was necessary without government bureau organized as we see it now.

in Venezuela they have tried minimizing bureaucracy by creating popular 'Missions' in which the people carry out huge social tasks that were formerly done by bureaucracy.  there is of course a war in Venezuela between the people and the government Bureau which Chavez was destroying in the interest of the people.  Maduro appears to be on the side of the Bureau... a mistake for which he will pay, likely with his life.

James argued that the routine conditions of social life educated the people in reality making them capable of carrying out revolution without the benefit of any political party at all..the routine conditions made the people ready instantly to revolutionize the social life.  all subsequent social experience bore this out.  but it was not new information or social fact.

what has happened is that great pains have been taken to dumb the people down and we see the full effects of that currently as TD explains in an early post on this thread.

and the last great support of the idea of spontaneous revolution was the american originated OCCUPY MOVEMENT..which was perfectly beautifully spontaneous and expressive of the solution to the crisis of the day.  they had no specific leader, their mission was to engage with the people in educating themselves for the revolution.  all the they did was leaderless in he proper sense.  there was work to be done..it was organized carried out and they were ready for more work.  those who were relevant to the previous work may not be necessary in new work. so others more relevant could do that.  nothing is permanent but all is relative.  leadership as we know it now is unnecessary and costly and utterly dangerous if persisted with.  and we have persisted with it and here we are a point of crisis that is so fraught we are not  likely to survive it.

humanity cannot survive divided society...exploitative society is divided society...hence we have our social crisis which only democracy can solve..democracy based on popular control of society examples of which we have seen in revolutionary change before they were all subsumed by the development of revolutionary bureaucracy which is a contradiction in reality that produces another dictatorship which requires more revolution against divided exploitative society

this thread is not nonsense Rowe. you misunderstand the dam thread totally.  apart from your comment don't you see how the thread has developed' ::confused:: that was my intent..which TD and Ketchim understood perfectly and so responded accurately

shake yuh head and ketch yuh self >

the idea is to define the current black/brown west indian elites ruining west indies cricket and the whole west indian nation since independence..to clarify why west indies cricket has failed and what the future likely is generally not specific to cricket alone...

to discuss bureaucracy and the nature of the wicb..why it has grown so large during the very period the team has become an abject failure.  as cricket futility and team decline developed the wicb bureaucracy has expanded to what...80 staff ::confused::

why ::confused:: how does simultaneous decline and rise take place in one entity ::confused::

the white people are dead and gone their time no more.  but why were they successful and we are not ::confused::

the headline of  my post is tongue in cheek, clearly not to be taken literally as a question of race and racial superiority

I dont see any brown at Factory Road  :-\

brow as a matter of fact , is still being per CLR James " looked down upon" ...and marginalised !

that may be so but population distribution may have more of an impact in what you say than marginalization...indos are in BG/Titty ..a lager part of regional population yet politically represents only an indecisive voting block in the cricket.

but the Titty vote was instrumental in getting skameron in but failed to get him out again.  and given the nature skameron has displayed in his leadership so far to go against him on any issue at all is to declare war.  and skillful politically skameron appears to minding a plurality of the votes that may keep him in power for a long time