Amidst recession and fears over jobs and economy, Ireland have voted YES this time around. I understand Poland have yet to also ratify the treaty.
I'm not fool enough to try and write this group's definitive article on a subject I simply don't know enough about - personally, I need to be doing more reading than writing on this. I guess my biggest question is 'where does this all leave Britain'? (not an EU member state).
The Treaty's own website can be found here, and therein is the full text.
This website outlines the main points as follows:
1. A more democratic and transparent Europe, with a strengthened role for the European Parliament and national parliaments, more opportunities for citizens to have their voices heard and a clearer sense of who does what at European and national level.
* A strengthened role for the European Parliament: the European Parliament, directly elected by EU citizens, will see important new powers emerge over the EU legislation, the EU budget and international agreements. In particular, the increase of co-decision procedure in policy-making will ensure the European Parliament is placed on an equal footing with the Council, representing Member States, for the vast bulk of EU legislation.
* A greater involvement of national parliaments: national parliaments will have greater opportunities to be involved in the work of the EU, in particular thanks to a new mechanism to monitor that the Union only acts where results can be better attained at EU level (subsidiarity). Together with the strengthened role for the European Parliament, it will enhance democracy and increase legitimacy in the functioning of the Union.
* A stronger voice for citizens: thanks to the Citizens' Initiative, one million citizens from a number of Member States will have the possibility to call on the Commission to bring forward new policy proposals.
* Who does what: the relationship between the Member States and the European Union will become clearer with the categorisation of competences.
* Withdrawal from the Union: the Treaty of Lisbon explicitly recognises for the first time the possibility for a Member State to withdraw from the Union.
2. A more efficient Europe, with simplified working methods and voting rules, streamlined and modern institutions for a EU of 27 members and an improved ability to act in areas of major priority for today's Union.
* Effective and efficient decision-making: qualified majority voting in the Council will be extended to new policy areas to make decision-making faster and more efficient. From 2014 on, the calculation of qualified majority will be based on the double majority of Member States and people, thus representing the dual legitimacy of the Union.A double majority will be achieved when a decision is taken by 55% of the Member States representing at least 65% of the Union’s population.
* A more stable and streamlined institutional framework: the Treaty of Lisbon creates the function of President of the European Council elected for two and a half years, introduces a direct link between the election of the Commission President and the results of the European elections, provides for new arrangements for the future composition of the European Parliament and for a smaller Commission, and includes clearer rules on enhanced cooperation and financial provisions.
* Improving the life of Europeans: the Treaty of Lisbon improves the EU's ability to act in several policy areas of major priority for today's Union and its citizens. This is the case in particular for the policy areas of freedom, security and justice, such as combating terrorism or tackling crime. It also concerns to some extent other areas including energy policy, public health, civil protection, climate change, services of general interest, research, space, territorial cohesion, commercial policy, humanitarian aid, sport, tourism and administrative cooperation.
3. A Europe of rights and values, freedom, solidarity and security, promoting the Union's values, introducing the Charter of Fundamental Rights into European primary law, providing for new solidarity mechanisms and ensuring better protection of European citizens.
* Democratic values: the Treaty of Lisbon details and reinforces the values and objectives on which the Union is built. These values aim to serve as a reference point for European citizens and to demonstrate what Europe has to offer its partners worldwide.
* Citizens' rights and Charter of Fundamental Rights: the Treaty of Lisbon preserves existing rights while introducing new ones. In particular, it guarantees the freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and gives its provisions a binding legal force. It concerns civil, political, economic and social rights.
* Freedom of European citizens: the Treaty of Lisbon preserves and reinforces the "four freedoms" and the political, economic and social freedom of European citizens.
* Solidarity between Member States: the Treaty of Lisbon provides that the Union and its Member States act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the subject of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. Solidarity in the area of energy is also emphasised.
* Increased security for all: the Union will get an extended capacity to act on freedom, security and justice, which will bring direct benefits in terms of the Union's ability to fight crime and terrorism. New provisions on civil protection, humanitarian aid and public health also aim at boosting the Union's ability to respond to threats to the security of European citizens.
4. Europe as an actor on the global stage will be achieved by bringing together Europe's external policy tools, both when developing and deciding new policies. The Treaty of Lisbon will give Europe a clear voice in relations with its partners worldwide. It will harness Europe's economic, humanitarian, political and diplomatic strengths to promote European interests and values worldwide, while respecting the particular interests of the Member States in Foreign Affairs.
* A new High Representative for the Union in Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, also Vice-President of the Commission, will increase the impact, the coherence and the visibility of the EU's external action.
* A new European External Action Service will provide back up and support to the High Representative.
* A single legal personality for the Union will strengthen the Union's negotiating power, making it more effective on the world stage and a more visible partner for third countries and international organisations.
* Progress in European Security and Defence Policy will preserve special decision-making arrangements but also pave the way towards reinforced cooperation amongst a smaller group of Member States.
So... what does it mean to YOU? What are the pros and cons, as regards taxes, politics, sovereignty, free trade, economics, travel, military alliances? I figured the best way to dig up more answers on this would be to brainstorm here in this group, and ask those effected for their opinions... open floor discussion. All welcome. Those outside Europe, what do you make of it?
Are you sure the strenghthening is whats happening here?
AntwortenLöschenor more control in order to maintain a strategic control for stronger countries.
Judging by the number of replies... I take it no-one cares? Europe is doomed...
AntwortenLöschenI think the subject matter is just too broad - what can one say here? :) It's not like there's an easy answer.
AntwortenLöschenOn the whole I'd say it should be welcomed if only for the fact it introduces majority voting. All to often, in the past, you would get one member country voting against and a legitimate proposal would fail.
AntwortenLöschenI actually think the Lisbon Treaty is a step in the right direction but there are still deep-seated problems that have to be addressed. Probably the biggest of these is the fact that auditors have, for years, refused to sign off the accounts. On a serious note this at least implies that money is being spent where there is no legitimate need or that there is some misappropriation of EU funds.
Another important fact that UK eurosceptics should get into their head is that they really should stop using the "loss of sovereignty" argument. I agree that the UK has allowed EU law to take precedence on certain issues and they (the EU) have, in effect, become the last court of appeal but a fundamental of UK law and UK parliamentary custom is that no government can tie the hands of a future government.
I certainly wouldn't like to see a President Blair but I would support the Lisbon Treaty.
Finally, my stance on the second referendum by the people of Ireland. They voted "No" and that should have been accepted as final but the Treaty was changed and the economic reality changed. Many in Ireland who voted "No" in the first referendum obviously changed their vote and, I guess, they were pleased to have the opportunity to do so.
At least, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an EU member.
AntwortenLöschenJust not interested to discuss it....again....and again. I enjoy to be able to live, work and travel from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean and pay with the same money, having the food from all the countries on my table. And look at the economical progress of the countries that were poor in the sixties, to the best of all European members!
AntwortenLöschenWe need a European constitution to be able to speak with one voice instead of all the particular interests.
You were probably thinking about the Euro zone :)
AntwortenLöschenSomething of a curate's egg Europe and the Lisbon Treaty, some parts good some parts bad. There are a number of ways to view this development, on the one hand as an anarchist I can be happy that the nation state is finally losing its grip, co-terminously with capitalism as a matter of fact, capitalism having now been replaced by outright piracy and corporate monopoly. Also as an anarchist I can identify with the fundamental EU principle of subsidiarity, or devolved decision making something which makes it very different to say the North American Union, which has unfolded as a secret agenda to globalise/privatise the North American Continent at the taxpayers expense. So there is fertile ground for municipal socialists and progressive regionalists to propose bottom up regional responses to local problems, thinking globally but actually acting locally. On a level playing field this would I think be all for the good.
AntwortenLöschenHowever, the EU is not a level playing field, it is bound up with the expanding and aggressive NATO militarism and corporate manipulation of the banking and finance systems by Wall Street and global players like George Soros. While Germany reaffirms its commitment to Angela Merkel and the political right, Greece comes under the control of the hard left events that took place within days of each other.
There is a social Europe and there is a bankers Europe (like other regions of the world) there are dangers and opportunities, especially opportunities to reduce the power of national governments which is an important step in the direction of sane inter-communal relationships upon which the future completely depends.
The fact that the Irish voted to abolish significant portions of national sovereignty for a second time, the first was in May 1987 when the Single European Act referendum took place. I was in Dublin myself at the time and remember the campaigns for and against very well.
So there we have it, bosses labour camp or anarchist opportunity the end result is at this stage hard to call, but one thing I do know and that is without EU social policy, human rights legislation and workers protections the UK would be even more of a totalitarian police state than it is today.
That statement will of course have me summarily dismissed from the anarchist book club, but I don't care.
Here are a few articles on the matter:
AntwortenLöschenWake up Europe! The European Union after Ireland's vote
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14587055
The future's Lisbon: The EU after the Irish vote
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14585996
Klausology: The Czechs and Lisbon
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14586044
The presidency stakes: Tony Blair is the front-runner, but he faces plenty of competition
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14586858
Thanks. We need to have a look at the Economist, who owns it, what is its' political stance... but not now eh?
AntwortenLöschenThe Economist is actually a quite respectable institution. It does not hide that it supports liberal economics and globalization, but it presents a fairly balanced view, supporting also public expenditures on healthcare, education, etc. More on it here:
AntwortenLöschenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist
I've been reading it for some time now - it is excellent. It provides up-to-date coverage on all corners of the world. While it is not necessary to agree with its editorial stance completely, it is hard to disagree with its excellent style and standard of journalism.
From my experience, it is one the best sources of unbiased reporting.
AntwortenLöschenDeath of the nation state, about fucking time in my opinion, for any anarchist this has to be a win-win situation, only now we call it subsidiarity of course ;-)
AntwortenLöschenCan there be such a thing?
AntwortenLöschenWell, yeah, I think so. The best journalism keeps news reporting and editorial opinion independent from each other. Of course, nothing is perfect or black-and-white in this world. In the end, whatever one reads, it is always important to take it with a grain of salt and approach it with a critical mindset anyway, in my opinion.
AntwortenLöschenAnd, after all, newspapers and magazines have different missions - as long as they are honest about what they represent, I don't see any problem with it. It is ultimately the responsibility of the reader - or the consumer of the news, if you will - to get a full picture. But certain level of standards is essential in journalism - and the Economist meets that level, imho.
AntwortenLöschenSo you are arguing for a value free objectivity in journalism, of which the Economist you say is an example?
AntwortenLöschenOf the few publications openly represented at the Bilderberg each year (as well as some not so openly declared), an annual meet which apparently doesn't allow press, and which some argue is a Kingmaker and policy-decider, The Economist is among them. Regularly in recent years. I wasn't watching before 2006.
AntwortenLöschenI am saying that value-free objectivity is not attainable by anyone. That's an impossibility. Those who claim they are "value-free" or "objective" are full of it. Everyone has a perspective, everyone has an angle, a worldview - you do, I do, and surely media outlets do. What I'm saying is that reporting news - informing others about what is happening - does not have to be suspect, as long as it is accurate. Of course, if you start digging deeper and analyzing everything to the bone, the regression is unstoppable. There is a term for such thing - paralysis by analysis. In the end, you have to stop it somewhere and just adopt some pragmatic standards for yourself. I have found the Economist to be an excellent source of information. So is NPR. So is the Nation. I try to understand different sides of any argument before making my own conclusion.
AntwortenLöschenOK. That may be. Does that somehow completely invalidate its journalism?
AntwortenLöschenUltimately, whatever the source - and you DO have to consider the source, of course - you have an article before you. You judge it based on its merit and any other relevant information (author, source, etc.). That's all any of us can do.
In the end, it is important to separate fact from opinion, although the two are far from completely distinct in many cases. However, let's take these articles by Economist - some of them are opinions, others are more reports and analyses. While you or I may disagree with the conclusions or interpretations (the so-called "spin") the Economist puts on the Lisbon treaty and its meaning, it still provides some useful information, raises questions, makes you think, maybe dig deeper, etc. Bad journalism does not do that.
After all, you've got to know the enemy you're fighting, right? :)))
AntwortenLöschenI enitrely agree so what is special about the Economist is that you like it, right? That's what it boils down to?
AntwortenLöschenBut that is very different proposition to "the Economist is actually a quite respectable institution." What is it about the Economist that is respectable, or in other words why do you think we should respect it?
OK so you are a liberal, there's no harm in that I'm sure.
AntwortenLöschenWho are you fighting?
AntwortenLöschenWell, I don't like political labels generally - they are too narrow and misleading. I would not simply say I am "a liberal" - that word has too many contradictory meanings, depending on the context. I would agree that my views are on a more liberal side of the liberal-conservative political spectrum, but I think that dichotomizing in principle usually inaccurately reflects the reality. I believe in ideas - in good ideas. Liberals, conservatives, anarchists, social democrats, many other groups with different worldviews, have some good ideas. If you combine the best ideas from all sides, you have something. Otherwise, you have ideological strife that interferes with life. I like the idea of a radical center.
AntwortenLöschenFirst of all, it was a joke. :)) I was referring to the many existing conspiracy theories demonizing globalization, talking about the New World Order, other things like that. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously or analyzed, though, just to make it clear :).
AntwortenLöschenOr perhaps you have nothing?
AntwortenLöschenIf you have ideas, how can you have nothing?
AntwortenLöschenHave you looked at Freud on jokes?.... everything is meaningful bohdanp, there is no simple transition from politics to humour, except as an avoidance tactic. Being a liberal is a distinct political category as understood in orthodox political science, it has certain signatures. So if I was a political dating agency I would list you under "liberal" bohdanp for all your protests to the contrary, your statements above gives you that political label whether you actually want it or not. Labelling Theory attests to that proposition I think and process by which labels are derived.
AntwortenLöschenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory
Oh, come on, let's not bring Freud into this. Is it necessary to be so serious all the time? Sense of humor is a vital quality, in my opinion.
AntwortenLöschenOn another note, what exactly is "orthodox political science"? That sounds just too dogmatic to me, and I don't recognize dogma. Also, no need to lecture me on the labeling theory. I am a sociologist and I know all about social theory. I understand that labels are sometimes useful - language is limited and one does have to agree on how to use it. However, shifting meanings, which can lead to simple misunderstandings or outright manipulations, among other things, are dangerous. That is why, in such forum as this, where we have the luxury of being more nuanced and sophisticated about how we use language, I am determined to avoid reductionist labels being put on me.
In the end, as I believe I mentioned above, I am not disputing that my views have much to do with liberalism. But they also have to do with other thought traditions and currents - democracy, republicanism, conservatism, socialism, capitalism, the list goes on. Feel free to impose any labels you wish on me - I reserve the right to disagree and to oppose such impositions. In practical politics, I can agree that it's important to be able to have tentative categories to differentiate among people with different worldviews and convictions and to be able to operate effectively as a player in the political field. But is it really necessary for open intellectual discussion?
I think it's unavoidable
AntwortenLöschenIts got nothing to do with dogma bohdanp, it is an academic discipline. Nothing I have said implies I agree with all or any of it, but everything you say including your inclusive eclecticism makes you a liberal, but as I said in my original comment there's nothing wrong with that.....although?
AntwortenLöschenWell although it ultimately makes you are supporter of the staus quo....a reasonable man.
AntwortenLöschenJust what status quo do you think I support? In the end, you can make all the conclusions you want about what I support and believe and about my, as you put it, "eclecticism". To me, it just shows that you are judging people too quickly, being unwilling to truly understand them through dialogue. Because let me assure you that you do not understand my point of view all that well. Your eagerness to apply labels limits your understanding. That's what I see.
AntwortenLöschenOn a related note, let me ask you a question. Do you think that there is a label that accurately reflects the whole complexity of your philosophical views, including political and others? What is it?
Didn't you say "orthodox" political science? Almost by definition, "orthodox" implies "dogma", a certain doctrine (a set of views), as opposed to a Socratic attitude of questioning and truth-seeking.
AntwortenLöschenAnd if you don't agree with any of it, why are you so eager to use it as a tool towards others? You are being disingenuous, as far as I can tell. Although it's probably unintentional, still...
Why do you assume I don't agree with any of it bohdanp? All I said was that liberalism means something in the real world of academic political science and your utterances seem to match the profile, is that problematic?
AntwortenLöschenOf course it positions you, but no more than anybody who commits their thoughts to writing is similarly positioned.That of course includes the Economist, a liberal journal if ever the was one, so my original point was ...no wonder you like it. Fair enough.
AntwortenLöschenWhy not?
AntwortenLöschenIn universities they call this the curriculum I think bohdanp
AntwortenLöschenThat is very interesting, so what is your position on labelling theory? Do you believe it helps us to better understand social deviance, criminology and madness?
AntwortenLöschenIt would be good to raise this as a topic for discussion here I think, what do you think?
Anarchist, thats my political position
AntwortenLöschenCorrection...anarcho-communist.....I almost forgot
AntwortenLöschenHere, I think it is important to keep distinct the notions of liberalism as a political ideology and as an economic point of view. Granted, they are not completely separate, but they are different dimensions. When I was discussing The Economist as a proponent of liberalism, I was primarily focusing on the economic dimension, which is linked to globalization and neoliberalism. The latter are not the same as classical liberalism, nor the same as typical American liberalism as it is undestood politically in the U.S. As you see, it is important to be clear with what connotation the label is meant to imply.
AntwortenLöschenJust a few comments back, you stated: "Nothing I have said implies I agree with all or any of it". You keep evading and confusing the issue. If you do agree with some of it, why the statement I just quoted? If you do not agree with any of it, why this question? What is all this business with profiling me?
AntwortenLöschenIt's not as simple as that. Sometimes I like it, other times I do not. What I like is that I can get information from it. That much I can concede.
AntwortenLöschen"Orthodox political science" is not the same as "curriculum". Don't try to confuse the issues. You call me eclectic, yet you lump things together and lack conceptual clarity here, as far as I can tell.
AntwortenLöschenIt was meant as a facetious remark, primarily :). Again - sense of humor is essential to me.
AntwortenLöschenNow we are talking about political and economic liberalism, the real deal and of course you are right, they are indeed 'not completely seperate'.....but your original statement did not include the term 'liberalism'... you rather suggested that the Economist is a reliable source of information without reference to it's ideological bias and I was disputing that claim. I think we may now have the basis for an agreement?
AntwortenLöschenOK, but what does that mean exactly? I won't know until we start discussing specific issues and teasing out the details of your particular views. After all, I am confident that, were I to list a set of criteria that this label implies, you would not fit them all. Moreover, even if you did happen to fit them all, that would leave various dimensions of your self out, unless you were some sort of an incomplete person. That is the intellectual and philosophical point I'm trying to make about labels - they are reductionist. As all language must be, ultimately. However, I think that in a forum such as this, I think we can avoid being reductionist and we can afford to keep a certain level of sophistication and complexity without losing clarity.
AntwortenLöschenBut can you believe it, that's the crucial point?
AntwortenLöschenAh, you haven't noticed then ;-)
AntwortenLöschenThis was my initial post about the Economist:
AntwortenLöschenThe Economist is actually a quite respectable institution. It does not hide that it supports liberal economics and globalization, but it presents a fairly balanced view, supporting also public expenditures on healthcare, education, etc. More on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist
I've been reading it for some time now - it is excellent. It provides up-to-date coverage on all corners of the world. While it is not necessary to agree with its editorial stance completely, it is hard to disagree with its excellent style and standard of journalism.
I clearly mentioned the fact that it is a proponent of liberal economics.
Well, that is a different issue altogether. I'm not suggesting that the articles from the Economist are to be taken as gospel :). Critical mind is a must.
AntwortenLöschenJust joking, so what are we arguing about here, we agree the Economist is a liberal journal, you used terms like 'respectable institution' and 'fairly balanced views' but my point is that you only think that if you are yourself a liberal, if you are an anarcho-communist like me, you just don't bohdanp
AntwortenLöschenGuess not ))).
AntwortenLöschenAnd let me also say that I consider anarchism to be a valuable tradition of thought. (So much for me being liberal... ;) Of course, I'm not claiming I am an anarchist - at least not always :) - but it has influenced my views significantly. For that matter, the same goes for most people's views, actually. Anarchism is one of the basic political orientations toward power and the state. It cannot be avoided by anybody. The left-right, or liberal-conservative, dimension is superimposed on this basic attitude and worldview.
Well, I can agree with you there. In the end, whether I would agree with my own statements as quoted by you above will depend on my mood on the particular day :))). I think it is natural for people to have fluctuating political views, within some confidence interval, to use a statistical term :). Ultimately, all I meant to imply, really, was that I find the Economist to be a useful source of information. How one uses that information is a different issue.
AntwortenLöschen"And, after all, newspapers and magazines have different missions - as long as they are honest about what they represent, I don't see any problem with it. It is ultimately the responsibility of the reader - or the consumer of the news, if you will - to get a full picture. But certain level of standards is essential in journalism - and the Economist meets that level, imho.",
AntwortenLöschenSounds like pretty glowing praise to me
Perhaps it sounds that way. What I meant to say specifically is that the Economist is not some completely incredible source of information, such as some obscure blog on the Internet, for example. It has its history, it has a certain level of acceptance and respect, intellectually and professionally speaking. Does it have an editorial policy and stance? Of course - no self-respecting media entity exists without one.
AntwortenLöschenAnyway, that is what I meant by saying that the Economist meets a certain level of standards in journalism. It clearly does not meet YOUR level of standards, which I never claimed it did. And I also did not claim I agree with everything it prints or the way it presents its opinions. All that aside, I still find it useful. Is that somehow wrong? I don't think so.
That could almost be the very definition of political liberalism bohdanp.......politics is more than a mood though I think, it is a never ending dawn to dusk struggle, in my terms I call it pure fun.
AntwortenLöschenTo expand on this a little more - I actually don't know what level of standards you would apply, and how realistic it would be. Sounds like you have a strong utopian streak. While some level of utopianism is necessary for all, in my opinion, I have a strong anti-utopian streak, partially due to the experience with how utopian rhetoric of communism was misused in the Soviet Union.
AntwortenLöschenI don't think so - it may be how you think of liberalism, but I don't think it is any defining feature of it. I'm not saying politics is a mood - I was somewhat humorous with that comment - I think it is ultimately a matter of principles. What I meant to say is that principles are not completely hard and unmoving - ideals are applied to realities and have to adapt to those realities, which ARE hard and sometimes harsh. Trying too hard to shape the world to fit one's views is a dangerous and slippery path - teleological stance can lead to horror, if care is not exercised. Witness the 20th century.
AntwortenLöschenUltimately, struggle is the right word. I concur. :)
But the economist is ' Post-Fordist' and Henry Ford said 'all history is bunk'.....has the ramblings of the historical elite got any more credibility that the ramblings of the contemporary elite?
AntwortenLöschenDoes 'Post-Fordism mean history is back in fashion amongst the free-market, free-thinkers of the liberal elite?
It is however a question I will have to leave to another day I think since it is 04.45 and I have worked an 11 hour shift.
I meant to say that the newspaper (as it calls itself) has its history of operation as an institution of journalism - it was founded in mid-19th century and all that.
AntwortenLöschenI don't see how industrial organization has anything to do with history, really, in any intellectual sense. I don't think free-market liberals are primarily concerned with history. Perhaps I misunderstand the point at which you are trying to get. In any case, as you just pointed out and I just realized, you are in England :)) So, good night.
AntwortenLöschenI've never known a liberal to say anything different, but it really is nothing to be ashamed of bohdanp. Thanks for demonstrating the liberal mindset so thoroughly. You have accused me of a lack of intellectual rigour, but that is my point about your own comments. I haven't started by endorsing a particular publication and then ended by saying we can't believe what it says. My point from the begining is that you are sympathetic to a liberal world view, which is interesting to me, but apparently insulting to you.
AntwortenLöschenWhy do you think being a liberal is something you have to deny, why is liberalism an ideology that dare not speak its name?
One final question, why is anarchism a valuable tradition what is 'valuable' about it in your opinion?
Liberalism
AntwortenLöschenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
AntwortenLöschenhttp://aaranaardvark.multiply.com/
This isn't a discussion about standards, it's a chat about ideology, namely liberalism.
AntwortenLöschenMein Kampf has I think achieved a 'certain level of standards' in Nazi propagandizing, but that doesn't mean it is a reliable source of information. Your every response here is a liberal one including ahistorical intellectual 'cherry picking' of fundamentally incompatable theoretical positions and the pomposity with which you defend your liberal position, whilst at the same time denying it.
'Liberal' has become something a stigmatised term in post-fascist America, just like 'socialist' has been for decades, I am simply suggesting that you have the courage of your own convictions, I can see no reason to be ashamed of it bohdanp....really :-)
The sort promoted in the Economist apparently
AntwortenLöschenNo its not, the Economist is either "a quite respectable institution" with "a fairly balanced view" as you say it is, or it is a value laden liberal mouthpiece that precludes certain perspectives because the magazine is part of the staus quo preserving corporate media. You appear to hold both points of view simultaneously which is of course the definition of what Orwell called 'doublethink' and what Festinger called 'cognitive dissonance.
AntwortenLöschenPomposity, intellectual snobbery and logical inconsistently cannot be dressed up and passed off as intellectual rigour, although liberals do that all the time in my experience. I rest my case bohdanp, thanks for playing anyway, it has been great fun, I've enjoyed our little joust here, I suppose this is what pigeon's group is supposed to be all about.
Its so much more invigorating than the mutual masturbation that all too often passes for political discourse in liberal circles I think, thanks a lot.
No, it's not insulting. Yes, I am sympathetic to a liberal worldview - I think I never denied it. I think we're just splitting hairs here. Honestly, it does not really make a difference to me, whether I'm labeled a liberal. I AM part liberal, no doubt. However, I recognize the limits of liberalism, and I am not a narrow-minded or an opportunistic liberal - that much I want to emphasize.
AntwortenLöschenAnarchism - a system without any central government, without a state - has important ideas about liberty, decentralized decisions, and other dimensions of political life. A lot of anarchist thinkers present valuable arguments and contribute an important dimension to political and philosophical debate. However, I do not think it is a feasible system of government, if taken to extreme. I know that communist theory suggests eventual withering of the state, but I think this is a misguided utopian notion and history has already shown much to that effect. Some sort of central government is a part of any society, unless we are talking about primitive small communist societies, which are not common any longer. Today's societies are complex and organized in various ways. I think it is a question of having GOOD government, not NO government, or just ANY government.
Come on, that was a rhetorical question.
AntwortenLöschenAll right, let's not do this - why bring Hitler in this conversation? We ARE talking about standards - I was, at least. Maybe that was your mistake - to focus in on ideology right away to the exclusion of other things I mentioned in my initial responses. Anyway, this thread was about Lisbon, I posted a few links for everyone's information. I am not promoting the Economist, but exactly because of your reaction, which I somewhat anticipated from someone, I felt I had to present a justification for posting all these links, lest I be misunderstood. Clearly, I wasn't very successful.
AntwortenLöschenAnd let me say that my point of view is not ahistorical at all - that is a wrong assumption. I just think that free-market liberals think that way, and that's what I meant by my comment "what does industrial organization have to do with history, intellectually speaking". I think I formulated it in a bad way. Personally, I think historical background is essential, and naturalizing or reifying social and historically contingent developments is wrong.
I'm not "cherry picking" anything. You simply misunderstand me and make assumptions about me based on your experiences with others, perhaps.
Can you specify what you mean? Vague terms are misleading. If you claim to know what I support, you should be able to state it in clear terms. Then I can respond and either confirm or deny. As your statement stands at present, I can firmly say that you are wrong.
AntwortenLöschenOK, I believe I already mentioned above, that I feel I chose poor formulations for what I meant to say. I also mentioned above that I don't believe there can be any value-free journalism, so, yes, I agree with how you describe the Economist. To an extent. Clearly, because of your political wordview, you consider the whole dominant system of liberal-democratic states that exists in the world today to be suspect and inadequate. I, on the other hand, think that while it is certainly flawed in many ways, it is the best alternative. The question, for me, then becomes the one of finding the right balance and combination to ensure good government, ethical decision-making, and a whole list of other things of that nature. I don't have the time to explore your blog in great detail, and I don't want to make assumptions, but as anarcho-communist, you probably advocate some sort of revolution or comprehensive reorganization, rather than reform and modification to the existing system. It's up to you if you want to continue the discussion in this direction. If you do, it may be fun :). No mutual masturbation, I promise :))))
AntwortenLöschenAnd let me add a couple more things of clarification - there certainly is SOME overlap between what the Economist supports and what I support, but it's not wholesale.
AntwortenLöschenSpecifically, when it comes to corporate capitalism, I am quite a strong critic of the status quo. I do think that corporation as a concept, as a type of organization, can have its role in the economic system, but the way it is practiced at present is utterly unacceptable. It has to be socially and environmentally responsible, it has to be held to higher ethical standards, and corporate leadership should be principle-based, not opportunistic and profit-driven.
This is also utopian, one might say, but somewhat more mildly than anarcho-communism :)). And the fact that corporations are legally defined as "persons", at least in the U.S., is completely preposterous. If they are persons, they are certainly sociopathic and need to be either treated or punished for such behavior. This, of course, refers only to those corporations that do exhibit sociopathic behavior, which goes back to my comment about the role of corporation as a mode of organization - if it is run well and it has good leadership, it can do much that is good.
It seems Aaran has left the premises... :) Too bad, I'd really like him to respond.
AntwortenLöschenHe won't have left, he likes dissenting opinions, especially from people who know what they're on about. May be on night shift, or asleep. Knowing you both, I can see you having chats like this more regularly. I'd love to join in, but on this level, I'm not even sure what I believe. I see the ills of capitalism, but I'm no Anarchist. Centre-left, somewhere... 'Paleo-Liberal', one American quiz called me. You (bohdan) mentioned the words 'taken to extreme'. No ideology works long-term taken to extreme, does it?
AntwortenLöschenTo both bohdanp and aaran. From an onlookers point of view it was an interesting debate to follow. lol! there was no way I was going to join in as that would have disturbed the flow and distorted the final result.
AntwortenLöschenNice to see I wasn't the only onlooker pigeon. lol! I was starting to think I was eavesdropping on a lovers tiff. As regards ideology being taken to the extreme I'd suggest it eventually morphs into something else where the basis of the ideology becomes intertwined with an extreme that has no foundation in it.
AntwortenLöschenA possible example would be North Korea where you have a communist state overseen by a "god".
I 'onlook' everything here, don't leave a stone unturned ;) but yes, this was a particularly good thread. On a personal note, I have a lot of time for both these guys, and if I could get a round in now, I would.
AntwortenLöschenKim isn't a God and he knows it. China own him. He wouldn't dare piss them off.
AntwortenLöschenNo, not really. Related to this, I think it is better to have a full range of political spectrum, from left wing to right wing, rather than an abbreviated one like the one in the U.S. The wings have its use, but not when they overtake the center, as it slowly happened in the U.S. with neoconservatives between late 60s and until recently. That is why people feel they can call Obama "socialist" and complain about moving leftward. What Obama is doing, actually, is taking the country closer to the center. Well, center-left, maybe.
AntwortenLöschenIn other words, that is why I like the idea of the radical center. For me, "center" is related to the fact that I believe in the virtue of moderation, as expressed by ancient Greek philosophers (Plato's four cardinal virtues), and "radical" adds the dimension of change to the root of such approach. In other words, I believe in change with moderation. There is a revolutionary part of me, which sometimes gets frustrated with the status quo, angry and so on, but it's only a minor part. From experience and from education, I've learned time and again that revolutions rarely accomplish what they set out to do, and they usually involve violence and misery that comes afterward. I could say much more on this, but it's enough for now.
And a quick word about Aaran - by "left the premises" I meant that he may have stopped following this thread. Sometimes I do that when I feel I have had enough of the discussion or it starts eating up my time and interfering with other things I have to do. Looking at his last comment, it seems that's what he might have done here. That's not a problem, we had a good exchange. I'm sure it will continue in the future :).
)))) I'm glad your concerns were relieved :)
AntwortenLöschenLOL!! I just hope it works out for both of you. :-)
AntwortenLöschenOh, I'm sure it will - in Ukraine, there is a saying about verbal altercations and arguments that, roughly translated, goes like this: "Where people fight - people love" :))) Goes to reason - if you care enough to fight, it's gonna be all right... ;)
AntwortenLöschen