Jump to content

New Debate :Israel vs Palestine/Arab States


Hunted
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Also your claim that effort cannot be measured is sheer non-sense trying to be passed off as a brilliant realization. Effort, or Input, is measured in Output, silly. If someone works hard, they get more done. You try to use the claim that effort is immesurable, however every time you use it is another time you shoot yourself in the foot.


I'm just going to post an example.

You are a nice wonderful socialist worker, along with a hundred others in a socialist worker owned factory. You bust your butt making sure that you can build 105 gizmos in an hour instead of 100 which is the avereage.

Now that 100,000 gizmos are the average, and it comes out that someone else slacked off, and it ends up the same (100,000) regardless of what work you did.

How exactly is the effort of each person measured? You cannot tell who worked harder, and since output is average, you assume that collectively you have an average workforce and everyone made 100 gizmos, when in reality, a minority is pulling most of the weight, 105 apiece, and the majority is doing 95-100 apiece.

You don't know anyone's specific effort if you just go by output, you'd have to have a watcher for each person in the plant to make sure they are all working as hard as they can.

It's also obvious that some people are capable of more than others, but how are you able to force each person to work to their ability, when they get the same compensation in the end as those who do the least work?

It's ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

CONTRADICTION!!!!

YOUR QUOTE:

"Effort is NOT measured as output. INPUT is measured as ouput. Don't change my damned argument to make a point against it. "

...And your contradiction, where I based my claim off of in the first place

"quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not about receiving equally, it's about receiving what is earned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how do you decide what is earned? Where's that guage? Effort can't be measured. Output can. Economic impact can. Therefore, the capitalistic guage is the ONLY successful guage.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is receiving from the output relative to the input (a.k.a. getting out what you put in).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(***Goaliejerry note: Here's your glaring contradiction)

Again, how does one measure input? It's impossible. "

You clearly imply that input and effort are directly related, as your use of the word "again" implys that your previous point with regards to "effort" is also applicable in later usage of the word "input."

Thats all I was trying to highlight. Don't get all mad at me for pointing out the holes of your argument And I appologize for any sort of personal attack I may have made. That was unnessecary and ungentalmanly of me.

And fellas, I must reiterate, I believe, as you do, that socialism is a political theroy whose success relys on the inherant goodness of man, which I fear does not exist. And I truly apoligize for dipping my feet in and stirring the water however slightly, however finals are approching and I must lock down.

Suggestion for aramike:

1) make sure your right before you claim you are

[ 04-17-2002, 23:10: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


CONTRADICTION!!!!

The only CONTRADICTION!!! is that you claim to have discovered one when you actually have not.

quote:


...And your contradiction, where I based my claim off of in the first place

Let's see...

quote:


Again, how does one measure input? It's impossible.

Fair enough. That is contradicting ... when taken out of context.

Here's why, and I explained this THOROUGHLY in my last post. Theoretically, the person who designs the process, makes the initial investment, hires workers, and controls production would TECHNICALLY be responsible for ALL of the output. However, his input in terms of EFFORT may be substantially less than the actual production workers.

There, crystal clear, I hope.

quote:


You clearly imply that input and effort are directly related, as your use of the word "again" implys that your previous point with regards to "effort" is also applicable in later usage of the word "input."

Input and effort are NOT related, and I've NEVER implied that. Especially considering that I've been saying the opposite all along. I could input production control advice to a company effortLESSLY, yet cause a gain in output.

Got it? Good.

quote:


Thats all I was trying to highlight. Don't get all mad at me for pointing out the holes of your argument

Not a hole in an argument, man, I think you were taking my argument to mean something different. My usage of the words "input" and "effort" meant different things at different times in DIRECT response to what Menchise was saying.

quote:


And I appologize for any sort of personal attack I may have made. That was unnessecary and ungentalmanly of me.

Ditto. No harm man.

quote:


And fellas, I must reiterate, I believe, as you do, that socialism is a political theroy whose success relys on the inherant goodness of man, which I fear does not exist.

Like I've said, politics based upon feelings are a pipe dream, because everyone feels differently.

quote:


Suggestion for aramike:

1) make sure your right before you claim you arep


LOL. I think I've cleared that up sufficiently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that you didn't intentionally imply that effort and input are directly related, and the remainder of your post highlights that quite clearly. I was just playing with the semantics to get a rise out of you. Admititly I haven't been following "the issues at hand" as closely as I should, however every now and then I just gotta speak up and strech my mind for a little. As I've said, finals are coming up, and every now and then I need to switch mental gears. Seeing as you said you've been having a sort of on-going debate with Menchise, I'm sure there will be ample time for me to hop-in in the future. Thats all, peace and goodnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by goaliejerry:

I know that you didn't intentionally imply that effort and input are directly related, and the remainder of your post highlights that quite clearly. I was just playing with the semantics to get a rise out of you. Admititly I haven't been following "the issues at hand" as closely as I should, however every now and then I just gotta speak up and strech my mind for a little. As I've said, finals are coming up, and every now and then I need to switch mental gears. Seeing as you said you've been having a sort of on-going debate with Menchise, I'm sure there will be ample time for me to hop-in in the future. Thats all, peace and goodnight.


Don't worry about it, dude. We all have our days.

Besides, I've decided that input, effort, AND output aren't really applicably measurable. Upon thinking it over, VALUE is the term. For instance, without the guy at the top the production wouldn't occur. However, without the single worker at the bottom, the production would still go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this is great.

As soon as socialist rebelion sweeps through the world I am going to need the following items. I WANT them delivered to me and I promise to put in my 8 hours work every day, minus weekends and vacations (I do not guarantee the quality of my work).

1. A personal jet.

2. An 11 bedroom 3 story house on a hill (with a pool of cours).

3. A limo.

4. A porche.

5. A Harley Davidson.

6. Anything else I might want later on.

PS Please, don't forget to destribute this wealth to anyone else who might want some too, but remember I AM FIRST IN LINE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yea. Almoust forgot.

I WILL give the items away after their TERM is up. (see, I am not greedy)

1. Jet will be given away after 20 years.

2. Porsche I will keep untill 100,000 (then I will require a new one)

3. Harley Davidson 50,000

4. House I will give away after I and my wife pass away.

PS Who wants to be next in line to use those items after me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll probably move into your house when you are sleeping since there would be no such thing as private property, then I would drink your milk straight out of the container and put it back in the refrigerator, then I would "borrow" some of your items and return them in half the condition, hey it's Socialism! What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, sorry I haven't been around lately, but here is my take on the Israel Palestine conflict (sorry I didn't have time to read through 4 pages of posts, so i'm probably going to be re-hashing things already said, but if you disagree with me on a point, point it out and we can debate like we used to)

Israel was created. The correctness of this doesn't matter because it's done with. It survived multiple wars (with help, but still, it survived) Israel exists as a country, and has existed for decades, end of story.

The Palestinians, obviously, don't like the way Israel is set up. There are a number of options for Israel and Palestine to end the conflict with less bloodshed than otherwise would happen:

1. Israel gives back the land in a peace proposal that *THEY (Israel) AGREED WITH*. The Palestinians liking the idea or not is irrelevent. People are dying, and they should understand that they aren't going to get anything if they don't compromise with Israel, since Israel IS THE POWER. This would work because then the Palestinians would be somewhat happy and condemn the terrorism.

2. The palestinians learn that "National boundaries" don't really matter if they are treated fairly. The Palestinians learn to change whatever they don't like about the Israeli government through peaceful protests, much like the civil rights movement. They learn that if Israel is under attack, they aren't going to be nice about anything. It'd work because with all the media attention on Israel, any sort of "lets all sit down and wave signs and lay down our arms" movement would cause there to be such international pressure on Israel that they can't wipe out the protestors, and would be seriously pressure to change.

3. The Israelis deport or kill every Palestinian that is probably a militant terrorist. Hell, if I was an Israeli, I would just want the Palestinians GONE. They keep me living in fear for my life, they are killing INNOCENT people, and they should learn to LIVE IN THE COUNTRY THEY ARE IN PEACEFULLY. If the only way to save lives is to kill em, so be it. The Palestinians aren't compromising, so I can understand Israel getting fed up. I honestly don't even care if it's the Israelis that aren't compromising as much (I know they are offering SOMETHING). The Israelis are the ones with the power, and if the Palestinians don't learn to live with it, they deserve to get killed for being stupid. This would work because with terrorists dead, there is less terrorism.

Now, I know there is going to be some argument from someone with my definitions of terrorism and ideas on the statist system.

First, terrorism:

Terrorism is actions by non-state actors against civilian populations of a state in order to damage or destroy the state, pressure the state into undertaking some sort of action, or to send some sort of message.

Terrorism is simply wrong. I don't care what terrorist actions the United States actions have taken in the past, it doesn't mean they are not terrorist actions, and it doesn't mean they are right, so I don't support those actions, yet I still support the United States.

Although some may say "terrorism is because a group has no other means" or that the "terrorists message is right" the message is **ALWAYS** WRONG. Since terrorism causes the people of the targetted state to fear for their lives and causes the government to feel threatened, the government must respond with force. "Dipolmatic action" does not remove fear. Fear is not gone until the person or group that instills that fear is subdued, and the only way to guarntee that is by military action/killing them or their capabilities.

Thus, whenever a group undertakes a terrorist act, they are provoking a response. No population will support "being nice" when their lives are at stake. It's like me trying to talk someone out of killing me for days while they are attacking me with a knife and I have the ability to shoot the attacker dead. It's just a stupid move, and when an entire population feels that way, they have to act with force. The Israelis are right in whatever they do (as long as they dont *intentionally* *intend* to kill tons of *civilians*) since they have the moral and military high ground.

On states and imperialism. People in general don't give up power since it makes their lives easier and leads to more power. Knowledge is power. Money is power. Military is power. The death of imperialism is never going to happen since the majority of a population is never going to become utopian and support their government losing most power over other nations in any way, and if they did, they would wait for the first opportunity to gain the power. Look at Russia, China, and Cuba. They were supposed to make life utopian for everyone, but ended up with no freedom or no power or both (Cuba=dictatorship with no freedom) (Russia=eventually turned democracy, was mostly dictator and no freedom) (China=no freedom, became capitalist). Then, to the typical response that "it'd be a good idea that we should pursue", why should we pursue it? To say that people should have no personal ambition or desire for any sort of power is to say that people should not be human. It's against human nature and oppressive to individual freedom. I'm sorry, but states are good, power to powerful states is good, and if a powerful state wants to maintain it's power, they are right in doing so. Israel stopping the suicide attacks by force is a legitimate and correct course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go on vacation and suddenly the thread is back on topic!

The only thing I want to add is that many peoples have fought over that land for many many years. England made a mistake promising the Palestinians something they couldn't deliver. The Isrealis made a mistake that the Palestinians are going to simply accept what Israel offers. The Palestinians made a mistake thinking that suicide bombing is a path towards reaching their goals.

For the fighting to stop, both sides must sit down and recognize their mutual interests, the mistakes they have made, and put the past behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

For the fighting to stop, both sides must sit down and recognize their mutual interests, the mistakes they have made, and put the past behind them.


You know, that "sounds" really really good, but it does not deal with the realities of the situation.

The "Palestinians" want nothing less then the TOTAL destruction of Israel, anything less is unnacceptable to the leadership of those people, Arafat and his terrorists.

Israel wants to just live in peace and exist, and if they sit down and "talk" with the "palestinians", they are rewarding that terrorist activity. The only way that they can "sit" down and talk is if 1: the "Palestinian" people give up this goal of the total destruction of Israel, and 2: stop the terrorists for at least 1 year.

If there is not a terrorist attack by the "Palestinians" for 1 year, then they can "sit down" and discuss peace. This way they are not rewarded for their terrorist behavior.

My personal thing would be this, go in and destroy every terrorist that I could find, then make EVERY "palestinian" in the territory take an oath AGAINST terrorism, if they are not willing to do that, then they would be deported and permanenetly banned from the country and the territories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

My personal thing would be this, go in and destroy every terrorist that I could find, then make EVERY "palestinian" in the territory take an oath AGAINST terrorism, if they are not willing to do that, then they would be deported and permanenetly banned from the country and the territories.[/QB]

Sounds very good, Jag. Just a couple of questions:-

1) Who and what defines a person as a terrorist? It's a matter of personal definition as far as I'm concerned.

2) Will you destroy a child just because the family have terrorist leanings (if you can even quantify terrorism in the first place, on the basis that the child might turn into a terrorist later?

3) How will you guard against future terrorism? Or in other words "who will guard the guardians" to ensure that there will be no random or illegal prosecution of the innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your questions.

1: the definition of a terrorist is the EASIEST part. A terrorist is a person who targets civilians in a violent manner to make political change.

2: The family must take the oath against terrorism, if they are not willing, then bye bye, enjoy Jordan or Syria, because you and your family are no longer welcome. If that destroys the child, then so be it, the child is the parents responsibility, not the governments.

3:Israel has a constitution, just as we do, That constitution has guarantees and limits government power. That is the guarantee.

The "Palestinians" have done enough damage to Israel, it is time to either deport the terrorists that they find and thier families, or build a wall and keep ALL "Palestinians" OUT of Israel, considering that inside Israel is where most "Palestinians" work, The "Palestinians" will not like that option at all. And that wall is taking shape by the way, should be fascinating to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


1) Who and what defines a person as a terrorist? It's a matter of personal definition as far as I'm concerned.

Group which employs force against unaware targets in order to create fear in hopes of inciting political change.

This force in no way stands a practical chance of inciting political change on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm back with a long article for a quote.

quote:

Arabs and Jews can live in peace

There is a very simple reason why Arabs and Jews have been unable to live in peace together for the past 100 years, and it is summed up in the phrase "the Iron Wall".

The Iron Wall is the title of Professor Avi Shlaim's exhaustive and brilliant history of Zionism. Jabotinsky, a right wing Zionist leader and fan of the Italian fascist Mussolini, coined the phrase in the 1920s.

He argued that the European Jewish settlers in Palestine had to develop overwhelming military superiority to break the potential political resistance of the Palestinian Arab majority.

This militaristic perspective he called the Iron Wall. Shlaim shows how nearly all of Israel's leaders signed up to the Iron Wall philosophy, not least those who called themselves "socialist", like Israel's first prime minister, Ben Gurion, and the so called peacemaker Rabin.

The Iron Wall separates Arab from Jew because it institutionalises Jewish superiority backed by overwhelming military power.

Jabotinsky also argued that the Jew was culturally superior to the Arab, because European culture was superior to Arab culture.

Peace between the two peoples depends upon dismantling the Iron Wall.

The truth of this argument is well illustrated by looking at the West Bank city of Hebron, one of the oldest Arab and Jewish settlements in Palestine.

The city is allegedly the burial place of the Old Testament prophet Abraham - from whom the city derives its name - and hence has huge symbolic significance for Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Today the city is a permanent military fortress, as thousands of Israeli troops guard a few hundred particularly extreme Jewish religious fanatics.

Hebron's Palestinian citizens suffer a virtually permanent curfew.

This is not a recent Israeli incursion. Hebron was exempted from Israeli withdrawal in the Oslo peace accords.

Hebron was always a flashpoint in Zionism's history, but it is important to understand the difference between the European settlers and the old town's original Jewish inhabitants.

The accomplished Israeli journalist Tom Segev has recently described 800 years of good relations between Arabs and Jews in Hebron.

In the anti-Zionist riots in 1929 in Hebron, people in the Arab community rescued many of their Jewish neighbours from a pogrom. Segev wrote: "Jewish history records few cases of a mass rescue of this dimension."

This brings us to the crucial fact that the virulence of European anti-Semitism, with its roots partly in the medieval Christian conception of the Jew, had no echo in the Arab world.

While relations were far from perfect, there was simply not the history of systematic persecution that we find in Christian Europe, which provided the launchpad for Zionism at the end of the 19th century.

In her fascinating history of Jerusalem, Karen Armstrong has argued that Islam's almost unbroken 1300-year rule of the city was characterised by its tolerance of both Judaism and Christianity:

"Jewish visitors from Europe were struck by the freedom enjoyed by the Jews in Palestine."

"In 1535 David dei Rossi, an Italian Jew, noted that Jews even held government positions, something that would be inconceivable in Europe."

In the 12th century it had been the great Islamic leader Saladin who had invited the Jews back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the Crusaders.

He was hailed throughout the Jewish world as the new Cyrus (the Persian king of Old Testament fame who let the Jews back into the city to build the second temple).

Last month I was in Egypt, where I had the good fortune to spend a morning with the truly remarkable Youssef Darwish, a 91 year old Jewish Communist veteran of the post-war workers' struggles that formed the backcloth to Nasser's coup in 1952.

It's standard in these sort of discussions to debate the prominent role Jews played in the Communist movement throughout the Arab world. And of course we did.

But what struck me more was something else. It was the long historical Jewish attachment to and involvement in Egypt - one of its greatest medieval synagogues still stands - and the way this blossomed in the early 20th century, with now forgotten cultural expressions in painting, books and later film.

As Youssef says, the banner of independence was being raised, and the idea of achieving equality among the different social groups was vigorously pursued.

Later Zionism sucked nearly all the Jews out of Egypt and told them they were coming "home".

It told the same nonsense to Jews from all over the Arab world, and helped them to forget their long history as it recruited them to build the Iron Wall against their new Palestinian Arab neighbours.

Recovering that history someday soon will be an important part of showing just how Arabs and Jews can live together in peace.

- John Rose,
Socialist Worker
(Australian edition), 26 April 2002.


[ 04-30-2002, 07:33: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

You know, that "sounds" really really good, but it does not deal with the realities of the situation.

My personal thing would be this, go in and destroy every terrorist that I could find, then make EVERY "palestinian" in the territory take an oath AGAINST terrorism, if they are not willing to do that, then they would be deported and permanenetly banned from the country and the territories.[/QB]

You know, I could say the same thing about your conclusion. I don't think it's realistic to destroy every terrorist, and your attempt could create more terrorists than you destroy.

And I realize my suggestion has been attempted and failed, many many MANY times. But I just don't see a future until that happens. Many mortal enemies have learned to negotiate their problems and find a way to live in peace. I'm sure there was a time when the Angles and the Saxons never thought they could live in peace. Same with the French and the English in this country. Or the blacks and whites in South Africa. Or the Canadians and the Americans. (There was a time in our history where our relationship bore a striking ressemblance to the Isreali conflict; Canadian Loyalists Soldiers marching on the Washington, burning down the White House. American rebels entering villages and killing innocent supporters of the loyalist cause. Most of what happened is now a long forgotten memory, but at the time it was a very real conflict with no end in sight.)

Peace can happen. It's happened in the past and will continue to happen. I'm certain that a time can exist when the thought of bloody termoil in the middle east will become a faded memory, it just won't be within my life time, but it is possible. Only through negotiated settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another 2 quick points:

1. Jaguar, you could just as easily write 'Israeli' as well as your persistance in writing 'Palestinian', and more justfiably so; the vast majority of current 'Israelis', especially those in power, are European Jews who arrived, or are descended from thoise who arrived, ealier this century. Arabs have continually inhabited the area of Palestine for centuries.

2. What have the 'Israelis' got to hide in Jenin? Another refugee camp massacre à la Lebanon (funnily enough, Sharon was heavily involved in that one too)?

PS Nice find, Nick.

[ 04-30-2002, 08:42: Message edited by: Paddy Gregory ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and Menchise,

Not all Israelis are Zionist.

As a matter of fact, not all Israelis are European. Some are African. The modern state of Isreal is full of many cultures. And not all of these cultures agree on Palestine and how to handle it.

A Jewish friend of mine pointed out that many of the Isrealis who have been in Israel since it's birth are sick and tired of the violence and are more than ready to accept a peace deal, but a recent influx of Eastern European Jews, who are new to the conflict and a little naive about the cost of war, are keeping the Isreali resistance to peace alive.

There ARE Israelis who see themselves as equals to the Palestinians. There are Jewish people who strongly belive in a Palestinian state and are very critical of Israeli military activity. Right now they don't have a voice, but they are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

There ARE Israelis who see themselves as equals to the Palestinians. There are Jewish people who strongly belive in a Palestinian state and are very critical of Israeli military activity. Right now they don't have a voice, but they are there.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I donÔÇÖt know what is more revolting, all the nonsense among the Arabian countries or that you people would spend so much time reiterating each other and rehashing the issue.

As for my take on the issue, the only solution would be for A) mass extermination of one side (or both sides for that matter), B) Mass (and no doubt forced) migration of one side, or C) someone to set up a totalitarian government and sit on EVERYONE for a few generations and employ a ruthless internal security force to root out rebels.

Option A would be interesting, but whoever managed to pull it off would be rather unpopular in our global community.

Option B would be even more interesting, and very messy. I donÔÇÖt think either side would willingly move.

Option C would be just plain fun, but I doubt such a regime could last long enough to be effective.

Basically there screwed so there is no point in trying to help them. We can always hope they depopulate each other sufficiently for this to cease to be a major issue.

There, now I'm just as revolting as all you people, isnÔÇÖt hypocrisy fun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what a lot of us are forgetting is what would you want to be done if YOU were in the situation.

Lets come up with this possible scenario.

The thousands upon thousands of anti-government militia groups decide to want to split up the United States in order to get away from our government because of the percieved "conspiracy" and oppression it is giving. In order to accomplish these goals, they start setting off bombs in crowded public areas, and shoot at all government officials (police, etc) that they can. Innocent people start dying, but the militia groups want to sit down and discuss how part of the United States should be set aside for the "patriots", or it should be re-organized. They keep professing this, and then over the next week, lets say a bomb goes off and your best friend, your parents, and your brother all get killed. You aren't in a militia, you don't support them, your just living your life, and then most of the people you care about are DEAD. Are you REALLY going to give in to those bastards, or are you going to want to exterminate them? Then lets imagine that your one of the people in the militia or supporting, and then you keep seeing your friends get killed when the government attacks militia bases and groups. Are you REALLY going to want anything less than all of the "government bastards" to die?

What we forget, living in a peaceful country, is that "being nice" is never going to cut it. The hatred in Israel is so deeply entrenched that the only way to end it is for a peace settlement to be reached between the MAJORITY of the Israelis and the MAJORITY of the Palestinians, and then they both need to pledge to WIPE OUT or EXPORT the fringe elements that continue the killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...