> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:52 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs > > > On 10/05/2006, at 5:34 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > In the long term, governments will fade away. In the short term, > > there is > > the dictatorship of the proletariat. Democracy, human rights, etc. > > are > > considered a bourgeoisie invention that does not take into account > > that > > societies are fundamentally economic in nature. Thus, a Communist > > dictatorship, with collective ownership, is the next step forward > > in history > > after a liberal/capitalistic state. > > Actually, Marx may have envisioned more a bottom-up mutual-interest > based society. Collective ownership, as in social democracies, is a > *growing* phenomenon. Just look at the rise of collective owneship of > football clubs, for example. From only a couple 10 years ago in the > UK to over a hundred mutual trusts.
Our experience in this is much longer. The Green Bay Packers had wide community backing from 1922 when "In August, 1923, with more than 400 in attendance at a local Elks Club, the club was transformed into a non-profit entity, the Green Bay Packers Corporation. The five men, including Lambeau, were nicknamed the Hungry Five. There now have been four stock drives in the 86-year history of the team. The first stock sale, which took place at that 1923 meeting, saw local merchants raise $5,000 by selling 1,000 shares for $5 apiece, with a stipulation that the purchaser also had to buy at least six season tickets....... The third, in 1950, came on the heels of founder Curly Lambeau's 30-year dominion, when the club's officers arranged to amend the corporation's bylaws to permit the sale of up to 10,000 total shares of stock (opening up more than 9,500 shares for purchase), to limit the number of shares that any individual could own. The team also increased the number of directors from 15 to 25. The response to the '50 drive was inspiring, with people from all across Wisconsin, as well as former Green Bay residents living in other states, coming forward to buy the $25 shares of stock. Roughly $50,000 was raised in one 11-day period alone. Reportedly, one woman from a farm near Wrightstown, Wis., showed up at the team's offices with $25 worth of quarters in a match box. A total of about $118,000 was generated through this major stock sale, helping to put the Packers on a sound financial basis once again." That sounds a lot like your football teams Charlie. In addition, there were much more significant economic organizations that date back to the early 20th century in the US. Rural co-ops have existed here for about 100 years....and are now big businesses....and they are still technically co-ops....owned by the producers. > > > >> From the 50s through the late 70s/early 80s, it appeared that > >> Marxism was a > > very viable political/economic theory. Decade by decade, Marxist > > governments spread throughout the world. The US was seen to lose an > > imperialistic war in SE Asia, with the nature result being the > > extension of > > the Marxist government. Most governments in Africa were Marxist, with > > central planned economies. India was socialistic and loosely in > > the Soviet > > camp. > > Marxist government is an oxymoron. By its very definition, Marxism > requires the emergent behaviour of a networked population, not the > imposition of a planned economy through a police state. That is the long term end state, yes. The dictatorship of the proletariat was a needed intermediate step. Individual rights are meaningless in a Marxist context because everything is economic. The key to me is that Marx wasn't interested in individuals, only classes. Thus, individual freedoms were considered a non-issue. Emergent behavior of networking is a modern concept....I'd argue that the historical dielectic is the best tool to understand Marxism....because it is the tool of Marxism. And, the real split within Marxists was the Stalin-Trostky split. Lenin was considered to be a good Marxist writer/leader....Few Marxists who I talked with during the '60s and '70s took after Lenin's implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
