HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: One year of YELTSINOMICS!
Date: 10 Jan 1993 17:36:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In TALK.POLITICS.SOVIET, hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) says:

>It's the chicken or egg problem, multiplied n-fold. You need private
>enterprises for the pricing system to work--at least competition. You
>also need consumers who are used to having a choice so that they
>can take advantage of it. You also need workers and managers who
>are used to working in a competitive system--at least managers who
>are used to making decisions and being rewarded for making the 
>good ones--instead of passing the buck.
>
>HOw do you create such a system ? If only the state enterprises
>were to be auctioned off--if some private enterprise existed--
>there'd be no serious problems. So where do you start ?
>
>If you want to sell state enterprises, then there are no buyers.
>It can't be sold to foreigners (chauvinism), no enterprise in the
>country can buy them, and the workers won't gang up and buy them
>up because they're too cynical.
>
>The germ of private enterprise exists on small garden plots. And
>food is the most important commodity to concentrate on. If by
>raising prices (i.e. freeing them), you can induce people to
>plant more crops and for some to even try their hand at starting
>larger scale private farming coops, then in one year it would
>essentially succeed in solving the food shortage problem. We'll
>see what happens this summer and next winter.
>
>The industry is a much bigger problem.
>
> 
>> Or did some instances (like the central Bank of Russia) sabotage the
>> whole reform program?
>
>There's probably an underlying current of resentment among the
>middle-management ranks. All they had to do was wait for a while,
>and they would have become bigger bosses. After all, didn't they
>bide their time patiently and play by the rules ? Now the
>rules say that they paid their dues but won't get paid. So every
>middle-manager is potentially a saboteur.
>
>And the bigger they are more they have at stake.
>
>As far as the bank, it's easier to control an economy if there's
>no one responsible and you strict price and wage controls. Trying
>to make the economy work 'properly' with interest rates and money
>supply changes is difficult. The Bank might have really done things
>wrong and not intend any sabotage. I'm not sure if the evidence
>is overwhelming. Would you please elaborate ?
>
>
>> Or are these questions posed in a wrong manner?
>
>NO. They're just very difficult to answer by anyone especially
>by amateur economists :-)..
>-- 
>
>	mark	
>
>   hubey@amiga.montclair.edu         hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
>   hubey@pilot.njin.net               ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey    
>
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:23:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.235117.19014@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
| In article <C0rEvK.9uE@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >Gordon Fitch:
| >Well, then -- what you all need is an agreed-upon way of 
| >evaluating genocides.
| 
| ummm.. is there some point you're trying to make here?
| or was it just a joke? i mean, your comment is obvious from the
| discussion, no?

It's not obvious to me that you have even discussed
genocide-evaluation.  Instead, you've leapt immediately
to a comparison of the Holocaust and the extermination
of the American Indians without stating on what standards
you propose to judge these two procedures.  And then
there's the matter of relations between the standards --
for instance, the Nazis probably killed more people than
the Americans, but the Americans extinguished more whole
nations.  

Once you settle these matters you can give each genocide
a rating and thereby rank them.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:32:26 GMT

      Many of you have posted, or written me personally, to comment on
the difference in the "systematization" of the genocides between Hitler's 
attempted extermination of the Jew and the American relatively successful
extermination of the American Indian.  Regarding this, I say they are equally
immoral.  The end result is not, in any way, lessened by a lack of intent
on the part of the European settlers.  It was official government policy that
what the Indians would not trade, the government would take "even if every last
Indian must die" (President Andrew Jackson).
      To claim the genocide of the Indians is "less horrible" than the Holocaust
is ethnocentric or cold.  I'll bank on ethnocentric.  If the Indians had been
white, or as advanced as the Europeans, would the genocide have occurred?
      Yes, Hitler was more systematic.  But as far as genocides go, he was very
unsuccessful.  Would you argue that genocide should be abhorred more for its
means of systematization or for its success?  I do not distinguish between the
two in my abhorrence of them.  They were both Genocide.  That you are so ready
to defend the genocide of the American Indian scares me.  That you are willing
to argue that it was not genocide scares me as much as the people who try to 
claim the Holocaust was a hoax.
      For those of you who are horrified by the Holocaust because you have
seen it on film, simply watch Little Big Man with Dustin Hoffman.  It may be a
"fictionalized historical account" but it still packs quite an unpleasant
wallop.  WARNING: Do not eat while watching this movie.

Karen

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:59:40 GMT

In article <C0Fy2K.CqL@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
>
>Genocide:  The systematic killing of a whole people or nation.

but one "genocide" was *far* more systematic than the other.
that is the main point the responses i have written and seen have been
trying to make.

do you not believe that the intent of the perpetrators has *any* basis
in determining how wrong their actions are?

>When a culture is destroyed, that is genocide.  The systematic destruction of
>the freedoms and practices of the American Indians is/was genocide.  I am not
>attempting to lessen the meaning of the term as it regards the Holocaust.  But
>I find it abhorrent that people are able to claim the American Indian killings
>was not genocide.  Better dead than red did not originate with the cold war,
>it was revived.  Better dead than red, and the only good injun is a dead injun
>was the rule, not the exception, in early white America.

i would like to see your response to the intent and systematic issues.
because i think that is the primary difference. do you feel that the
Europeans came over here specifically or primarily to kill Native Americans?
because there is no doubt what Hitler's priorities were.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:40:14 GMT

gf> Gordon Fitch

gf> Can someone tell me what the point of this thread is?

  It was, apparently, for the sole purpose of one person to climb on a soapbox,
  state her opinions, and disregard any counterarguments, then leave in a huff.

gf> What proposition are we arguing?

  That the (US) "genocide" of the American Indian was more evil than the Nazi
  genocide of Jews. Apparently, if one disagrees with this proposition, one
  is defending all the acts committed against the Indians, and is on the same
  kind of level as those who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. At least,
  that's what Karen told me I was doing and that's the kind of person I am.

  She didn't get the yes-men she wanted, so she left. No great loss.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Personal attacks
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:00:53 GMT

      Mr Gary Strand--

      It seems as though you have seen fit to personalize many of my comments,
to the point of taking offense, and even referred directly to me, causing 
offense.  Thus, I have no problem directing this statement to you on the 
newsgroup.  You opened yourself up for it.
      For something to be genocide at a point in time does not require
the descendants of the <genociders> to maintain the same ideas.  I still
claim that the death (fairly systematic--only took about 150 years) of the 
American Indian was genocide.  I also claim that to deny it as genocide on the
basis of comparison to the Holocaust is racist and ethnocentrist.  I did not
compare the death of the American Indian to the Holocaust--others did.  Those
words were put in my mouth by YOU and others LIKE YOU.  As for who "you"
means, it now (if I must define it) means Gary Strand and those others who
have compared the genocide of the Indian with the Genocide of the Jew and
found it to be less evil.  If you (meaning the reader) do not fit this category,
then you are exempt from the previously stated "you". 
      Now, since you brought up nettiquete, I'll inform you (Gary Strand) of the
same.  If you (meaning anyone) wish to make personal statements to a specific
individual, then use e-mail, until such time as that person makes personal 
attacks/remarks on the net to you.  In that case, returned remarks should be
used only to defend your own words, and cite the original authors of the
words that were placed in your own mouth (so to speak).
      Having defended my own view, and attributed those views which were
attributed incorrectly to me to those who did voice them, I now close.

Karen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: World Model United Nations Conference in Prague
From: chao6@husc11.harvard.edu (James Chao)
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:36:05 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

To all those interested in international relations, politics, and the
United Nations -- WorldMUN is a great forum for the discussion of 
current issues being debated by the United Nations today: 

Harvard World Model United Nations (WorldMUN) is an international
conference that brings together university students and young
professionals from around the globe to siimulate the workings of the
United Nations.  The second annual WorldMUN conference will be held from
March 28, 1993, through March 31, 1993, at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
Czechoslovakia.  

Ten committees, representing the General Assembly, Economic and Social
Council, and Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, will discuss
issues from the actual UN agenda.  In addition to the formal debate of
resolutions, committee sessions will be augmented by presentations from
politicians, businessmen, scholars, and activists who have helped shape
the dramatic world events of recent years.

In this era of momentous political change, WorldMUN seeks to assess the
role of the United Nations in a new world order.  WorldMUN marks the first
truly international simulated United Nations where participants play the
roles of their own nation's ambassadors.  WorldMUN strives to teach
tomorrow's leaders about the United Nations and its methods of conflict
resolution.  It aims to foster skills in negotiation and debate, in order
that delegates may formulate resolutions on topics currently discussed in
the real United Nations.  These resolutions will be sent to the actual
United Nations committees.

WorldMUN 1993 will take place at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
Czechoslovakia.  The Hotel Diplomat is Prague's most modern conference
center.  Prague is both one of the most beautiful metropoles of Europe and
an ideal location for debating current world politics and the changing
role of the United Nations.

The Hotel diplomat is a luxury resort that offers restaurants, shops, a
night club, and fitness and spa equipment.  Delegates will stay at the
Hotel Diplomat for the reduced rate of 130DM/day double occupancy, which
includes two meals a day.

Delegate registration is $US60 per delegate.  For more information, please
reply to this e-mail address or write/fax:
Joshua A. Salomon, Secretary-General
Harvard World Model United Nations 1993
Suite 23, 1430 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-3810
UNITED STATES

Telephone:  001-617-493-6995
Fax:  001-617-493-6995

James Chao
chao6@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:52:03 GMT

k > Karen (branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu)

k > The original point of this thread was to argue that the death of the Amer-
    ican Indian at the hands of generations of settlers WAS GENOCIDE, and that
    as such it was equally as abhorrent as the Jewish Genocide at the hands of
    the Nazis.

  You didn't argue anything, you simply repeated this assertion several times.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: One year of YELTSINOMICS!
Date: 10 Jan 1993 17:41:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In TALK.POLITICS.SOVIET, goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) says:

>>Exactly one year ago, January 2. 1992 the prices in Russia were if
>>not set totally free, at least raised three- fivefold.
>
>    Make it twentyfold.
>>
>>It was the start of Yeltsinomics (or Gairadonomics).
>>Why did it not succeed?
>>Or did it succeed, anyhow?
>
>    Yeltsinomics has been enormously successfull: the ruling elite 
>    (the Party, Army, KGB) has managed to stay in power and "privatize"
>    (read: assume "legal" ownership of) a significant portion of the 
>    Russia's economy.
>
>    Meanwhile, the Russia's sheep, who takes great pride of being
>    the most enduring sheep in the world, has remained calm
>    while beeng fed near-worthless mix of rubles and vouchers.
>
>>Or did some instances (like the central Bank of Russia) sabotage the
>>whole reform program?
>
>    Russia's mafia structures are constantly squabbling over who gets
>    to "privatize" what. To a casual observer, that may look like a 
>    struggle between the "reformers" and the "hard-liners", but it
>    is not.
>
>    Consequently, the Russia's "economic reform" will go on regardless 
>    of who is in power in Moscow.

-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:42:03 GMT

this argument is now made moot by Karen's (rather classy, IMO) admission
made earlier, but just for the record...

In article <C0rw3t.KAz@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.235117.19014@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>| In article <C0rEvK.9uE@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >Gordon Fitch:
>| >Well, then -- what you all need is an agreed-upon way of 
>| >evaluating genocides.
>| 
>| ummm.. is there some point you're trying to make here?
>| or was it just a joke? i mean, your comment is obvious from the
>| discussion, no?
>
>It's not obvious to me that you have even discussed
>genocide-evaluation.

i think we have.
most of the posts refered to whether there were "shades of
grey", what genocide meant, whether intent was relevant to
judging genocide, etc.

>Instead, you've leapt immediately
>to a comparison of the Holocaust and the extermination
>of the American Indians without stating on what standards
>you propose to judge these two procedures.  And then
>there's the matter of relations between the standards --
>for instance, the Nazis probably killed more people than
>the Americans, but the Americans extinguished more whole
>nations.  

no. this was secondary...

>Once you settle these matters you can give each genocide
>a rating and thereby rank them.

this was the original point of contention: *can* genocides
be ranked? that was what Karen had a problem with.
i can re-send you the original post if you like.

--
charles
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 21:30:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <C0qnMK.L0p@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>  
branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
> 
>       The original point of this thread was to argue that the death  
of the
> American Indian at the hands of generations of settlers WAS  
GENOCIDE, and that
> as such it was equally as abhorrent as the Jewish Genocide at the  
hands of the
> Nazi's.
> 
I don't know. Seems to me your argument comes of more like the
following simpler analogy:

Person A:   Boy, there was a really nasty  murder in New
            York a few weeks back. Three people were killed
            in a bank robbery.

Person B:   But the one in Chicago last week was even worse.
            Seven people were brutally murdered and maybe tortured
            by some maniac.

Person A:   How can you say that was worse? Both were bad. Are
            you some kind of apologist for the New York murderer?

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:35:07 GMT


Genocide:  The systematic killing of a whole people or nation.

The American Indian is dead.  There are none.  There are reservations, where
decendents of the American Indian live, but Anglo-Americans (with a little help
from their Portuguese and Spanish predecessors) have killed the American
Indian.  That more people can now claim to possess American Indian blood than
at any other time in history is irrelevant.  I possess 1/4 Italian blood, but I
am no more Italian than I am Polish (of which I possess no ancestral ties).

When a culture is destroyed, that is genocide.  The systematic destruction of
the freedoms and practices of the American Indians is/was genocide.  I am not
attempting to lessen the meaning of the term as it regards the Holocaust.  But
I find it abhorrent that people are able to claim the American Indian killings
was not genocide.  Better dead than red did not originate with the cold war,
it was revived.  Better dead than red, and the only good injun is a dead injun
was the rule, not the exception, in early white America.

Lastly, I never claimed to equate Christianity with organized religion.  As did
Christ, I abhor organized religion as a perversion.

Karen

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Genocide and degrees of morality?
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:38:17 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <C0LvAq.1tE@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk  
(Chris Holt) writes:
> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
> >the war with the Indians was unjustified looking back on the  
overall
> >history of the conquest. at the time, all he probably saw was a  
threat.
> >remember, the war had started scores of years before. even though
> >the Europeans had started it, should they have let themselves be
> >killed by the Indians? of course not.
> 
> They didn't have to have a policy of killing.
> 
> >what they *should* have done was to make peace with the Indians,
> >giving them their rights, and setting aside *substantial* amounts
> >of land that they would not colonize. they did not do this.
> 
> They *did* do this.  Then they broke their treaties and started
> killing and taking land once more.  Look at the treaty with the
> Sioux, and what happened when gold was found in the Black Hills.

The biggest problem was often trying to convince the Federal
government to enforce the laws. Much of the treaty breaking
wasn't by the government per se. After gold and silver were
discovered, many individuals broke the treaties (and often
murdered Indians). But the Feds often ignored this. (In fact,
they ignored much of what was going on on the frontier for
many years.)

> >instead
> >they let themselves war with the Indians over territory. that  
still
> >is not the same thing as systematically rounding up Indians and
> >torturing and killing them.
> 
> Unfortunately they did that as well.  Not a pleasant part of
> history, especially because so much of it was politically  
motivated.
> 

Unfortunately, BOTH sides did this in the wars between the
Europeans and the Indians in the 1800s and 1900s.

What seemed to happen, unfortunately, was that each side, to
some degree, dehumanized the other.  If one small group of
Indians masacred a white settlement, the US Army or the
settlers didn't make a distinction: they just then went out
and killed Indians, even if the Indians were in no way related
to those who committed the atrocity, even if the Indians were 
a tribe that had been living peacefully with the settlers for
decades.  And the reverse would also happen.  If a group of
whites masacred some Indians, at times even peaceful settlements
were wiped out in exchange.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5615 talk.politics.misc:66974