HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: x551_003@ccvax.ucd.ie
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Workers defend their interests
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:58:25 GMT
Organization: University College Dublin

 
> This is already been tried in the Soviet Union, and what was the result?
> EVERYONE was poor except for the few in power.  Personal initiative was met
> with contempt (when work initiatives were introduced in a Siberian mining
> company to improve efficiency and productivity, one particularly
> enthusiastic miner was murdered by his less productive co-workers because
> he made them look bad).  There will always be people willing to work harder 
> to improve their own lot in life.  Why should those people be penalized?
> Why should these people be stripped of the fruits of their labour simply
> because poverty exists.  Poverty will always exist, in one manner or
> another.  History has borne out that while capitalism isn't perfect, it's
> the most equitable economic system.

Throughout the history of the Soviet Economy is was common practise for workers
to intimadate, beat up or even murder other workers who sought to set new norms
for production at the behest of the party. The reason for this was simple,
there was no other method for workers to protect their common interests against
the bosses (In this case party bureaucrats).  The Soviet governement had very
little control of the economy, or little idea abotu what was a 'good' factory
or a 'bad' one.  One of the methods they used to drive up production was by
getting individual workers to set new norms and then forcing other workers to
meet these norms.  The penalties for failure to meet these new norms were
commonly severe.

In order to prevent these spead-ups workers had to prevent new norms being set,
mostly by sabotaging equipment to cause delays.  The miner who exceeded his
quota did not just "make them look bad" he could well result in their jailing,
reduction of wages, imprisonment etc.  the role of anarchists in such a
situation would be to aid in organising action to prevent such individuals
betraying their fellow workers and to extend such opposition to the state
itself.

Andrew

e_mail ANFLOOD@irlean.ucd.ie
Post	Andrew, PO Box 1528, Ireland

My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of my employer
Xref: sparky alt.politics.reform:54 alt.politics.usa.misc:531 alt.activism:18363
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: CLINTON: We won and you were stupendous!
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:52:33 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1d9u7lINN9lf@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:
>
>Volunteers,
>
>Thank you for all your help, work and support these past 90 days.
>
>We have for ever changed the way campaigns are run.  We showed that BOTH
>the filters and interpretations of the media AND the organizational
>hierarchies of a campaign can be removed from the delivery of information
>to the citizens and voters.
>
	...and your information was unfiltered and unbiased. NOT!

>
>Regards,
>Jock Gill
>Clinton/Gore Campaign
>Little Rock, AR
>
>[Note: This channel will be closed for a short vacation and relocation.
>The intention is to hold this interruption to as short an interval
>as possible.  Thanks for your patient understanding - J.]]
>

	Does this mean the mass propaganda will stop?

William Everett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism
From: barber@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: We won and you were stupendous!
Organization: MCNC Center for Communications -- CONCERT Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.075233.21816@muddcs.claremont.edu> weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>In article <1d9u7lINN9lf@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:
>>
>>Volunteers,
>>
>>Thank you for all your help, work and support these past 90 days.
>>
>>We have for ever changed the way campaigns are run.  We showed that BOTH
>>the filters and interpretations of the media AND the organizational
>>hierarchies of a campaign can be removed from the delivery of information
>>to the citizens and voters.
>>
>	...and your information was unfiltered and unbiased. NOT!

Well, I'm not sure how the organizational hierarchy of the campaign
affected the information I read on the net, but there was certainly
no filtering by the media.  As to bias, I would certainly expect the
Democratic campaign to be biased toward the Democratic point of
view.  It is the media's charge to provide dispassionate information, 
not the campaign's.

>	Does this mean the mass propaganda will stop?

>William Everett

We are not in a situation in which we can not evaluate the
statements and positions of candidate Clinton, nor of the President-
elect.  I, for one, was grateful for the opportunity to read WHAT 
CLINTON SAID on policy issues, civil rights, etc.  It is my
responsibility to filter out what I think makes sense and what
doesn't.  I believe it is valuable to get this information as directly 
as possible from Clinton/Gore and their advisors, campaign consultants,
whoever.

It is also valuable to read and pay attention to the interpretations
of journalists, historians, political scientists, etc. who spend
more time than I identifying connections that I might not make
myself.

If we were in a situation in which ONLY the media or ONLY the
campaigns were providing the information, then we would be at the
mercy of propaganda.  With electronic communications, though, we
have the opportunity to communicate directly, making state-run or
corporate-controlled propaganda machines more vulnerable to our
critiques.

I applaud all those who provided position papers, speeches of ALL
the candidates, debates, etc. available on-line.  I'm sure this will
be a mainstay of future political seasons, and it seems to me a
good card in support of democracy.

Scott

Scott Barber	  "I voted for the crazy, bozo, ozone men."
barber@jazz.concert.net		"What is the freedom of the most
MCNC, RTP, NC, BVD 	 	 free?  To act rightly!" --Goethe
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se (Ulf Berggren)
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:16:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct31.200607.3023@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Ulf Berggren (ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se) writes:
>>I asked him:
>>>>There seems to be a connection between these <Western> values, economic
>>>>strength and less violence.
>>>
>>>What do you believe is the cause? The set of values or the economic
>>>strength?
>>
>>Probably both.
>
>Ulf's answer makes me realize that my question was malformed, so
>I'll ask him again. We have three things: a set of values, economic
>strength and less violence. Which are the causes, and which are the
>consequences of these three?

It seems that the set of values has led to economic strength and together 
they have led to less violence.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se (Ulf Berggren)
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:26:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.223541.20795@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:

>>In Grenada the initiatal aggression was not the US invasion, but the removal
>>of the democratically elected from power. The invasion of Grenada and restor-
>>ing the democatic leadership was almost a duty, that US was forced to do.
>
>Now my friend, watch you keyboard very very closely. If that was
>a duty of the US, why didn't they intervene in Chile 1973? In
>Greece 1967? In Turkey 1980? In many other countries where demo-
>cratic governments were overthrown? (The line is even more funny
>as there had been no democraticallly elected government in Grenada
>for quite a while.)

The democracy in Grenada disappeared 1979 to9o be exact.
Actually Grenada is an interesting example. It is one of the cases
lately where United States intervene "to save American lives".
I don't think they would do that to a democracy. But there are
US citizens criticizing this policy that think that this could
happen to.
The US democracy is different from most other democracies. Maybe
there is a difference that could make them intervene in another
democracy. I don't think so, but I'm not sure.
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:28:27 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Peter Lund (etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se) writes:
>Panama under Noriega wasn't any state. It was a hide out for criminals.

Panama was all the time a state. I cannot recall any official
statements in other direction. They were not kicked out of the
UN, did not face a major withdrawal of recognitions etc etc.
Thus, Panama under Noriega was a state, how much you hate it.

>The same goes for Libya. The former Soviet Union was the only country,
>that complained seriously about the bombing of Kadaffi and his gang
>members. The Soviet Union under the communist system was practically a
>state ruled by a maffia.

You memory fails you. There was one NATO country, I believe it was 
Spain, which did not permit the US to use it air-force bases for
the terror attack. And terror attack was precisely the right word.
A simple primitive act of retribution, much the like when little
Charlie hits Sam in the playground because he believes Sam took
his toys, but in fact it was Richie.

>Just because US some times fails to do its duty, doesn't mean US and the
>rest of the democratic world don't have such a duty.

But maybe the fact that the US didn't interfere gives a hint that
they don't give a fuck in such a duty, but there are other interests
lurking.

>I would like to see, the democratic states forming an global alliance.
>Then that alliance could play the role of the world's policeman and not
>just the US, which some times fails to fill that role.

A police force to intervene against each dictator? What do you
mean? Do you call for war in the name of democracy?
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:18:17 GMT
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden

In article Lw@sci.kun.nl, hugh@cs.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne) writes:

>OK.  I now accept that you have given a definition of the class of
>Peterlundic countries that does not involve "Peterlundic countries do
>not go to war with one another".
>
>I also accept that a consequence of your definition is that there has
>never been a war between two Peterlundic countries.  This does not
>however mean that a war between Peterlundic countries is impossible.
>
>The only reason I can be so sure that there has never been a war between
>Peterlundic countries is that the class of such countries is, and always
>has been empty.
>--
>Hugh Osborne                              Dept. of Informatics
>                                          University of Nijmegen
>                                          The Netherlands
>                                          +31-(0)80-65.25.99

You have all along asked me to define the class: class A democracy, and 
prove that there are some instances of this class.

I have earlier defined the class and given you a set of countries that I 
consider are members of this class. I have earlier said:

	"The set is, in my opinion: the EC countries (maybe minus Greece), 
	the nordic countries, Austria, Switzerland, USA (some minor devia-
	tions), Canada, New Zeeland, Australia and maybe some more that I 
	can't think of right now."

Now you are saying that the set is empty. Therefore, I ask you to specify 
what class definitions for instance the Netherlands don't fulfill. That 
ought to be a country you know properly enough to do so. Maybe you also 
can find good arguments to show why some other countries don't fulfill my 
definition.

Peter Lund,     mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu (David Weisberger)
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Organization: large
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:17:51 GMT

Erland Sommarskog (sommar@enea.se) wrote:
: Peter Lund (etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se) writes:
: >Panama under Noriega wasn't any state. It was a hide out for criminals.
: 
: Panama was all the time a state. I cannot recall any official
: statements in other direction. They were not kicked out of the
: UN, did not face a major withdrawal of recognitions etc etc.
: 
Despite the weak grounds cited by the U.S. government, the invasion of
Panama violated several international agreements.  You might say it was
illegal.  Essentially we invaded a sovereign nation in order to arrest
its head of state.

: >The same goes for Libya. The former Soviet Union was the only country,
: >that complained seriously about the bombing of Kadaffi and his gang
: >members. The Soviet Union under the communist system was practically a
: >state ruled by a maffia.
: 
: You memory fails you. There was one NATO country, I believe it was 
: Spain, which did not permit the US to use it air-force bases for
: the terror attack. And terror attack was precisely the right word.

France!  France denied U.S. planes permission to even enter French airspace.
Of course, that decision came from a country with one of the wobbliest
spines in the face of terrorism.

: A simple primitive act of retribution, much the like when little
: Charlie hits Sam in the playground because he believes Sam took
: his toys, but in fact it was Richie.
: 
In this case, there is substantial evidence that it really was Sam.


--
-Davebo                         "A Freudian slip is when you say one thing
                                 when you're really thinking about a mother."
 djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu               -Cliff the Postman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: cgladwish@trentu.ca (Colin Gladwish)
Subject: Health Care Info!!!!!HELP!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Trent University Computer Services Department
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:37:00 GMT

	I am working on my Honours Economics Thesis at Trent University in 
Ontario, Canada.  Our library is sadly lacking in information on the 
proposed changes that Bill Clinton has put forth to revise the American 
Health Insurance system.

	Could someone please post the address, ( or e-mail it to me), where 
I could write the democratic party to get some info??

	I am also looking for stuff on the proposed rationing of care in 
Oregon.  There have been proposals put forth to limit the amount of care 
which is covered by HMO to those services which are on absolutley 
necessary.

	Thanking everyone in advance for their help!!!

	Colin Gladwish
	cgladwish@trentu.ca 
From: mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Mortensen)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:29:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Congradulations to Clinton
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections

In alt.politics.elections, dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

> Well, we got rid of George Bush.  Now we just need to work on Clinton
> so that he impliments a progressive agenda, restores a progressive tax
> system, and slashes the military.
> 
> The focus must be on rebuilding a country that started decaying by
> spending too much on weaponry and on aiding the rich, with no
> consideration of those of us who must work for a living.

	HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!  DIE YOU LIBERAL SCUM!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> -- 
> doug foxvog     
> dfo@tko.vtt.fi
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: No New Taxes?
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:34:45 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Before the election, it was "no new taxes ever".  Two days later, he
has imposed import tariffs on, among other things, imported wine. 

This is not a tax on foreigners.  It is a tax on US.  The price of a
bottle of French wine will go from $20 to around $45 per bottle.  We
will pay $45 if we want French wine.  The money will go to the US
treasury, not the French.  Sounds like a tax to me.

I know, the goal is to get people to buy more American wine.  The net
effect is a tax on Americans who want to buy French wine, and an
immediate foreign affairs problem (Take _that_ Bill.  Teach _you_
to win!).

--f2

-----------------------------
  Lobotomies for Republicans.
  It's the _law_.
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Homework assignment (was Re: Clinton denies ...)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 08:31:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


  I have been pretty rabid in my posts during the last week due to the
EXTREME disappointment I suffered regarding my faith that the American 
electorate would make an intelligent selection.  At least it's produced
some lively discussion in a group which might soon be defunct.  Hopefully
we can keep alt.politics.elections alive till 1996.  Now the reason for this
post - an investigation in which all readers on the net can get involved.

  In my "Clinton denies being in the loop" post, I wrote about Senator Dole's
accusation that Independent Counsel Walsh and the Clinton/Gore Campaign were
in league with each other based on the C/G press release dated 10/29/92 which
spoke of the new Weinberger indictment which was not to occur until 10/30/92.
This press release was also put out on the net (with the same 10/29/92 
release date).  Our news server put a timestamp on the article which came 
out to be 5:52 PM on 10/30/92.  Another person e-mailed me the timestamp on
the posting at their site, which was 10:37 PM (CST) on 10/30/92.  Could
all those interested please check their servers and see if the original 
Clinton/Gore post has an earlier timestamp than the leading candidate of
17:52 EST (that's 5:52 {:^) ) on 10/30/92?  Also, if anyone knows the exact
time of Walsh's press conference on 10/30/92, please post it.  If everyone
checks their site we can compare the timestamp of the earliest known post
with the time of the press conference.  Better hurry before your server
purges the old posts!

  Oh, by the way, if all of a sudden the original C/G post gets cancelled
by the original author, that would in effect be taken as an attempt to hide
the truth.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1457 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl)
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 14:25:43 GMT
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

   In article <1992Nov8.195727.1@vxcrna.cern.ch> poser@vxdsyc.desy.de writes:
   >ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) indulges in yet another
   >tale of woe, this one so ludicrous and smarmy, however, that a response
   >is somewhat in order:
   >
   >>                       President-elect Bill Clinton's mistress, Gennifer
   >> Flowers, posing nude in this month's Penthouse.  We have gone from the
   >> envy of the world to the butt of it's jokes.
   >
   >Let me put it this way: From the European press that I followed all
   >during campaign and election, the only reason for considering the US a
   >laughing stock was the utterly loudicrous and puerile focus on a
   >perfectly ridiculous and picayune side issue such as the Flowers
   >thingee. It was Bush who lost credibility over here over that thing,
   >rather than Clinton. The whole silly foofooraw was chalked up to the
   >innate Anglosaxon inability to deal with the all to human aspects of
   >life with more than adolescent pruriency.

From my European/Australian/South American friends, both liberal AND
conservative, this is EXACTLY what they thought.

All of them thought that the most ridiculous part of the whole presidential
campaign was the fact that the US is so damned uptight about, and makes
such issues about, affairs, what some guy protested when he was 19 years
old, and whether or not he smoked pot during college.

Needless to say, I simply agreed with them and say that some day we may
catch up and consider such things a bit lower on the priority scale...

Get to know some people from other parts of the world, Mulac, to find out
why the U.S. is REALLY the butt of their jokes.

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Kathryn Scholl  -- Above text reflects opinions of the author, not VMark --
 Vmark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA  01701, USA
 Internet: uvmark!scholl@merk.com, UUCP: uunet!merk.com!uvmark!scholl
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22712 alt.politics.marrou:2109 talk.politics.misc:58297 alt.politics.clinton:15894
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:38:44 GMT
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

>	In my opinion, people voted against George Bush and not for
>Clinton.  This assertion is supported by the endless negative press in
>the last few months.  Why did people vote against Bush?  Because he
>abandoned his conservative platform that got him elected.  People
>wanted Reagan II and didn't get it.  To add to this, Clinton had to
>come off as a moderate to get people to vote for him; did you notice
>how all the big name liberals disappeared the last few months?
>Finally, all the city and state tax increases on the ballots all
>around the country were defeated.  The American people want less
>taxes, less government, and prefer a moderate to conservative
>ideology.

I think you missed one of the things that a lot of former Bush people
as well as never Bush people have been commenting as a reason for voting
against Bush.  Many people were turned off by the Church-state
and legislated morality impressions given by the Pats {Robertson,Buchanan}.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
In-reply-to: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu's message of 4 Nov 92 04:29:50 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<YOUNG.92Nov3132637@ssdd475a.erim.org>
	<1992Nov3.192648.20381@sequent.com>
	<1992Nov4.042950.2105@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:14:45

In article <1992Nov4.042950.2105@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

   In article <1992Nov3.192648.20381@sequent.com> jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Say Noe" Kramer) writes:

>   >
>   >Seems to me that if Bush was locked up four years ago a lot people might
>   >be alive today who aren't.

>   Name one, asshole!

>   Ted

 Gee, Ted, I can't think of any names, but there's a bunch of cinders
removed from the bunker in Iraq.  They _might_ still be alive had we
had someone more willing to ponder his actions rather than knee jerk
into a fight.

If you remove the comma from your exhortation, I might respond, "Ted
Kreuger".
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org