[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Sat Mar 30 09:53:37 UTC 2002


On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> I agree with you.  The music industry is about to undergo a huge
> metamorphis and the capitalist controling it are doing anything they
> can to shove the sqare peg back into the round hole that has made them
> rich.  They are too late.

That metamorphosis is EXACTLY what Marx describes in Capital.

He claimed that as technology improved, the same would happen to all
industries.

> Loss of personal freedom is the big fear I have.  Airport security is
> a joke.  I don't think we will really see any changes that are long
> term.  If we do, I will be the first to fight against it.  Remember
> what I said about the 2nd amendment?

Well, you should be locked, loaded, and holding down the National Gaurd at
the airport, then.

They've already changed FAA regulations so that federal agents are the
ones handling airport security.  There is no reason to believe this is a
temporary state of affairs.  Certainly the airlines have no interest in
taking up that extra expense again.

> >> Then why did the public schools I went to teach me these things (or
> >> try to anyway)?
> >
> >Because they're public schools.
> 
> I was countering your point about the capitalists not wanting to
> educate us.

And I was countering your counter by showing that it isn't capitalists
doing the educating, it's a public agency.

> >No, those were wars against non-capitalists.  I enumerated three kinds
> >of wars that capitalists like (i.e. that are good for capitalism and
> >capitalists that don't actually have to fight).  Weak, third-world
> >nations are just one of the several groups that a capitalist can engage in
> >war without significantly impacting trade.
> 
> One would think that the fasist governments setup in Germany and Italy
> were the ultimate for the immoral capitalist you have described.  
> Free slave labor.  Taking assets from ememies and giving them you
> companies.  Make for a very stong ecomony.

Absolutely.  Fascism is the ultimate goal of capitalists, whether they
know it or not.  It means for happy workers, working hard without regard
for themselves.

> >It's also arguably true that the U.S. didn't enter WWII in the European
> >theater until it started hurting trade and the ideological reasons were
> >not relevant to those in power.  It is also arguable that Roosevelt was
> >at least forewarned, if not complicit, in the attack on Pearl Harbor in
> >order to galvanize the american people for war and permanently set aside
> >the Neutrality Act.
> 
> One could argue it, but one would be wrong.  We could have said screw the 
> Brittish and started trade with the Nazies.  Would have been very
> profitable.  
> The United States instead decided to remove the evil at great cost.

Whoa.  Go back and look at this situation again from the perspective of
history.  We have more information now than we had even fifteen years ago
on this subject.

The New York Times first reported that the Nazis were sending the Jews to
labor camps to die (and there was no ambiguity in the reporting) in
1938... and it was in the International section... page 8 of the
International section.  Nobody gave a shit.  There was as much
anti-Semitism in the ruling class in the United States at that time as
there was in Germany or France.

And the U.S. didn't even TRY to stop American corporations from trading
with the Nazis until well after the war began.  (See IBM, Chrysler, GM)

The U.S. then started shipping arms to anyone who would buy in Europe in
order to make a few bucks.  This was in violation of international law.  
The fascists were too nationalist and protectionist to get in on the deal,
but offers were made.  But Hitler was furious that his victory in Europe
could be threatened by outside resources.  (Hitler's tactics for total war
included an estimation of his enemy's resources.)  The Germans started
sinking merchant ships carrying goods to belligerents in Europe.  The
U.S. then suspended the Neutrality Act in order to send military ships
along with the merchants to protect profits for U.S. corporations.

In general, people really didn't think the U.S. should be involved in
foreign war.

Admiral Richmond wrote a report on the status of war in asia that included
the following:
"It is generally believed that shutting off the American supply of
petroleum will lead promptly to the invasion of Netherland East
Indies...it seems certain she would also include military action against
the Philippine Islands, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific
war."
<URL: ftp://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/Liberal-Arts/History/pha/pearl.harbor/misc/turner_1.txt >

Three days later, FDR cut off the oil.

Other documents show that FDR had previously planned to lose five or six
cruisers and two carriers in Manilla Bay in order to get the U.S. into war
in Japan.

I could go on.  That's really another topic.  But the point is simply that
there was more business interest than concern for our brothers and sisters
overseas.  Hell, FDR knew damned well what Stalin was doing, but allied
with the Russians because they weren't threatening U.S. business interests
(since Russia hadn't been a viable trade partner in almost fifty years).

> >Who are those crazy fanatics?  Is it The Taliban?  Then why didn't the
> >U.S. declare war on The Taliban?  Is it Al Queda?  Then why didn't the
> >U.S. declare war on Al Queda?  Is it Islam?  What?
> >
> >The answer to the first question is, of course, "whoever we want them to
> >be."
> 
> Congress should have declared war on Afghanistan formally, but they
> are too gutless.  You can't declare war on Al Queda; they aren't a
> country.  Can't declare war on a religion.

But we CAN declare ware on "terror"?  My point is that the chosen "enemy"
was as non-specific as possible.  You don't know if you're the enemy until
they crash through your door (or, in our case, run you down with horses).

> >> (I have a BS in Mathematics, BTW)
> >
> >Well, you're at least eight credits ahead of me, then.
> 
> I wasn't playing tit for tat; I thought you might that interesting.

I find complete sentences interesting. :)

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list