tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post6502601092023229314..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Interview with E. Aznar: Basque was spoken in La Rioja before the Romans arrivedMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-33237032131429604722012-09-09T15:00:38.749+02:002012-09-09T15:00:38.749+02:00Octaviá: you know well you are NOT ALLOWED here, g...Octaviá: you know well you are NOT ALLOWED here, go troll somewhere elseMajuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-72024949399865489452012-09-09T14:07:08.715+02:002012-09-09T14:07:08.715+02:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-33387806742754315232010-11-25T01:24:31.246+01:002010-11-25T01:24:31.246+01:00Not any different discussion in fact because it go...Not any different discussion in fact because it goes to core issue of your developist faith, which is clearly utopic and already a big problem in itself. You said, for instance, that you are concerned about people being forced to emigrate but this is largely a product of your dark dreams of globalism, developism and every day more and more: global warming. <br /><br />I don't see anyhow how the various opinions gathered in the The Guardian article are in essential contradiction with what the paper I suggested says: both discuss the crucial problem of unsustainability of "growth" (predation of nature) from different and complementary perspectives. Ecologist in Action are anyhow a very respectable NGO, and given that ecology is not studied in the faculties of economics anywhere, yielding the discipline nearly useless, I'd rather listen to a learned ecologist than to the usual ignorant scholastic economist. <br /><br />Well, more than enough for this offtopic discussion.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-40152262177392064232010-11-25T00:30:35.862+01:002010-11-25T00:30:35.862+01:00"I am dropping the discussion".
Yes more..."I am dropping the discussion".<br />Yes moreover this is a different discussion. <br /> <br />The document you suggest is biased. The author is a member of Ecologistas in Acción, and environmental activist NGO. Its main thesis is energetic collapse.<br /><br />Just to equilibrate, read this one:<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/03/scientists-answer-energy-questions<br /><br />If i may i´ll give you one advise: never construct your life based on catastrophism. Catastrophes might happen, but what if they don´t ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-80996509452721600152010-11-23T19:58:36.096+01:002010-11-23T19:58:36.096+01:00I am dropping the discussion, as said before. But ...I am dropping the discussion, as said before. But I think you may want to read <a href="http://www.rebelion.org/docs/116188.pdf" rel="nofollow">this paper</a> (in Spanish), which should help shatter your mislead dreams of a techno-paradise in any near future.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-45410776047641441702010-11-22T20:03:30.309+01:002010-11-22T20:03:30.309+01:001. ""Atlas Histórico Mundial" (two ...1. ""Atlas Histórico Mundial" (two volumes) used to be a German book. A nice one indeed.". <br /><br />I have that one too and i agree it is a good one. The one i suggest is much better, at least on the maps side. Buy it if you have chance, it´s not expensive i think.<br /><br />2. "Anyhow, I think we should just drop this side discussion. It's not really central to the topic and we won't convince each other in any case". <br /><br />I agree. Just two points. First i do not think that the problems of thousands of peoples that want to migrate from poverty are problems of the bourgeoisie. Second,i won´t discuss the examples of lack of democracy you point to (though i clearly disagree). Even if they were truth, some extreme cases of bad realizations of the principle does not deny it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-86983110460327419552010-11-22T18:36:47.572+01:002010-11-22T18:36:47.572+01:00Anyhow, I think we should just drop this side disc...Anyhow, I think we should just drop this side discussion. It's not really central to the topic and we won't convince each other in any case.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-46537414537513009062010-11-22T18:07:23.208+01:002010-11-22T18:07:23.208+01:00"Finally how do you know i don´t speak basque..."Finally how do you know i don´t speak basque ?"<br /><br />I do not know but I'd say you are from Spain by the way you think. Those ideas you put upfront are nothing but a cover for Spanish imperialism and, nowadays maybe for its replacement: Anglo-Saxon imperialism. However both are moribund. <br /><br />"I knew you would try to skip this “design” question one way or the other".<br /><br />I did not. I'm a pragmatic, an eclectic, and I know that "the best laid schemes of mice and men"... This applies to everything: there are no formulas, even if it's often convenient to have some sort of draft plans, just in case. <br /><br />"only see the obstacles that a pragmatic mind trying to do business in our global world"...<br /><br />Problems of the bourgeoisie. Not my problem. Not most peoples' problem, really. <br /><br />"Who says that ?"<br /><br />I say so. Just look around you: the USA and EU are not just in total economic collapse but they are also morally bankrupt: robbing from workers to pay bankers, driving whole nations scenarios of no hope. It's over: the only problem is to see for how long it rots before a revolution takes over. <br /><br />Because revolutions, as we all know, only throw down rotten houses. <br /><br />"Contemporary societies are equal by principle in the political area"...<br /><br />That's false: here a whole sector of society is banned from voting since some 10 years ago. And this is not the only place: in Spain itself in the last EU elections there was widespread rigging. I can of course mention so many other situations like the USA, where non-system parties are pushed out with all the means of the system, all the southern Mediterranean countries, Israel where Palestinians are dumped in pseudo-autonomous bantustans, Turkey, where Kurds can't vote freely, Russia, Mexico (vote rigging), Colombia (whole genocide of leftists), etc. <br /><br />Where that happens, it's a concession to long working class struggles, not a natural attribute of the system. It's a concession to keep social peace, just like welfare.<br /><br />Anyhow, this system does not apply for the crux of the matter: the economical aspect. And that's what we want to change: one person one vote also in business. Anything else is oligarchism. <br /><br />"Atlas Histórico Mundial" (two volumes) used to be a German book. A nice one indeed. <br /><br />"And now aren´t the new organization in Unit-Blocks trying to surpass this undesirable Nation-State situation ?"<br /><br />Look: I'm more Europeist than you are. But I want a democratic Europe, what means a communist Europe (economic democracy) and a Europe of the Peoples (ethnic democracy). I do not want Europe to be the doom of my nation and I do not want Europe to be a bloodsucking bureaucracy at the service of the banksters (neologism from bank+gangster). I want a genuine democracy where 300-plus million people can work together from their different local realities for the common good and not for the good of some fat vampires.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-10378482669676861602010-11-22T17:38:26.047+01:002010-11-22T17:38:26.047+01:00Language fragmentation follows political fragmenta...Language fragmentation follows political fragmentation, tha tis empires collapses. This is nothing necessary, just an historic contingency. <br /><br />Finally how do you know i don´t speak basque ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-1536739400707687612010-11-22T17:36:56.047+01:002010-11-22T17:36:56.047+01:002. Contemporary societies are equal by principle i...2. Contemporary societies are equal by principle in the political area (one man one vote, no matter if you are the richest or the poorest), but unequal by result. Past societies were unequal by principle. I would dye to assure equality of principle, and once this is guranteed i would kill to assure unequality of result. <br /><br />3. “As for the other issue, it's trivial because economic globalization is already a failure”. Who says that ? It´s just starting. Interesting stuff is free movement of goods/services, capital, peoples (not only for tourism but for working anywhere) and knowledge. The existance of different languages is a barrier for all of this. Not the only barrier of course, but if the dog is dead the rabies disappear. <br /><br />4. I knew you would try to skip this “design” question one way or the other. There is no megalomania; i only see the obstacles that a pragmatic mind trying to do business in our global world finds and since obviously these obstacles are not necessary but only an historical contingence, i do my best (which of course is close to zero in impact) to try to change it. Regarding communism i can not disagree more: as history has shown us, it is clearly correlated with poverty, as to much stress in roots (i.e. nationalism) are in our present society. <br /><br />(to be cont.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-75050905243716570842010-11-22T17:36:10.999+01:002010-11-22T17:36:10.999+01:001.You want facts ? Go to your nearest library and ...1.You want facts ? Go to your nearest library and buy this book: “Atlas Histórico Mundial”, author Julio López-Davalillo. This is the best book i have ever bought about history. When i found it i could noot beleive it: i started to dance a Jota in the library. Not because of the text but because of the maps. It gives you the sense of globality in history, it helps to relate facts of the past every 100 years. Now open it at page 148 were he describes the geopolitical situation of the world of years 1750 to 1780. Now open the same book at page 22 that describes the geopolitical situation at year 2000. Does not the facts i have described followed the path i´ve told ? And now aren´t the new organization in Unit-Blocks trying to surpass this undesirable Nation-State situation ? <br /><br />I´m not denying that tribal ethnicity existed in the past. All these ethnic units you quote existed, but: first, they were located in places where the impact of Roman empire was not that strong (Britain, Aquitaine) or were located out of the Roman Empire (most of the Chalemagne german duchies); second some emerged during the collapse of Roman empire and third none of them lasted long and fourth none of them were societies based on equality principle. You should know this better than me since you are the expert in prehistory. <br />(to be cont.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-45397992961436635852010-11-22T16:34:50.110+01:002010-11-22T16:34:50.110+01:00...
As for the other issue, it's trivial beca......<br /><br />As for the other issue, it's trivial because economic globalization is already a failure. The interesting stuff is not trade but peripheral stuff like the internet or the right to travel in some cases without need of visa/passport. Things that cannot be monetized, really. <br /><br />"if you had the power to design a global society, would you design it with houndreds of different languages ? (i guess your answer will be yes)".<br /><br />It's ridiculous to think anyone can "design" a society but society itself. And societies have their own languages, histories, customs, roots... <br /><br />I realize now that your problem is one of megalomania. You think you can design, forge... but you cannot. As Kropotkin put it of the Bolsheviks in 1917, all they did was riding on a tsunami wave, never able to control it. The same can be said for the Rockefellers and such... all they do is to ride on top of currents and waves that have their own dynamics. If you try to contain them, you can't but be swallowed by them. At best you can canalize some of their force or exploit it but don't even think in ruling the elements (society) as if you were a god. <br /><br />And it's good that people have roots anyhow. It's important: it gives them (us) a sense of belonging that your cold megalomaniac project nor all the compulsive purchasing can replace. When you belong, you care. When you care, you take part, you behave civically, you don't become a parasite so easily. <br /><br />That's why I also advocate communism, because I understand it gives a greater sense of belonging when you can participate in the local and wider political and economic decisions. When you cannot, then you become alienated and fall apart from society becoming anti-social and extremely selfish. Society then degenerates even further. <br /><br />That's what you advocate in fact: Los Zetas, the Cali Cartel and stuff like that. People so uprooted that they can only care about money and power and don't love anything, not even themselves. <br /><br />That can only bring us back to feudalism... but luckily I think that such a degenerate trend has no future. <br /><br />"Exactly as today: nobody talks about the main problem (existence of different conventions in a connected network )"<br /><br />That's not a problem. In fact it helps protecting diversity. <br /><br />"on the contrary some peoples (for instance basques) the problem is not that there are houndreds of languages, the problem is that there are not enough different languages"<br /><br />Actually we'd be happy if you learned Basque. That way you'd become a Basque probably. <br /><br />Personally I'd be glad if all Europeans learned Basque and dropped their exotic IE languages, languages imposed by invasion and slavery. <br /><br />But well, that's surely not realistic because the memory of your pre-IE history has been erased, so better each one stays to their languages and we use a second language like English for communicating beyond our local communities. <br /><br />Anyhow if a single language would be imposed somehow, it'd fragment immediately. It happens all the time. Maybe in the time of the mass media it was possible to conceive that people would listen/watch certain centralized uniformized sources of propaganda. Not anymore. Now it's the time of decentralized networks. Your dream (nightmare) is obsolete.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-71183601369728254692010-11-22T16:34:43.205+01:002010-11-22T16:34:43.205+01:00You are telling me/us YOUR VERSION of history. In ...You are telling me/us YOUR VERSION of history. In fact history is always how we tell ourselves things happened. <br /><br />Maybe what you say is valid for Castile or France but it's not something universal but at best ethnocentric and IMO more ideological than anything else. <br /><br />"pre-contemporary societies were unequal"<br /><br />And modern societies are equal? WTF! There's no equality at all, just a pretense of it. There's discrimination on grounds of earnings primarily but also of ethnicity, language, beliefs and skin color... Please! <br /><br />Still people do not necessarily identify themselves by class or only by it, they identify themselves primarily by ethnicity. And that was much more true in the blatantly non-cosmopolitan past you like to rant about without real knowledge. <br /><br />So when the Franks set up the duchies in Germany or Brittany or Vasconia, do you think these had nothing to do with ethnic identity? Please! Why would the Saxons revolt against Charlemagne if it was all about caste? Why would the Basques do the same? Why would Charlemagne bother setting up clearly tribal duchies instead of mere counties as he did in ethnically amorphous France? Why would he tolerate in some cases an elected non-Frankish Duke? <br /><br />You just repeat once and again what is a doctrine and not any objective analysis of historical facts. Enough!<br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-25579921110517476692010-11-22T14:37:39.172+01:002010-11-22T14:37:39.172+01:00On the other hand you seem to me naif thinking tha...On the other hand you seem to me naif thinking that a system that endured thousands of years was agaisnt people´s will (antiquity, feudalims, ancient régime):everybody realized that it was the unique possible way of organizing agricultural societies (i let you as an excersice to find which was the mechanism that made this kind of society to endure) and only when industrialization came into the scene the situation could change. It is a matter of critical mass. The same is happening now: as soon as the critical mass is reached the change will come. As said we can let it happens in a natural (and possibly catastrophic) way, or by design (and hopefully soft) way. <br /><br />P.s. for every social event, you can always find a foreruner nobody knows about because it did not lead to any consequences...so let´s focus as usual in the las inventors, those whose invention impacted definitively and in a irreversible way the society.<br /><br />About the comments, that´s what i hate, the bloggers system for commenting...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-34112074558817687772010-11-22T14:36:16.172+01:002010-11-22T14:36:16.172+01:00What is the problem today with this status quo ? A...What is the problem today with this status quo ? A quote: <br /><br />“It has been said before that a typical international transaction requires 35 documents across 25 parties complying with more than 600 regulations and more than 500 trade agreements. (SC Digest, June 2008)”. <br /><br />What is the deep cause of this situation, the greatest obstacle for a global union ? The fact that today the world is becoming an unique economic network but we still use houndreds of different systems of conventions (languages) which divide this economic network in different collective identities, in comunication cliques. Anyone who thinks that this situation is desirable has a regressive ideology. Think about it otherwise: if you had the power to design a global society, would you design it with houndreds of different languages ? (i guess your answer will be yes)<br /><br />These past revolution were surprising for most contemporaries, specially for elites which were blind and could not read correctly their times. Exactly as today: nobody talks about the main problem (existence of different conventions in a connected network ); on the contrary some peoples (for instance basques) the problem is not that there are houndreds of languages, the problem is that there are not enough different languages<br /><br />(To be cont.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-40792539957990906172010-11-22T14:35:11.641+01:002010-11-22T14:35:11.641+01:00Who wants (can) to be original regarding stablishe...Who wants (can) to be original regarding stablished facts ?. I´m just telling how things really happened in the past: collective identities are based in equality; pre-contemporary societies were unequal (different status/different law) so identities were corporative, stamental. These corporative collective identities were organized politically in an oligarchic way, not democratic (only proprietors in cities or rural communities, only masters in guilds etc...could vote; most other people were excluded from political decisions at any level) and this situation was happily superseded by several "revolutions" (American Independence, French Revolution etc...). People involved in such revolutions (ideologues, leaders etc... did not realize (that was Napoleon´s mistake, and still people/politicians does not realize as we all can see) that language was the new source of inequality and therefore the new source of collective identity. Mainstream contemporary ideologies (liberalism and communism) does not know how to handle with nationalism. In any case, as a result of these revolutions a world with maybe thousands of political independent units was transformed into a world of houndreds. <br /><br />(to be cont.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-66786670107759206852010-11-22T07:33:23.179+01:002010-11-22T07:33:23.179+01:00"As you say globalization is an irreversible ..."As you say globalization is an irreversible natural economic process that is beeing executed with undesired effects for some weak parts. These weak parts are preciselly nations which stick to their traditions, not well adapted to this process".<br /><br />I do not think Basques are ill-adapted to globalization. At least we are not religious nor authoritarian, which are the main issues being sabotaged by Capitalist globalist corruption. What we are ill-adapted is to being ruled from abroad. We need our own self-rule and we need it now. <br /><br />"Globalism is preciselly the social philosophy adopted by those who anowledge that globalization is irreversible that nationalism"...<br /><br />"Globalism" is not any "social philosophy" (ideology) that matters. Globalization is an objective process caused by objective factors (Capitalism). By turning it into an ideology, you become a romantic. <br /><br />We should treat globalization the same we treat quantum mechanics and not as if it was a god to worship. With quantum mechanics you can achieve a large array of different results, depending on what you want, your stand in this matter is similar to arguing that... because of quantum mechanics, then nuclear desert. <br /><br />Not necessarily. Even if it is a possibility indeed. <br /><br />"Internationalism is a regression".<br /><br />LOL. <br /><br />Actually Internationalism is the antithesis of Globalization, the same that Working Class' struggles are the antithesis of Capitalism. <br /><br />This is no regression: both (which are one and the same) are the only ones giving still some structure to the huge void created by Capitalism. Capitalism cannot build: it just organizes the workers' power at the mere economical level (real economy, not financial, which is virtual and effectively religious). Capitalism does not create social structures nor gives people any incentive to behave ethically (rather the opposite). In the social and ideological planes, Capitalism either recycles ancien regime's ideas (absolutism, religion) or has to do with that stuff workers create as antithesis (democracy, human rights). <br /><br />Capitalism is transitional, not any stable stage. Capitalism is crisis. <br /><br />"Ideally we all like a meritocracy (don´t you ?)"<br /><br />I am a commie, hence I think that "each one according to his/her capabilities, to each one according to his/her needs". This is not meritocracy, which enhances parasitism, but socialism, which enhances cooperation. <br /><br />A you may know, humankind is largely defined by its social cooperation abilities. And if you look at this matter from an anthropological point of view, all primitive (forager) human societies discourage excessive individualism and greed and encourage cooperation and solidarity. That's the difference between morality and immorality, between good and evil, so to say. <br /><br />"The authors you suggest are some of my black beasts"...<br /><br />You should also read Marx, which is the only economist worth that name, at least among the classics. I come from a different tradition (anarchism) but I have to acknowledge Marx nailed it pretty much and it is impressive how theories developed 160 years ago are still totally valid. He was the best analyzing the entrails of Capitalism. His main limitation is probably that he did not realize the destructive aspect of Capitalist predation on Earth (ecology). <br /><br />This aspect was first recognized by an eclectic author: Karl Polanyi, I believe.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-7784737219085406952010-11-22T07:07:52.376+01:002010-11-22T07:07:52.376+01:00"I´m having problems in commenting. I´ve sent..."I´m having problems in commenting. I´ve sent twice the sme comment and both have been lost...Any problem ?"<br /><br />That's the fucking Blogger comments' spam filter. There were seven comments in the spam folder (two of them apparently duplicated), some of which were yours. They should be all published now. Sorry.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-56368116250388049252010-11-22T07:05:20.661+01:002010-11-22T07:05:20.661+01:00You are also wrong in proclaiming that the French ...You are also wrong in proclaiming that the French Revolution established universal vote. It was still a macho thing. <br /><br />The first universal vote was established in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsican_Republic" rel="nofollow">Corsican Republic in 1755</a>, which was a more advanced state than the French one, but was eventually invaded by the French bullies.<br /><br />The first persistent universal vote was implemented in Wyoming in 1869. As far as I can tell, next case was New Zealand in 1893, South Australia in 1894 and then autonomous Finland in 1903. <br /><br />Essentially that was it until the Russian Revolution of 1917, which, as we all should know, began with a feminist protest in March 8th. Suddenly, in few decades it became something generalized, thanks to women-specific and general workers' struggle. <br /><br />I must say that your ideas lack of originality: they tend to repeat the official propaganda (version of history) instead of having original research on them. You should be more actively critical and you should think more on yourself, drinking not from one school but all.<br /><br />"... my relation with language is not romantic but pragmatic"...<br /><br />Well, that's not the relationship most people actually have with their language(s) and their roots, so it may be politically wrong. <br /><br />"So for me the day all the humanity speaks an unique language (that implies the definite death of all these endangered languages you talk about) will be my happiest day in my life, and i expect to see it".<br /><br />I hope this never happens. What a terrible loss of knowledge and even of different approaches to reality! Even the richest language is very poor compared with the set of all human languages. <br /><br />One thing is to have a "Latin" (or "Esperanto" or "English") for inter-communitarian communications and another, a very sad one, is to totally lose the ancestral languages. <br /><br />You undervalue the importance of roots and identity: these make people more centered in life. Your vain dystopia of a totally uprooted humankind would only cause more trouble than it can solve: you'd get the "spiritual desert" my cousin always complains about existing in Valencia, where he lives for professional reasons: "AIDS, talcum powder and techno music". :(Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-59392302751180728452010-11-22T06:38:07.958+01:002010-11-22T06:38:07.958+01:00Just because now and then a discussion goes off to...Just because now and then a discussion goes off topic is no big deal, really. However...<br /><br />"... an asside methodological comment: nothing wrong to be critical in science, but to read what experts has wrote about a giving subject help us to not reinvent a squared wheel!"<br /><br />Here is where you are most wrong. A lot of people with doctrinary ideologies speak as you do: Jesus/Socrates/Mao/Starostin/Zilhao/my favorite pet author said so, so it's that way. <br /><br />That's doctrine, not science. Though it's difficult to determine if there is a possible scientific approach to social sciences beyond the general application of the method, there is no point in repeating what others said without critical thought. That's not science but religion, scholasticism.<br /><br />"Again i think you are confusing oligarchic or very restrictive voting in rural communities with democracy"..<br /><br />It is the basic bourgeois kind of vote: homeowners vote. It's not advanced proletarian democracy (one person=one vote) but it's extremely more advanced than the "one person=one pillory" of feudalism.<br /><br />I recognize no status nor merit to feudalism, real life has nothing to do with "dungeons and dragons". Feudalism was nothing but criminal warlordship, blessed by neoplatonian semi-illiterate monks. <br /><br />It was like Somalia: perpetual pointless war for lands and slaves (serfs). The Metal Ages altogether were ages of darkness when people were oppressed mercilessly. But that's not what people wanted... and sometimes they manged to change things, and they were fought for that reason. That's exactly what the Visigoths were doing in SW Europe: to fight the Basques and some random non-approved warlords (Vandals and such, who we allowed to cross our passes once the Romans were gone). <br /><br />"These kind of voting was more similar to the voting you can find in today´s corporations than in today´s societies".<br /><br />No. Not at all. One household one vote, that was the method. It was still imperfectly democratic but every independent farmer could vote. Much better than feudal law in any case. In corporations it goes by money and money did not matter much in the Middle Ages. <br /><br />Any social system is based on consensus: consensus of raw military terror (feudalism), consensus of brainwashing and doctrinal terror (theocracy) or consensus built by the majority of the people (democracy). Not all historical democracies were up to modern standards (mostly they were not) but still their assemblies and elections served the same purpose: create consensus horizontally rather than vertically by mere systemic violence against the masses. <br /><br />Lacking a powerful military or religious caste, all societies tend to democracy. The anomaly of the European Middle Ages, like some others, was that the military and religious caste were overtly powerful in general. But not everywhere was the same. <br /><br />And as we know, societies that were "underdeveloped" by feudalist standards (for example England), were able to reach modernity faster. That was also the case of Switzerland and that was also the case of the Basque states, Netherlands, etc. It was the weakness of military and religious castes which allowed such progress.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-58849742397696158312010-11-22T00:54:20.324+01:002010-11-22T00:54:20.324+01:00(This is a continuation of the first comment start...(This is a continuation of the first comment starting with "2.Again..."<br /><br />On the other hand i agree that we live in a mixed world: most economies (included USA) are produced approximatively 1/3 by the state, 1/3 by private corporations and 1/3 by third sector organizations. That´s also unavoidable since private companies are only interested in benefit yielding activities and many economic activities does not yield benefits. On the other hand idealy we would like a system where meritocracy is compatible with life, so que gane el mejor...pero que no mate a los demás por ello. <br /><br />4. The authors you suggest are some of my black beasts (i´m a scientist and an entrepreneur !). In any case to show my open mindness i promise i will try to read it (i do not know how soon).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-11325198197320433812010-11-22T00:51:52.516+01:002010-11-22T00:51:52.516+01:00(this is a continuation of the first part)
This c...(this is a continuation of the first part)<br /><br />This corporative, stamental conception of society is what was subverted first by the french revolution (remember Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, to which capitalism has added Efficiency) and after, trough a domino effect that we still can feel today, in the whole world. I say we can still feel today because as you say there are regressions (Hitler´s) or even survival´s as today´s China whose dictatorship will surelly not las long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-30673949624151165642010-11-22T00:51:03.729+01:002010-11-22T00:51:03.729+01:00(This was pretending to be the first part of the c...(This was pretending to be the first part of the comment)<br /><br />Well, that´s supposed to be a blog about the sciences of history and archeology and maybe this discussion is going too far into politics. I love politics, i love political discussion specially if i almost completely disagree with my oponent, as it is the case i think, and maybe this discussion is more suitable to your other blog.... In any case i feel obliged to drop here just a few comments: <br /><br />First, nothing wrong to be critical in science, but to read what experts has wrote about a giving subject help us to not reinvent a squared wheel !<br /><br />1. I was expecting the Swiss case to come in your answer, but not as a a case of pre-modern democracy but as a case of succesfull multilingual society in modern times, as an exception to the modernist theory. In any case none of the examples you cite as equal societies with democracy are representative democracies based on equality as we understand today. Again i think you are confusing oligarchic or very restrictive voting in rural communities with democracy (by the way this kind of voting was not exclusive of the swiss or basques, it was pervasive in many rural communitiesin all europe at this time; again nothing exceptional). Antiquity, feudal and ancient regime societies were stamental not democratic: people living in a same territory had different status and different laws (criminal, civil etc...) applied to them according to their status. These kind of voting was more similar to the voting you can find in today´s corporations than in today´s societies. Not even Athens in its democratic times can be considered as a modern democracy based on equality of all adults living in a given territory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-44983918424460027502010-11-22T00:44:58.520+01:002010-11-22T00:44:58.520+01:002. Again i repeat that my relation with language i...2. Again i repeat that my relation with language is not romantic but pragmatic (as my relation with any other cultural institution): if it makes me wiser, more attractive, richer or more powerfull i use it; if not i drop it. In our today´s world romantic relations with institutions creates poor citizens: you can for instance compare the economic performance of UE with USA or India with China (if China is doing so well beeing a dictatorship is only because they are an unified linguistic market; as soon as they drop dictatorship their economy will rocket. By the way, this is way all western powers are so indulgent with chinese dictatorship: they know it is bad for chinese economy). So for me the day all the humanity speaks an unique language (that implies the definite death of all these endangered languages you talk about) will be my happiest day in my life, and i expect to see it. <br /><br />3. As you say globalization is an irreversible natural economic process that is beeing executed with undesired effects for some weak parts. These weak parts are preciselly nations which stick to their traditions, not well adapted to this process. Globalism is preciselly the social philosophy adopted by those who anowledge that globalization is irreversible that nationalism (and its consequences, that is the existance of frontiers which restricts freedom or the movement of goods, capitals, knowledge and peoples) is in contradiction with this process and therefore a global government is needed so that the process is made in a controled minimizing its consequences for weak parts. Internationalism is a regression. Ideally we all like a meritocracy (don´t you ?): same starting conditions and same rules for all...y que gane el mejor ! of course it is better this is done gradually.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-39208952335020373412010-11-22T00:44:07.052+01:002010-11-22T00:44:07.052+01:00Now it works. Maybe too long.
Well, that´s suppo...Now it works. Maybe too long. <br /><br />Well, that´s supposed to be a blog about the sciences of history and archeology and maybe this discussion is going too far into politics. I love politics, i love political discussion specially if i almost completely disagree with my oponent, as it is the case i think, and maybe this discussion is more suitable to your other blog.... In any case i feel obliged to drop here just a few comments: <br /><br />First, nothing wrong to be critical in science, but to read what experts has wrote about a giving subject help us to not reinvent a squared wheel !<br /><br />1. I was expecting the Swiss case to come in your answer, but not as a a case of pre-modern democracy but as a case of succesfull multilingual society in modern times, as an exception to the modernist theory. In any case none of the examples you cite as equal societies with democracy are representative democracies based on equality as we understand today. Again i think you are confusing oligarchic or very restrictive voting in rural communities with democracy (by the way this kind of voting was not exclusive of the swiss or basques, it was pervasive in many rural communitiesin all europe at this time; again nothing exceptional). Antiquity, feudal and ancient regime societies were stamental not democratic: people living in a same territory had different status and different laws (criminal, civil etc...) applied to them according to their status. These kind of voting was more similar to the voting you can find in today´s corporations than in today´s societies. Not even Athens in its democratic times can be considered as a modern democracy based on equality of all adults living in a given territory. This corporative, stamental conception of society is what was subverted first by the french revolution (remember Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, to which capitalism has added Efficiency) and after, trough a domino effect that we still can feel today, in the whole world. I say we can still feel today because as you say there are regressions (Hitler´s) or even survival´s as today´s China whose dictatorship will surelly not las long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com