Wie man die Ostdeutschen abhängig macht...

"Es ist ein Mangel, dass man sich weder strategisch, noch personell so aufgestellt hat, dass die Menschen im Osten wieder nachhaltiges Vertrauen in die Aufbaubemühungen schöpfen können."Mittlerweile wurde der Plan wieder einmal umstrukturiert und man verweist auf (verglichen mit der Geldmenge) kleine Resultate.
Herr Dohanyi hat sich jetzt dazu auch im Spiegel geäussert:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,339699,00.html

Wem das jetzt zu lang ist, der kann es ganz einfach in diesem Satz gleich am Anfang lesen:

"Es ist ein Mangel, dass man sich weder strategisch, noch personell so aufgestellt hat, dass die Menschen im Osten wieder nachhaltiges Vertrauen in die Aufbaubemühungen schöpfen können."

Genau so versuchen unsere werten Regierungsvertreter den ehemalig sozialistischen Osten auf den Kapitalismus und die dafür notwendige Eigeninitiative vorzubereiten. Sie erwarten nachhaltiges Vertrauen in Aufbaubemühungen, oder kurz gesagt, sie glauben, dass es reicht die Leute hoffen zu lassen, anstatt etwas zu tun.
Aber haben sie das nicht die letzten 10 Jahre schon? gehofft, gebetet und gedacht die 100 Milliarden kommen ihnen zu gute?

Doch nichts ist passiert. Diese Menschen haben nie gelernt und verstanden, dass jetzt nicht der Staat sondern ihre Initiative gefragt ist und jene die es verstanden haben, sind in den Westen gezogen.
Doch as hat niemanden dazu bewogen die Umverteilung unseres Geldes zu beenden, sondern eher noch zu erhöhen, als ob es den abhängigen im Osten etwas bringen würde.
Immer mehr Geld ist in den Mühlen der Staatsverwaltung versickert, Zankereien zwischen den Ministerien haben sinnvolle Projekte verhindert.
Das als deutscher Marschall-Plan gedachte Projekt hat auf ganzer Länge versagt. Die Gründe für das Versagen sind manigfaltig. So ging das Geld an die Länder anstatt auf der kleinsten Stelle, den Gemeinden anzufangen, die viel besser die Situation vor Ort einzuschätzen wissen. Zweitens, kann so ein Projekt nur dann etwas bringen, wenn das Geld wie beim Marschallplan an die Privatwirtschaft geht und dem Mittelstand Investitionskapital gibt. Doch nichts davon ist geschehen und so sind und werden die 100 Milliarden versickern und dem einen oder anderen Politiker/Beamten einen schönen neuen Wagen oder ei Haus bescheren...

Manchmal kann man jemandem mehr dienen, wenn man ihn einmal ins kalte Wasser springen lässt. Vögelküken lernen auch nur durch den Fall fliegen...


Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net

The dangers of Anti-Authoritarianism in German's school-system

Although this article is not directly about the German school-system, it is about the theory behind today's German education process.
Mr. JJ Juan from SoloHq.com has written in this interesting article:

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/jj/Responsibility_without_Authority_An_Incredible_Injustice.shtml

It is about Responsibility without Authority, in it he compare a scene from "The Incredibles" (an computer-animated Film by the famous Pixar Studios) to a classroom situation. Take a look at his analysis of the scene in the movie.

Without giving too much of the movie away, it's a rather inconspicuous scene when Mrs. Incredible leaves her preteen son and daughter, Dash and Violet, in a cave before she goes out to explore on her own. Like a good mother she tells her kids to be safe and that Violet, who is the older child, is in charge in her absence. Right at that moment, I know that she has given all the power to Dash. That's right, Dash, the younger son rather than the intended Violet.

We can see here the importance of authority to responisbility and that otherwise it will result in a vicious-circle for Violet, who can't do anything to discipline Dash, because he has not the authority to do so, but also she has to prevent any danger coming to Dash. While Dash is stripped of any fear for consequences and thus gets all the power to pursuit his morally ambigous goals.
Mr. Juan, now, applies this to the problems in a classroom of the teachers who are restricted to none-violence (of any kind!).

Take classrooms as an example. Teachers are given no real authority to discipline their students even though they are held responsible for their students' well behavior. One way for a teacher to deal with this is to assume the authority anyway, for instance, spank the student. The disciplined student would complain to his parents and escalate the issue to the principal's office. The teacher ends up getting blamed for exercising powers she's not authorized to use.Another way is to shrugged the responsibility. Just let the student run rampant for all to see. If the situation is bad enough, the problematic student would be removed and the teacher will no longer have to deal with that responsibility.A third way is to be at the mercy of the student. Nag, beg, plead, bribe, whatever it takes to quiet down trouble. Clearly this is the worst of the three when the situation increasingly deteriorates as the student amasses more power.Take classrooms as an example. Teachers are given no real authority to discipline their students even though they are held responsible for their students' well behavior. One way for a teacher to deal with this is to assume the authority anyway, for instance, spank the student. The disciplined student would complain to his parents and escalate the issue to the principal's office. The teacher ends up getting blamed for exercising powers she's not authorized to use.Another way is to shrugged the responsibility. Just let the student run rampant for all to see. If the situation is bad enough, the problematic student would be removed and the teacher will no longer have to deal with that responsibility.A third way is to be at the mercy of the student. Nag, beg, plead, bribe, whatever it takes to quiet down trouble. Clearly this is the worst of the three when the situation increasingly deteriorates as the student amasses more power.

As you can see responsibility without authority is getting anyone in a position that will sooner or later becomes unbearable.
The German notion of none-violence is the same. The law forbids any beating of the kids by the teacher. This physical restriction is not a mistake and morally right. However, the law has been extended throughout the years. Today, the definition of "none-violence" is more than just physical violence. In the wake of the '69er Generation, the word has also been applied on any form of discipline, even psychic violence. This turns the relationship between teacher and apprentice around, giving the apprentice the power to enslave the teacher, because in the claws of our social system, the school teacher may not reject the student (it would cause havoc among the parents, then the department of education and finally come down on the teacher), nor may he give him detention (which again would bring the parent->department->order - chain to motion).
The teacher is in a situation of helplessness, which gives him no power to even teach the good pupils in the class, thus getting the parents of those children to be angry.
This whole misery is also partly fueled by the dependency of the school on government funds (I don't say that it'd be otherwise if it were private) and the government is dependent on the votes of the parents.
In the end, the teacher is not only a slave to the undisciplined child, but also to the parents, who often see their children through the prism of "father/mother's love", which distorts the picture.
Thus the problem might also be the unrealistic image those parents have of their kids.

We can now divide the problem in two parts. First, there is the unruly child, who cannot be tamed by the teacher, if he doesn't get the necessary rights. And second, there is the delusional way of perception by the parents.
To change the last, we would have need of a total change in social behaviour, thus it is unlikely to happen before the next generation.
The first, however, can be easily done by proposing a new appendix to the laws on "child abuse", that allows teachers to use justifiable methods to discipline their children, without using physical violence, or even reject children to educate, if proper reasons and facts can be brought forth.
Another addition would be the privatisation of schools and giving them the authority to do as they see fit to do in a mutual treaty between parents and teachers.



Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net

Anarchic Society in Jeremiah

So, here is the first follow-up post on the HBO show: Jeremiah. I know it is a bit late, because I promised to post it at once after the first one, but I got delayed.
However, here we go. I strongly advise you to read the first part and to watch at least the first season so you can follow my explanations.

Jeremiah hasn't got an overall steady plot, but it moves in a consecutive line with some out of the way episodes in between. So let us consider the type of anarchic societies present in this show. We have a huge variety of examples, starting with the first episode and going long into the second season.
First we have Cleo and her gang ruling a town in the Western part of what was once the United States of America. She rules the town with an iron fist and values brute strength over any kind of compromise. Cleo also has a high regard of science, but only as long as it suits her and leads to more power. She is an ambitious ruler of the small town, set to conquer the surrounding villages. We have here the standard tyrannic type of anarchic society, which is most notably known in todays society.
One ruler or a gang of brutes have a harsh iron hand over the population taking whatever they need. However, there is one nice trait about Cleo, she cares in so far for her people as she doesn't enslave them nor kill them without a good reason. (Of course, this can be said about most dictators.. they have their own reasons for killing people, not all justifiable) She preserves a status quo and peace and justic in the societies. But this anarchic type is not the liberty loving one.
So, let's go a step further.

In a later episode we see that Cleo is not the only settlement around and there are more peaceful, stable and less violent ones. None is stronger than the other and so they reached an equilibium which perserves peace (balance of power!). Now, this comes closer to the anarcho-capitalist view of Anarchic societies. However, those settlements do not work together in any peaceful way, but rather hunt each other down waiting for an opportunity to claim some super-weapon that gives them the upper-hand. We still have some sort of government (may it be one man or an entire squad or group of the society),so it is despisable.

What other societies does JMS show? Well, we have a religious settlement in one of the episodes of the first season. They are peaceful and law-abiding and instead of a government, they have a circle of elders to guide them. However, those elders are only the judges of the town, so this might be a close call to an anarchic society. We will see that this is not true.
Those elders have to get their legitimate power from two souces, first the kind of election and then the legitimation of the power itself. The first one is based on age and experience, which are two good factors, although it is age and experience in the bible and not in life.
This leads to the second factor of legitimation, the manifest on which the society builds and from which it derives its ideology. In this case it is some thwarted religion that calls the commandments their law-system and thus clings on a god-fearing path. Since this eliminates the prospect of full-fledged human choice of living as in anarcho-capitalism, we have some traits that don't correspond. These are the fallacies that almost kill Jeremiah and Curdy in this episode.

However, in the second season everything changes. A foreign power threatens the decentralised West and thus forces all of them to talk with each other. We then have a new constellation that goes back to the founding days of the United States and the beginning of the founding-father's ideas.
Those tyrans of each settlement come together to talk. And for the first time they are forced to trade and see the long-term benefit of such a system. The military society of Thundermountain gets them to work together and in return offers them their vast military abilities to fight the enemy.
We now have something that comes close to an anarchic society or at least a nightwatch state.
The military of Thundermountain is funded by the different settlements and in return gives them protection. On the otherside those villages have to adopt something like the Bill of Rights and thus leaving their people to the freedom of choice.
At the end of season 2 we have the final victory of the forces of Thundermountain over the foreigners and thus the victory of a Minarchist state over nature.

So, there aren't any other dangers to anarchic societies?
Well, there are two different dangers. First, anarchic societies can fall for racism or authoritarianism and this is the most dangerous enemy for these societies.

I will show in the next essay the compatibility of racism and authoritarianism in Jeremiah and the picture it draws of authoritarian or totalitarian societies. Those kind of ideologies are to be seen everywhere in JMS work (especially in Babylon 5).
He also underlines the importance of faith in any authoritarian society in several of episodes during the second season, but that's for different post ;)


Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net

D'oh, I was wrong!

I must apologize for some of my assumptions about Germany. It isn't socialism that is still present in germany (or better on the rise). No, it is something we had a few decades ago and of which I talked yesterday.
I found this short paragraph in Ayn Rand's novel "Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal":

"[W]elfare-statists are not socialists... they want to 'preserve' private property -- with government control of its use and disposal. But that is the fundamental characteristic of fascism" (page 211).

So, I made the error in this. Well, in the future, I will be more certain in my judgement and perhaps I should review some of my reports, but I don't think they are faulty in any logical sense. Still facism and socialism have similar ideals, to limit personal choice-making and this is true free private property.

by Max Schwing( smg.max@gmx.net)

The German Chancellor may cheer himself!

Of course, it was a big gamble, but it was certainly a victory for Schroeder. He has done the country no favor, but he has expanded his political status in several countries around the world. What I am talking of? The deal between Schroeder and Putin, of course! He didn't do it for his country or for anybody else, but himself and his network of political clients. The billions payed back by the Federal Government of Russia will be used to clear-wash Germans financial balance at the end of the year. Of course, he also did some coroporate-statism getting the German industry (more exactly: Siemens) a big contract with the Russian National Railroad about constructing and delivering 60 ICE's.

This will give him a lot of credit in our national media and among his politic friends. The everybody on the street will cheer him, because he will create some more positions to employ people. However, they tend to forget that first of all, those jobs will be only temporary, because the deal did not work on market demand, but on political network connections, thus the Russian Railroad might not deal with German contractors next time, if the political situation is different from now.
Secondly, Schroeder has again left a moraly continuous way. He may not be a Hypocrite by definition, but he isn't very steady in ethic challenges either.
Instead of condeming the Putinism and the war on Checheynia, he spoke only about topics, which are not in his resort, but part of free-market decisions.

We can see the pragmatic stand of Mr. Schroeder in all of those decisions and it is not only the viewpoint of Mr. Schroeder but of many politicians nowadays. It is the erosion of values, virtues and self-dignity and the rise of relativism in large scale that gave way to this kind of spineless persona!
We will hear more from flip-flop Schroeder in future and it will only reflect the state of our nation, or even better of our society and culture.
We have left the path of self-interest and egoism after the fall of the NAZI regime and the negative effects of those realizations still cling to our nation and to ourselves.
This might come from the constant preaching of our guilty in school's history lessons (although they are very valuable and a must be, we should tend to denounce the NAZIs explicitely and not every German).

Yes, German Totalitarianism has caused the death of millions and millions, but this was a generation ago and we are not the same as 6 decades ago. And I tend to say that the children does not inherite the guilt of the parents. I think that every child is a unique lifeform, which might be influenced by its parents here and there, but can be completely opposite to its parents and teachers. Thus it'd be injust to put all the guilt of a generation that slaughtered millions on this innocent child. How should it learn to respect itself and to claim the dignity to act as a free person, if you punish it for deeds it has not done...

And the result of this fallacy in history has brought creatures like Mr. Schroeder who evades any moral responsibility he has. But we are even more guilty for it, because we ignore it and make the same choice again and again.



Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net

Max Swing: Good TV Shows are still possible!

I just recently watched "Jeremiah" again, all two season there are. Although I am a big fan of Jay Michael Strazynski (known for the infamous Babylon 5 series, which ran over 5 seasons and had the best-thoughtout plot ever seen in television series), I can still say objectively that everyone should at least take a look on this series. It is compelling and science-fiction in its truest meaning.
Instead of just posing technology of the future, this series tries to show a society and how it could work. Although, this is not the true purpose and main theme behind this Show. I don't want to give away too much, so I just summarize it a bit.

The show takes place in a near future and develops a post-apocalyptic scenario. Governments and nations no longer exist and sceptics would say that the "survival of the fittest" is on the run. This is certainly true and there is a big blackhole of injustice or self-justice in this future. But there are still small settlements or groups that cling together and work peacefully with each other. Instead of money, the currency is tradable material. You get a beer for two cans of rice and so on.
How our world collapsed, you might ask now?
Well, that's easy. There was a Big Death, a super-virus that killed all people over the age of innocence. Everyone over the age of 30 died and the kids had to fend for themselves.
But instead of babaric uncontrolled violence or a tyranny of the strong, it created a lot of settlements who trade peacefully with each other. Of course, there were tyrannic regimes in some of the settlement, but they were not strong enough to rule all the other settlements.

Then everything changed when the remainings of the former military started to annex what was once theirs. They try to enforce a military dictatorship that would finally introduce the safe-authoritarian state which can be seen in 1984 (George Orwell).
But there is one small military base under control of the decendants of the military inhabitants of that base and this refuge starts to fight the forth coming future, the military dictatorship of the U.S. Army.

This show is about love of freedom, individuality and anti-authoritarianism. It is staged around two heros, Jeremiah and Cody. It outlines the morality of self-interest and the longing for independency. Building on this it features the core-theme of Authoritarian against Anarchic societies.

I will go deeper into the show in my next post. However, I recommend to watch at least some of the episodes, because the next post will reveal lots of the plot and thereby might make the show uninteresting to you.
We will look at how the show employs the anarchic society and what question it poses against it. I will also dwell on the two different authoritarian fractions the show gives us in the two seasons it has.
In the end, I will look at the exact picture of individuality and liberty in this show, which will be a difficult task, because it is thwarted in many ways.

A typical German Movie

I have been in cinema early this week to watch one of the newly acclaimed German movies, "DIE FETTEN JAHRE SIND VORBEI". I thought I'd give it a try, because it is an independent production by a German screenwriter and besides it should have been refreshing against all those Hollywood Busters.
And it really had a tricky and well-thought out story line, the stylistic cinematographic work was except only a few flaws, good handcrafted work (less special-effects, more solid camera techniques) and it had several different themes. All in all, it was a rather funny fun-movie with an ambigious moral (not to say no moral at all ;) ) and an underlying principle that shouldn't inspire people.

We have an Nietzschean background in this movie that is screwed in several scenes and never truly the focus of the movie, which ruined it somewhat. However, there are other themes (which never present a solution) like a conflict of Youth and Elders, conservative against rebellious youth, egalitarian against snobism and of course, rich against poor.
I will return to that later, after you read the following summary of the movie (ATTENTION SPOILERS INCLUDED!!!). Just one last word before we start, the rich are portrayed stupidly and poorly as the amoral, evil snobs without any form of caring or insight, which is typical to nowadays movies, especially in Europe. However, it also has a true ring in respect of the Rich. They have lost philosophy and forsake it for their own disadvantage, because they regarded it as unnecessary. That's why the hostage Bernd cannot defend his position properly against the terrorist youth that confronts him with philosophic problems of todays world.

Let's start with a brief summary:

******* SPOILERS (DON'T READ IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE) *********

There are three young people, I'd say in the mid-twenties. Two male and one female, they are all into alternative way of living and they demonstrate against Sweatshops and the society in general. In the beginning of the movie, we see a few idealist youths(with the girl in the scene as a newly hired recruit for the anti-sweatshop demo) having a demonstration against violation of human rights and the unjust habits of the richt western-world against the so-called 3rd World.

This short scene is very important for the whole theme of the movie, so I will explain it in detail.
We see some of the young idealist enter a shop for shoes which have been produced (at least, the young ones proclaim it) in Indonesia by child labor. They try to convince some costumers, also young people, to boykott those products of the unjust capitalism of greed. The owner of the shop slowly, but forcefully, albeit formal and polite, pushs them to the door. There a German police unit already waited for those punks and they get beaten inside a police van.

Now, the story continues, when we see that Jule (the girl) moves to the apartment of the two boys Jan and Peter. Peter is her boyfriend so this is alright. Lisa works as a waitress part-times and had to sold her apartment due to unpaid bills. She also owes a debt to a rich person of about 96000 Euro. Lisa believes that her future life is destroyed by that money, although she never knew what to do with her life, later she admits that she only wanted to live from moment to moment.
We don't know what Jan does for a living, but Peter works for a security company and they break into houses which are equipped with security installations of former company. They don't steal anything, but instead they rearrange all the couches, chairs, paintings, pictures, sculptures and so on. They are rather creative in it and show a certain amount of style.
Then they leave a message behind, in form of a letter, that either says:
"Die Fetten Jahre sind vorbei" or "Sie sind zu reich" (The good years are over or You are too rich)
Those flyers are always signed with "Die Erziehungsberechtigten" (The Guardians). They do this, at least they give that reason, to change the world, to give birth to a more social conscience to those who don't have as much money.
Now, Lisa falls in love with Jan after some time and they break into the house of the person, which Lisa owes the money to. Of course, Peter doesn't know anything about it, because he is in Spain at that time. They not only rearrange the furnitures this time, but also leave a trail of destruction in the house. However, when they leave the house, they forget Lisa's cell-phone at the place.
When Peter returned from Spain, Lisa and Jan don't tell him, but decide to get the phone by themselves. This turns out to be a bad idea. While they are inside, the owner of the house "Bernd" returns and Lisa get caught on first sight. He remembers her, but can't alarm the police, because Jan hits him unconscious. They call Peter and the burglary turns into a kidnapping. They take Bernd as a hostage and flee to a mountain log cabin.
There the relationship between Lisa and Peter collapse, because she finally admits herself to love Jan. However, they reunite after some hours and at last they even get friends with Bernd. He understands their motives, but not their means. The hostage is reminded of his own youth as a member of the 60s movement and his rebellion against the state.

At last, they apologize and return him to his home, where he swears not to call the police and to rethink the 96000 euro debt of Lisa. However, as soon as the three kids left, he becomes thoughtful and falls back in his conservative role. Meanwhile the three youngsters finally decide to go on with their job to wake up the world against the capitalist greed.

Next day, the police is in front of the apartment where they lived. The special forces units rushes in but finds the place abandoned. A letter is pinned to the wall:
"Manche Menschen ändern sich nie!" (= Some people don't change!)
We see an intercut with Bernd in the police car, guiltly sneeking around.
Then we see the three young people in a spanish hotel, checking out. They take Bernd's mediterranian Yacht and rush of into the sunlight to a distant island, in order to cut three satelite transmission towers, which would end the TV transmission to all the people in Europe for days.

********* END OF SUMMARY ***********

You will see that this is a huge source not only for political philosophy, or political argumentations, but also for philosophy, psychology and several other interesting viewpoints. The amount of relativist moral, subjectivism, utilitarism, altruism and other new-age socialism parts, common to the "NEW" Berlin generation, is very high. But instead of informing the audience of the socialist background, Daniel Brühl (playing in "Good-Bye, Lenin!") this times plays the young rebel with a Che Guevarian inspirationism.
Since it is late, I will continue depicting the amorality of the movie and the rich-bashing that is so common in Germany and the sources for that when I have time at hand.

Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net

German's wise men or why philosophy is necessary

I have just received the new "Spiegel", from whom I have discussed reports before. This time they have an interview with Weder di Mauro, one of the youngest economically wise-men, as they are called, here.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,328841,00.html

The worst remark of the 39-year old economy advisor is that she criticises the ideologic layout of the parties. This is in my eyes, a terrible miscalculation, because only strict reforms (strict to their ideologic and philosophic basis) can improve anything. Everything else is a half-baked try that has lost its meaning, because the inner-logic of the reform will be lost due to contradictionary influences.
The good thing is that she stresses the need of more investment by the people, who need not to be afraid and she also attacks the myth of massive out-sourcing. This fear, however, is not made by the politicians only, but also by the Euro itself (as I have discussed below).

However, her lack of understanding basic ideologic, politic and philosophic premises and evading the issue by ignoring any ideology, is deeply dissatisfying and in a way an expression of the new social order. Premises are not to be judged and/or followed!

This is what Ayn Rand has written in her famous book "Atlas Shrugged", where the new-age college boys have not gasped the complex problem of economy and political influence in it.
They can only use the politics for their own needs, but they don't really understand the ideologic agenda they follow, obviously, because they won't take part in any logic ideology.

Therefore, my stand that philosophy is a pre-requisite for economics, as is ethics, should be honored. Academia should give those topics a little more thought in the future.
But meh, that won't happen anywhere nowadays....

Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net

Germans prepare for state-control

I have said it innumberable times in the past, Germany is drifting towards socialism, even if it is a soft kind of socialism. But this kind just substitutes the metal gun with the velvet gun. In the end, they are very similar in words and in action.
Of course, nobody wants to see it and nobody takes me seriously. They think it to be a bad habit that there is so much beaurocracy, but they are unwilling to change anything (politicians even less than everyday men and women, because they'd diminish their own position of power).

A good example has been brought up by "Der Spiegel", a famous German newsmag. Germans are security fanatics, even if it is not necessary, or it would drive many companies out of business. The newest gadget of the law-abiding politicians of the authoritarian-side is the life-boat rule. Inland-boat traffic on the river rhine was always a very safe thing, until the government decided otherwise.
Now, it is dangerous, and we have to protect against the new huge 20 cm waves and the long distance to reach help or the shore (20 m?!). To protect the poor citizens, who could die on the river rhine, the government invented a new law that made it necessary for the boat captains to buy expensive life-boats. Those life-boats are usually seen on high sea ships, where they are necessary for your survival. On those small tourist boats on the rhine, however, those boats are unnecessary. The life-boats are so expensive that the quantity needed for your boat and the care-taking could easily wipe the economic balance of those small tourist companies, who undertake rhine-tours by boat.

So, you tell me that the state does not interfere with business? That we have a truly free-market or even a social market? What is social in killing business out of fear of the improbable?

Damn you, Authoritarians!

Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net

Since my time online is going to be limited, because I have too much to do on campus, I will make post nothing new for the next weeks. This is also partly caused by my petty attempts to move out of my current domus :P

Let's see when I will find time again, perhaps I will post a short story the next few days :)

Commentary: smg.max@gmx.net