I think once our military-industrial complex was established
— Athena
Concord, 1775? https://www.history.com/news/what-was-the-shot-heard-round-the-world — Vera Mont

Absolutely NOT! I want an emoticon banging its head on a wall. Our governing organization in 1775 didn't come close to the Prussian Military Industrial Complex that now defines the US and all modern industrial countries today.

What is the best way for me to deal with this problem of my words having absolutely no meaning to those who read them? Everything that I believe is important rests on people understanding what the Prussian Military Industrial Complex has to do with our culture today, our organization, our economy, and how we experience ourselves as human beings. Our understanding of the relationship between education and our culture, therefore our democracy, is crucial and I am totally failing to make my point.
:broken:

Unfortunately, it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. No… a wolf posing as a loyal guard dog.
And I imagine many investment advisors are recommending weapons manufacturers as a sure thing. — 0 thru 9

Hey, I think you may understand what I am talking about. Can you expand on what you said? Do you know what merit hiring and advancement has to do with today's changed organization?
Right after WWII, President Eisenhower wrote a letter to Germany thanking them for their contribution to democracy. We adopted the German (Prussian) models of bureaucracy and education. That radically changed the US. My words are failing to explain the importance of this. Can you do better? Please, help if you can.

There could be a whole thread just to explore the relationship between religion and economics. — Athena

Maybe so. But since high Anglicans, Methodists, Catholics and all sorts appreciate wealth accumulation, they all preyed on the New World one way or another. AFAIK, only the Quakers objected to slavery.

I want an emoticon banging its head on a wall. Our governing organization in 1775 didn't come close to the Prussian Military Industrial Complex that now defines the US and all modern industrial countries today. — Athena

Great oaks from little acorns grow. Before the war of independence, the only army was Britain's. Having convinced Britain that it was too costly to wage a transoceanic war against colonies reinforced by French and Spanish assistance, the new republic could set about building its own. By 1860, it had two regular armies. By the end of the 19th century, the US was a world power.

n 1898, Cuban activists launched a war of independence from Spain, and the US intervened on their side.... but pro-imperialists succeeded in placing it under a quasi-imperialist sphere of influence.... The war also ended with the US taking three other Spanish possessions: Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, a massive and populous island nation in the Pacific. The US had become a European-style imperial power.

**
In 1917-18, the land forces were completely reorganized and bulked up and equipped to the level of any in the world. Since 1943, it's been the biggest, baddest, most outrageously expensive military force the world has ever known, and the US has been dominating the world.
** The article is worth a look - it has good maps.

You can't have all that exceptionalness without breaking a few countries and organizing up a pretty big military-economic-political complex.
The USofA has been at war with somebody though pretty much its entire existence. And its thriving industry has always been a great supporter (and supplier) of those wars; reciprocally, the army (and black ops) was always available to safeguard American enterprise in foreign lands. Friends with benefits, as it were. Even if it meant overthrowing a democratic government or any kind, really, when they threatened US business interests.

:up: :up:

According to the wiki linked below, Germany ranks 14th and the United States ranks 30th :yikes: on "The Democracy Index (2022)".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

There are quite a few other NGO & university indexes available via Google which more or less corroborate this disparity.

The way @Athena tells it the USA's so-called "democracy" has declined greatly "since 1958" with the wholesale importation of "the German Bureaucratic Model" blah blah blah and yet Germany ranks (as well as all of its 'highly bureaucratized' Germanic / Nordic neighbors) higher on this "democracy index" than America. :chin: No doubt this discrepancy in expectations is due to the fact that "the 1958 bureaucracy-über-alles" had next-to-nothing to do with American decline – Athena's conspiracy-like "theory" is just another simplistic solution to – diagnosis(?) of – an enormously complex historical and political economic problem that's peculiar to the well-documented, structural and social maldevelopments of the American Republic since its illiberal founding. :mask:

No country's actual history lives up to its mythology, never mind its patriotic hype.
If it's any consolation, the US civil service ranks 11th in effectiveness (this year - it's been in the top 10 before) and Germany was way down at 24th in 2017. This is interesting.

Another very important exception is when we get into any origin of the universe proposal. It is not currently known whether or not the origin of the universe was causal. — universeness

Of course, you are right there. I think most of the time we need to be okay with "I don't know" an unknown. We should never be too sure of ourselves, but neither should we accept myths as God's word and a rational explanation of life. That is going too far in not asking the right questions and attempting to answer them.

I think it is and even if our approach to such proves to be forever asymptotic, then so be it, that remains the goal. — universeness

This disagreement seems pretty easy to end. Have you served on committees? I can not imagine anyone serving on a committee that needs to make serious decisions believing millions of people can argue something until they have a consensus. No one would enjoy being on a ship without a captain and an agreement that the captain has the authority to make decisions.

Important to this thread is there is no time after an invasion to argue about the response. The response needs to occur as soon as possible. In the past, all of government in the US was strong individuals holding the authority to make decisions. We could vote them in or out of office but the bulk of the decisions were made without including everyone in the decision-making and our forefathers attempted to limit governing power with a system of checks and balances that is totally broken now because we ended education for democracy and have a large percent of citizens who reject democracy.

Autocracy is very efficient. Democracy is not. Each manifests a different culture.

Why? You are an honest person Athena, are you not? — universeness

:lol: I try to be honest but I am often confused and frequently don't know enough and I am becoming increasingly aware of how strongly my emotions affect what I think. I feel like I am on friendly grounds with most posters here, so when I feel offended I check myself, however, this does not happen with everyone. Occasionally I think a person is being intentionally offensive and don't stop to question that.
How we feel in relation to others really matters and hope all of us agree on this. This is one of the most important points I wish was on everyone's mind. How we feel matters, so attack ideas but not the person. Do not intentionally make cutting remarks. That destroys the very foundation of democracy.

I find any notion of personal superiority between human beings, vile and disgusting and I will fight against such notions in every way I can, until I no longer exist. — universeness

I love your comment! :heart: Can we reframe that? It is not the person we are judging but the behavior. As my statement above explains I do not judge everyone equally but have an emotional reaction that determines my behavior. When I think I am on friendly terms with someone and feel offended I check myself, however, when it seems obvious to me that someone is intentionally being offensive, I protect myself by avoiding that person. Some humans improve our lives and others damage us and we need to know which is which. :grimace: OMG this is a difficult subject! It is so complex! My son-in-law is a very good guy and he has also been a very, very bad guy. We need to judge the behavior, not the person. Help am I making sense?

And I am making that argument because it goes with judging my own behavior. Am I being the person I want to be? What is a good person? What does it mean to be civilized? How can we have the best discussions and make our best contribution to life? Not a superior person but superior thoughts and actions. God knows I have made some really bad choices and have my share of regrets. The virtue of forgiveness is very important, especially in old age when we are shocked by how little we knew and feel bad about all the errors.

Many 'real' aristos, rather than via your notional and fabled 'noble' imagery of aristocracy, were serious scumbags. The French response to their tyranny was completely understandable. Unfortunately, they took their response tooooooooo far (Israel is repeating that bad mistake now, imo) and ended up with a butcher like Napoleon in charge. Generations of French were slaughtered as a result. But at least they destroyed the aristos. Now they have the more hidden, but as nefarious, French super-rich to deal with, but they are a global phenomenon that are a global scale problem, rather than merely a French one. — universeness

What is a scumbag? Are you superior to a scumbag? :lol: I laugh because what we are talking about is so complex. Athens had gods and heroes. The gods were not perfect. They did not know everything and they did not have control over everything like the God of Abraham. Can you imagine having an imperfect god who does not control everything? Now what is a hero? What are the virtues that make it possible for us to do great things? Is being superior because of making an effort to be superior, to be a hero, a bad thing? I am dealing with a family that rejects everything I am saying here and they can barely afford the basics of rent and food. They are victims and have no idea how to stop being victims. :broken: I hope I can do better in forums than I have done with my own family. My son learned of the Greek gods when he was in school but the teacher had zero understanding of why they are important. I am in a philosophy forum because in my desperation to do better in life I found philosophy and the ancient Greeks.

In a democracy, we can all be aristocrats. If one's life is totally impoverished hopefully that person can get to the library and start learning. Hopefully, everyone can pick themselves up and learn of the virtues that we need to get through life. :cry: Our children need to learn this before they can take advantage of an education, and thanks to education for technology the parents don't know the value of this knowledge, not even their teachers know. Our young are being prepared to enter the Borg. They are not being prepared for life! They think if they live in poverty that is the whole of life and they are victims and they have no clue how to improve their lives. Life becomes a reaction based on what one feels at the moment, and if you are mad enough, pick a gun and feel the power you have to kill everyone in sight. There that will show them! We need to educate our young for life.

Yes, diversity can be very beneficial. The gods and goddesses were very different. They each had their own point of view and they argued a lot! That is how our primate intellect grew and grew and has us thinking thoughts far beyond the thinking of days gone by. However, the captain has the authority.

Oh, oh Star Trek. Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space and Picard is the Group think generation. For our symposium let's have plenty of food and drink, and watch Star Trek, and enjoy discussing the ideas brought up in the shows.

:hearts:

No country's actual history lives up to its mythology, never mind its patriotic hype.
If it's any consolation, the US civil service ranks 11th in effectiveness (this year - it's been in the top 10 before) and Germany was way down at 24th in 2017. This is interesting. — Vera Mont

:gasp:

Don't get too cocky; it slides down to 23rd when scores are adjusted for GDP. Some smaller, poorer countries (Estonia being at the top) deliver services more economically. I.e. don't waste so much. It's humbling to see Canada below Mexico and Korea on that adjusted scale, but at least the UK is a little more wasteful than we are.
An effective civil service is vital to a nation's well-being and with big, diverse populations, it had better be well organized to be any use at all. If Germany got its act together sooner, their example was worth following. However, the US civil service was reformed in 1978 and again 20 years later, with more changes and cutbacks introduced in the present century, so it's a long way from the post-war model by now. Political appointments to the directorships of departments are huge drawback in policy-making and employee participation, as well as risk management - which is presumably why its effectiveness is waning. Of course, if the Trumpites take over, it'll just be torn down anyway.

Here's another fun fact: A New Hampshire boy named Benjamin Thompson, later Count Rumford, was instrumental in introducing 'modern' social services to Bavaria in the 1780's.
He was considered a traitor to America, since he was in the British colonial army and would not betray it. Having been discharged with the rank of colonel, he drifted over to the continent and did a lot of social organizing as well as military and civil inventing in Bavaria. Munich put up a statue while he was still alive, in appreciation of his work.
Hardly anything is as simple as it looks.

We should never be too sure of ourselves, but neither should we accept myths as God's word and a rational explanation of life. — Athena

Yet we still have billions of believers in woo woo, many of whom use this foundation as a guide to their actions and who they vote for. Do you assign no part responsibility for this to Ancient Greek, Spartan 'storytellers' and/or Prussian theists , who also peddled these same lies as facts?

Have you served on committees? I can not imagine anyone serving on a committee that needs to make serious decisions believing millions of people can argue something until they have a consensus. No one would enjoy being on a ship without a captain and an agreement that the captain has the authority to make decisions. — Athena

As a school teacher and a Labour Party/young socialist party member, yes, and even as a union shop steward for a while, I have served on many committees, but mostly as talking shops and any resulting decisions made, did not affect 'millions of people.' A ship can easily be run perfectly well by a cooperative rather than a dictatorial captain (captain Bligh perhaps). A single leader can be useful at times but any wise members of a collective can 'play that role,' if and when such is needed.

Important to this thread is there is no time after an invasion to argue about the response. The response needs to occur as soon as possible. — Athena

I agree with 'emergency defence powers,' kicking in, if a community is under 'live' attack or imminent attack but I would not allow any elected body to unilaterally declare war, without a public majority mandate to do so. I would change your 'as soon as possible,' to 'with as much wisdom as possible.'

but the bulk of the decisions were made without including everyone in the decision-making and our forefathers attempted to limit governing power with a system of checks and balances that is totally broken now — Athena

I have already stated, many times, how vital, effective, robust, ingrained, checks and balances against any abuse of authority are. Any proposals for a fully representative democratic socialist system, with global, international, national and local tiers, will fail, without them.

Autocracy is very efficient. Democracy is not. Each manifests a different culture. — Athena

That's because it is much easier to destroy than it is to build. But this also means that an autocracy can also be destroyed. Efficiency is a very important aspect, sure but a good and progressive system is one that is a balance between efficiency and other vital aspects, such as robustness, fit-for-purpose, flexibility/need, etc.

Occasionally I think a person is being intentionally offensive and don't stop to question that. — Athena

Sometimes, they are. 'Checking yourself,' and your response to being offended by others is a wise approach Athena. I accepted a long time ago, that I won't always get my response correct in every situation. I am no longer so harsh on myself, by regretting my past or current errors in judgement, I just try to learn from them.

Many 'real' aristos, rather than via your notional and fabled 'noble' imagery of aristocracy, were serious scumbags. — universeness

What is a scumbag? Are you superior to a scumbag? — Athena

It is not the person we are judging but the behavior. — Athena

My son-in-law is a very good guy and he has also been a very, very bad guy. — Athena

And I am making that argument because it goes with judging my own behavior. Am I being the person I want to be? What is a good person? What does it mean to be civilized? — Athena

Would you consider Hitler or any such butcher or someone like a pedophile/rapist/theistic suicide bomber, a scumbag? and if you did, would you consider such a statement, a statement that also means that you feel superior to such people? I certainly would not play such conceptual games. I think you are fully able to understand the different mind states between these two quotes of mine below, and find both statements valid in the way I intend them to be received.

I find any notion of personal superiority between human beings, vile and disgusting and I will fight against such notions in every way I can, until I no longer exist. — universeness

Many 'real' aristos, rather than via your notional and fabled 'noble' imagery of aristocracy, were serious scumbags. — universeness

Don't offer sustenance to those who love to peddle in contrived and conflated conceptualisations.

In a democracy, we can all be aristocrats. — Athena

I everyone is X then X fails as a useful discriminator. If we are all scumbags then the doomsters are correct imo, and we should all just lie down and die slowly. I spit on all notions of aristocracy, no matter how you try to dress such a category up, to make such seem clean and attractive.

I spit on all notions of aristocracy, no matter how you try to dress such a category up, to make such seem clean and attractive. — universeness

:100:

An effective civil service is vital to a nation's well-being and with big, diverse populations, it had better be well organized to be any use at all. If Germany got its act together sooner, their example was worth following. However, the US civil service was reformed in 1978 and again 20 years later, with more changes and cutbacks introduced in the present century, so it's a long way from the post-war model by now. Political appointments to the directorships of departments are huge drawback in policy-making and employee participation, as well as risk management - which is presumably why its effectiveness is waning. Of course, if the Trumpites take over, it'll just be torn down anyway. — Vera Mont

Oh boy, I love that statement!:heart: If Germany got its act together sooner, their example was worth following. Oh, oh are you aware of the Steam Punk movement?

Steampunk is a subgenre of science fiction that incorporates retrofuturistic technology and aesthetics inspired by, but not limited to, 19th-century industrial steam-powered machinery.[1][2][3] Steampunk works are often set in an alternative history of the Victorian era or the American "Wild West", where steam power remains in mainstream use, or in a fantasy world that similarly employs steam power. — wikipedia

That might not be the best explanation as steampunk is so tied to our higher human potential and how capitalism wasted away the higher potential of technological development. Artistically and poetically it is tied to our struggles and capitalist exploitation that left the masses out in the cold. Whereas Germany was the first to have universal medical coverage, workers' compensation, and a national pension plan. The book Poverty and Riches written at the beginning of WWI argued against the British and US exploitation of humans and against taking the British side considering how much better Germany was doing. It provided a higher standard of living and like it or not, many thought fascism was the best way to avoid economic crashes. We seriously need to expand the discussion of fascism as an economic organization that can improve our lives.

I have to run, but once again I have to say what a pleasure it is to discuss things with a person who is so well-informed. Yes, the German bureaucratic model and education for technology make achieving a high standard of living for all, possible. Unfortunately, we have been focused on the national defense side of the German model. THANK YOU FOR KNOWING ENOUGH TO ADVANCE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THESE MATTERS. :heart:

We seriously need to expand the discussion of fascism as an economic organization that can improve our lives. — Athena

Not here, I think. Only let me observe that taking good ideas from other developed or developing nations does not logically require that you also follow their political regime.

I have to say what a pleasure it is to discuss things with a person who is so well-informed. — Athena

I can't really accept the compliment, since I didn't know many of those facts - or only the broad outlines - until I looked them up. I do a lot of research for my work, so I've developed a nose for good sources.

We seriously need to expand the discussion of fascism as an economic organization that can improve our lives.
— Athena

Not here, I think. Only let me observe that taking good ideas from other developed or developing nations does not logically require that you also follow their political regime.

I have to say what a pleasure it is to discuss things with a person who is so well-informed.
— Athena
I can't really accept the compliment, since I didn't know many of those facts - or only the broad outlines - until I looked them up. I do a lot of research for my work, so I've developed a nose for good sources. — Vera Mont

For many years, no one else has cared enough to do any research based on what I say. No one else has come as close as you to grasping the subject. Understanding German history and fascism is important but we can focus on education and make progress.

Do we agree education and culture go together? Perhaps I should have begun with the following quotes but I hate copying them out of books. The following is from an 1899 book "TALKS TO TEACHERS ON PSYCHOLOGY; AND TO STUDENTS ON SOME OF LIFE'S IDEALS".

"If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct. This is most immediately obvious in Germany, where the explicitly avowed aim of higher education is to turn the student into an instrument for advancing scientific discovery. The German universities are proud of the number of young specialists whom they turn out every year,- not necessarily men of any original force of intellect, but men so trained to research that when their professor gives them an historical or philoogical thesis to prepare, or a bit of laboratory work to do, with a general indication as to the best method, they can go off by themselves and use apparatus and consult sources in such a way as to grind out in the requisite number of months some little pepper-corn of new truth worthy of being added to the store of extant human information on that subject. Little else is recognized in Germany as a man's title to academic advancement than his ability thus to show himself an efficient instrument of research.

In England, it might seem at first as if the higher education of the universities aimed at the production of certain static types of character rather than at the development of what one may call this dynamic scientific efficiency. Professor Jowett, when asked what Oxford could do for its students, is said to have replied, "Oxford can teach an English gentleman how to be an English gentleman. But, if you ask what it means to 'be' an Englishman, the only reply is in terms of conduct and behavior. An English gentleman is a bundle of specifically qualified reactions, a creature who for all the emergencies of life has his line of behavior distinctly marked out for him in advance. Here, as elsewhere, England expects every man to do his duty. — William James

William goes on to explain "The Neccissity of Reactions" and that, of course, is about culture. It goes with Thomas Jefferson's concern. This link is worth reading if an understanding of how to protect democracy. Jewet is speaking of Thomas Jefferson.

He placed education as the foundation of democracy. Ignorance and sound self-government could not exist to- gether; the one destroyed the other. A des- potic government could restrain its citizens and deprive the people of their liberties only if they were ignorant.

Thomas Jefferson and the Purposes of Education — Dr. Thomas O. Jewett

Now we need awareness about what war and military technology have to do with education and culture change. The following quote comes from the 1917 National Education Association Conference. Sinclair was one of the speakers. The Prussians united Germany and centralized education and focused it on education for technology for military and industrial purposes. That is the education that results in Sinclair's admiration of Germany.

The German military organization is the world's model, at least from the standpoint of immediate accomplishment of results, and therefore we can hardly do better than to emulate it in its perfect working. It was effected in its minutest detail by the very essence of scientific thought and application. In that organization every tongue fitted its groove, every tooth its socket. We have seen how the Kaiser's marvelous soldiers carried their banner to the very outskirts of Paris in August and September,1914. It is the Great God efficiency, to which the Germans were required by their commanders to pay the homage of worship- and it behooves us either to effect a thing that will operate as well or to copy theirs. The fact of the world at war has silenct the erring lips that declared against the necessity for preparation against disaster, like that of Belgium and Servia.

They had developed in Europe and in America, among those active in the cause of universal peace, a trend to discredit the military service of their countries in their armies and their navies. In America this was particularly true, in spite of the fact that no one can look carefully into the work of our Army or Navy without concluding that either branch offers a career of which any parent may be proud, and which any son may enter with the fullest devotion and the highest ideals. ... — J. A. B. Sinclair, Surgeon, United States Navy,

At the same conference, Sara H. Fahey and an English teacher spoke about Americanizing immigrants who had no understanding of our democratic institutions and prepared all children for good citizenship. This education was a literary one that transmitted a culture, not education for technology. We did not count on parents to teach their children good citizenship because their parents were not prepared to do this. At the time parents were mostly illiterate and/or immigrants. Jobs depended on healthy bodies not book learning. A healthy body without the necessary education can serve Hitler or anyone else just by following orders. And we may have our own Hitler resulting from education for technology trumping liberal education for good moral judgment and good citizenship.

he USofA has been at war with somebody though pretty much its entire existence. And its thriving industry has always been a great supporter (and supplier) of those wars; reciprocally, the army (and black ops) was always available to safeguard American enterprise in foreign lands. Friends with benefits, as it were. Even if it meant overthrowing a democratic government or any kind, really, when they threatened US business interests. — Vera Mont

The subject is not the morality of war, but a change in military technology that led to a change in education. This change in education made the US, the Military Industrial Complex, which it defended its democracy against in two world wars, and Trump is our Hitler. Trump is not our Hitler because of who he is, but because he is being what half our nation wants our president to be, and that is not the democracy we defended in world wars. We are no longer the democracy we were. The citizens of the US are their own worst enemy and this is why I write.

Perhaps another quote from a book about Germany written as Germany prepared for the First World War would help, but I am tired and very discouraged. A Prussian explained the change in the military organization that was essential to modern warfare. The new army includes a nation's Industrial leaders taking over the tasks of supplying the army's needs. Now Government and Industry are linked together as they never were before. This is very much an economic challenge because the modern military force requires the very best technology and that is very expensive, so the government must take control of the economy as it never did before. If Russia and China are smart they will encourage wars that involve the US and strictly avoid engaging the US in war. All they need to do is bleed our economy by creating conditions that demand the US come to someone's defense. A bankrupt nation can not afford war, if our credit is destroyed and we have to pay more to borrow money, we are dog meat! Today's war is not the war of the past where the men can walk to the battle with their own rifles and possibly be on the winning side. Our military superiority has been our economy and military technology, not the brave or stupid men who fought in the past. Take out our satellites and we are in deep shit. Money and technology.

Do we agree education and culture go together? — Athena

Yes.

William goes on to explain "The Neccissity of Reactions" and that, of course, is about culture. — Athena

William James has rather harsh and simplistic opinions about other cultures.
As for the Jefferson thing... Sure, he wanted educated white middle-class men to carry on his traditions.
I take it Sinclair would have preferred an effective armed forces, such as the one that eventually defeated Germany, rather than one Germany would have defeated. You're so proud of winning, but seem to wish it could have been done without a winning strategy. It can't.

A healthy body without the necessary education can serve Hitler or anyone else just by following orders. — Athena

Most generals of any nationality would rather recruit/conscript healthy young men who follow orders than smartasses who question the military routine.
Did they already know about Hitler in 1917? And did Germany have a healthy, illiterate population in 1939? Actually, no: the literacy rate was 90% or better. And they had stories, too, of their heroic ancestors and glorious deeds. Everybody does. That doesn't mean you have to neglect maths and science.

The subject is not the morality of war, but a change in military technology that led to a change in education. — Athena

I didn't mention the morality (or otherwise) of war. Only that the USofA has always had armies and always waged wars - with the newest and best technology available at any given moment, in any chosen conflict. I use the word 'chosen' advisedly: The USofA was never forced into a conflict or confrontation; was never under serious external threat. All of its wars were wars of aggression.
They bombed two whole countries to ratshit because somebody (who came from neither of those countries) broke two of their overgrown office towers.

This change in education made the US, the Military Industrial Complex, which it defended its democracy against in two world wars, and Trump is our Hitler. — Athena

(Yet again: your democracy was never under any threat in either of those wars.)

The change in education has nothing to do with electing a dumb sociopathic egomaniac for president. That's down to crappy political organization and electoral procedure, large-scale corruption and regional disaffection, and general stupidity. The yahoos that carry guns for Trump didn't get a technical education. They just want to be top dogs again.

We are no longer the democracy we were. — Athena

When, exactly? What date, in your opinion, was the high point of American democracy?

All they need to do is bleed our economy by creating conditions that demand the US come to someone's defense. — Athena

Sure, by threatening a strategic military position or economic interest. Do they know how greedy your arms dealers are, and how wasteful your military budgets are? Of course they do: everybody spies on everyone. What wars are mostly about are "the national interest". And, yes, they require money and technology, as well as brave, stupid men who buy into the patriotic hype. This is not new. Every war in the history of the world has been fought with the latest, most expensive weapons, by the most modern methods, with the most popular slogans on the banners or both/all sides. The next one will probably do away with most of us.

Yet we still have billions of believers in woo woo, many of whom use this foundation as a guide to their actions and who they vote for. Do you assign no part responsibility for this to Ancient Greek, Spartan 'storytellers' and/or Prussian theists , who also peddled these same lies as facts? — universeness

That appears a very interesting subject but I am not sure what you are talking about. To me the term "woo woo" is insulting like name calling and has no intellectual value. On the other hand, a better understanding of Athens and Sparta's military thinking is exciting to me. We can follow this under the subject of culture because truly Athens and Sparta had extremely different cultures. Thanks to the Prussians who united and protected Germany, Germany was the modern Sparta and the US was the modern Athens. If you can advance this argument I will give it my best shot.

As a school teacher and a Labour Party/young socialist party member, yes, and even as a union shop steward for a while, I have served on many committees, but mostly as talking shops and any resulting decisions made, did not affect 'millions of people.' A ship can easily be run perfectly well by a cooperative rather than a dictatorial captain (captain Bligh perhaps). A single leader can be useful at times but any wise members of a collective can 'play that role,' if and when such is needed. — universeness

I like that last point. Democracy means everyone is prepared for leadership because we are all responsible. But we also respect the person in the seat of authority and do not compete with him. Today there is a lot of lusting for power, and there is no respect for the person in the seat of power. That is in part because the persons taking the seats of power do not have the necessary virtues, but hell, the voters don't understand what virtues and morality have to do with anything away. We do not have the CULTURE that is essential to good relationships.

I agree with 'emergency defence powers,' kicking in, if a community is under 'live' attack or imminent attack but I would not allow any elected body to unilaterally declare war, without a public majority mandate to do so. I would change your 'as soon as possible,' to 'with as much wisdom as possible.' — universeness

I am not finding the right words. We need some agreements to work together well.

Most teams will function better and more fluidly with a team captain working in tandem with the coach to ensure there’s properly respected leadership on and off the field. — Hustle

Oh yeah, and that is why our forefathers made it very hard to go to war. Congress holds the purse strings so supposedly we can not engage in war without the citizens agreeing to pay for the war. However, Bush and Hitler were able to engage in war without war budgets. Without a good education, we no longer understand the wisdom of our forefathers. And you moved me to google for information and I found something I love and this needs to be a discussion of the Military Industrial Complex and how it is not the democracy we defended in two world wars.

How the US Public was Defrauded by the Hidden Costs of the Iraq War
Print
The tenth anniversary of the US-led military intervention in Iraq has been met with a number of retrospective analyses examining various aspects of the war. This article argues that the Bush administration intentionally hid the costs of war by publically underestimating its costs, recording significant expenses outside of the Pentagons annual budget, and relying on private military contractors rather than traditional military forces. While none of these measures actually reduced the monetary costs of war, they obscured expenses and minimized the potential for public concern. Private military contractors were not only costly, but their involvement in numerous infamous incidents may have had a destabilizing effect, exacerbating the conflict and its costs. Ultimately, the Iraq war demonstrates that, despite the reassurances or subterfuge of political leaders, war is an inevitably costly endeavor. — Michael Boyle

:lol: I have gone from discouraged to joy. There is so much to say about war. Christianity got a lot of converts because it was believed the people with the most powerful god won wars, and Romans with their superior armies won a lot of wars and brought Christianity to conquered people. However, the Athenians did not like their war god who brought chaos.

Was Ares popular in Athens?
Ares, in Greek religion, god of war or, more properly, the spirit of battle. Unlike his Roman counterpart, Mars, he was never very popular, and his worship was not extensive in Greece. He represented the distasteful aspects of brutal warfare and slaughter.Oct 1, 2023

Ares | God, Myths, Siblings, Family, & Facts | Britannica — Britannica

I have already stated, many times, how vital, effective, robust, ingrained, checks and balances against any abuse of authority are. Any proposals for a fully representative democratic socialist system, with global, international, national and local tiers, will fail, without them. — universeness

Do you have a chart of that organization? Sometimes it is easier for me to understand if I am looking at a picture. I wish I had more time and energy because I would like a separate thread to handle the subject of how governments are organized. This is a very important and complex story crucial to the subject of culture. Your citizens can do only as well as they learn to do. They must be educated and that is the subject of this thread. It is a twin to the subject of organization because if the government is too strong it disenfranchises citizens and becomes the enemy of democracy.

Would you consider Hitler or any such butcher or someone like a pedophile/rapist/theistic suicide bomber, a scumbag? and if you did, would you consider such a statement, a statement that also means that you feel superior to such people? I certainly would not play such conceptual games. I think you are fully able to understand the different mind states between these two quotes of mine below, and find both statements valid in the way I intend them to be received. — universeness

I do not think a suicide bomber is a scumbag. I do not know if Hitler brutalized anyone. I think he delegated responsibility and did not pay attention to what others were doing. I don't think any of the war criminals saw themselves as evil wrongdoers. There is a danger of mob mentality or being caught up in the drama of the moment. This is where the subject of the importance of learning virtues and culture comes in. The Ku Klux Klan was a horrible racist organization and very nice Christian women were very much of this racist culture. We sure do not have clean hands and maybe sociology has something valuable to teach us?

I do not about me being superior to others, but I know there is a higher self and I strive to be a better person. I am so much wiser than I once was and it is just good luck that my life came out pretty well. I am extremely grateful to those who helped me do better.

I spit on all notions of aristocracy, no matter how you try to dress such a category up, to make such seem clean and attractive. — universeness

Well, I will do my laundry tomorrow and wash away the spit. And I will dress nicely and behave civilly and indulge myself in some intellectual pursuit. that gives me pleasure and I am very grateful for the very good life I have even though I have always been monetarily very poor. So I will keep saying we can all be aristocratic and I think this is a good thing about democracy. I can avoid the man who has 8 children and never married.

William James has rather harsh and simplistic opinions about other cultures.
As for the Jefferson thing... Sure, he wanted educated white middle-class men to carry on his traditions.
I take it Sinclair would have preferred an effective armed forces, such as the one that eventually defeated Germany, rather than one Germany would have defeated. You're so proud of winning, but seem to wish it could have been done without a winning strategy. It can't. — Vera Mont

:lol: I do not know why you say I am so proud of winning a war. Especially when we fought those wars for nothing because we are now what we defended our democracy against.

Also, I am not so sure we should have entered the First World War. Germans had a higher standard of living and the poor children in Britain were horribly abused! I am not sure if universeness's feelings towards aristocrats is because of a very ugly history? But when it comes to war I like what Professor Harnack had to say, "A permanent peace can only be achieved by hard intellectual effort and intellectual honesty".

Most generals of any nationality would rather recruit/conscript healthy young men who follow orders than smartasses who question the military routine.
Did they already know about Hitler in 1917? And did Germany have a healthy, illiterate population in 1939? Actually, no: the literacy rate was 90% or better. And they had stories, too, of their heroic ancestors and glorious deeds. Everybody does. That doesn't mean you have to neglect maths and science. — Vera Mont

Why would they need to know about Hitler in 1917? Charles Sarolea's 1915 book "The Anglo-German Problem" provides all the information we need. William James wrote of Germany's education in 1899.
In 1916 Scott Nearing, Ph. D. wrote "Poverty and Riches A Study of the Industrial Regime" which is information on Britain, Germany, and the US. There was information for those who wanted it. And yes in 1939 Germany was comparatively doing very well despite the hardships put on it following the First World War. Maybe because I am tired but you seem a little antagonistic to me.

(Yet again: your democracy was never under any threat in either of those wars.) — Vera Mont

I am not so sure the US did not feel threatened by the fact it was totally unprepared for modern warfare. I do know I am very tired and it is not a good idea for me to continue. I am thinking you have a bone to pick with the US and I should not take what you say personally. Hopefully, things will go better when I am rested.

Well, I will do my laundry tomorrow and wash away the spit. — Athena

I spit on all notions of aristocracy Athena, not on your clothing.

So I will keep saying we can all be aristocratic and I think this is a good thing about democracy. — Athena

Sure you can, and as a fellow democrat, I will continue to keep saying that all notions and examples of aristos are net negatives.

I can avoid the man who has 8 children and never married. — Athena

I would take him for a few beers and see if I could help him and his wife (married or not makes absolutely no difference at all, imo.) directly with his 8 children, or give him the info he needs to get all the state help he is due, or I would help those who were campaigning to get his like more help and support and try to make sure his children have more opportunities and support than he ever had. I reckon you would also try to help such a family in such ways. In fact I think you would be compelled to help them, if they needed it, even more than I would.

Unfortunately, it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. No… a wolf posing as a loyal guard dog.
And I imagine many investment advisors are recommending weapons manufacturers as a sure thing.
— 0 thru 9

Hey, I think you may understand what I am talking about. Can you expand on what you said? Do you know what merit hiring and advancement has to do with today's changed organization?
Right after WWII, President Eisenhower wrote a letter to Germany thanking them for their contribution to democracy. We adopted the German (Prussian) models of bureaucracy and education. That radically changed the US. My words are failing to explain the importance of this. Can you do better? Please, help if you can. — Athena

Thanks for your reply! :smile:
But sorry… I’m not much of an expert in the very important subject of world arms trading.
I started to watch a video recently, but stopped after 5 minutes because the combination of greed, heartlessness, and inevitable violence was nauseating.
Amazing how all these weapons can be used purely for the noble purpose of national and self-defense.

Thanks though for your discussion about the 1958 shift in education in the USA, which had enormous implications.

Especially when we fought those wars for nothing because we are now what we defended our democracy against. — Athena

You achieved world domination, miltarily, politically and economically. That's not nothing: that's wealth and power and exceptionality. And no, you didn't become anything like the nations you fought against, both of which became well organized, well-run modern industrial nations, while the USA grew increasingly corrupt and divided since WWII. That has nothing to do with the model of education or tech culture, and everything to do with the sway of moneyed interests, (harnessing religious ones) which had been playing a decisive role in American politics from the very beginning.

I am not so sure the US did not feel threatened by the fact it was totally unprepared for modern warfare. — Athena

Paranoia is not synonymous with actual threat. And it couldn't have been "totally unprepared" if it kept winning all those wars - mostly for expansion of territory. In most countries where it exported and imposed "American democracy", the US succeeded only in setting up a dictatorship (or chaos) The only successful conversions were Germany, Japan and Italy - presumably because those nations already had the social infrastructure to support democratic governance. That learning of useful skills isn't all one way!

I am thinking you have a bone to pick with the US and I should not take what you say personally. — Athena

I prefer truth to jingo, but that's not exclusive to the US. I, do, however, grow weary of repetition.

Thanks for your reply! :smile:
But sorry… I’m not much of an expert in the very important subject of world arms trading.
I started to watch a video recently, but stopped after 5 minutes because the combination of greed, heartlessness, and inevitable violence was nauseating.
Amazing how all these weapons can be used purely for the noble purpose of national and self-defense.

Thanks though for your discussion about the 1958 shift in education in the USA, which had enormous implications. — 0 thru 9

We share a lot of agreement regarding the weapons Industry and having a president tell countries they have to build up their own weapon supply because we are not going to carry the responsibility of defending them. I would love to cut the US free of the responsibility of defending other nations, but escalating the devastation of war by increasing the stock of weapons around the world does not impress me as a good idea.

I do not believe humans kill each other because Adam and Eve ate the wrong fruit, nor that war is inevitable. The characteristics of democracy are opposed to war and all modern nations practice a form of democracy. War is not good for anyone's economy.

The Iroquois or more correctly the Haudenosaunee Confederacy have a story of a man coming and teaching the way of peace. This became the foundation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. They inspired our movement from warring kingdoms and populations divided as into masters and servants, to a democracy. However, the masses never got the information that is being made available to us today.

I believe the New Age is a period of high-tech, and peace, and the end of tranny. I believe we are entering that now but this period of transition is very difficult.

You achieved world domination, miltarily, politically and economically. That's not nothing: that's wealth and power and exceptionality. And no, you didn't become anything like the nations you fought against, both of which became well organized, well-run modern industrial nations, while the USA grew increasingly corrupt and divided since WWII. That has nothing to do with the model of education or tech culture, and everything to do with the sway of moneyed interests, (harnessing religious ones) which had been playing a decisive role in American politics from the very beginning. — Vera Mont

I did not achieve world domination and my fellow citizens are completely ignorant of the reality of a Military Industrial Complex. If there were not so much ignorance we would have a different reality. Public public education with mass media and the internet can certainly manifest a better reality. It was not the intent of the US to have world domination. We were strong isolationists wanting to stay out of Europe's wars. I hope everyone will find the following link interesting and that the discussion of military technology and the New World Order/ Military Industrial Complex will improve.

Do democratic norms and political culture play a greater role than structural determinants
in realizing a democratic peace? Alexis de Tocqueville, a hitherto unappreciated theorist
of international politics, offered such a view 175 years ago. This article examines
Tocqueville's perspective on civil-military relations and the connection between democracy
and peace. Tocqueville concludes that the key to the pacifism of a democracy is the equality
of conditions it enjoys and the education that its soldiers receive prior to entering the military.
Thus, in Tocqueville's estimation, the democratic peace has little to do with the practice of
democracy, and everything to do with the economic well-being and political virtue of its
citizens.

Democratic states do not go to war with one another. That is the central tenet of
democratic peace theory.1
Although it has been clarified and slightly altered since it
originated with Emmanuel Kant's notion of a perpetual peace, it is, perhaps more than any
other theory in international relations, widely accepted among scholars. As Levy notes,
"the absence of war between democracies comes as close to anything we have to an empirical
law.":
Similarly, Diehl has called the democratic peace "axiomatic."1 — Steve n Michels

You may of course jump on the fact that the US was divided and fought a Civil War that was far from civil and we can talk about why this happened.

Paranoia is not synonymous with actual threat. And it couldn't have been "totally unprepared" if it kept winning all those wars - mostly for expansion of territory. In most countries where it exported and imposed "American democracy", the US succeeded only in setting up a dictatorship (or chaos) The only successful conversions were Germany, Japan and Italy - presumably because those nations already had the social infrastructure to support democratic governance. That learning of useful skills isn't all one way! — Vera Mont

Thank you for this argument. There is some question if the invading Europeans would have walked across the northern continent if the native population had not been devastated by disease. Once the Europeans brought in their horses the Comanche established an empire. Winning wars is very much about technology.

The Comanche and other native peoples adapt the horse as a powerful ally in the fight to protect their land and way of life. The Comanche consider the horse a relative and a gift from the Creator.Aug 15, 2018

Native America | The Comanche and the Horse | PBS — PBS

I do not think the US was paranoid when the first world war began. But it was alarmed by the amazing success of Germany's invading forces. Here we need to understand how radically different this military achievement was. After the end of the Second World War, Eisenhower wrote a letter praising Germany for its contributions to democracy and a good understanding of why Eisenhower thought Germany made a contribution to democracy would be helpful.

I wish I had a better understanding of why the US took the British side in this war because that does not make sense to me given the fact that the Germans were doing better in manifesting overall well-being than Britain. I don't think the British have an admirable history.

And yes, the US was totally unprepared for World War one and two. It was that first war that was perhaps the most vital because that is the war that woke the US up to the importance of education for technology to national defense. For the first time, the US schools added more technology to education than the 3 R's. The rush to advance technology was a radical change in education.

You may notice it took the US at least a year to mobilize for those wars. Public schools were essential to the mobilization for war and for keeping the US running while our men were fighting overseas. Amusingly, not until WWII did the US fully commit to the Military Industrial Complex. Before the military technology of WWII, the priority of public education in the US was preparing our young to be good citizens who understood democracy and why it must be defended.

The German mind is certainly one to be admired. But a liberal education is essential to democracy. What I am arguing for, is a better balance of preparation for democracy and education for a technological society. I think since WWII Germany has leaped ahead in the advancement of a civil civilization. As they have filled their cities with reminders of what was done to Jews, the US needs to fill its cities with reminders of its wrongs. This is essential to completing the transition to the New Age.

:lol: AA, owning up to our wrongs and increasing our awareness of rights and the higher power.

I can avoid the man who has 8 children and never married.
— Athena
I would take him for a few beers and see if I could help him and his wife (married or not makes absolutely no difference at all, imo.) directly with his 8 children, or give him the info he needs to get all the state help he is due, or I would help those who were campaigning to get his like more help and support and try to make sure his children have more opportunities and support than he ever had. I reckon you would also try to help such a family in such ways. In fact I think you would be compelled to help them, if they needed it, even more than I would. — universeness

Not that long ago, an adult was judged by certain behaviors. We held different expectations for men and women and their status in the community depended on their character and signs of being responsible. When a man married and had a child he had a better chance of getting jobs and advancement. His wife could be an equally important part of these status judgments. You know, the man whose wife sat on civic committees and the couple limited the number of children they had. I am not in favor of destroying this system of organizing society. That is what I mean by being aristocratic.

I do not expect things to improve until we replace the autocratic model of Industry with a democratic model. I do not question the importance of education for democracy and the importance of putting democracy into practice economically as well as politically. Teaching the principles of democracy and then living autocratically creates a problem.

People who hang out in the pub will be pleased with a free beer but why would we think this person would appreciate our advice on how to live? The wife waiting at home with children may not appreciate his time in the bar. His pursuit of happiness is not accumulating knowledge. I think we can work on social and economic matters but not personal matters. Education can work almost miracles in a person's life but what will motivate a person to desire education?

It was not the intent of the US to have world domination. — Athena

Really? Then why did it conquer everything in sight?

We were strong isolationists wanting to stay out of Europe's wars. — Athena

Indeed - some of them. That didn't stop forays into Latin America and the Pacific.

There is some question if the invading Europeans would have walked across the northern continent if the native population had not been devastated by disease. — Athena

European disease, whether accidentally or deliberately introduced. Of-bloody-course they would have, with more and more developed weaponry and lots of it. The Natives acquired some of that weaponry to fight back, or they would have been depopulated much faster.

Winning wars is very much about technology. — Athena

Yes, and the Americans were always at the forefront of killing technology. In 1914, their standing army was relatively small - and half the troops were off someplace, guarding US interests abroad, but in 1917-18, it mustered 4 million men. Pretty fast preparation! But we've been around this mulberry bush! There was nothing backward or peaceable about America's military capability. Though Congress was reluctant to allocate funds in peacetime, that changed very quickly and the ranks were swelled in a short time.

.

I wish I had a better understanding of why the US took the British side in this war because that does not make sense to me — Athena

British and French. They were allies and trading partners and shared a cultural heritage. Plus, it was Germany that invaded other European countries, not Britain - that time. Plus, the Ottoman Empire was looking to expand its dominions, threatening British and French colonies. It couldn't be allowed to take over the southern coast of the Mediterranean.

For the first time, the US schools added more technology to education than the 3 R's. The rush to advance technology was a radical change in education. — Athena

Hardly! Reform has been on-going in response to the requirements of industry, public health and global competition.

There have been several recognizable periods of sciencecurriculum reform in the United States since the middle of the 19th century. The first were the efforts by mid- to late 19th-century scientists to increase the intellectual rigor of
science study by placing students in direct contact with natural phenomena and having them reason through the patterns and relationships they observed instead of learning by book study alone, often through rote memorization of what they read. These efforts culminated in the 1893
report of the Committee of Ten of the National Educational Association, chaired by chemist and Harvard President Charles Eliot. That was followed by a long period of Progressive-Era reforms, which lasted most of the first half of the 20th century. Then came the period of National
Science Foundation (NSF) funded curriculum projects of the 1950s and 1960s, which lasted a much shorter time but whose effects are still being felt today.*
Then, in reaction to the highly discipline-focused and intellectually rigorous curriculum materials of the 1950s and 1960s, there was a wave of more socially responsive materials focused
on environmental awareness, personal relevance, and the relationship between science and society. And then, beginning in the early 1980s, a report by the Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk, stimulated an era of standards-based reform, which we are in the midst of today.

** presumably the wave you keep complaining about.
If you mean by education-for-technology something different from rigorous science courses, I've not been able to figure out what that is. Nor do I see - even though I've asked this a number of times - why science cannot be taught alongside history and civics.

The German mind is certainly one to be admired. — Athena

Germans have human minds. No infant comes out of the womb with a brain of any particular nationality. They're potentially clever or slow, verbal or visual, have a facility for numbers or abstract ideas or arts. What happens next depends on the child's circumstances.
Whether a nation adopts the better or worse ideas of its clever citizens depends on the national aspirations at any given period.

What I am arguing for, is a better balance of preparation for democracy and education for a technological society. — Athena

Sure. But I don't see US education doing all that famously on the math/science front, either.
Unless something's changed since 2015 ... when it stood 24th in science and reading, 40th in math at age 15. Of course, this an average, including both New Jersey and Mississippi. States rights in education do students a grave disservice!

States rights in education do students a grave disservice! — Vera Mont

Who should determine what a child learns?

Educators, not politicians, and not clergy.

@Vera Mont – Your patience with Athena is remarkable. I try to resolve facts in dispute but I'm quickly exasperated since discussion and argument only seem worthwhile based on a set facts which are not in dispute. Nonetheless, I appreciate your succinct and lucid posts. :flower:

I know it's been going around in circles. I know that Athena has an idee fixe, which is not exactly wrong, but neither is it fact based. I don't really expect it to change. But the exercise has made me learn details of American history about which I'd only a hazy idea before, so from my personal POV, the effort is not wasted. (Maybe I'll even live long enough to use this stuff in a novel....)

Educators, not politicians, and not clergy. — Vera Mont

Okay and who decides what the Educators know and value?

Who determines the purpose of Education?

Teachers are dependent on manufacturers for learning supplies. Who determines what they say in the text and provide on the Internet?