| |
Main
Date: 04 Dec 2008 09:59:03
From:
Subject: Their System
|
Since I did not want to get into this in another thread - there are
still numerous points to address about political orientation and chess
- what it matters - and who is more naive than whom?
Here is a selction of comment from other threads:
On Dec 2, 5:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligent
> of my comment to him about the Queen's own award for his services.
**The point is raised..
No, I merely persisted with a direct question, which, it appears,
no
one here can answer.
**Actually, the 'point' seems to be blunt - is it admitted that there
is a difference between socialist and communist, and this is no small
point - but a chasm.
> Why he insists on such stuff, or any such stuff ...
Why? Quite simply: curiosity. Major disillusionments, if and when
they happen, are an important part of a person's biography,
especially
if they happen to be of the religious and/or political sort.
**And here is another point of a sort. What is it asking and from what
basis? Did /anyone/ still favour the SU after they were informed of
what went on there? Is the political and/or religious stance of the /
questioner/ important to note? Surely it is naive to think one had
none, and one is commenting on only other people from some perspective
magically insulated from political and/or religious bias? In fact,
that attitude is itself an ethical and political perspective. ;)
> Let that go. Bob Wade did not promote left or right chess in England -
> he promoted chess, period.
Never said otherwise.
**Quite. So what was said? You see, if what a person believes makes no
perceptible difference to what he does - what then is the worth of
belief, or asking after belief?
> You can't even tell from his game scores
> how pink or true-blue he may have been.
But one can tell his opinions on other matters from his statements
on those matters.
**You can tell *what*?
---
Now less glibly:
Its true the SU after world war 2 made professionals out of their top
chess players. Chess capitalists, if you like. The System paid 'em to
be good and stay good. I would say the Soviet state created a market
for their skills, and paid good old capitalist cash for it.
And even less glibly:
In terms of evaluating if the SU or Britain or the USA is more
socialist - it is very interesting to look at what percentage of GNP
was spent on:
Military
Schools
Health
Consumer subsidies
In the times of the USSR [nominally 1965]
After the wall fell [nominally 1995]
And now [2008]
If one country exceeds others, are they more socialist, thereby?
The analysis is very interesting - and before going further, the thing
the reader might like to ask themselves is if they actually know any
of the answers to the above areas of spending in the 3 periods
indicated /for sure/?
If we later look at the answers to the questions - then we have
figures for [late] Communism, Euro Socialism, and Western Market
Capitalism.
I think this /does/ have to do with support of chess as a world game -
but let's get clear on what's what before we start into the effect on
chess.
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 16:08:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 5, 2:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> You don't even need a subject to be offensively stupid, do you Murray?
> In fact, when confronted with what others think you made a list of 48
> reasons why they didn't need to be countenanced. It was not an honest
> list, since you did your usual thing of first paraphrasing them to the
> level of your own wit, then attacking that. As an extended exercise in
> demonstrating the height of your dumbth, it is hardly surpassed.
>
> And yet you think you know anything about what goes on in the big wide
> world - and while not actually contributing anything whatever, you can
> impress others?
I think the above rant just about sums up Dr.
IMnes himself. His drive to try and impress
others, his refusal to consider the viewpoints
of others, and always lowering ideas to the
level of his own wit, fit beautifully. Ascribing
his own characteristics to another is indeed
the height of dumbth.
Perhaps Dr. IMnes is /not really/ as stupid
as he appears; suppose he is writing all this
nonsense just to get much-needed attention?
It's a tough field, what with Mr. Sloan in the
race, and with Sanny and his GetClub project.
Well, anyway, good luck to all you nitwits out
there! May the best, um, man, win.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 14:26:09
From:
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 5, 4:19=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:05:05 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >On Dec 4, 6:39=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:14:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >> >But Wade may have supported the SU before he knew as much as English
> >> >premier Harold Wilson. He may have supported the idea of something he
> >> >liked being apparently deployed in the SU, but circa 1970, and though
> >> >you don't like him, I say such as Ray Keene came out of the SU with
> >> >reports on what was up there, more reported in Britain than in the US=
,
> >> >and about chess players - Jewish ones - and got some word out...
>
> >> Ray Keene circa 1970 broke the news on the Soviet Union? =A0This has t=
o
> >> rank with one of your all-time greatest clueless remarks, Phil.
> >> Congrats. =A0
> >You mean your paraphrase somehow compasses what I wrote?
>
> I thought it encompassed your meaning. =A0By 1970, there was little
> excuse for not knowing what was going on in the SU.
By virtue of what? Did you know what was going on in Vietnam? In the
White House? If you knew things about the results of Stalinism, how
did you know except by virtue of real reporters.
You see, I have been criticed for quoting Ray Keene on the Soviet
Regime, and also for What everyone Knew. How did anyone know anything?
So you comfound one thing with another, with an attitude of blame - as
if /you/ were inert from events. Which is it to be, the reporter or
what was reported? So far I see both attended here with criticism.
Surely even Americans can understand the relationship of one to the
other?
> >The Western Press ignored the plight of refuseniks is what I am
> >saying. What was being written here in the USA then? You couldn't even
> >tell yourselves the truth about Vietnam or Nixon.
>
> Some of us could and did. =A0But just like with the FSS issue, many
> folks clung stubbornly to preconceived ideas.
The FSS "issue" is like Vietnam? How generally aspersive a comment!
And how unanswerable. It is only remarkable that such statements can
be made without explanation. One might be tempted to think that the
writer was rather retrospective in the first instance and having
learned nothing about projection, even more aspersively blming in the
second - for all his troubles.
> >> >Be cool, stay in touch, and try not to be such a bloody white white-
> >> >man about everything
> >> Yeah, dude,, be cool like Phil, who, while counter-attacking the
> >> Historian in another thread, =A0recently demonstrated his mastery of
> >> ghetto patois.
> >You don't even need a subject to be offensively stupid, do you Murray?
>
> Probably "stupid" doesn't describe your imitation -- "ineffective"
> seems a better fit -- but it did seem offensive. =A0Hoot mon, imitating
> dialect is a dicey endeavor, sure and begorra.
But everything said my others is to Murray worth trashing - what's
new? Not only has nothing to do with him personally, nothing
collectively either penetrates his skull.
Here he merely confirms why stupid abusive usenet talk is okay with
him.
What is there to say about that except to continue to point out that
that is who he is - those are his values, and he continuously
demonstrates them.
> >In fact, when confronted with what others think you made a list of 48
> >reasons why they didn't need to be countenanced. It was not an honest
> >list, since you did your usual thing of first paraphrasing them to the
> >level of your own wit, then attacking that.
>
> This is like criticizing one of Horsey's political cartoons because
> Bush's ears really aren't that big.
Is it? I think that rubbishing real people in a campaign for over a
year as if it were a fantasy cartoon, describes your wit and worth.
> >And yet you think you know anything about what goes on in the big wide
> >world - and while not actually contributing anything whatever, you can
> >impress others?
>
> Maybe the cognoscenti.
>
ROFL!!!!
The WHAT?
Some collection of abuseniks can't post their blagh somewhere else,
and trash all other opinion like true fascists?
Most of your cognoscenti have never expressed even a warm liking for
chess. Get it?
They jerk each other off, and you too. Get a pair of balls Murray. Or
just write with them. You and they have written nothing other than
circle-jerk agitprop for a year.
Phil Innes
>
>
> >Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 14:36:11
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:26:09 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>> But just like with the FSS issue, many
>> folks clung stubbornly to preconceived ideas.
>The FSS "issue" is like Vietnam? How generally aspersive a comment!
>And how unanswerable. It is only remarkable that such statements can
>be made without explanation.
Delphic, wouldn't you say?
>Here he merely confirms why stupid abusive usenet talk is okay with
>him.
You mean such as your Amos-and-Andy-esque patois with the Historian?
>> This is like criticizing one of Horsey's political cartoons because
>> Bush's ears really aren't that big.
>Is it? I think that rubbishing real people in a campaign for over a
>year as if it were a fantasy cartoon, describes your wit and worth.
That's political satire for ya, Phil -- it's generally refers to real
people. Satirizing Donald Duck has very little impact. You think
Bush exists only in your imagination? Horsey has been doing a fine
job of it for over *eight* years now.
>> Maybe the cognoscenti.
>The WHAT?
Those who know, Phil. Those who know.
>Some collection of abuseniks can't post their blagh somewhere else,
>and trash all other opinion like true fascists?
Are you speaking for everyone?
>Most of your cognoscenti have never expressed even a warm liking for
>chess. Get it?
>They jerk each other off, and you too. Get a pair of balls Murray. Or
>just write with them. You and they have written nothing other than
>circle-jerk agitprop for a year.
This from P Innes, the guy who complained about dick jokes.
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 11:05:05
From:
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 4, 6:39=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:14:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >But Wade may have supported the SU before he knew as much as English
> >premier Harold Wilson. He may have supported the idea of something he
> >liked being apparently deployed in the SU, but circa 1970, and though
> >you don't like him, I say such as Ray Keene came out of the SU with
> >reports on what was up there, more reported in Britain than in the US,
> >and about chess players - Jewish ones - and got some word out...
>
> Ray Keene circa 1970 broke the news on the Soviet Union? =A0This has to
> rank with one of your all-time greatest clueless remarks, Phil.
> Congrats. =A0
You mean your paraphrase somehow compasses what I wrote?
The Western Press ignored the plight of refuseniks is what I am
saying. What was being written here in the USA then? You couldn't even
tell yourselves the truth about Vietnam or Nixon.
> >Be cool, stay in touch, and try not to be such a bloody white white-
> >man about everything
>
> Yeah, dude,, be cool like Phil, who, while counter-attacking the
> Historian in another thread, =A0recently demonstrated his mastery of
> ghetto patois.
You don't even need a subject to be offensively stupid, do you Murray?
In fact, when confronted with what others think you made a list of 48
reasons why they didn't need to be countenanced. It was not an honest
list, since you did your usual thing of first paraphrasing them to the
level of your own wit, then attacking that. As an extended exercise in
demonstrating the height of your dumbth, it is hardly surpassed.
And yet you think you know anything about what goes on in the big wide
world - and while not actually contributing anything whatever, you can
impress others?
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 13:19:02
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:05:05 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>On Dec 4, 6:39�pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:14:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>> >But Wade may have supported the SU before he knew as much as English
>> >premier Harold Wilson. He may have supported the idea of something he
>> >liked being apparently deployed in the SU, but circa 1970, and though
>> >you don't like him, I say such as Ray Keene came out of the SU with
>> >reports on what was up there, more reported in Britain than in the US,
>> >and about chess players - Jewish ones - and got some word out...
>
>> Ray Keene circa 1970 broke the news on the Soviet Union? �This has to
>> rank with one of your all-time greatest clueless remarks, Phil.
>> Congrats. �
>You mean your paraphrase somehow compasses what I wrote?
I thought it encompassed your meaning. By 1970, there was little
excuse for not knowing what was going on in the SU.
>The Western Press ignored the plight of refuseniks is what I am
>saying. What was being written here in the USA then? You couldn't even
>tell yourselves the truth about Vietnam or Nixon.
Some of us could and did. But just like with the FSS issue, many
folks clung stubbornly to preconceived ideas.
>> >Be cool, stay in touch, and try not to be such a bloody white white-
>> >man about everything
>> Yeah, dude,, be cool like Phil, who, while counter-attacking the
>> Historian in another thread, �recently demonstrated his mastery of
>> ghetto patois.
>You don't even need a subject to be offensively stupid, do you Murray?
Probably "stupid" doesn't describe your imitation -- "ineffective"
seems a better fit -- but it did seem offensive. Hoot mon, imitating
dialect is a dicey endeavor, sure and begorra.
>In fact, when confronted with what others think you made a list of 48
>reasons why they didn't need to be countenanced. It was not an honest
>list, since you did your usual thing of first paraphrasing them to the
>level of your own wit, then attacking that.
This is like criticizing one of Horsey's political cartoons because
Bush's ears really aren't that big.
>And yet you think you know anything about what goes on in the big wide
>world - and while not actually contributing anything whatever, you can
>impress others?
Maybe the cognoscenti.
>
>Phil Innes
>
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2008 10:58:45
From:
Subject: Re: Their System
|
Jeremy Spinrad wrote, among other things:
"It can be defined in economic terms - the communists believe that
the
state should control all aspects of the economy, while the socialists
believe in a mixed economic system of state and private control (the
exact level of state control varies between different groups in the
socialist movement).
Some socialists view communists as their mortal enemies, "
The question I posed about distributed GNP is interesting in this
respect: that between USSR, Modern Russia, Britain and USA, for the 4
items I mentioned, I doubt anyone could identify which country was
which from these expenditure.
Therefore to extend the idea beyond just socialists and communists to
Western market capitalism is the point. USA is in the process after
all of socialising its banking and insurance systems.
The term socialist merely indicates collective expenditure raised by
mandatory taxes of income and/or purchases, and corporate deployment
of them [corporate meaning collective, in the Latin sense].
Since these collective or corporate expenditures are remarkably
uniform across varieties of political organization - what effect has
this on individual talent, such as in chess?
Of course all cultures are mixes of central spending and capitalism,
even if as in the USSR where the place would have collapsed decades
before without its illegal, but winked at, black market.
To invert Jerry Spinrad's final comment above, some communists try to
kill socialists, and anyone else who gets in their way. That was the
watershed understanding after the Spanish Civil War, and which Blair*
pointed out.
Phil Innes
*People ask why Blair and not Orwell? Eric never actually legally
changed his name, so Orwell is his pen-name only.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 17:40:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 4, 6:47=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> I think it is important to view major chess players as total human
> beings, not only for their chess. This makes us take more interest in
> their chess struggles. It was perfectly valid to want Fischer to win
> since he was American, even though it has nothing to do with his
> chess. It is perfectly valid to look into charges of anti-semitism
> against players, and this will affect your view of them, even though
> it has nothing to do with their chess. If someone has extreme
> political views, it is perfectly OK to use this as a reason to root
> for/against them, even though that has nothing to do with their chess.
> In fact, these views make us more interested in the player, by giving
> the player some personality that helps our rooting interest.
>
> Obituaries are always hard; one wants to have something interesting
> for the reader, but it is also necessary to be respectful at this
> delicate time for their loved ones. I think it would be perfectly
> valid to note Wade's distinctive political views in an obit (i.e.
> notable political affiliations or expression of views). I would lay
> off the question of whether he was an apologist for Stalin until
> another time, but at some point it would be interesting to delve into.
> This need not be a witch hunt; in fact, communists who attack
> injustices committed by the Russians or Chinese are often viewed as
> noble idealists, and it can add to rather than detract from their
> reputation. As for communists who continue to justify the abuses of
> those governments, my feeling is they deserve their treatment, in the
> same way that Nazi sympathizers deserve the scorn they receive.
Mr. Kingston's "shot" consisted in claiming
that somebody did not like BW on account of
his political views, but /nothing/ was given to
show exactly what those views were-- just a
pointed finger and the epithet "communist!".
Others went for the term "socialist", which
reveals a dire need for clarification and real
support of any such accusations.
In reading a few of the obituaries, I learned
where BW hailed from and a few of the
things he has done for chess, but I was left
wondering about the crazy contradictions I
mentioned in an earlier post, not to mention
the confusion regarding whether BW was of
this or that political persuasion.
Once again, many of the "attacks" on the
Russians, on communism and on those
who are strongly disliked by the Evans
ratpack are based on clumsy thinking-- if it
can even be called thinking. In one case,
these ratpackers went on and on with their
ranting, long after /Bobby Fischer himself/
had been cured of his particular delusion,
with the help of some true friends in chess.
For a few examples of the sort of idiocy to
which I refer, one need look no further than
The Great Pedant's Web site, which is
filled with examples of cluelessness and
dishonest ploys by Mr. Keene-- a ratpack
Grand Dragon, so to speak.
Like Mr. Kingston, I would be interested to
know about such things as the political flip-
flops of various players; but unlike him, I
have no desire to skewer Commies, pro-
Soviets, Socialists or what-have-you. And
I might add that in some cases people
have been known to start off with a good
idea, and then later change their mind,
only to blunder. (For instance, Mr. Evans
and his thinking in a famous article from
the year 1972.)
-- help bot
|
| |
I think it is important to view major chess players as total human
beings, not only for their chess. This makes us take more interest in
their chess struggles. It was perfectly valid to want Fischer to win
since he was American, even though it has nothing to do with his
chess. It is perfectly valid to look into charges of anti-semitism
against players, and this will affect your view of them, even though
it has nothing to do with their chess. If someone has extreme
political views, it is perfectly OK to use this as a reason to root
for/against them, even though that has nothing to do with their chess.
In fact, these views make us more interested in the player, by giving
the player some personality that helps our rooting interest.
Obituaries are always hard; one wants to have something interesting
for the reader, but it is also necessary to be respectful at this
delicate time for their loved ones. I think it would be perfectly
valid to note Wade's distinctive political views in an obit (i.e.
notable political affiliations or expression of views). I would lay
off the question of whether he was an apologist for Stalin until
another time, but at some point it would be interesting to delve into.
This need not be a witch hunt; in fact, communists who attack
injustices committed by the Russians or Chinese are often viewed as
noble idealists, and it can add to rather than detract from their
reputation. As for communists who continue to justify the abuses of
those governments, my feeling is they deserve their treatment, in the
same way that Nazi sympathizers deserve the scorn they receive.
Jerry Spinrad
On Dec 4, 4:23=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Mr. Kingston seems to mainly have been
> > > interested in delivering a swipe at Mr. Wade's
> > > politics,
> > =A0 Not at all. As I made clear when I first raised my question, no
> > criticism of Wade is intended. That is a figment of Innes'
> > imagination, and now, apparently, of help-bot's too.
>
> =A0 Baloney. =A0 Mr. Kingston took a cheap shot
> at Mr. Wade, a very vague one at that, and
> now wants to know whether anybody knows
> if BW ever changed his attitude toward the
> Soviet Union in later years (presumably to
> one which befits an "enlightened Russia-
> hater" of today).
>
> =A0 It seems odd to ask about this without ever
> having presented the slightest evidence in
> regard to Mr. Wade having, say, /supported/
> Mr. Stalin's wickedness. =A0 Then again, Mr.
> Kingston is a very odd sort of fellow.
>
> =A0 I now have a feeling we are going to be
> treated to another "threat" by Dr. IMnes, to
> publish in his memoirs the now-famous
> emails in which Mr. Kingston purportedly
> committed some heinous wrong. =A0 Don't
> ask me how I know-- it's just a feeling... .
>
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| |
Not chess related, but there is always a problem in that the
difference between socialism and communism is defined in two different
ways, both of which are consistent with the Bolshevik/Menshevik split
in the Socialist International.
It can be defined in political terms - the socialists believe in
winning elections to achieve their goals, while the communist believe
that change can only come from revolution.
It can be defined in economic terms - the communists believe that the
state should control all aspects of the economy, while the socialists
believe in a mixed economic system of state and private control (the
exact level of state control varies between different groups in the
socialist movement).
Some socialists view communists as their mortal enemies, feeling that
there is a basic split democratic/nondemocratic in which they are
closer to all mainstream parties than to communists, and that the
communists tarnish the good name of socialism. Other socialist feel
there is a basic split capitalists/noncapitalists, and view communists
as their allies. Personally, I respect socialists of the first type,
and not socialists of the second type.
Jerry Spinrad
On Dec 4, 3:08=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 12:59=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > In terms of evaluating if the SU or Britain or the USA is more
> > socialist - it is very interesting to look at what percentage of GNP
> > was spent on:
>
> > Military
> > Schools
> > Health
> > Consumer subsidies
>
> =A0 =A0Spending huge amounts on the military is
> definitely not socialism. =A0 Alexander the Great
> did this, and his government was not Socialist
> (and anyone who said so was put to death).
>
> > If one country exceeds others, are they more socialist, thereby?
>
> =A0 Nope. =A0 You need to look up the definition
> of "socialism", and consider the numerous
> ways in which GDP can flop about. =A0 Do you
> now see why I mentioned sophistry in an
> earlier commentary? =A0 This wacky approach
> of yours is reminiscent of my discussions
> with those delightful but misguided rascals.
>
> > The analysis is very interesting - and before going further, the thing
> > the reader might like to ask themselves is if they actually know any
> > of the answers to the above areas of spending in the 3 periods
> > indicated /for sure/?
>
> > If we later look at the answers to the questions - then we have
> > figures for [late] Communism, Euro Socialism, and Western Market
> > Capitalism.
>
> =A0 =A0Hmm. =A0 I think if you are trying to equate
> the former Soviet Union with communism
> itself, you are making a titanic blunder--
> not unlike trying to equate the U.S.A. with
> gluttony itself.
>
> > I think this /does/ have to do with support of chess as a world game -
> > but let's get clear on what's what before we start into the effect on
> > chess.
>
> =A0 Mr. Kingston seems to mainly have been
> interested in delivering a swipe at Mr. Wade's
> politics, not in delving into definitions of such
> terms as "socialism". =A0 TK gave nothing more
> than obscure offhand references, so it is still
> unclear what comments, exactly, he is tilting
> away at with these swipes. =A0 Some folks had
> it as communism, while others used the term
> pro-Soviet, and still others have referenced
> the "widely-adored" Mr. Stalin-- these are /not/
> universally interchangeable. =A0For instance, Mr.
> Stalin's girth did not reach all the way from
> one ocean to the other, but the USSR's did.
>
> =A0 Such subtleties as these are beyond the
> grasp of many here, I know.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 15:14:34
From:
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 4, 5:23=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 4, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Mr. Kingston seems to mainly have been
> > > interested in delivering a swipe at Mr. Wade's
> > > politics,
> > =A0 Not at all. As I made clear when I first raised my question, no
> > criticism of Wade is intended. That is a figment of Innes'
> > imagination, and now, apparently, of help-bot's too.
>
> =A0 Baloney. =A0 Mr. Kingston took a cheap shot
> at Mr. Wade,
Of course Mr. Kingston did, and did so in Wade's obit. Fucking hell!
> a very vague one at that, and
naturally Mr. Kingston is vague - he is always vague about everything,
hence "vaguer Ki9ngston" A more pertinent issue is this: does Mr.
Kingston think he himself is not effected by religion/politics? IS
that just about other people, foreigners such as Russians and
Mexicans?
He raised the subject, so what does he mean by it? What /is/ his
point?
> now wants to know whether anybody knows
> if BW ever changed his attitude toward the
> Soviet Union in later years (presumably to
> one which befits an "enlightened Russia-
> hater" of today).
Everyone changed their attitude towards the SU. Everyone.
> =A0 It seems odd to ask about this without ever
> having presented the slightest evidence in
> regard to Mr. Wade having, say, /supported/
> Mr. Stalin's wickedness. =A0 Then again, Mr.
> Kingston is a very odd sort of fellow.
But Wade may have supported the SU before he knew as much as English
premier Harold Wilson. He may have supported the idea of something he
liked being apparently deployed in the SU, but circa 1970, and though
you don't like him, I say such as Ray Keene came out of the SU with
reports on what was up there, more reported in Britain than in the US,
and about chess players - Jewish ones - and got some word out...
When did we all begin to seriously doubt the people's paradise? It was
alluring, no? The very idea of it was alluring - though this was an
idea of the head, not the heart.
The facts of the SU superceded Hitler in its barbarity - but this is
just shock talk. What happened is a divorce entire between the head
and the heart, and this is their crime!
The US was hardly better in the same period during Vietnam, which
ripped the nation in half, and in halves and quarters, not yet
recovered to each other as nation.
But that is deeper stuff than this. Our Taylor wants to know precisely
what and when about some some subject? Presumably he will not defend
Mccarthy, or the Viet war - two massively devisive elements in the
50'w and 60's and even 70's. He will like to talk of the Soviets
instead.
> =A0 I now have a feeling we are going to be
> treated to another "threat" by Dr. IMnes, to
> publish in his memoirs the now-famous
> emails in which Mr. Kingston purportedly
> committed some heinous wrong. =A0 Don't
> ask me how I know-- it's just a feeling... .
You have perhaps a little Indian blood? When the moon is in the 7th
house, you feel...
Well, do you like liars at all?
The human condition is to recognise that we lie, especially we men.
Women don't lie they shop.
Be cool, stay in touch, and try not to be such a bloody white white-
man about everything
Phil Innes
> =A0 -- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 15:39:24
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:14:34 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>But Wade may have supported the SU before he knew as much as English
>premier Harold Wilson. He may have supported the idea of something he
>liked being apparently deployed in the SU, but circa 1970, and though
>you don't like him, I say such as Ray Keene came out of the SU with
>reports on what was up there, more reported in Britain than in the US,
>and about chess players - Jewish ones - and got some word out...
Ray Keene circa 1970 broke the news on the Soviet Union? This has to
rank with one of your all-time greatest clueless remarks, Phil.
Congrats.
>Be cool, stay in touch, and try not to be such a bloody white white-
>man about everything
Yeah, dude,, be cool like Phil, who, while counter-attacking the
Historian in another thread, recently demonstrated his mastery of
ghetto patois.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 14:23:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 4, 4:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 Mr. Kingston seems to mainly have been
> > interested in delivering a swipe at Mr. Wade's
> > politics,
> =A0 Not at all. As I made clear when I first raised my question, no
> criticism of Wade is intended. That is a figment of Innes'
> imagination, and now, apparently, of help-bot's too.
Baloney. Mr. Kingston took a cheap shot
at Mr. Wade, a very vague one at that, and
now wants to know whether anybody knows
if BW ever changed his attitude toward the
Soviet Union in later years (presumably to
one which befits an "enlightened Russia-
hater" of today).
It seems odd to ask about this without ever
having presented the slightest evidence in
regard to Mr. Wade having, say, /supported/
Mr. Stalin's wickedness. Then again, Mr.
Kingston is a very odd sort of fellow.
I now have a feeling we are going to be
treated to another "threat" by Dr. IMnes, to
publish in his memoirs the now-famous
emails in which Mr. Kingston purportedly
committed some heinous wrong. Don't
ask me how I know-- it's just a feeling... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 13:39:58
From:
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 4, 4:08=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 Mr. Kingston seems to mainly have been
> interested in delivering a swipe at Mr. Wade's
> politics,
Not at all. As I made clear when I first raised my question, no
criticism of Wade is intended. That is a figment of Innes'
imagination, and now, apparently, of help-bot's too.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 13:08:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 4, 12:59=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> In terms of evaluating if the SU or Britain or the USA is more
> socialist - it is very interesting to look at what percentage of GNP
> was spent on:
>
> Military
> Schools
> Health
> Consumer subsidies
Spending huge amounts on the military is
definitely not socialism. Alexander the Great
did this, and his government was not Socialist
(and anyone who said so was put to death).
> If one country exceeds others, are they more socialist, thereby?
Nope. You need to look up the definition
of "socialism", and consider the numerous
ways in which GDP can flop about. Do you
now see why I mentioned sophistry in an
earlier commentary? This wacky approach
of yours is reminiscent of my discussions
with those delightful but misguided rascals.
> The analysis is very interesting - and before going further, the thing
> the reader might like to ask themselves is if they actually know any
> of the answers to the above areas of spending in the 3 periods
> indicated /for sure/?
>
> If we later look at the answers to the questions - then we have
> figures for [late] Communism, Euro Socialism, and Western Market
> Capitalism.
Hmm. I think if you are trying to equate
the former Soviet Union with communism
itself, you are making a titanic blunder--
not unlike trying to equate the U.S.A. with
gluttony itself.
> I think this /does/ have to do with support of chess as a world game -
> but let's get clear on what's what before we start into the effect on
> chess.
Mr. Kingston seems to mainly have been
interested in delivering a swipe at Mr. Wade's
politics, not in delving into definitions of such
terms as "socialism". TK gave nothing more
than obscure offhand references, so it is still
unclear what comments, exactly, he is tilting
away at with these swipes. Some folks had
it as communism, while others used the term
pro-Soviet, and still others have referenced
the "widely-adored" Mr. Stalin-- these are /not/
universally interchangeable. For instance, Mr.
Stalin's girth did not reach all the way from
one ocean to the other, but the USSR's did.
Such subtleties as these are beyond the
grasp of many here, I know.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 12:34:36
From:
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 4, 1:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 4, 12:59=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Since I did not want to get into this in another thread - there are
> > still numerous points to address about political orientation and chess
> > - what it matters - and who is more naive than whom?
>
> > Here is a selction of comment from other threads:
>
> > On Dec 2, 5:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligen=
t
> > > of my comment to him about the Queen's own award for his services.
>
> > **The point is raised..
>
> > =A0 No, I merely persisted with a direct question, which, it appears,
> > no
> > one here can answer.
>
> > **Actually, the 'point' seems to be blunt - is it admitted that there
> > is a difference between socialist and communist, and this is no small
> > point - but a chasm.
>
> > > =A0Why he insists on such stuff, or any such stuff ...
>
> > =A0 Why? Quite simply: curiosity. Major disillusionments, if and when
> > they happen, are an important part of a person's biography,
> > especially
> > if they happen to be of the religious and/or political sort.
>
> > **And here is another point of a sort. What is it asking and from what
> > basis? Did /anyone/ still favour the SU after they were informed of
> > what went on there? Is the political and/or religious stance of the /
> > questioner/ important to note? Surely it is naive to think one had
> > none, and one is commenting on only other people from some perspective
> > magically insulated from political and/or religious bias? In fact,
> > that attitude is itself an ethical and political perspective. =A0;)
>
> > > Let that go. Bob Wade did not promote left or right chess in England =
-
> > > he promoted chess, period.
>
> > =A0 Never said otherwise.
>
> > **Quite. So what was said? You see, if what a person believes makes no
> > perceptible difference to what he does - what then is the worth of
> > belief, or asking after belief?
>
> > > You can't even tell from his game scores
> > > how pink or true-blue he may have been.
>
> > =A0 But one can tell his opinions on other matters from his statements
> > on those matters.
>
> > **You can tell *what*?
>
> > ---
>
> > Now less glibly:
>
> > Its true the SU after world war 2 made professionals out of their top
> > chess players. Chess capitalists, if you like. The System paid 'em to
> > be good and stay good. I would say the Soviet state created a market
> > for their skills, and paid good old capitalist cash for it.
>
> > And even less glibly:
>
> > In terms of evaluating if the SU or Britain or the USA is more
> > socialist - it is very interesting to look at what percentage of GNP
> > was spent on:
>
> > Military
> > Schools
> > Health
> > Consumer subsidies
>
> > In the times of the USSR [nominally 1965]
> > After the wall fell [nominally 1995]
> > And now [2008]
>
> > If one country exceeds others, are they more socialist, thereby?
> > The analysis is very interesting - and before going further, the thing
> > the reader might like to ask themselves is if they actually know any
> > of the answers to the above areas of spending in the 3 periods
> > indicated /for sure/?
>
> > If we later look at the answers to the questions - then we have
> > figures for [late] Communism, Euro Socialism, and Western Market
> > Capitalism.
>
> > I think this /does/ have to do with support of chess as a world game -
> > but let's get clear on what's what before we start into the effect on
> > chess.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> =A0 Phil, I have no idea why you're going on at such length with such
> little point and so much hostility, though that is your habit.
You are the person who raised such material in someone's recent obit,
and you have NO IDEA?
Fucking Hell! To quote Gordon Ramsey.
You also say something about hostile, by which I imagine you take the
topic personally, as if it were all about hostility to you? The Sloan
could do that, and always does, actually - but
But you are a person who repressed questions from an actual Soviet
interviewee who Russians told you [ a publisher, a GM] would be
perhaps indifferent to truth, eh? The same person who liked to
suppress refuseniks, have them beaten up. Their wives too - yet
nothing from you on this subject. And you do not acknowledge your own
pink trending, or was that just commercial?
The issue is thereby established that you think your own orientation
superior and even unquestionable. But when you had the chance to ask
the questions, you did not do so. Yet you berated Wade for his
orientation 40 years ago, when others like you, failed to ask the
questions which would inform the West of what goes on.
You never acknowledged your interviewees KGB, now FSWB, connections -
even if Russian contacts you asked me about informed you of their
doubts!
> To
> explain again my question about Wade's political beliefs, I simply
> find it interesting how a person reacts when faced with facts that
> severely contradict cherished beliefs. Does he change his beliefs?
Could you manage to be specific, saying what and when, and since you
avoid my direct questions to you, what this has to do with chess?
> Does he deny the facts? Does he react dispassionately, or does he
> experience an emotional crisis? I wonder how Wade, well-known for his
> pro-Soviet beliefs, reacted when the facts about the USSR became
> inescapable.
Well-known about what particular Soviet beliefs? You didn't have to
believe that in the 1950's they took the world in chess. It was
demonstrated. What is it you refer to?
> =A0 A similar example from the chess world would be GM Ludek Pachman,
Gordon Bennett!
> ardent Communist in his youth, whose gradual disilusionment became
> abrupt and final with the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. He
> switched from atheistic Marxism to political conservatism and devout
> Catholicism.
This is an example of what? Pachman was a good chess teacher, even as
a pro-Soviet, he did not seem to change when he became an anti-Soviet.
What is this to do with chess? You avoid directly answering my thesis
in raising this thread - so what is your point?
> =A0 IIRC, the movie "Reds" shows some American CPers undergoing a
> similar crisis in the wake of Khrushchev's revelation of some of the
> horrors of the Stalin regime. This destroyed their cherished illusion
> of Uncle Joe's benevolence.
You want to discuss when people gained information about the reality
of the SU, and what happended then? You see - you raised this subject
in the obit of a chess player - so what chessically do you think is
pertinent to raise about the political orientation of a person? You
say you are precise, but you are precisely not so. Spit it out, man!
> =A0 On the other hand, I've never seen anything to indicate that ardent
> Stalinist Mikhail Botvinnik ever changed his mind about the Soviet
> regime, despite the fact that he lived on to 1995.
What does what you have seen have to do with what?
> =A0 How Pachman changed is well known, since he wrote a book about it,
> "Checkmate in Prague." For Wade I have no comparable information. I
> had hoped that some rgc reader might know,
Might know what?
> but so far it seems no one
> does.- Hide quoted text -
Perhaps you might be less vague in asking for whatever you seek? And
less analogous of personalities like the Czech GM and political
activist Ludek Pachman who was tortured by the Soviets
What does what you wrote have to do with what I did? You answer
nothing, while hiding behind your own orientation, as if that were not
religious and/or political.
You are a Californian - what do you know of these things which
convulsed the world, and which still do? What do you know of the
questions I raised above about which country was more socialist in
expenditure, USSR, Britain, Modern Russia, USA?
You know nothing from the example of your words. Will you not follow
what is put before you, and seek some intelligence on it before
issuing your opinion?
Phil Innes
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 10:58:14
From:
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 4, 1:46=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:37:50 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > =A0A similar example from the chess world would be GM Ludek Pachman,
> >ardent Communist in his youth, whose gradual disilusionment became
> >abrupt and final with the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. He
> >switched from atheistic Marxism to political conservatism and devout
> >Catholicism.
> ...
> > =A0On the other hand, I've never seen anything to indicate that ardent
> >Stalinist Mikhail Botvinnik ever changed his mind about the Soviet
> >regime, despite the fact that he lived on to 1995.
>
> Of course, one was given a house, job and car, and the other a
> beating, which may have had something to do with it.
I would say that was a major factor.
> > =A0How Pachman changed is well known, since he wrote a book about it,
> >"Checkmate in Prague." For Wade I have no comparable information. I
> >had hoped that some rgc reader might know, but so far it seems no one
> >does.
>
> When my brother was in England, a bartender told him English Reds were
> all for human brotherhood and the rights of Man until their tea was
> served cold.
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 10:37:50
From:
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Dec 4, 12:59=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Since I did not want to get into this in another thread - there are
> still numerous points to address about political orientation and chess
> - what it matters - and who is more naive than whom?
>
> Here is a selction of comment from other threads:
>
> On Dec 2, 5:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Our Taylor persists in a simple labeling experiment, utterly negligent
> > of my comment to him about the Queen's own award for his services.
>
> **The point is raised..
>
> =A0 No, I merely persisted with a direct question, which, it appears,
> no
> one here can answer.
>
> **Actually, the 'point' seems to be blunt - is it admitted that there
> is a difference between socialist and communist, and this is no small
> point - but a chasm.
>
> > =A0Why he insists on such stuff, or any such stuff ...
>
> =A0 Why? Quite simply: curiosity. Major disillusionments, if and when
> they happen, are an important part of a person's biography,
> especially
> if they happen to be of the religious and/or political sort.
>
> **And here is another point of a sort. What is it asking and from what
> basis? Did /anyone/ still favour the SU after they were informed of
> what went on there? Is the political and/or religious stance of the /
> questioner/ important to note? Surely it is naive to think one had
> none, and one is commenting on only other people from some perspective
> magically insulated from political and/or religious bias? In fact,
> that attitude is itself an ethical and political perspective. =A0;)
>
> > Let that go. Bob Wade did not promote left or right chess in England -
> > he promoted chess, period.
>
> =A0 Never said otherwise.
>
> **Quite. So what was said? You see, if what a person believes makes no
> perceptible difference to what he does - what then is the worth of
> belief, or asking after belief?
>
> > You can't even tell from his game scores
> > how pink or true-blue he may have been.
>
> =A0 But one can tell his opinions on other matters from his statements
> on those matters.
>
> **You can tell *what*?
>
> ---
>
> Now less glibly:
>
> Its true the SU after world war 2 made professionals out of their top
> chess players. Chess capitalists, if you like. The System paid 'em to
> be good and stay good. I would say the Soviet state created a market
> for their skills, and paid good old capitalist cash for it.
>
> And even less glibly:
>
> In terms of evaluating if the SU or Britain or the USA is more
> socialist - it is very interesting to look at what percentage of GNP
> was spent on:
>
> Military
> Schools
> Health
> Consumer subsidies
>
> In the times of the USSR [nominally 1965]
> After the wall fell [nominally 1995]
> And now [2008]
>
> If one country exceeds others, are they more socialist, thereby?
> The analysis is very interesting - and before going further, the thing
> the reader might like to ask themselves is if they actually know any
> of the answers to the above areas of spending in the 3 periods
> indicated /for sure/?
>
> If we later look at the answers to the questions - then we have
> figures for [late] Communism, Euro Socialism, and Western Market
> Capitalism.
>
> I think this /does/ have to do with support of chess as a world game -
> but let's get clear on what's what before we start into the effect on
> chess.
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, I have no idea why you're going on at such length with such
little point and so much hostility, though that is your habit. To
explain again my question about Wade's political beliefs, I simply
find it interesting how a person reacts when faced with facts that
severely contradict cherished beliefs. Does he change his beliefs?
Does he deny the facts? Does he react dispassionately, or does he
experience an emotional crisis? I wonder how Wade, well-known for his
pro-Soviet beliefs, reacted when the facts about the USSR became
inescapable.
A similar example from the chess world would be GM Ludek Pachman,
ardent Communist in his youth, whose gradual disilusionment became
abrupt and final with the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. He
switched from atheistic Marxism to political conservatism and devout
Catholicism.
IIRC, the movie "Reds" shows some American CPers undergoing a
similar crisis in the wake of Khrushchev's revelation of some of the
horrors of the Stalin regime. This destroyed their cherished illusion
of Uncle Joe's benevolence.
On the other hand, I've never seen anything to indicate that ardent
Stalinist Mikhail Botvinnik ever changed his mind about the Soviet
regime, despite the fact that he lived on to 1995.
How Pachman changed is well known, since he wrote a book about it,
"Checkmate in Prague." For Wade I have no comparable information. I
had hoped that some rgc reader might know, but so far it seems no one
does.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2008 10:46:32
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Their System
|
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:37:50 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
wrote:
> A similar example from the chess world would be GM Ludek Pachman,
>ardent Communist in his youth, whose gradual disilusionment became
>abrupt and final with the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. He
>switched from atheistic Marxism to political conservatism and devout
>Catholicism.
...
> On the other hand, I've never seen anything to indicate that ardent
>Stalinist Mikhail Botvinnik ever changed his mind about the Soviet
>regime, despite the fact that he lived on to 1995.
Of course, one was given a house, job and car, and the other a
beating, which may have had something to do with it.
> How Pachman changed is well known, since he wrote a book about it,
>"Checkmate in Prague." For Wade I have no comparable information. I
>had hoped that some rgc reader might know, but so far it seems no one
>does.
When my brother was in England, a bartender told him English Reds were
all for human brotherhood and the rights of Man until their tea was
served cold.
|
|
