User talk:BernardL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contribution. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Take the time to edit your User page and let us know a little about yourself.

We are always looking for quality images for our articles. If you have any images which you can release freely, please upload them to Wiki Commons.

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (but you don't need to sign articles; the software makes sure you get the credit you deserve).

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! User:Zeimusu


Participatory economics is just an updated version of communism and any generalized critique of market alternatives is acceptable as participator economics does nothing to adjust for criticisms of any form of communism or economic arrangements that eliminate prices, wages, private property etc. The complaints are, and will always be the same...no matter what you call it. (Gibby 17:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

You are using "communism" as nothing more than a club. Neither you or friedman can know- a priori - that parecon is subject to the same objections as other socialist models. You show no evidence of having read parecon related material with any care, as is readily demonstrated by your assertion that parecon has no prices. They do offer reasons why mainstream critiques of central planning do not apply. You cannot legitimately argue against such reasons by the mere assertion that it is "communism." You need to demonstrate that you comprehend parecon's institutional design, otherwise you're just playing at vulgar (and rather imperialistic) politics.BernardL 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, your intervention is analogous to me going over to the page on Austrian economics equipped with a marxist critique of neoclassical economics from a writer who had never read Hayek and adding 30% worth of straw man critique to that article. It's patently absurd. BernardL 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do put a marxist critique of liberalism, captialism, the free market etc. I have no problem having my economic prefrences challenged openly because I am confident that their explinations defeat anything you throw at them. Unlike you I am not closdedminded to alternatives and am willing to have both sides explained on any page anywhere. Your constant deletion of material, like most socialists and communists on wikipedia only signifies who really behaves in a dogmatic fashion. (Gibby 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] KDRGibby

You may want to see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby and post evidence. Although I am a anarcho-communist myself, it appears that KDRGibby has a vendetta against every alternative to market economies he comes across, and then posts Friedman's generalized critique of them, even though they belong in a higher article and hsi views do not have such an impact that it requires spamming the same paragraphs upon paragraphs on every alternate economy page. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there's an evidence section; just informing you in advance because arbitration is particularly ugly and I did not know most of the mechanics myself until a few months ago. Most of the evidence should go there; the general complaint goes in the statement section. Cheers! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that part is mainly for adding "diffs", ie. proof that the behaviour complained occurred. Ie. going to "history" and selecting on "last" between versions or clicking "compare selected versions" generally highlights the changes made. This is rather troublesome I know, so I can assist you on this. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of capitalism

Hey, thanks for your comments. I replied on the talk page. :) Infinity0 talk 00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globalization Quotations

Hello:

FYI

The reason I moved the new quotes from the Meaning & Debate to the anti-globalization section is that the Meaning & Debate section serves as only a brief sumation of the issues. When I wrote this summation I made sure that for every 1 sentence explicating globalization there would 1 sentence explaining its critique. In this manner we would get balance in presenting both sides of the argument presented together as the globalization question to the reader.

However, the person who inserted this paragraphs were huge and were simply dedicated to presenting an argument against globalization. Frankly I had already written about the issues he augmented. By adding these paragraphs which are half the size of original Meaning & Debate section clearly presents an unbalanced point of view.

This is not pride of authorship, or an agenda driven edit. I found the graphs well written, sourced and informative. However, since they dwelve deeper into the issue they should be moved to Anti-Globalization Debate. I found so good that I put them first on the section. Firmitas 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noam Chomsky's Political Views

Hiya BenrardL Having noticed your contributions to the Chomsky pages in the past I thought I would ask you to take a look at a disagreement I'm having on Talk:Politics of Noam Chomsky. Do you have any thoughts here? --Zleitzen 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics link

Hey, thanks a lot for the link. I am too busy atm to check up on it, but it will be useful for me in the future. Thanks! :) -- infinity0 11:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your concern (Talk page: Criticism of Noam Chomsky)

The fact is if the standards reflected here were applied consistently across wikipedia it would be a total mess. We could, for example, on the Hayek page, insert the reasonably well-known accusation that Hayek vocally advocated totalitarianism in Chile, without any supporting evidence. It's so easy to smear, which is why it is the last refuge of the reactionary (scoundrel). BernardL 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the Wikipedian policy, WP:NOTE helps keep everything and the kitchen sink from being added.
Secondly, what I am essentially speaking out against is the *smearing* that easily happens when criticisms of a subject are submitted, minus an accurate rendering of what is actually being criticized. It slants the content when we submit the criticism, absent it's own context (i.e., the very subject of the criticism).
I'm not saying add everything and the kitchen sink. I'm saying add it right and accurately.
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
But the page that you linked to refers to the Notability of subjects for articles rather than specific guidelines for content.
Touche'.  :)
I agree with you and I feel (like you, I presume) that the Chomsky criticisms page does not measure up to these standards....
Most of it does not appear to. Though it would take little work for it to.
And of course, contra Huntington et al, Chomsky's analysis of Vietnam has been praised and cited by notable authors, for example by Ben Kiernan, director of The Cambodia Genocide Project in a recent book (perhaps such a counterracting fact is notable too?)
The only problem being that it would fall under Original Research, if you put it on the criticism page. It would belong in the praise section. That said, I think it would make sense for the "Criticism" and "praise" sections to be together in a "Commentary" type of page.
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Communism.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Chomsky

Hey I saw your request for comment on Criticism of Noam Chomsky. Unfortunately Wikipedia has a strict policy on original research, so that paragraph of yours is out. But I'll be looking at the rest of that section and see if I can help with anything else. You can comment here if you think there's anything else I should pay attention to. ==Taxico 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/r/User_talk%7EBernardL_ee4f.html"