Introducing myself

[kowalskil]

I am Ludwik Kowalski, a retired nuclear physicist from New Jersey, USA.

.
.

[Mikal]

Welcome Ludwik to the Toe forum. We are certainly honored to have your presence here.

Proletarian dictatorship is certainly one of the subjects holding my interest in some pretty intense study.
My present study has basically been centered in Political Science for about the last 5 years so I would certainly look forward to any forthcoming knowledge and firsthand knowledge that you could or would be willing to share.

I will certainly check out your online book and thank you for dropping the link.

Regards Mikal

[kowalskil]

Welcome Ludwik to the Toe forum. We are certainly honored to have your presence here.

Proletarian dictatorship is certainly one of the subjects holding my interest in some pretty intense study.
My present study has basically been centered in Political Science for about the last 5 years so I would certainly look forward to any forthcoming knowledge and firsthand knowledge that you could or would be willing to share.

I will certainly check out your online book and thank you for dropping the link.

Regards Mikal

1) Thank you for welcoming me, Mikal. Keep in mind that I am not a social scientist, or historian. But I will be glad to share what I know and think.

2) I just visited the FAQ section of this website. This confirmed that learning something from FAQs is not the same thing as learning from a well written tutorial. In this case I wanted to know what an article is, in the context of this website goals. The first FAQ tell me how to create an article but it does not answer what an article is. How does it differ from a "new topic"? Then I see an FAQ about a section. Again, I wanted to know what a section is, in this context. The FAQ tells me how to create a section; but that is not what I wanted to know.

Can you, or someone else, explain to articles and sections to me briefly ? Why and when would I prefer to write an article rather than post a new topic? Why posting an article in a section of this website is better than creating a webpage on my own website and sharing a link to it with others?

Thank you in advance.
.

[Mikal]

Hi Ludwik...I never really bothered too much with the FAQ when I joined the forum so I could not be much help to you there. However, the forum is quite diverse in subject matter and relatively easy to locate certain zones that capture interest.

I see you are a retired nuclear physicist and I imagine there are many of our science fellows who would enjoy discussing with you....smiles....
Many of our science fellows write articles on specific science topics and that tests out new theories.
Most everyone posts new topics just to generate discussion and debate and many people drop into Toe to drop their websites which are discussed here.

I have already followed your link and secured the link to your online book which I will read and you probably can expect to hear back from me.
I probably like the actuality that you are able to speak from the experience of your life as opposed to studying something and then discussing it. To me the experiential is paramount in transferring much needed information that leads to clarity of understanding.

Regards Mikal

[SteveA]

Welcome to ToeQuest, Ludwik. It's nice to see you've got some background in physics and I can appreciate your comments on Communism.

My view is that the best economic system is really no "officially enforced" version at all (complete freedom of exchange as much as people can tolerate ), but if that's not an option, capitalism wins over socialism and communism ... most all the complaints people blame on capitalism arise from areas where things are bent away from capitalism. The reason capitalism and wealth and naturally associated is because, yes, it tends to encourage economic growth.

On the other hand, I don't mind dropping 'isms' (sometimes the words are misinterpreted) if people can simply recognize that a society in which people are given the most freedom and options in pursuing their individual happiness in as voluntary as possible interactions and relationships with others is a state with minimal coercion, force, violence and theft and is the foundation for a peaceful and prosperous society. (It can take a degree of tolerance and self restrain, but the payoff is nice )

Most everytime government actions regard some collective social interest, it almost certainty means laws, guns, prisons are involved and will be targetted at various individuals to their detriment and those laws, police, prisons and guns don't feed, house, clothe etc. anyone directly and rarely do even the claimed secondary collective benefits arise, much less is the influence of such a toleration to coercive social mechanisms considered and this has a common history of leading toward tyrrany ... there are many names for it, but it's the same thing - either people respect and defend each other as individuals (the basis of individual rights, classical liberalism and capitalism) or they disrespect each other and have conflicts (most any form of institution in which there is no freedom of disassociation available).

I've come to think physical laws are based upon a mechanism that allows a common environment to exist between things with a fundamental freedom of form. That's simply a potential though without specific value. There's also a freedom to believe differently or to learn and have challenges integrating that with oneself as well. Time is fundamentally a growth and unknowns accompany growth - one can't select all the specifics of growth, but instead supplies the context within which growth occurs.

There's also no manner to force anything to be free - by default everything is free and one only determines aspects of oneself. Ones "self" is in many ways an absolute tyrrant - whever you go, there you are and one always has to live with the consequences of ones actions and beliefs etc. Understand oneself appears to at least be a challenge, if not in some ways at least partly impossible because it's a cyclic definition, though at least understanding some of the general qualities of ones own influence appears to be helpful and potentially rather liberating.

Anyway, I hope my comments didn't sound argumentative. I have some bad habits of coming off a bit strong in my comments, though that's because I do have some strong feelings regarding quite a few political and economic issues. One thing I've found a bit frustrating but am trying to learn is that it appears the best remedy in the long run is to actually do little at all ... it can be best to simply learn from mistakes. To what extent changes are desired, the efforts to alter them will be made, but effort itself does little without being directed effectively (that's one manner in which communism caused problems - plenty of effort and desire, but the direction was wrong and the ideas were conflicting and self defeating).

It appears one of the best ways of assisting others is to actually do little except watch and learn, provide assistance when desired but primarily to learn, take care of oneself and don't repeat mistakes. Others need to learn to do similarly.

I think a "victory" in that respect comes when people simply drop the "guns" and tools of socio-political control, go home and make peace. Realistically, the only social disputes that anyone should have to be involved in are just those in their own figurative 'backyard'. When abstractions are made onto scales where people are no longer real faces or events with direct influence, then many conflicts are artificially created by those concepts themselves (likely if you took the average soldier from any country in WWII and asked them if they had some personal reason to be fighting, the vast majority would have simply gone home - it's the collective social institutions and belief systems, as well as unjustified granting of authority to others who may not merit such or have earned any reason by someone to be in such a position, that causes most all of these problems and the primary tool that keeps things in such a state is fear and not true physical coercion. Most any use of physical coercion is costly and self destructive to such institutions and instead it's the "slave base" arising from compliance to threats and fear that tends to keep these instutions afloat, though ultimately they die off ... slavery has never been viable a long term economic model ).

Sorry for being long winded there, Ludwik. I enjoyed seeing your comments on communism and hopefully my comments are taken in the intended light of trying to offer some of my own views on the subject as well.

BTW, your comments remind me some of the author Ayn Rand. I believe she had some experiences likely similar to yours (you're probably already familiar with her, but if not): http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...rand_biography

Again, welcome to TQ. It's nice to see you've got direct experience in physics as well. Have fun

Steve

[Bogie]

Good words SteveA. I would add that defending freedom at home and supporting freedom movements abroad are complex issues. A strong military that responds to attacks on freedom at home is uncompromisable and stability and peaceful transitions of power abroad is always preferable to anarchy .

[SteveA]

Ah, but where do you place the power? If you've got an organized military then you have a focal point for potential problems.

The U.S. was initially more organized around state militias and a more distributed and local military. I'd have to say that unless people are pretty confident in "the system" it's best to retain control over many issues as locally and individually as possible (which is basically what anarchy is - no "official" form of government except as revealed in diverse interactions between people).

Notice that anarchy is not the same as chaos, though this correlation is often presented. An-archy means no government.

What's the fundamental difference between government and non-government entities? The real difference is simply that there's a social tolerance of force, violence, theft etc. by government agencies. Yes, it's true.

The only reason why government is seen in any desirable light is that we assume such actions are only used in a defensive manner and that government only responds with these otherwise civilly intolerable actions as a manner to deter other such actions, but if you look at probably 70-80%+ of the actual applications of government, this isn't the case and the "aggressor" is the government entity itself (though it's really just people acting upon various social and cultural beliefs).

Most all the supposed examples of anarchy resembling chaos are ones where there's a government entity involved in the picture. When you look at the large majority of daily activities and interactions people have these are almost all done without police involvement or any specific laws determining how these private interactions should occur (businesses, churches, families, community activities etc.) and if there were no official agencies to deter uncivil actions, that simply means that individuals would more directly realize their need to become involved in discouraging such forms of interaction.

I do believe that there's a benefit to having a commonly accepted social structure to coordinate around and in that sense there's a value to having some common cultural views or infrastructure etc. and I do think under the right conditions there are many ways in which such social order can be highly beneficial, but the foundation appears to always need to remain rooted in an ability to disassociate with institutions, people and influences that appear destructive or counter to ones own interests. Voluntary institutions is the best way to go and that's basically what anarchy is all about (yes, it's a tough challenge though and I'm certain some people believe anarchy means you can go around and trash a neighborhood without consequence, but no, anarchy also means that others are free to respond in manners they could deem appropriate as well).

The best form of (non)goverment is really based upon anarchy in a society of people with social and cultural values compatible with it. (If asked, I'd have to say it "kicks butt" over anything else out there . The problem is that most people have been raised under conditions in which beliefs are constructed that aren't very adept at handling greater independence or there are also many controlling social paradigms that teach people to fear such freedom and independence - I've been curious where such appear to arise and propagate ... it could be that it's one of those "you don't know what you've got till it's gone" scenarios ... not certain, but it could be a case of learning from mistakes. I think even the people that get a temporary leg up under present conditions ultimately lose out though and don't recognize all the damaging influences that accumulate over the years, but there's no real use over looking at what might have been. It's really just a matter of learning from experiences and looking at where one is going).

The truth is that we really already do have anarchy. Laws and police or even militaries don't actually force anyone to act differently than they desire, so the issue is really more of gaining a social coordination in which fewer heads are bumped and hopefully one in which people are more inclined to pursue desires and less driven by fears (of course, it could take some relearning social and cultural values to do that well, but I'd hazard a guess that's something that many people might even enjoy doing ... maybe instead of things continually moving toward larger and larger scales of government the focus could retain to the more pertinent aspects of ones own community - who cares how people want to live hundreds or thousands of miles away? I'd much rather have a lot more say at home than a drop in the bucket say in how everyone else lives their life).

[labelwench]

Why and when would I prefer to write an article rather than post a new topic? Why posting an article in a section of this website is better than creating a webpage on my own website and sharing a link to it with others?

Originally posted by kowaskil

Posting an article in the article section of this forum allows it to be accessed and cited in it's entirety by researchers, whether novice or professional, who are seeking such format.

Starting your own thread in the appropriate section of this forum and titling it as Science, Mathematics, Unified or Alternative, gives you the opportunity to post your work in measured increments (limited to 10,000 characters per post if memory serves) and allow comment and discussion from others.

Multiple streams of information allow the possibility of discovery by a broader audience as persons use a variety of words and search engines as the means of seeking.

Therefore, it is mathematically to one's advantage to post their own web-page, AND post either of an abstract or the complete article in the article section of this forum, AND a link to your homepage on your TOEQUEST profile, as well as start a thread in one of the forums, IFF one has as a goal to reach as many people as possible in distributing and discussing the contents of their article.

Several at this forum are authors, both in print and on-line, and one may also access that community if one's goal is to increase distribution of their original material.

Welcome to the forum, Kowaskil, a wonderfully diverse on-line tool made available to us by the technical and skills and personal resources of Robert, our host.

*** Q7: Why did you write this book?

*** A7: This question has been answered, at least partially, in the second paragraph of the Introduction. I became aware that the issues confronting me were important and I described them for those who might be interested. An inner voice told me to write and I wrote. My age--I am going to be 79 in October-- has probably something to do with this.

A designer of a web site is expected to know the audience to be reached and the goal to be accomplished. In writing my 2008 book

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/...roduction.html

I was thinking about American students unfamiliar with Soviet history. My goal was to share with them what I know about Stalinism. This time, however, I am not able to identify the audience, or the goal to be accomplished. I do not expect any particular audience and I do not have any well defined purpose.

Sometimes we are but the conduit for information and the goal and audience will reveal themselves over time, if we but trust in ourselves and the path.

[Ava202]

Ludwik, welcome to TOEQUEST. I have started reading your on line book.

[Guglielmo Tell]

Hi everybody.
I haven't read your book yet, Ludwik (I just opened this thread), but with full determination I have to tell you this: stop identifying your personal disgraces with "proletarian dictatorship". You had a sad and maybe even tragic experience with an opressive power, and I respect that, but there were no "socialsim" nor "communism" anywhere in the former Eastern block, same as there is no democracy in the United States. The whole world is sick of genocide in the name of freedom just for a safe heaven for a bunch of privileged who have no idea about where things ON EARTH are coming from. For my further explanation see my reply to the article "Standards and Industrial Development" in "TOE Overview" Articles to which I could add now that Polish crisis of the late 70s - beginning of the 80s was actually provoked by the West. It was a classic IMF default crisis designed to be a provocation to then Soviet Union and as a cover up to the same thing they were provoking at the same time in Latin America. Later they had provoked the same thing in Asia, now in Iceland, Greece and Latvia (more people fled the latter country in the last 20 years than ever before in History), and now American politicians don't seem to care about having their own country bankrupt. It's a disgrace and a crime when politicians use entire peoples as intended victims, but no people has right to put their suffering above the suffering of any other people. Anti-semitism and all the policies it brought are the same as despicable as genocide of Palestinians by Israelis (whom I don't want to call Jews because, I think, they don't deserve it), of Libyans by NATO, of Latin Americans by CIA & Pentagon-fabricated dictatorships, etc. My reply to that article puts it al into more scientific terms. Read also "Slovakia: Yesterday and Today" by Karol Ondrias, a biophysicist who also has worked in the USA (unfortunately I don't know if it's available on the Internet). Conclusion: THERE CANNOT BE FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY AND NEITHER THERE CAN BE DEMOCRACY WITH CRIMINALS IN POWER - IN REAL POWER WHICH IS ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL. No matter if the latter is hold by State's bureaucrats turning the National Security into their private one or if the State is bought up by "private" monopolies doing the same thing with "capitalist" or "democratic" Security. The result is all the same. Once again, TOE won't be born without including Social Sciences in it, particularly HISTORY and THE WHOLE TRUTH.