-- We'd have real universal health care--that is, everyone gets health care for free. Period. Check almost there

-- We'd bail out homeowners instead of bankers. But why stop there? We could also take all the homeless people and put them in houses that are empty. It's not rocket science: Just put the people in the houses. Check

-- We'd stop throwing away food and get it to people who are hungry. Check

-- We'd end all wars and use the money for education and social services. Check

We're all socialists now?
-- We'd devote massive resources and scientific research to saving the environment. Check

Socialists are tapeworms feeding off of an organism they are too simple to comprehend. Take your utopia and go to Cuba, N. Korea or the old USSR with it.

Cuba, North Korea "or the old USSR"
LOL!

To give just one example, the United Nations came out with a report a couple years ago--a study of global wealth that found the world's richest 1 percent owned 40 percent of all wealth and the top 10 percent owned 85 percent. Meanwhile, the poorest 50 percent--half the world's population--own barely 1 percent of all wealth.

"These levels of inequality are grotesque," said Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam. "It is impossible to justify such vast wealth when 800 million people go to bed hungry every night. The good news is that redistribution would only have to be relatively small. Such are the vast assets of the rich that giving up a small part of their wealth could transform the lives of millions."

Could have been posted by any one of DR lib regulars.

One of my favorite examples comes from the French May of 1968--one of the most inspiring events during the upheavals of the 1960s. The movement there started out with college students, eventually leading to mass student strikes and battles with the police. It ultimately spread to the factories until there was a general strike across Paris. As Joel Geier wrote in the International Socialist Review:

The strikes led to a dramatic rise in working-class confidence and consciousness. The first night of the occupation of the Renault factory at Boulogne-Billancourt, the workers put up a large banner over the factory. It said, "For higher wages and better pensions." The second day, they took it down, and they put up a new sign over the factory, which raised the traditional left-wing slogan, "For a Socialist Party-Communist Party-trade union government." The third day, they took it down, and they put up another banner over the factory, and it said, "For workers' control of production."

In three days, they had gone from higher wages to we should be running the show.

It was a chaotic process, to be sure--but arguably less chaotic, and certainly less destructive, than the anarchy of the free market. Like Goldman Sachs making money off betting that the housing market would collapse--or whole countries for that matter. In fact, this system is a lot more complicated to manage precisely because it's necessary to impose policies that only benefit a minority.

I WANT to look at the role of oppression in the fight for a better world. There is a common critique of socialists that we just say we have to wait until socialism and then racism, sexism and homophobia will magically disappear.

It's true that only under socialism will it be possible to rid ourselves of all these forms of oppression once and for all, because the capitalist system constantly breeds them. But on the other hand, there's no way we will ever see a successful socialist revolution unless we fight against these oppressions in the here and now.

Leave it to a socialist to call riots "progress."

-- We'd have real universal health care--that is, everyone gets health care for free. Period.

NOT EVEN CLOSE. WE JUST ASSURED THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES GET TO USE YOUR ILLNESSES TO ENRICH THEMSELVES.

-- We'd bail out homeowners instead of bankers. But why stop there? We could also take all the homeless people and put them in houses that are empty. It's not rocket science: Just put the people in the houses.

THIS WOULD BE THE RIGHT ANSWER, THEREFORE THEY WONT DO IT.

-- We'd stop throwing away food and get it to people who are hungry.

HALF OF ALL FOOD IN THE USA ENDS UP IN THE TRASH. AND MOST OF IT SHOULDNT BE CONSIDERED "FOOD" ANYWAY.

-- We'd end all wars and use the money for education and social services.
I WISH.

-- We'd devote massive resources and scientific research to saving the environment.
NOT WHILE THE REPUBS AND THEIR CORPORATE MASTERS HAVE ANY SAY IN THE MATTER.

not sure if the original poster intended to make a case for socialism, but i think he did it rather effectively.

since i'm not a foxwatching braintard, i dont think socialism is a bad word. I just think our socialism should serve humans instead of bankers.

I laugh my ass off when I hear fear laden repukes go ballistic when they hear the words "socialism" or "communist". You people are Ferengi. There is am intelligent dialog here but you people are zombies to the AM radio brainwashers. TURN OFF THE RADIO! Use your brain (what little you have.) Just because there is an aspect where a society lends aid to others in the society does not mean the end of the world! A part of me hopes you greedy repukes end up homeless on the streets and need my help - because - guess what? I will give it to you (and go home laughing!)

Just make it impossible to legally rob people, that should fix everything.

Socialist Worker

Contradiction in terms

Rick - that would destroy the entire US economy.
Rob the.. - yes you are.

It's amazing that conservative Americans, namely the GOP, believe that Americans are lazy and immoral for wanting universal health care, good working conditions and challenging education.

They call it "communism" or "socialism" like it was bad. I've traveled in Europe and there's a lot of social capital as described in the article.

Social institutions have been on the decline in America since the 1960's.

Americans are stressed out, unappreciated and lonely in a dog eat dog environment. They work hard, earn less and don't have time for social institutions and community service because,as the GOP would say,they are "lazy" and want to live on the dole.

BTW Socialist countries have central banks and capitalistic institutions in them too.

To give just one example, the United Nations came out with a report a couple years ago--a study of global wealth that found the world's richest 1 percent owned 40 percent of all wealth and the top 10 percent owned 85 percent. Meanwhile, the poorest 50 percent--half the world's population--own barely 1 percent of all wealth.

"These levels of inequality are grotesque," said Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam. "It is impossible to justify such vast wealth when 800 million people go to bed hungry every night. The good news is that redistribution would only have to be relatively small. Such are the vast assets of the rich that giving up a small part of their wealth could transform the lives of millions."
Could have been posted by any one of DR lib regulars.
#4 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

If your so anti-socialist, you should stop posting socialist quotes that make such sense to anyone with a heart or soul.

The disparity between rich and poor is growing an accelerating.
And how much is enough for the moneysucking greedfuckers?
Will you keep attacking evil socialism until the wealthy have 100 percent of the wealth? Would you even see THAT as a problem? Or is it only a problem when the underclass finally rise up in bloody revolution?

It's a fine line the greedy walk, deciding exactly how greedy they can be before theyre risking their own lives. So far they've figured out that if you give the underclass tv, alcohol, misinformation or malnourishment, you can push them to 40percent. I'm sure they'll push it further though. Because greed is a disease that infects and progresses, and when you have a hole where your heart should be, nothing is ever enough to fill it.

But preach on, moneyman. I hope those dollars hold you tight at night. And if there's a god, i'm sure he approves.

Rob the.. - yes you are.

#11 | POSTED BY _HP_

How is it you have a seniority of 48 and post this old ass captain-fucking-obvious joke?

They ain't gonna use no brain, they ain't gonna share the wealth and they ain't gonna survive. Unfortunately neither will we. Between global climate change and the Armageddon that will be caused by global hunger because the billionaires won't give up their Lear jets, yachts and SUVs, there's really little hope herm.

" there's really little hope herm. "

Posted by herm at 2010-08-03 08:02 PM | Reply

Not for you.
My DNA will explore other galaxies or die trying.

My DNA will explore other galaxies or die trying.

the arrogance on this blog is usually pretty mild.

I think Zatforbrains really believes his own tripe.

He belongs in bed with boob and Skizz.

Sometimes - when people can't seem to learn from their mistakes - they need to be reminded. It's futile I realize, but I do have some idealistic tendencies myself. If you knew any social workers - which you do not - you would know they work their asses off more than you and me and they make way less money than (you?) and me.

Posted by eberly at 2010-08-03 08:07 PM | Reply

Sadly was rejected for the Apollo program.

If you knew any social workers - which you do not

we're quite certain you do.

My DNA will explore other galaxies or die trying.

#17 | Posted by Zatoichi

Good. As long as it leaves this planet, we can start cutting back on the Alzheimers funding.

Sadly was rejected for the Apollo program.

I was 6 when it ended.

retarded fuck

Yes I do. And people with phds in theology. people from Pakistan, India, Thailand, blah blah and roustabouts in the oil industry, farmers, nuclear scientists, doctors, lawyers (too many of them!) engineers, educators, on and on. And you?
You say I know social workers – inferring you do not. You must get a more comprehensive view of the world my friend, or..STFU.

"we can start cutting back on the Alzheimers(sic) funding."

Posted by wisgod at 2010-08-03 08:12 PM | Reply

Famous last words.

I truly hope you forget where you live and get lost in the woods only to die over a period of weeks.

#25 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-08-03 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag: Obviously getting lost in the woods all the time.

A two-fer!

Trolling is good tonight.

Trolling is good tonight.

#28 | Posted by Zatoichi

Is that what you're doing. Glad you told us. I was getting worried about your "condition".

BTW Socialist countries have central banks and capitalistic institutions in them too.
#13 | Posted by rick1234567890

That's corporate socialism as opposed to state socialism.

And people with phds in theology yep
. people from Pakistan one so what?
India yeah....they are everywhere
Thailand I don't think so
roustabouts in the oil industry lots....owners, managers, workers
farmers someone can enlighten you as to who I am....yes, more than you can imagine
nuclear scientists I grew up with one
doctors you have to be kidding
lawyers you have to be kidding
engineers again, you have to be kidding
educators once again, you have to be kidding

what is it with morons with small penises trying be bigger than others on an anonomyous blog.

If you knew any social workers - which you do not - you would know they work their asses off more than you and me and they make way less money than (you?) and me.

#19 | POSTED BY _HP_

Social workers make less because their work requires little: training, thought, effort.

Anyone can be a social worker provided you can fill out the application.

Posted by wisgod at 2010-08-03 08:30 PM | Reply

So what's it like being fertilizer?
Is it better than just being stupid?

I have legions of thirty year old robots that are your intellectual betters.

I have legions of thirty year old robots that are your intellectual betters.

#34 | Posted by Zatoich

You poor old fuck. Go to bed. Make sure you unplug the Zenith and Victrola too.

So what's it like being fertilizer?

So what's it like being fertilized?

I have legions of thirty year old robots that are your intellectual betters.

please don't tell us what you do with them.......

BTW Socialist countries have central banks and capitalistic institutions in them too.
#13 | Posted by rick1234567890

That's corporate socialism as opposed to state socialism.

#31 | Posted by Ray

That's affirmative...

Why does rick use his password for his handle???

please don't tell us what you do with them.......

#36 | Posted by eberly

I'll bet they collect data on Global Changes. Of course the data is skewed when Zat lets them rust and Dorthy and the Scarecrow find them while skipping down the Yellow Brick Road without oil.

Socialists are tapeworms feeding off of an organism they are too simple to comprehend. Take your utopia and go to Cuba, N. Korea or the old USSR with it.
#2 | Posted by Diablo

......so how come China owns us, if we have the perfect system ?......

....how come another twenty countries, who mix social policy with capitalism, have a higher standard of living than we do ??.......

......how come Sweden, and other "socialist" countries have higher levels of social mobility than we do ??...in other words, we can dream the American Dream, but they are able to achieve it in greater numbers per capita .........

..........the results are not consistant with your facile propaganda........

sorry my #32 isn't very clear.

you can all figure it out.

If your so anti-socialist, you should stop posting socialist quotes that make such sense to anyone with a heart or soul.
#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I read stuff like this because I think it's important to see the big picture. I post stuff like this to draw people out to see that much of what many people espouse on a daily basis is often the same as that being proposed by socialism and communism.

socialism is not classical liberalism.

the idea of a worker revolt is not new(see judaism), and considering how fascist(capitalism doesn't exist) america is, wouldn't surprise me much.

the problems is that 'socialism' can also be the national socialism of maos china and stalins russia.

the difference between those states and america now is largely public relations bullshit.

the author is correct in one thing though.

real change will not come from the top.

This is false.
It is not capitalism that is damaging us, it is people in charge with selfish motives that are damaging us.

If we lived in 1800's on the wild west we would hav to police our own towns, jerk our own beef harvest our own crops and would not pay taxes.
We would do quite well.

has anyone ever seen the new health care chart?

Part 3
Dreaming of our future

from Lenin's What Is To Be Done, which the Russian revolutionary leader begins with the words: "We should dream!"

SO LET'S say we do have a successful revolution in this country, and it begins to spread to others. What will happen?

In the first instance, there will need to be a government and people's army of some sort to defend the revolution from the remnants of the ruling class, who, as we've seen in past examples, will not give up their wealth and power without a fight.

Eventually, though, the point of a workers' state is to work its way out of a job--because the role of any state is as a tool for one class to rule over others. The capitalist class, as a minority, needs a powerful state to keep down a much larger working class, on which it depends for its wealth and power. The working class, on the other hand, doesn't need the capitalists at all. Ultimately, any type of workers' state will eventually become unnecessary and begin to wither away.

The workers' state can immediately begin implementing a series of measures that, step by step, abolish profits and the free market, replace them with conscious, democratic planning of the economy. Some of these changes I mentioned earlier--for example, taxing the rich and using the money to provide free health care, housing and education for all.

Socialism wouldn't be able to get rid of money right away, but the banks could be nationalized and put under workers' control--which, for the record, in case anyone is still confused about what we mean by socialism, is way different from giving billions of taxpayer dollars to Goldman Sachs.

#42 | Posted by Shawn

Why should change come from the top. The top has all the cards. The control of wealth and politics has its rewards.

To me the question is why change? Certainly things could be better but the type of change be promoted here is not change for the better in my opinion.

"the problems is that 'socialism' can also be the national socialism of maos china and stalins russia."

You mean effective? The problem is that no economically just society can evolve without a committed vanguard of revolutionaries willing to do whatever they must to devolve wealth and power downwards. I think historically, movement towards those ends has proven to be a rather unclean process in some cases.

Why should change come from the top. The top has all the cards. The control of wealth and politics has its rewards.

-------

as with the ancient egyptions, that point was implied.

i've already said what changes need to happen in america in other threads, but for the rundown:

1. end the corporate person

2. end money as speech

3. end the american empire

most of the rest would sort itself out from there.

You mean effective? The problem is that no economically just society can evolve without a committed vanguard of revolutionaries willing to do whatever they must to devolve wealth and power downwards. I think historically, movement towards those ends has proven to be a rather unclean process in some cases.

---------

if you mean that without a revolt nothing is going to change, i tend to agree.

but if you mean that maos china was just, you are SORELY mistaken.

at best it introduced industrialism in the same way that the american civil war did here.

perhaps things improved a little in that the common man got out from under the feudal system, but fascism/national socialism has only proven more efficient im making trash.

people aren't really that much freer today. a cheap work force is still needed regardless of whether they are 'called' slaves.

1. end the corporate person
#47 | Posted by Shawn

I can only interpret this as nationalizing business?

#46 | Posted by Jeni_tells_ya

This is the reason I post this stuff. If you really believe this then you are in favor of armed over throw of the "ruling class"?

you need to read a little paneocon.

If we lived in 1800's on the wild west we would hav to police our own towns, jerk our own beef harvest our own crops and would not pay taxes.
We would do quite well.
#43 | Posted by richardrhine

......actually, the 1880's were a time of one of America's greatest depressions, and people suffered mightily to endure it.......you are looking backward to a mythical past that did not exist......
.....you are either ignorant of history or dishonest about it......

In the United States, economists typically refer to the Long Depression as the Depression of 1873–79, which followed the Panic of 1873. The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879. At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction.[4] [5] After the panic, the economy entered a period of rapid growth, with the U.S. growing at the fastest rates ever in its history in the 1870's and 1880's.[6]

#51 | Posted by Shawn

Interesting. I'm currently reading Taming the Prince "The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power" so I think it's safe to say that we are not going to agree on much. I do appreciate your passion.

type of change be promoted here is not change for the better in my opinion.
#45 | Posted by paneocon

.......your opinion is uninformed......

"If you really believe this then you are in favor of armed over throw of the "ruling class"?"

If ,in fact, there is a "ruling class" then I am in favor of doing whatever is necessary to overthrow them.

.......your opinion is uninformed......
#54 | Posted by skizziks

History my friend tell me otherwise.

#55 | Posted by danni

There is always "ruling class" . Problem is "New boss, same as the old boss. Unless of course they are confiscating my wealth and giving it to the collective.

If ,in fact, there is a "ruling class" then I am in favor of doing whatever is necessary to overthrow them.

LOL

Feel free to ridicule posts like this.

If ,in fact, there is a "ruling class" then I am in favor of doing whatever is necessary to overthrow them.

#55 | Posted by danni

It may take awhile. The 80% of the ruling class are still employeed. (less of course, Goverment workers).

#55 | Posted by danni

"The workers' state can immediately begin implementing a series of measures that, step by step, abolish profits and the free market, replace them with conscious, democratic planning of the economy. Some of these changes I mentioned earlier--for example, taxing the rich and using the money to provide free health care, housing and education for all."

Almost as if you had posted it?

More regulation
More tariffs
Democratic planning?
HCR is what we need (single payer)
Redistribution of the wealth

Have you suggested any of these?

Socialist: Capitalism is Killing Us

Leela Yellesetty, Socialist Worker:

Attention, attention!!!

We have just discovered the queen of the "Useful Idiots Society."

Film at 11

.......your opinion is uninformed......
#54 | Posted by skizziks

History my friend tell me otherwise.
#56 | Posted by paneocon

.......try current events instead of history........

.....look around the world and see the countries that are doing better than us, and check out how they are organized.........

.....but you won't.....you are a prisoner of your preconceptions....so you will keep living in a mythical country of make belief, while allowing your real country to fall apart.......

"but if you mean that maos china was just, you are SORELY mistaken."

Terms such as "just" are subjective and value-added. The Chairman provided an unprecedented level of health care to the peasants via the Barefoot Doctor campaign. The Revolution empowered minority nationalities by promoting indigenous languages and practices. It abolished arranged marriages. It ushered in an era of substantial improvements in gender relations and the living conditions of both the worker and the peasant.

All of these things certainly sound just to me.

I guess my point is, the true revolutionaries you express caution in emulating also provided some of the greatest leaps forward (no pun intended) in human economic emancipation and justice the world has ever seen. They were effective.

yeah. at the cost of freedom for the people and mass concentration camps.

big win...

"Sometimes - when people can't seem to learn from their mistakes - they need to be reminded. It's futile I realize, but I do have some idealistic tendencies myself. If you knew any social workers - which you do not - you would know they work their asses off more than you and me and they make way less money than (you?) and me."

That's because they do something that society finds the services they provide less valuable. One thing I noticed in the article, and have noticed many times before, was the author's assumption that society's acceptance of class notions was due to the fact that they were essentially raised to believe that it would be a constant-that they didn't realize that there was another alternative that would be of more benefit to an aggregated society. That immediately leads to two questions. The first is how you would overcome this phenomenon without limiting individual freedom? The answer to that is simple-it can't be done. The second is whether such as system would provide more benefit to society as a whole. Again, the answer would almost certainly be no.

The reason that a small number of people control the vast majority of the wealth is that a small number of people created the vast majority of wealth. The money they have was freely earned, and received as payment for services rendered. In other words, they got rich because people willingly offered up their own wealth in return for something that only they could provide. In fact, one's wealth is almost a direct indication of their value to society, since wealth increases can only happen as a result of their satisfying a want or need. So if you were to deny remuneration for the provision of these wants and needs, what would be the incentive to put forth the effort necessary to provide them in the first place? And would society be better off if these people elected not to provide these services? Of course not. They would be worse off because they would have fewer goods and services available for purchase. I would contend that even amongst those who are against people being able to accrue vast amounts of wealth, they still want those services that the wealthy provide.

You could eliminate the rich today, and it's not going to make the poor any better off...any richer.

And of course all this ignores the fact that the wealthy cover virtually all the federal income tax burden within the US. Without them, the poor would have to cover their share of the tax burden, again leaving them worse off than they are now.

you are basically putting forward the classic industrial argument.

factories produced wealth for the populace, ended some of the worst forms of slavery, and has allowed for some advances in technology. no question.

but for some strange reason, europe managed to do all of this, without the massive clampdown on civil liberties.

i see china going into wars not unlike ww1 and ww2.

people will stand for this kind of oppression for a while, but eventually they revolt. as they are doing off and on now.

as happened in the ussr, the people see societies where people don't have to take the policia bashing in their doors, and like it.

sorta like what is happening here in the states now that the corporate media is failing.

The reason that a small number of people control the vast majority of the wealth is that a small number of people created the vast majority of wealth.

buuuuuuuulshit.

the people create all real wealth.

it was and has been stolen over and over by the permission system(bankers).

it is unbelievable that people still buy the idea that nebulous non-persons can create.

fucking unbelievable.

"I guess my point is, the true revolutionaries you express caution in emulating also provided some of the greatest leaps forward (no pun intended) in human economic emancipation and justice the world has ever seen. They were effective."

Um, I think the 75 million Chinese that died as a result of Mao's great leap forward would disagree with you on this, although I guess death is its own sort of emancipation. I would also hazard a guess that the millions who died at the hands of revolutionaries in Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, and Cuba would also agree. If they weren't dead, of course.

#62 | Posted by skizziks

I get around and I import from overseas for my company so I'm not living in a hole and the grass may look better but its generally not. I believe in American exceptionalism and judging by the number of people trying to get into America by legal and illegal means I suspect I'm not alone. If you want socialism, I suggest you go somewhere and dive right in, but if you intend to bring it here that's a different story.

bomber needs to look up the words 'native american' sometime.

#63 | Posted by Jeni_tells_ya

OK so you're a socialist then? And what I'm posting is no problem for you, other than it has not happened in the US yet?

"the people create all real wealth."

The people? What people? Am I creating wealth if spend my days making paper airplanes or friendship bracelets? Not unless lots of people want to buy lots of them. People only become wealthy when they have something to offer society. When they don't, they will remain poor, all other things being equal. End of story.

I don't disagree with you on banks manipulating currency, but the underlying economic maxims remain constant-Those people who add value get rich. Those who can't do not.

MADBOMBER-
RE: "The reason that a small number of people control the vast majority of the wealth is that a small number of people created the vast majority of wealth.... In fact, one's wealth is almost a direct indication of their value to society,..."

Wow. Jesus, Gandhi, Goldman sachs and the CEO of BP explained in simple terms by a simpleton.

"bomber needs to look up the words 'native american' sometime."

You need to take an econ course-or two.

And in the meantime you can explain to me where native Americans enter the argument.

dead wrong.

the people who create value are those who make stuff.

the people who profit are those who manage to get their names on the doors.

as i said, the permission system is stacked against those who create in favor of those who own the system.

you have some money, I OWN THE FUCKING PRINTING MACHINE! I WIIN!!!
YOU LOSE!

Paneocon-
re: "I believe in American exceptionalism..."

What does that mean to you? Can you express it in your own words?

It seems to me the Revolutions on the Asian continent provided just that, freedom for the class that was denied it for so long. As far as "mass concentration camps", I think that might be a bit of bourgeois hyperbole....but that might not be your fault. You are American, no?

Those with the most to lose tend to make the most effective counter-revolutionaries. Therefore, I feel it would be somewhat naive to think an economic and social re-odering of a class-based society could be achieved without the suppression and/or elimination of those in the best position to de-rail true progress.

Apologies to Shawn. My post #77 was a rejoinder to his #64.

oh good grief.

you are going to deny all those sent to jail for being against the state for all those years?

all those killed for your revolution?

pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

this is insulting.

you have some money, I OWN THE FUCKING PRINTING MACHINE! I WIIN!!!
YOU LOSE

well, ownership matters to a degree.

do you own anything?

If you knew any social workers - which you do not
#65 | Posted by madbomber

The Ex Ms PANEOCON is a head of Americorps in a major city. The reason she has her degrees is that I supported her. Does that count?

#65 | Posted by madbomber
If I'm getting the rest of your post we are agreeing that wealth is not a "zero sum game" The creation of wealth is not mutually exclusive to the assistance of the poor. To paraphrase a proverb "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day but if you teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime"

yeah.

i own the printing press.

meaning I OWN YOU!!!

Republicans should just be honest and admit they believe the poor can eat shit and die for all they care. All they want is to make more money and they don't feel like they should contribute a fucking cent to those less fortunate. Oh before you say that charity should help the poor I say give me a fucking break. You all know you wouldn't contribute that much to charity.

Eberly-
re: well, ownership matters to a degree.....

#80 | Posted by eberly at 2010-08-03 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

What percentage of the wealth in the US is owned by what percentage of the population?

"OK so you're a socialist then?"

:) Charming.

More of a Makhnovist----but I have been called worse.

Republicans should just be honest and admit they believe the poor can eat shit and die for all they care. All they want is to make more money and they don't feel like they should contribute a fucking cent to those less fortunate. Oh before you say that charity should help the poor I say give me a fucking break. You all know you wouldn't contribute that much to charity.

-----------

you are privating.

this statement is only half the truth.

say republicans AND democrats, and you will be accurate.

What percentage of the wealth in the US is owned by what percentage of the population?

#84 | Posted by BetelG

90% by the top 10% is the figure I've seen.

Eberly -
Do you know? Have you ever looked it up?

What percentage of the wealth in the US is owned by what percentage of the population?

without looking it up......95% owned by 10%? something like that?

what fucked up libtard conclusion are you attempting to draw from my comment?

yeah.

i own the printing press.

meaning I OWN YOU!!!

except.......well.........you don't actually.

What are babbling about?

#76 | Posted by BetelG

The last time I got sucked into that it took me hours to defend views.

Shawn you are wrong. Democrats are noble and generous people who gladly help others. Republicans only help when they think it will make them look good.

Eberly-
What about income distribution? Ever wonder? Ever look it up?

It may matter "to a degree...".

go away berly.

if you are too stupid to get my argument then i don't want to bother with you.

The last time I got sucked into that it took me hours to defend views.

#90 | Posted by paneocon at 2010-08-03 11:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Work on the coherence of your expression of your understanding of a phrase you toss out as a clearly understood term and get back to us.

FU Shawn. Most of the good in the world is done by the left. Not the evil corrupt right. If you are on the right you are inherently evil. I stick by that assertion.

"you are going to deny all those sent to jail for being against the state for all those years? all those killed for your revolution?"

What is there to deny? That's what a revolution is, Shawn. Do you think the kulaks, the bankers, the bourgeois are going to relenquish what they've stolen? Of course not.

"this is insulting"

I certainly feel somewhat insulted by your tone.

Ciao, my friend. Nice talking with you.

if you are too stupid to get my argument then i don't want to bother with you.

make one without hate and rage fueled cynicism.

What about income distribution? Ever wonder? Ever look it up?

okay, asking questions is something you suck at.

just make a statement, assign a position, and we can move forward.

liberals can't move forward until they wrongly assign a position. They need rational folks like me to slap them upside the head and direct the coversation.

stop stumbling....just accuse me of something so we can move forward....you can't debate any other way otherwise.

Eberly-
re: "without looking it up......95% owned by 10%? something like that?"

Maybe you should look it up. Maybe you should look up the income distribution as well, and how it has changed over the last 30 years. It will help with your arguments regarding fed income tax burden, etc.

Ah, Boyd and Jackass. The Hamburger and Hamburger Helper of the downtrodden. If they had their way, we'd be passing a virtual hat to make them part of the human race.

Shaky d-
I could explain it to you if you like, or you could just post some Metallica on a blog you've been banned from but won't leave.

I certainly feel somewhat insulted by your tone.

--------

1. i don't care if you don't like my tone.

2. if you are going to deny the horrors committed in the socialist revolution that brought mao to power then i'm not even going to bother with you. you belong in the same boat as halocaust deniers.

"It seems to me the Revolutions on the Asian continent provided just that, freedom for the class that was denied it for so long. As far as "mass concentration camps", I think that might be a bit of bourgeois hyperbole....but that might not be your fault. You are American, no?"

Uh, if you are unfamiliar with the deaths resulting from the great leap forward, you have a lot of catching up to do. I can't believe that at this point in history, you would be so oblivious to deaths that can be directly attributed to maintaining or implementing communism.

"Therefore, I feel it would be somewhat naive to think an economic and social re-odering of a class-based society could be achieved without the suppression and/or elimination of those in the best position to de-rail true progress."

If you are saying that the ends justifies the means; that it is OK to kill millions if it means you being able to achieve your ideological worldview, then I got nuthin. You're no different than Hitler, who also believed that the ends justified the means. He just had a a different end in mind than you do.

Eberly-
re: "okay, asking questions is something you suck at."

It seems that answering questions is something you suck at because you don't know anything. You just hate to be reminded of it.

Boyd,

do you really think it is information to me to know income distribution and wealth distribution over the last 30 years?

GOD you are fucking dumb.

that wasn't my point. It was that ownership isn't something to be ignored.

do you own anything at all? do you value it? why?

I wasn't making an argument about the distribution of wealth or income. I know what is going on.

again, just follow my directions...assign a position and wait for the slap on the back of your head.

dolt.

More of a Makhnovist----but I have been called worse.
#85 | Posted by Jeni_tells_ya

Oh an Anarchist Bolshevik? how did that whole October Revolution‎ thing work out for you? The combination of academia and the worker class is a questionable combination. I posted a article last week that clooks at that combination.

If you are saying that the ends justifies the means; that it is OK to kill millions if it means you being able to achieve your ideological worldview, then I got nuthin. You're no different than Hitler, who also believed that the ends justified the means. He just had a a different end in mind than you do.

-----------

i'll say this. if 100 million americans got up and pretty much killed off the ruling class, i wouldn't be surprised nor would i shed a tear. however, regardless of whether things improved for the populace after or not,i'm not going to ignore reality to fit some idyllic fantasy just because it happens to be convenient(which is what jeni is trying to foist on the channel).

Eberly-
No, I think your pronouncements of boilerplate ideology sans any understanding of current conditions speak for themselves.

Ah, Boyd and Jackass. The Hamburger and Hamburger Helper of the downtrodden. If they had their way, we'd be passing a virtual hat to make them part of the human race.
#101 | Posted by wisgod

LMFAO thanks

what comment of "ideology" did I make?

Eberly-
Shawn is a reckless ideologue without a clue, but you too?

Since I have to get up early to pursue my evil capitalist pig endeavors and take from the downtrodden worker to enrich myself. I thought I would post this part of the article.

But when we socialists talk about collectivizing private property, we're not talking about personal property, like your house or your television. What we mean are the means of production: factories, hospitals, schools, etc.--i.e., the kinds of property most of us don't own, even though we may spend most of our lives working on that property and making the few people who own it very wealthy.

Now, there could be an exception for the personal property of the very richest people. Workers could decide, I think reasonably, that no one needs four yachts, for instance.

But for most of us, though, socialism will be about having more of everything, not less. Right away, the workday could be decreased dramatically--first off, just by leveling out all the people who are unemployed, with those working overtime or multiple jobs.

Prison construction--that would go. The vast majority of people behind bars are there for nonviolent crimes and should be released immediately. The motivation for most crimes today--poverty--will no longer exist. Some people will be in need of mental health treatment, but ultimately, I think there will be fewer of them, as society becomes less distorting of people's humanity. For instance, not one more soldier will come back with post-traumatic stress disorder.

In the short run, we may need to lock up some CEOs if they put up too much of a fight, but either way, we certainly don't need any more jails than we already have.

Maybe you should look up the income distribution as well, and how it has changed over the last 30 years. It will help with your arguments regarding fed income tax burden, etc.

what arguments?

come on, tard. I can't teach you.....only lead you to water......

Paneocon-
Simple question:

What does "american exceptionalism" mean to you? Just because you can't answer in a coherent declarative sentence is no excuse for getting all personal and pissy.

There needs to be a massive redistribution of wealth in this country. Laws need to be set in place on how much a CEO can make in comparison to their employees. No more than 40X to 50X what their employees make. People like Eberly and Wisgod need to be forced into helping people like myself. I'm not saying take all of their disposable income maybe just half. People like that don't need all of their money.

Shawn has no ideas just insults.

Shawn is a reckless ideologue without a clue, but you too?

no, you are pissed because Shawn isn't a reckless libtard ideologue.

if he were, like you, then you would be fine with it.

Laws need to be set in place on how much a CEO can make in comparison to their employees. No more than 40X to 50X what their employees make

Boyd, now here is a guy with his hand raised screaming "reckless ideologue here.....please pick me".

He is the very definition of a clueless yapping anklebiter, a yiptard, as it were.

#121 | Posted by Shaky

I'd shorten it to Lazy Lib, but that's just me.

Eberly-
My bad. You were on the same side of the melee with Paneocon and Madbomber and so I included you with them and conflated their bullshit statements you would never challenge because they are on your "side" with your posts. But I apologize.

Shawn has no ideas just insults.
#120 | Posted by jackass

And you're the fricking Kreskin of Philosophy?

"if you are going to deny the horrors committed in the socialist revolution that brought mao"

And if you're going to deny the horrors committed upon countless peoples by kulak and pomeshchik scum......

That's the problem with people like yourself, Shawn. No justice can take root when you refuse to acknowledge the less than palpable things that must occur as history asserts itself. I suppose you're simply content to make hard-core sounding blog posts. You've got the language of revolution down. You might try to break through that bourgeois comfort-zone and begin to take your ideas seriously. Then maybe other people will.

Bye.

Boyd,

come on. many folks post from the left that I don't expect you to defend. you can attack them all you want.

same goes on the right.

Boyd, now here is a guy with his hand raised screaming "reckless ideologue here.....please pick me".

#123 | Posted by eberly at 2010-08-03 11:51 PM

That came from the liberal mastermind Thom Hartmann. I am in complete agreement with him on that. The rich are confiscating too much of the wealth. We need to begin redistribution now.

Boyd, now here is a guy with his hand raised screaming "reckless ideologue here.....please pick me".

#123 | Posted by eberly at 2010-08-03 11:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now you've done it!

There's something wrong with a culture that has CEO's making 400 times the factory floor wage AND getting even richer after they have tanked their company AND got bailouts from the taxpayer and put the economy into a deep recession.

"i'll say this. if 100 million americans got up and pretty much killed off the ruling class, i wouldn't be surprised nor would i shed a tear."

My God. After that display of (apparently) fake outrage at the methods of Chairman Mao and Comrade Stalin, you puke THAT sentence up? I believe I've wasted my time this evening.

You don't seem to attack them much, Eberly.

It's done like this-

Shawn-
Move out of your mom's house and read some fucking books.

Jackass-
Eat shit. You are so bad at this that it makes me think that you are a right wing plant. You fucking suck. Do everyone on the left a favor and take up gardening or miniature golf. Join their online club. Fucking please.

Now you, Eberly....

#134 | Posted by BetelG

You're a sore loser, You have been out lefted here tonight by:

Shawn
Jeni_tells_ya
Jackass

"Laws need to be set in place on how much a CEO can make in comparison to their employees. No more than 40X to 50X what their employees make"

Oprah's not going to like that one bit.

Eberly?

Let it be noted.

That's the problem with people like yourself, Shawn. No justice can take root when you refuse to acknowledge the less than palpable things that must occur as history asserts itself. I suppose you're simply content to make hard-core sounding blog posts. You've got the language of revolution down. You might try to break through that bourgeois comfort-zone and begin to take your ideas seriously. Then maybe other people will.

------------

if you want to call mass murder, mass incarceration, and mass genocide, less palpable, then i won't bother with you.

as i said. you belong with the haulocaust deniers.

as for a bourgeois comfort zone, i think i'm just about the only fucker here who continiously approves of mass popular revolt.

so fuck off again!

and as for your last statement i never said i was outraged asshole.

i said that i refuse to pretend that it didn't happen to protect an idyllic fantasy that you have about china.

there is no freedom of speech in china.

none.

if the american internet is censored, the CHINESE INTERNET is far far worse.

you gloss over reality when it suits your bullshit same as fascists here who try to pretend that the native americans didn't and don't exist.

and yes, you have wasted your evening if the point of coming here was to foist national socialist claptrap.

Paneocon-
I'm still really curious about what you mean when you say you believe in "american exceptionalism". It seems like a dangerous thought if you can't define it, as are all terms full of jingoistic nationalist duck-speak that lead to grave errors and world conflagrations.

#137 | Posted by Danforth

The revolution will not be televised and the wealth of liberals will not be redistributed.

paneocon-
...but the wealth of conservatives will be?

WTF are you talking about Glenn Beck?

#140 | Posted by BetelG

Why is "American exceptionalism" such a threat to you?

A GOOGLE search on American exceptionalism will bring up a whole lot of people calling it a myth. Where is the threat here?

Thanks, Eberly.

Paneocon-
It's not a threat to me unless there are morons like you running around who use the phrase and can't even define it. It's at that point that it becomes 'whatever the US gov't does is right, 'nuff said'.

I mean, really, Eberly. Thank you soo much.

"The revolution will not be televised"

It'll be Tweeted.

"The revolution will not be televised"

It'll be Tweeted.

-----------

like iran...

as for a bourgeois comfort zone, i think i'm just about the only fucker here who continiously approves of mass popular revolt
#139 | Posted by Shawn

How do you think this "popular revolt" will occur in a county like America without some form of genocide involved.

I suspect that Jeni_tells_ya is a fake but never the less the type of change Jeni_tells_ya spoke to will ultimately be no different than what you propose.

Do you think a bunch of center right gun toting citizens are just going to stand by and let a revolt occur? Open another beer and watch the game while the town hall burns?

Jackass-
Eat shit. You are so bad at this that it makes me think that you are a right wing plant. You fucking suck. Do everyone on the left a favor and take up gardening or miniature golf. Join their online club. Fucking please.

#134 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-08-04 12:05 AM

You are so jealous that I have fresh ideas for the left while all you want to do is cave to the right. My ideas would work while all you would do is acquiesce to the point we would have a libertarian regime resembling Somalia.

Asshole (Shaky D)--
I might break the spell by even mentioning this, but have you noticed that even your friends are ignoring you and hoping you'll go away with some tiny shred of dignity?

Paneocon-
It's not a threat to me unless there are morons like you running around who use the phrase and can't even define it. It's at that point that it becomes 'whatever the US gov't does is right, 'nuff said'.

#145 | Posted by BetelG at 2010-08-04 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

How do you think this "popular revolt" will occur in a county like America without some form of genocide involved.

----------

i didn't.

what i don't presume to do is deny the reality of what happened to suit the new orders fantasy.

and that is what jeni was attempting in regards to china.

in other words, justice had nothing to do with it.

the american revolution was far from bloodless, but i don't blame the populace for murdering redcoats.

what i don't do is try to deny that the whole thing happened to create a fantasy world where the colonists were heroes or something.

they fought over land that they stole by murdering the indigenous populations, and then decided that they wanted their own junta away from don george.

I pray genocide does occur. It would be a wonderful opportunity for the left to purge the country of conservatives. A liberal utopia could then be easily established.

First of all, under socialism, nobody would be forced to work a shit job their whole lives, which is what happens under capitalism. A lot of the most unpleasant tasks could be automated if making money wasn't the highest priority dictating how technology is used.

And whatever work couldn't be automated would be shared out, instead of being shoved onto the most desperate and vulnerable in society.

There's a pervasive idea in our society that the only thing that motivates people to work is money, and that without a huge monetary reward, nobody would opt to be, say, a doctor--everyone would want the "easier" job of janitor.

Yet like all work under capitalism, this particular job is valued based on the class and pay scale of the people who do it, not by the value it contributes to society.

The reality is that even if we win a socialist world in our lifetime--and I really, really hope we do--our lives will be a million times better than they are now, but even that will pale in comparison to what future generations will get to experience.

Imagine growing up in a world in which you've never known war or exploitation or oppression, a world in which the needs of people and the planet come first. Imagine a world where people have never heard of a prison before--and can't even get their head around the concept of it.

First of all, under socialism, nobody would be forced to work a shit job their whole lives, which is what happens under capitalism. A lot of the most unpleasant tasks could be automated if making money wasn't the highest priority dictating how technology is used.

------------

tell it to the revolting chinese whos benefits got cut just in time.

and i understand that you might not be lumped in with jeni the denier so i will clarify.

in socialist systems there are always equal and more equal people.

the idea is nice, but until you get very specific you are tooting fantasies.

what i don't presume to do is deny the reality of what happened to suit the new orders fantasy.
#155 | Posted by Shawn

How Refreshing, Genocide as a mission statement?

Jackass-
Fuck off and go away.

Paneocon-
Perhaps I should post a blog entry from one of the leaders of the tea party as opposed to some obscure socialist blog, and in the interim, maybe you can come up with your own words to define a phrase you like to use:

Here's the full Mark Williams post, followed by a screenshot (just in case he thinks better of it tonight and decides to erase it. … not that that's likely…) with emphases added:

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement'.

The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

in socialist systems there are always equal and more equal people
#158 | Posted by Shawn

We are in agreement. To me socialism is only a tool for one ruling class to be disposed by another ruling class.

"what i don't presume to do is deny the reality of what happened to suit the new orders fantasy."

Yet you DO deny the reality of what must happen when a just order is imposed. You just talk shit on the internet and air your complaints regarding a global capitalist rape of the people. Then you express a poorly informed content towards comrades and heros that actually stood in solidarity with the worker and did something. I thought you were smarter than that. I wouldn't have taken you for a mere shit-talking coward. Silly me :(

Paneocon-
Can you define "Refreshing", "genocide" and "statement"?

(not to pry, but you seem to have a history of using terms you are unable to define)

some obscure socialist blog,
#160 | Posted by BetelG

Yet you DO deny the reality of what must happen when a just order is imposed. You just talk shit on the internet and air your complaints regarding a global capitalist rape of the people. Then you express a poorly informed content towards comrades and heros that actually stood in solidarity with the worker and did something. I thought you were smarter than that. I wouldn't have taken you for a mere shit-talking coward. Silly me :(

------------

ugh. the denier again.

go play with your white supremacist holocaust denier buddies asshole.

i've made it quite clear that i think change is needed, and made plenty of allowances for the fact that they most likely will not come without blood.

it is you who deny the injustice of the system that you purport to love so much.

the truth is that if i lived in china, and said the things that i say here, i would be in jail or murdered.

you have no answer for that, and best should shut the fuck up.

Socialists are tapeworms feeding off of an organism they are too simple to comprehend. Take your utopia and go to Cuba, N. Korea or the old USSR with it.

You forgot Israel asshole and anytime you wanna stop supporting them feel free to do so.

"in socialist systems there are always equal and more equal people."

You haven't thought this through very well, my friend.

Comrade Lenin taught us:

"The history of all countries bears out the fact that through their own powers alone, the working class can develop only a trade-union consciousness."

Paneocon-
Right. SocialistWorker.org is a big player. Almost as big as the NewBlackPanthers. Together they occupy an entire room in Glenn Beck's mind with seating for twelve, but no coherent thoughts allowed.

ugh, and the worm continues.

i don't give a fat flying fuck what lenin said.

i care that millions died under stalin.

while it may be true that some good things happened, i refuse to pretend that you didn't have to have papers to cross borders.

i refuse to pretend that they didn't have to build walls to keep their people in.

i refuse to pretend the rest.

it is you who are confusing dogma with the realities that occurred on the ground.

"the truth is that if i lived in china, and said the things that i say here, i would be in jail or murdered."

How so??

You're a very confused (young?) man. I see very little coherence in your ideological imperatives.

I'm not trying to be hostile.

"worker give us your hand".

at this point i'm pretty much convinced that jeni is a redbaiter. you are a pretentious marketing asshole.

fuck off.

i feel no particular obligation to continue to play games with you asshole.

go fuck yourself.

Really, Shawn? Looks like he caught one! Why, at this point you're probably wondering if he punked you under a different name before...

Jesus.

you can go fuck yourself too.

"i refuse to pretend that you didn't have to have papers to cross borders."

Why do you think that was, Shawn?

While a revolution of the proletariat was a global struggle, it remains incomplete...just as it was in Stalin and Mao's time. There was also an ongoing campaign of aggression by the United States and its empire to undermine it. Papers identified citizens and discouraged usurpers. There may well come a time when papers are unnecessary, but we're not at that point yet.

you aren't worth a toss.

go play with your intellectual superiors on the drudge report or maybe call rush limbaugh or something.

you might get some play there.

they really don't like dissent from the state.

they would love you.

bye bye shithead.

I have no us for a wanna-be revolutionary who is reduced to an incoherent ball of spittle when someone attempts to discuss ideas on a slightly higher plane of intellect. What a shame. I didn't come here to pick a fight, buddy.

I have no us for a wanna-be revolutionary who is reduced to an incoherent ball of spittle when someone attempts to discuss ideas on a slightly higher plane of intellect. What a shame. I didn't come here to pick a fight, buddy.

Apparently, I said it twice! :)

I thought RCade asked you to leave his blog, Mao.

Not speaking for RCade, but Rcade did ban the person in question who is of course not Mao and not posting under a different name and pretending that he wasn't asked to leave!

Very much unlike you, whatever your name is....

Do either of you feel a little creepy being asked to leave someone's property and then sneaking in under dark glasses and stick-on mustaches?

How did cricket get in here? Do you hear that chirping above the silence?

How's that website going "Shaky d", you know, the one where you were going to steal RCade's posters away and set up your own site where ridiculous personal bullshit and tweener metal posts from a moron were more appreciated despite their prosaic emptiness?

But that was years ago, and before you were asked to cease being a parasite on this blog. As I recall, RCade was very generous. He allowed you to advertise on his blog and everything.

And now here you are, sneaking in the back door like a child at the movies. How old are you, like forty?

chirp chirp chirp, "Jeni".

'night

I'm not living in a hole and the grass may look better but its generally not. I believe in American exceptionalism and judging by the number of people trying to get into America by legal and illegal means I suspect I'm not alone. If you want socialism, I suggest you go somewhere and dive right in, but if you intend to bring it here that's a different story.
#69 | Posted by paneocon

.......your attitude is exactly as I predicted it would be::

.....look around the world and see the countries that are doing better than us, and check out how they are organized.........
.....but you won't.....you are a prisoner of your preconceptions....so you will keep living in a mythical country of make belief, while allowing your real country to fall apart.......
#62 | Posted by skizziks

......you are not willing to learn from countries that are doing better than we are, therefore we will continue our decline towards Mexican living standards........can't say I didn't tell you.

socialism works fine for ants and bees... cause the workers are too stupid to know anything... are willing to work themselves to death for no reward, and believe that all future days are supposed to be just as meaningless as the current day.

Humans (except for a few of the left) are smarter than that. Socialism / communism fails for 2 reasons. Laziness and greed. When people realize that they can get the same for doing less, they will do less. When people realize they can take more than they need to survive, they will do so.

Socialism and/or communism will only work when the people are limited to the IQ of an ant. Even with liberals running the schools, they have a long way to go to dumb America down that much.

I think it would be instructive if we got a list going here. Who wants to play?

A simple, non-scientific poll just for the hell of it. Just note whether your ideology falls in the MARXISM or the CAPITALISM camp; and WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING, (generally).

OK. I'll start.

CAPITALISM / Self-employed "small business" owner

JM

#191 | Posted by 1libertarian

At the end of the day it always comes down to biological imperatives and sociology. We work to ensure the survival of our gene pool, We overcome, and adapt to ensure the advancement of our gene pool. The basic human traits of greed, need, lust, etcetera. are always there. A ideology that assume that humans will all want the same things, react the same way and accept the say rules is doomed to fail. There is a lot of talk about communes in this article on socialism. A note worthy experiment but one that has a history of failure much like that of socialism. Capitalism may be chaotic but it has the room for individual initiative and individual deviations. 90% of the people on DR would be likely be killed in a year in China.

#192 | Posted by dockj

You compile the list and I'll try to add it to this thread as a poll. I've not tried to add a poll late in a tread but it may work.

CAPITALISM / Self-employed "small business" owner

Here's the GREAT LIE:

"Worker Control" is never worker control in practice, it's control by an ever growing Government - the emergence of a ruling class.

Look at history, redistribution reduces opportunity for everyone, especially the poor worker. Less is produced and everyone gets less.

It crushes those it purports to help to put power in the hands of an ever-more oppressive government.

So smart guy. Show us where socalism is working. Europe where they are switching to capitalism? Maybe Greece? How about Russia?

Germany and France together have a better economy than China or US, better exports, and they hold more of our debt than China.

They have what, 10+ weeks vacation, education, and medical paid for and as much freedom and liberty as anyone, and more than most.

But, they also have environmentalists (lib and con) and union leaders and peace activists and Medical people in government positions and that is just too "Commie" for the truly well-indoctrinated right wingers in this country.

Hell, with all that, "We the People" and "the General Welfare" stuff, the Founding Fathers would be RINO's these days, and the Tea Party would call them "Socialists", and ban them from their Party.

Germany and France together have a better economy than China or US, better exports, and they hold more of our debt than China
#193 | Posted by Corky

Is it in liberal DNA to get facts wrong. Do you think we will not check everything you say for accuracy?

Not exactly, Jefferson warned us that Banks are more dangerous than standing armies. When this country was founded Europe was mired in debt peonage. This is a consequence of the miracle of compound interest, which doubles in a time dependent on the rate. Our nation was organized to protect individuals against debtors prisons, so Shrub and Biden created a virtual prison by making Bankruptcy nearly impossible for anyone with a job. For business its still as easy as ever.

Every country has relied on subsidies and protectionism to develop. The first computer was too expensive so the GOvernment bought them from IBM. Air tranportation, medical development, GPS, cell phones, microwave ovens, and many more miracles of modern life all relied on Government sponsorship.

Free trade only works under special circumstances. What we have today is labor arbitrage for the benefit of a tiny group of people. Since wages are falling and drive 70% of our economy there is no reason to think we are headed anywhere but down. Socialists recognize this and Capitalists don't give a shit.

People like Panecon, I fear, would lose all sense of reality if they were to have to make it through life without corporations telling them when to rise, when to sleep, what to eat, how much vacation to take, who to vote for, and whether their health is worth caring for.

Hell, with all that, "We the People" and "the General Welfare" stuff, the Founding Fathers would be RINO's these days, and the Tea Party would call them "Socialists", and ban them from their Party.

#193 | Posted by Corky

You are nucking futs.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I'm not quite sure how that part of the constitution has been turned into welfare payments for the lazy. To me it says they shal be responsible for the general welfare of the country, not 'the people' as indivudals. You know, like stated in the first amendment 'the right of the people' which refers to individuals, not the country.

The flaw in this socialist's thinking is her belief that inequality of wealth is a bad thing. It's not. Inequality of wealth keeps poor people working hard to get more, and that hard work benefits everybody, particularly the wealthy, who then allow their wealth to trickle down to the poor. Coveting our neighbors' goods is the very basis of American capitalism.

Therefore, we should enact laws that concentrate wealth even more, not distribute it more evenly. If wealth became distributed evenly, nobody would have an incentive to do anything productive. That's why we should make sure the Republican party leads us into the future. For decades now, the Republican party has realized that the answer to America's economic problems is to get as much money in as few hands as possible. The Tea Party people embrace this and are demanding that it happen now, not later.

But this socialist writer seems to think that there comes a point when the wealthy can have too much of the wealth, e.g., she thinks it's a bad thing that 1% of the people own 40% of the wealth, that 10% of the people own 85% of the wealth, and that 50% of the people own only 1% of the wealth. Wrong again! The more inequality of wealth the better. The more poor people there are, the more hard work they will produce striving to better themselves, the more wealth they will make for the wealthy, and the more will trickle back down to the poor. It's a win-win situation!

Accordingly, we should strive for a world in which 1% of the people own 70% of the wealth, not just 40%, and where 10% own 95% of the wealth, not just 85%, and where 1% of the wealth is allocated to 80% of the people, not just 50%. Can you imagine how productive the world will be with 80% of the people working hard to produce wealth that will eventually trickle back down to them?

Of course, there will be some of the poor who won't realize this betterment of their situation in their lifetime, and that's where Christianity comes in. It's key that the poor embrace a religion that keeps them meek so that they can inherit the earth. Aristocrats recognized this in the middle ages. The poor must understand and believe that their reward really will come to them in the next life. This will keep the poor content to work hard in this life. And, as we have seen above, the harder the poor work, the more wealth is created in the wealthy to trickle back down to the poor. This system has worked well to make our economy what it is today, and it will keep on working for us in the future.

#198 | Posted by nimbleswitch

Nicely done, I appreciate the sarcasm even if the drift of your rant is completely wrong. A+ on creative writing.

Better put a sarcasm warning label on your posts as there are those on the DR that don't get sarcasm and you might be accused of being a rightwing rtard.

Interesting article excerpts:

The working class produces all the wealth that the capitalists siphon off.

Five things we could do better under socialism:

Real universal health care--that is, everyone gets health care for free. Period.

We'd bail out homeowners instead of bankers. But why stop there? We could also take all the homeless people and put them in houses that are empty. It's not rocket science: Just put the people in the houses.

We'd stop throwing away food and get it to people who are hungry.

We'd end all wars and use the money for education and social services.

We'd devote massive resources and scientific research to saving the environment.

Most of the time, as individuals, we're powerless to control most things in our lives. This is often described as apathy, but it's a pretty understandable response. Everything changes when people get a taste of their collective power. Suddenly, politics become relevant in a way they never were before.

Many of these good ideas are not politically feasible in this country. But here's one that is or should be. Reestablish 200 year old usery laws cancelled by Reagan. Cap interest rates by law. Simple, yet highly effective in righting the ship.

Really? ". . . completely wrong"? You don't find a kernel of truth in there anywhere?

It is scary how many americans seem to hate America.

"It is scary how many americans seem to hate America."

#191 | POSTED BY JDFOLKERTS AT 2010-08-04 12:43 PM

The number of Americans who want to undue the Civil Rights Act, the Social Security Act, Roe v. Wade, and health care reform (all of which are a part of today's America) seem about equal to the number of Americans who want to undue the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and tax cuts for the wealthy (all of which are a part of today's America). All these folks who don't like something about America the way it is must "hate America," right?

Socialism ends up with one ruling class - the ruling political class. I personally like my classes to be at odds. I like that the church fights the government who fight the business who fight the plebes... This is balance of power - keep all of them and let the balance of power sway back and forth.

If one of those wins, we all lose.

(as a corollary, I still see no difference in the Republicans and Democrats. The second best thing for each of them is to have the other win.)

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
- Vladimir Lenin

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
- Vladimir Lenin

#194 | POSTED BY RAY

Bullshit. That's a fake Lenin quote.

That's a fake Lenin quote.

Posted by nullifidian at 2010-08-04 08:18 PM | Reply

www.brainyquote.com"

They are full of shit. It's an unsourced quotation. Lenin never said it, nor is it consistent with his other sayings.

That's right. You're an expert on Lenin and Marx. Also don't know anything about economics.

Whether Lenin said it or not, there is one error. It should read: the way to crush the proletariat is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.

They are full of shit. It's an unsourced quotation. Lenin never said it, nor is it consistent with his other sayings.

Posted by nullifidian at 2010-08-04 08:25 PM | Reply

Considering how widespread the citations and the ease with which I debunked the "useful idiots" quote, I think you get a big [CITATION NEEDED] for that assertion.

Fake Lenin quote:

Prove it. Cite the speech or writing where Lenin said that.

I can't find "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." in your link.

There is the "debauch the currency" quote, a well-known fraud, but not this one.

the way to crush the proletariat is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.

Ray,supports the Czar,probably the shah,too

"I can't find "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." in your link."

I suspect that is where this fake quote comes from, but in any event, no one can give an actual citation from speeches or writing.

Ray,supports the Czar,probably the shah,too
#204 | Posted by bruceaz

Don't look at me. I didn't vote for Bush or Obama. They both work for the bourgeoisie.

Granted I can't find an original source, but it isn't specifically addressed in your link.

My favorite is still the "useful idiots" quote, since it first appeared over 20 years after Lenin's death.

The source Nulli linked is dead on. "According to Keynes in "The Economic Consequences of Peace," he remarked at one point that Lenin "is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System is to debauch the currency." Then he went on himself to point out that "by a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."

The question remains to be see if the feds go as far as destroying what little value is left on the dollar. I think the odds are strong they will.

""According to Keynes in "The Economic Consequences of Peace," he remarked at one point that Lenin "is said to have declared

Said by who? Keynes couldn't source it either. Ironic that Ray is relying on Keynes. Source the quote or STFU.

Socialism ends up with one ruling class - the ruling political class. -- #193 | Posted by Spielmannsfluch

What do you think we've got under capitalism?

Without Democracy Socialism is meaningless. Europe, Australia, New Zealand and especially Scandinavia have better systems than we do. Even Japan has a better economic and health care system than the US.

But all these nations use a regulated protectionist form of Capitalism. Even our coujntry has regualtions which are not being enforced. We have less protectionism and that is undermining our industrial base. Without an industrial base there is no sense depending on the military. A universal problem throughout the planet is criminal corruption, especially the variety that operates with political protection.

"The number of Americans who want to undue the Civil Rights Act, the Social Security Act, Roe v. Wade, and health care reform (all of which are a part of today's America) seem about equal to the number of Americans who want to undue the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and tax cuts for the wealthy (all of which are a part of today's America). All these folks who don't like something about America the way it is must "hate America," right?"

Nothing of what your stated was a founding principle of this country. We were founded as a free market society. We were not founded as socialists or communists. This article makes some outright stupid assumptions such as "We'd end all wars and use the money for education and social services." Meaning there has never been a war that was started by socialism????? We live in the most prosperous country to ever exist. Even in this terrible economy guess what country is still the number one economy in the world? Yes we as americans should do more for our fellow man but we have allowed government to legislate our right to do so.

Lets stop hating on America and americans. We are ALL AMERICANS people. We need to be united. Stop letting the right or the left divide us. Its not the political class that is going to get us back on track but normal americans. There is no difference between any of us. Stop disparaging one another with lame names such as Rethugs, teabaggers, Demcraps, and the like. We need to respect each other again.

Phoenix,

Capitalism implies that each social structure/class is vying for control - aka, power, money, influence, etc. The natural extension, or growth development of Capitalism is, of course, tyranny and monopoly.

The best thing a government can do is to shatter monopolies and encourage competition - not by subsidies but by breaking up companies that become monopolies. But, government must be prevented from being a monopoly, as well - this is why the States Rights movement has lasted so long - it is just a good idea for states to compete for tax-payers.

Capitalism, left alone, is doomed to fail. Which is why you need a balance of powers to keep everything in check and spiraling out of control. Capitalism, allowing for success and failure, is the best way to create wealth for everybody. Entrenched power is evil because it has little risk of failure which hinders others from generating success.

You are _kind of_ right about what we have now - Business and Gov't are feeding off each other, money and bribes back and forth, and this is one of the reasons the system is not as good as it should be, or used to be, for that matter. When government and business are complicit, the people suffer because you get entrenched power that minimizes risk and failure. We need the class divisions to keep each other in check - that is one of the true failures of this country.

-Spielmannsfluch

Said by who? Keynes couldn't source it either. Ironic that Ray is relying on Keynes. Source the quote or STFU.
#209 | Posted by nullifidian

Such pettiness. Who gives a shit. I was alluding to the truth of the quotes. That part went over your head.

Any one who agrees with this liberal trash must immediately donate all monies to the masses without. It is not so much that you drones insist that the better world exists, it is that you do not practice what you preach. Please, lead by example -- get out of your Prius and give it to the next homeless person you see for shelter; you have so much more than he/she, no?

so do your part adopt a fucking bum and support him.