The fall of the United States

[GPDP]

One of my political science professors (a leftist Vietnam vet) made an interesting prediction during class today. He believes that the United States will collapse within 20 to 25 years, and called it a "dying empire" currently being crushed under the weight of its contradictions. He claims to have made a very similar prediction with regards to the Soviet Union in 1979, which he says fell a little earlier than he anticipated, though he believed it would not survive past the end of the 20th century. If anything, this leads him to consider the possibility that the U.S. has even less time than he anticipates.

It's not like I've never entertained the thought of the U.S. collapsing within my lifetime, but to hear a prediction that places that time frame within two short decades is... a little scary, to say the least. Certainly I can observe the symptoms of a society in decay all around me. But the real crux of the issue is... I don't know quite how to feel about it. On one hand, I fear what would happen on the aftermath of such an event, and what order would arise from it. On the other, I kind of wish it would happen, as the U.S. is undoubtedly the foremost purveyor of violence in the world today, as well as the world's foremost paragon of capitalist imperialism.

One thing's for sure: the world will most certainly not be the same a few decades from now. Certainly SOMETHING major will happen to alter the geopolitical landscape in that time frame. Too many things are in motion now to keep the status quo from persevering any longer than that.

I can only hope what emerges from all of this is a better world.

[Hexen]

Although the US collapsing may be a opportunity to create a better future but I fear that the Teabaggers/Right Wing "Libertarians" would seize power...

I guess US needs a better organized left.

[The Douche]

What is really meant by a "collapse"? The way the USSR "collapsed"? So essentially a furthering of the current recession, possible an actual depression?

I mean what does it mean? A balkanization/splitting of the nation?

Its such a vague conept that its difficult to discuss.

[GPDP]

What is really meant by a "collapse"? The way the USSR "collapsed"? So essentially a furthering of the current recession, possible an actual depression?

I mean what does it mean? A balkanization/splitting of the nation?

Its such a vague conept that its difficult to discuss.

I'm pretty sure he meant the fall of American imperialism, coupled with, yes, a collapse of the nation's economy followed by tremendous political instability and social upheaval. I doubt he had balkanization in mind, though I wouldn't rule out secessionist movements growing during such a phenomenon.

[btpound]

If the US collapsed, I think socialism would be the first thing on the table. The majority of Americans recognize that capitalism is the problem, and would support a socialist government.

[Comrade B]

Socialism is popular in regions... but the armed people and organized are not the socialists. Money has always given power in the US, and the left tends to be lacking.

[Robocommie]

If the US collapsed, I think socialism would be the first thing on the table. The majority of Americans recognize that capitalism is the problem, and would support a socialist government.

I'd really like to think that's true, but is it? What makes you think that?

[The Douche]

I'm pretty sure he meant the fall of American imperialism, coupled with, yes, a collapse of the nation's economy followed by tremendous political instability and social upheaval. I doubt he had balkanization in mind, though I wouldn't rule out secessionist movements growing during such a phenomenon.

Well I mean, "us imperialism" as we would typically see it doesn't much exist anymore. (I know it seems weird to say that considering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those are not viewed as imperialist by the public the way vietnam was) US imperialism is exectued through institutions like the IMF and the world bank. And yes, if the economic downturn worsens then US imperialism will wane.

But I am unsure of how this constitutes a "collapse" in the US?

Yes there is political instability and social upheaval, which will probably result in the election of republicans to congress and the presidency, which will extinguish the proto-fascist fires currently burning on the right. I don't think anything particularly "collapse-ish" is going to happen. Maybe if the right populists were able to get some political power or if the government began employing some Misean economics then I could see a collapse, but I don't think those things will happen.

[Tatarin]

I don't know, is there any more detail to what he said? I would say it is true that most people, when asked how the US will fare in the coming decades, would answer with "it will collapse" but it seems to be a pretty simpe answer. We know that it is impossible to crush it, the domestic agencies are too strong, and no powerful country really wants to confront it by force - those who can are too far away and do not have anything close to the recourses the US has. Adding to that, I don't think anyone really supports "their ways" of government even if they had the power to invade.

The "democratic process" is either too long and complicated and much is about showing face at the same time as the person or group is attacked by right-wingers who have unlimited media power at their table, or the system itself is seen as impossible to influence from a new perspective. The conspiracy (JFK, 9/11 etc) and paranormal (UFOs, Area 51 etc) movements have gained some attention but they don't really do anything except release some videos. But I won't say I know, it's just the impression I get.

So in the end, a collapse seems to be the most logical one. But China's rise and eventually India's rise to power, as well as the (hopefully) brighter South American futures is most likely to be something to expect in the future, although I believe that the US will in one way or the other survive. And since it is a capitalist superpower, it can have down-turns and up-turns. I mean, didn't FDR put some social democratic changes to the syste after years of unsafety and no rights? Now they are dismantled, but it is possible to build up again.

[piet11111]

i could see a balkan situation happening if you look at state finances several states are already as good as bankrupt and washington wont lift a finger to help them.
its in their best interest as some point to just leave the union.

also seeing how military spending is managing to keep rising at the expense of everything else and the massive debt i do not see how the USA as it is now can be economically viable.

this combined with china's increasing hostility to the american insanity of quantitative easing devaluing the chinese big pile of dollars is already forcing them to attempt to get rid of the dollar before it loses too much of its value.

[Dimentio]

If the US collapsed, I think socialism would be the first thing on the table. The majority of Americans recognize that capitalism is the problem, and would support a socialist government.

No.

They would most likely blame socialism for the problem, at least on the countryside (where a large segment is indoctrinated to believe that corporate capitalism is in fact socialism, and capitalism is some sort of settler utopia where every man has a gun to defend his woman from the Native Americans or the Russians or the Space Lizards).

[which doctor]

History moves at a faster rate now than it ever has. There's no telling what things will be like in 20-25 years, besides that the geopolitical landscape will be much different than it is now.

[The Red Next Door]

In order for America to collapse, Something beyond worst have to happen and i am not seeing BEYOND WORST yet.

[Scary Monster]

In order for America to collapse, Something beyond worst have to happen and i am not seeing BEYOND WORST yet.

Whatchu talkin bout??? Do you actually live in the U.S.? Massive unemployment (49% unemployment in Chicago, Illinois), Obama freezing funding of all non-security domestic spending yet he's increasing military budget by $447 billion/year, massive tuition increases here in california (but severe cutback of financial aid at the same time), and numerous other bullshit! People really are pissed off and there are big protests all the time. But of course no mention of these is ever made in the mainstream media

[ckaihatsu]

The era of world conquest is *over* -- beginning with the European voyages of exploration and colonization we could say that there was *incentive* for the merchant class to raid and plunder, but now that logic has been taken to the absurdist extreme, with rampant financialization that's become as meaningless to everyone as the "Communist" term was in the former U.S.S.R.

Given that the banking sector is merely endlessly washing back and forth like the tides, and that it represents the edge of the economic land, the rest of the world is left watching the tides go in and out while nothing much else happens on actual dry land.

Capitalist currency, particularly the U.S. dollar, has been undergoing massive expansion, while *not* suffering from the normally expected effects of hyper-inflation (devaluation), as we would see in economically lesser, autarkic Third World countries under the same conditions.

The *difference* is that the U.S. dollar represents the still-largest, though massively financialized and subsidized, national economy. It's almost entirely debt-driven, and thus floats on fictitious capital. Meanwhile, the rest of the world continues to look *to* the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency, or common financial index, yet it's debt-based. So the basis of the expansion of the money supply is just one fairytale financial story about the future on top of another....

The crisis of imperialism, now breaking down after inflicting relatively mini-genocides in the Middle East, culminates with the breakdown of the global financial system. This means "isolationism", or a turning inward to nationalist economics, as happened in the pre-World War I years. We're already seeing the rise of xenophobia, with accompanying racial outlooks and parochial concerns about national borders and immigrants.

The *difference* these days is the world's relatively full, distributed industrialization, and the relative ease of communications, access to various news sources, and travel for the working class. Compared to previous periods of imperialist breakdown the average person has far less to realistically fear about, and is thus relatively more empowered (as individuals) against typical scare-mongering tactics used by nationalists.

Perhaps economic isolationalism will be *successful* this time around, with a reinvigoration of local production -- as proletarian-led as possible -- while also not succumbing to traditional political corralling using nationalist anxiety tactics.


Chris




--

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Taking jadedness far beyond the gemstone industry --

[Tablo]

Whatever happens to the US in the near future it is most important for us to make our presence know and to help educate the working class and tell them about the alternatives to this miserable system we currently maintain.

[Comrade B]

I would say the collapse of the US would be better for the majority of the world, but the US would probably be going to something worse for the people in it

[Nolan]

No.

They would most likely blame socialism for the problem, at least on the countryside (where a large segment is indoctrinated to believe that corporate capitalism is in fact socialism, and capitalism is some sort of settler utopia where every man has a gun to defend his woman from the Native Americans or the Russians or the Space Lizards).

This. In fact, they'll blame the Dems, Obama, and the Marxist NWO conspiracy for all their problems, even the obvious problems of the capitalist system. It'll be their own little dolchstasslegende.

[RedSonRising]

If the United States "collapses"..well let's define collapse. If I had to define collapse in the most probable way the United States would, I think that a general failing of political institutional efficiency, a failure of functioning economic institutions, and a lack of control and order of a subsequently angry and/or distressed population would probably qualify.

The way in which it would happen would have to be a threat to the very nature of the economic system; a combination of internal failings and external international actions that lead to a crippling of the financial setup of the country. Right now, the crisis we are experiencing has only threatened the security of institutions themselves, but not because of a disruption of the system, but a series of mistakes made within it by the bourgeoisie, who were typically saved in the end (if not better). If the leaders of several third world nations which produce enormous quantities of goods and provide vast resources to the United States were to cease economic transactions with the United States and seize their assets while dissent within the country forces the State to react harshly and snowballingly escalate such conflict, then violence at home and cold hostility abroad would rob the Elite and their State of control.

The means of production and capital for much of the United States' economic framework exists outside of the country. The means of production must change hands- not necessarily to the proletariat, but possibly to another elite in another country. The point is that if the control that the Elite has is destabilized by an industrial change of hands (and thus shift of power), then the centralized authority of the country collapses and all facets of the State fail, and however the population reacts determines the outcome of such a collapse.

[Q]

On what is the "prediction" based that the US dominance is over with two to three decades? I don't think it is unlikely, on the contrary, but I would like to hear some sort of reasoning behind it.

I myself think the US of today has many parallels with the British empire in its later days. Having lost economical supremacy in the 19th century, it too became more and more militarised in order to keep its dominance. The US still has economic dominance at this moment, but its economy has been stagnant and largely inflated over the years on financial bubbles. Much of the industrial muscle of capitalism has moved to China and other low wage and authoritarian countries.

For this reason I think China will become the new capitalist hegemony, but this won't be a smooth ride. Firstly, the US will use its military capabilities to defend its interests tooth and nail. Secondly, as said before, the era of expanding capitalism is over. Over half of the world population is now urban working class and this is growing faster by the year. After the collapse of stalinism almost all countries now have a capitalist system in place. If China is to become the new hegemony, it'll be an authoritarian hegemony which will use its military capabilities from the outset.

I also expect many wars (outright or by proxy) in Africa. Right now the US and China are placing their interests in this continent, a recipe for disaster.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxi-DB3PiLQ

now, this guy's predictions are a bit wacko. it also seems to be a bit of an advertisement for a videogame: Shattered Union. I played the game and it was a decent one but this guy may have some rational reason to believe this. even though he was obviously WAY off the date he predicted :laugh:

[Revy]

If you want to know a scenario where the US would collapse and split into rival successor states, this was done fictionally in the TV series Jericho. However, what triggered this was a nuclear attack on the country.

No, US imperialism is not fading, it's not backing off. And furthermore, a "multipolar world" only means that the chance for conflict between superpowers (also known as World War Three) is high. Relations between the US and Russia are not as warm and friendly as they sometimes seem, anyone can clearly see the hostility. It's pretty damn obvious there will be more wars in Central Asia. The conflict in Ossetia was merely a precursor to this.

[Dimentio]

On what is the "prediction" based that the US dominance is over with two to three decades? I don't think it is unlikely, on the contrary, but I would like to hear some sort of reasoning behind it.

I myself think the US of today has many parallels with the British empire in its later days. Having lost economical supremacy in the 19th century, it too became more and more militarised in order to keep its dominance. The US still has economic dominance at this moment, but its economy has been stagnant and largely inflated over the years on financial bubbles. Much of the industrial muscle of capitalism has moved to China and other low wage and authoritarian countries.

For this reason I think China will become the new capitalist hegemony, but this won't be a smooth ride. Firstly, the US will use its military capabilities to defend its interests tooth and nail. Secondly, as said before, the era of expanding capitalism is over. Over half of the world population is now urban working class and this is growing faster by the year. After the collapse of stalinism almost all countries now have a capitalist system in place. If China is to become the new hegemony, it'll be an authoritarian hegemony which will use its military capabilities from the outset.

I also expect many wars (outright or by proxy) in Africa. Right now the US and China are placing their interests in this continent, a recipe for disaster.

I am expecting a big war to start sometime in the 2010's, possibly in Africa or Central Asia. That war would be basically a large proxy war between China & Allies on one side and the USA and the EU on the other.

[ComradeRed22'91]

Concerning the issue of Socialism, it's mixed. Many are blaming capitalism ("Capitalism: A Love Story" was a testament to this), many think it's in fact Socialism that caused the collapse, so it'll probably be a lot of fierce debating. Who knows.

[Dimentio]

Concerning the issue of Socialism, it's mixed. Many are blaming capitalism ("Capitalism: A Love Story" was a testament to this), many think it's in fact Socialism that caused the collapse, so it'll probably be a lot of fierce debating. Who knows.

The problem is that the USA historically have had a two-dimensional conflict. As in most other nations, the USA has had a class conflict. But there is also a ruling class-engineered racial conflict between "whites" on one side and "people of colour" on the other. This conflict serves to rabble-rouse poor rural whites from alienated regions into blaming poor urban latinos and blacks for their impoverishment.

Unlike in European nations with many ethnicities, there is hardly any history of wars between for example whites, blacks and latinos, as all these groups rather than being historical nations are constructed entities within a culture which is relatively young.

The largest part of the reason why rural whites which are living in often deplorable or at least stressed conditions are joining Tea Party rallies is not because of "liberty", but because they are fearing that the other socio-economic ethnic groups which the establishment has served to identify would gain privileges at "their" expense.

On the other hand, left-wing sentiment is stronger amongst blacks and latinos because these groups recognise redistribution or at least a focus on their neighbourhoods through reformist means as a way to give them a future. If that would happen, it wouldn't affect the rural whites at all - but the problem is that a large group of rural whites are identifying their interests with the interests of the ruling class.

As the amount of latinos in relation to the population of the United States is increasing during the 21st century, this conflict will start to intensify and could eventually lead to at least regional genocides or Yugoslavian style forced movements of population. Sadly, it will also serve to ossify the class struggle in the USA and turn it into something as bizarre as a race struggle.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wow, so many predictions. I guess I will add my two cents as well:

I think that there will be internal conflict between the perceived "leftists" in the US and the Tea Baggers which will swell in numbers after they've won a few more elections. If things get worse, and they probably will, (especially with another financial bubble rearing its ugly head) I think that we will witness similar unrest like what happened in Wiemar Germany. There are going to be roving bands of right wing para-military groups enacting violence on people they think are "socialists" and are administration supporters.

China will be fed up with the US and will encourage domestic spending in order to get rid of the bonds they've bought from us that basically keeps our dollar afloat.

The War on Terror will go nowhere. And I see the US going the way of maybe voting in a right wing strongman like a Pinochet or Park of South Korea. So I am in agreement that socialism will not take root in the States. There is a split between people who want socialism and people who oppose and want right wing capitalism, but remember that both camps don't know what socialism really is.

But in all of this, no one has mentioned who the next superpower will be? China? The EU? If and when this collapse happens, where can one immigrate to that will be OK?

[Dimentio]

Wow, so many predictions. I guess I will add my two cents as well:

I think that there will be internal conflict between the perceived "leftists" in the US and the Tea Baggers which will swell in numbers after they've won a few more elections. If things get worse, and they probably will, (especially with another financial bubble rearing its ugly head) I think that we will witness similar unrest like what happened in Wiemar Germany. There are going to be roving bands of right wing para-military groups enacting violence on people they think are "socialists" and are administration supporters.

China will be fed up with the US and will encourage domestic spending in order to get rid of the bonds they've bought from us that basically keeps our dollar afloat.

The War on Terror will go nowhere. And I see the US going the way of maybe voting in a right wing strongman like a Pinochet or Park of South Korea. So I am in agreement that socialism will not take root in the States. There is a split between people who want socialism and people who oppose and want right wing capitalism, but remember that both camps don't know what socialism really is.

But in all of this, no one has mentioned who the next superpower will be? China? The EU? If and when this collapse happens, where can one immigrate to that will be OK?

The teabaggers are so full with internal contradictions that they make Reagan's coalition look like a wonder of unity. A large part of the storm troopers of the teabaggers is consisting of interests tied to local, small town petty bourgeoisie upper middle class elites who are (justifiedly so) seeing Wall Street and the large capital centres in the urban regions as a threat which would alienate them from "their rightful share" in the exploitment.

A large part of these groups want to actually (even if they don't understand it) weaken the United States by de-centralising it and putting power back into the hands of more reactionary local elites. Other groups just want to return it to the status quo of the Bush years.

The teabaggers need to form a unified reactionary movement with actual goals if they want to take power.

[Nolan]

I could easily see some type of Pinochet-like figure getting power in the US, either through elections or a coup. Both the neocons and the teabaggers would be happy.

[Dimentio]

I could easily see some type of Pinochet-like figure getting power in the US, either through elections or a coup. Both the neocons and the teabaggers would be happy.

The Neocons would be happy. The teabaggers would be happy until Pinochet starts to fervently protect the capitalists and the bankers at the expense of the small town businessmen and politicians.

[RadioRaheem84]

I couldn't see a Pinochet type guy. But I could see a former military general donning a suit and running for office and once elected tightening the country bit by bit. I am thinking of more of a junta in Brooks Brothers ala Park Chung Hee from South Korea.

[Raúl Duke]

I wouldn't rule out secessionist movements growing during such a phenomenon. If that happens I'll go to Vermont and join up with redson

I don't think we can as of yet predict accurately what can happen, although many guesses people have taken could be possibilities (although slim at this moment).

[Nolan]

The Neocons would be happy. The teabaggers would be happy until Pinochet starts to fervently protect the capitalists and the bankers at the expense of the small town businessmen and politicians.

At which point they would be disappeared by the right-wing death squads. But at least they would have "small" government like Chile under Pinochet. :lol:

[swirling_vortex]

"Collapse" as in a total collapse seems unlikely, given the side of the military and the US economy in general. But a general slide downward with a country like China taking the #1 spot in military and possibly economic might certainly isn't out of the cards.

[ckaihatsu]

---





"Collapse" as in a total collapse seems unlikely, given the side of the military and the US economy in general. But a general slide downward with a country like China taking the #1 spot in military and possibly economic might certainly isn't out of the cards.





By the numbers alone the U.S. is FUCKED compared to the trade and credit surplus that China has, in terms of U.S. Treasury securities.

However, by the yardstick of capitalist accumulation -- which we as members of the proletariat have no personal interest in -- the U.S. and China are now joined at the hip because China depends on consumer purchases from the U.S. market, backed by ballooning U.S. debt, while the U.S. depends on cheap, hyper-exploited labor in China to make those consumer products.

In the press these two act like petulant children -- I'm reminded of the movie Stepbrothers which illustrates the relationship perfectly (and is a very funny comedy if you like stupid-style humor).

Forget the superpowers of the 20th century -- we need a new term, like megapower, to describe the symbiotic double-power that comprises the U.S.-China economy.

[Crusade]

If the US collapsed, I think socialism would be the first thing on the table. The majority of Americans recognize that capitalism is the problem, and would support a socialist government.

I really don't think the majority of Americans see capitalism as the problem. Americans don't really know who or what to blame, if anyone. I'd like to think that Americans can be persuaded to support leftism, but most don't even know what the left really stands for. The American left appears weak and disorganized in the face of the right's extremely selfish, contradictory, but CLEAR principals. Not to mention the fact that liberals in America distance themselves from true socialists every chance they get.

[LeninistKing]

u are right !! what's up with americans? what's up with poor americans?? I mean in most countries poor people resort to socialist and leftist parties as a tool to get out of poverty, while richer people vote for right wing parties. But USA is the only country in this world where the poors vote for right-wing parties.

.



Although the US collapsing may be a opportunity to create a better future but I fear that the Teabaggers/Right Wing Libertarians would seize power...

I guess US needs a better organized left.

[LeninistKing]

The US left needs to get off its butt and organize and propose a United-Leftist Front for the 2012 or the 2016 elections as soon as possible (ASAP)

,


One of my political science professors (a leftist Vietnam vet) made an interesting prediction during class today. He believes that the United States will collapse within 20 to 25 years, and called it a "dying empire" currently being crushed under the weight of its contradictions. He claims to have made a very similar prediction with regards to the Soviet Union in 1979, which he says fell a little earlier than he anticipated, though he believed it would not survive past the end of the 20th century. If anything, this leads him to consider the possibility that the U.S. has even less time than he anticipates.

It's not like I've never entertained the thought of the U.S. collapsing within my lifetime, but to hear a prediction that places that time frame within two short decades is... a little scary, to say the least. Certainly I can observe the symptoms of a society in decay all around me. But the real crux of the issue is... I don't know quite how to feel about it. On one hand, I fear what would happen on the aftermath of such an event, and what order would arise from it. On the other, I kind of wish it would happen, as the U.S. is undoubtedly the foremost purveyor of violence in the world today, as well as the world's foremost paragon of capitalist imperialism.

One thing's for sure: the world will most certainly not be the same a few decades from now. Certainly SOMETHING major will happen to alter the geopolitical landscape in that time frame. Too many things are in motion now to keep the status quo from persevering any longer than that.

I can only hope what emerges from all of this is a better world.

[RadioRaheem84]

u are right !! what's up with americans? what's up with poor americans?? I mean in most countries poor people resort to socialist and leftist parties as a tool to get out of poverty, while richer people vote for right wing parties. But USA is the only country in this world where the poors vote for right-wing parties.

I know it's rather embarrassing. I am so jealous and awestruck when I watch documentaries about Venezuela and they show a surprisingly conscious working class that can beautifully articulate their position and struggles in Venezuelan society. That does not happen in the US. It makes no sense though because propaganda is probably just as abundant in Venezuela as it is in the US, probably more so. And could the education system for the working class be better in Venezuela than here? :o

I just don't get what is wrong with my fellow countrymen. Why do they identify so much with the bourgeois? I admire the libertarian spirit that this nation exudes and the cynicism toward state and sometimes corporate power, but why does it always translate into more capitalism, better capitalism, or pure capitalism?

If managed right, the US could be a bastion for Libertarian Socialism and workers self management, but the way things are going, I see this nation descend into a form of fascism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

this article on the nonsensical way the american political machine may provide some food for thought on this subject

[The Ben G]

Although the US collapsing may be a opportunity to create a better future but I fear that the Teabaggers/Right Wing Libertarians would seize power...

I guess US needs a better organized left.

Your missing the Quotation marks around Libertarians....

[RadioRaheem84]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

this article on the nonsensical way the american political machine may provide some food for thought on this subject


Right on the money. The Right Wing in this country has taken the frustration of millions of working and middle class people and turned in on it's head. Instead of resisting the establishment, they've convinced them to identify with the establishment. The American public is conscious of an elite, upper class that controls and manipulates everything, they've just sided with the wrong people to address this concern. And somehow they've aided establishment politics further.

It's just too embarrassing to really think about. We probably look like total idiots in front of the working class world.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Right on the money. The Right Wing in this country has taken the frustration of millions of working and middle class people and turned in on it's head. Instead of resisting the establishment, they've convinced them to identify with the establishment. The American public is conscious of an elite, upper class that controls and manipulates everything, they've just sided with the wrong people to address this concern. And somehow they've aided establishment politics further.

It's just too embarrassing to really think about. We probably look like total idiots in front of the working class world.

absolutely. this issue must somehow be addressed. not to save america, but to save the working class. oddly, from itslef:mellow: not to lead them, but to get them to think about how these issues affect people individually and ac a class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I also expect many wars (outright or by proxy) in Africa. Right now the US and China are placing their interests in this continent, a recipe for disaster.Yeah I'd be surprised if we don't begin seeing this over the next decade... particularly under a black president who can more convincingly claim that the US is conducting "humanitarian missions".

I think the US, UK comparison is pretty spot on. The US is now in the position of holding together a particular political and economic status quo in the world and I don't think they can keep doing this forever. China and Russia are the obvious "up and comers" who might externally challenge the US - and would need to challenge the US status quo in order to expand their own power and wealth. Additionally, the neoliberal model the US is stubbornly holding onto is not as ideologically strong as it was in the aftermath of the collapse of the alternative, state-capitalist model. As the US sought to expand its power (project for a new American century) in the last decade, it began to loose a grip on its "backyard" in Latin America. It is desperately trying to shore that back up by arming Colombia and "saving" (taking over) Haiti.

[LeninistKing]

Hello my friend, you are 100% correct !!!!!!!! I have some libertarian friends, and some friends in the conspiracy-theory movements, and i do admire how they fight fascism, zionism, the wars and the lies of Bush in relation to the fake-terrorism of 9-11, and all the dirty tricks that US government uses to enslave the sheeple, but like you said why are many revolutionaries in USA identify so much with the classical-liberal market ideology of Adam Smith and Ron Paul, instead of looking for social-democrat or socialist options. I really can't say, maybe it has to be with the deep-rooted classical-liberalism ideologies ingrained like hard cement in the minds and subconscioence and blood and DNA of US citizens, ingrained in the US constitution, even in the propaganda of many commercials and every where. Maybe that's one of the major reasons of why many americans, even anti-war americans identify with classical-liberal philosophy, a lot more than Marxism.

.



I know it's rather embarrassing. I am so jealous and awestruck when I watch documentaries about Venezuela and they show a surprisingly conscious working class that can beautifully articulate their position and struggles in Venezuelan society. That does not happen in the US. It makes no sense though because propaganda is probably just as abundant in Venezuela as it is in the US, probably more so. And could the education system for the working class be better in Venezuela than here? :o

I just don't get what is wrong with my fellow countrymen. Why do they identify so much with the bourgeois? I admire the libertarian spirit that this nation exudes and the cynicism toward state and sometimes corporate power, but why does it always translate into more capitalism, better capitalism, or pure capitalism?

If managed right, the US could be a bastion for Libertarian Socialism and workers self management, but the way things are going, I see this nation descend into a form of fascism.

[ckaihatsu]

[W]hy are many revolutionaries in USA identify so much with the classical-liberal market ideology of Adam Smith and Ron Paul, instead of looking for social-democrat or socialist options.





I admire the libertarian spirit that this nation exudes and the cynicism toward state and sometimes corporate power, but why does it always translate into more capitalism, better capitalism, or pure capitalism?


It's been said that cynicism is the imagination of the mediocre. (Meaning that their imagination extends as far forward as the 18th century.)

[AnthArmo]

To my knowledge, whenever "collapses" or periods of crisis like this pop up, political polarisation occours.

Take a look at "Gorbachev era" Soviet Union. At that point, there was a crisis situation and polarisation occoured. The moderates were gone and instead it was a battle between the Unreconstructed Stalinists who wanted a return to Stalin era repression, and The "Yeltsinites" who wanted to take down the whole system of a Command Economy and shift over to Western style "Democratic Capitalism". In the end, Yeltsin won.

Here with America it's a similar situation, either people will go all the way to the Left and start protesting for a Democratic, less Federalist, Worker-run system of Socialism. Or things shift all the way to the Right with "Misean" style Capitalism or Facism (or maybe a mixture of both?).

With the absence of a Left in the United States, it looks like things are going to eventually shift to the Right. If thats the case I wouldn't be suprised if the result was a military coup or something to that end.

....fuck, I hope I'm wrong.

[ckaihatsu]

To my knowledge, whenever "collapses" or periods of crisis like this pop up, political polarisation occours.

Take a look at "Gorbachev era" Soviet Union. At that point, there was a crisis situation and polarisation occoured. The moderates were gone and instead it was a battle between the Unreconstructed Stalinists who wanted a return to Stalin era repression, and The "Yeltsinites" who wanted to take down the whole system of a Command Economy and shift over to Western style "Democratic Capitalism". In the end, Yeltsin won.


The *difference* is, in comparing the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.'s autarkic Stalinism into global capitalism, to the current crisis of *capitalism itself*, that there *are* no neat-and-tidy Coke-or-Pepsi political directions to go in anymore -- it's more like coming to the end of the paved highway itself. Either a whole new form of transportation has to be invented, on the spot, or else everyone's going to be *walking* in mud.





By David North
26 March 2009


David North, the national chairman of the Socialist Equality Party (US), spoke last week at San Diego State University (March 19) and University of California, Berkeley (March 22) on “The Capitalist Crisis and the Return of History.” We publish here and in PDF the notes upon which his lectures were based.

1. It is acknowledged by serious bourgeois economists that the global economic crisis—the worst since the 1930s—has dealt a devastating blow to the international legitimacy of the capitalist system. The free-market nostrums that have been exalted as unchallengeable truths by politicians, media talking heads and many academic economists for nearly three decades have been discredited, intellectually and morally. There is growing apprehension about the future that awaits the capitalist system. Martin Wolf of the Financial Times wrote on March 8:

It is impossible at such a turning point to know where we are going... Yet the combination of financial collapse with a huge recession, if not something worse, will surely change the world. The legitimacy of the market will weaken. The credibility of the US will be damaged. The authority of China will rise. Globalization itself may founder. This is a time of upheaval.

2. In another column, the Financial Times quotes the following statement by Bernie Sucher, the head of Merrill Lynch operations in Moscow:

Our world is broken—and I honestly don't know what is going to replace it. The compass by which we steered as Americans has gone. The last time I saw anything like this, in the sense of disorientation and loss, was among my friends [in Russia] when the Soviet Union broke up.

[...]

13. The United States played the decisive role in the world capitalist system in the 20th century. By the end of World War I, the US was the industrial powerhouse of the world. In every sphere of industry, American corporations achieved a dominant position. However, despite the growth in the United States, the eruption of World War I in 1914 marked the beginning of a 30-year period of global crisis and instability.

14. The outbreak of World War I shattered the economic, political and social equilibrium of European and, as soon became apparent, world capitalism. The Russian Revolution and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks in October 1917 revealed the revolutionary implications of the objective crisis. Another revolutionary explosion in Germany, in November 1918, brought the World War to an end. The next two years were marked by economic disorder and revolutionary upheaval throughout Europe. But the absence of experienced revolutionary leadership enabled the European bourgeoisie to survive the disorder and restore a degree of stability.

15. The brief and feverish economic recovery and expansion of the mid-1920s gave way, however, to the devastating global economic breakdown, which began on Wall Street in October 1929. Notwithstanding the many experiments of President Roosevelt's "New Deal," this highly skilled leader of the American ruling class was unable to bring the Depression to an end. Throughout the 1930s unemployment remained at staggeringly high levels. It was the entry of the United States into the war in December1941, resulting in massive government spending on war production, that produced the long-awaited economic revival.

[...]

Crisis and class forces

54. The most essential feature of a historically significant crisis is that it leads to a situation where the major class forces within the affected country (and countries) are compelled to formulate and adopt an independent position in relationship to the crisis. That is, they are driven to advance a solution to the crisis in which their own social needs and interests are expressed. For the ruling classes, this process takes place rather naturally. They assume that their interests, political and economic, are the only ones of any importance. Thus, in the present situation, the Obama administration—having completed a "seamless transition" from its predecessor—has no doubt that its main priority must be the propping up of the banks, while avoiding any measures that impinge on the wealth and prerogatives of the corporate and financial aristocracy.

55. For the working class, the formulation of an independent attitude toward the crisis, with the necessary program and policies, is a more protracted social and political process. The masses must work through their experiences and draw their conclusions. But this process is already under way. The chasm between the promises of the election year and the reality of government policy is becoming more evident each day. As the need for action becomes ever more urgent, the working class will lose its patience with purely rhetorical and empty invocations of "change."

56. "The history of all hitherto existing society," wrote Marx and Engels in 1847, "is the history of class struggle." Underlying all the claims that Marxism had been refuted and that the egalitarian aspirations of socialism were irrelevant to the modern world, was the complacent belief that the "class struggle" belonged to the past. Ironically, the official dismissal of class struggle occurred under conditions in which the ruling class pursued (and continues to pursue) its own interests relentlessly.

57. The one undoubtedly positive feature of the economic crisis is that it is laying bare the real social relations of modern capitalist society, exposing the irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the working class and the capitalist aristocracy, and, therefore, preparing the ground for the resurgence of the working class and the resumption of open class struggle on a scale that will eclipse by far the battles of the 1930s. The American working class is being drawn into an international maelstrom of revolutionary class struggle. It is in this sense that the world crisis has set the stage for the "return of history."

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/dnor-m26.shtml

[Rusty Shackleford]

To my knowledge, whenever "collapses" or periods of crisis like this pop up, political polarisation occours.

Take a look at "Gorbachev era" Soviet Union. At that point, there was a crisis situation and polarisation occoured. The moderates were gone and instead it was a battle between the Unreconstructed Stalinists who wanted a return to Stalin era repression, and The "Yeltsinites" who wanted to take down the whole system of a Command Economy and shift over to Western style "Democratic Capitalism". In the end, Yeltsin won.

Here with America it's a similar situation, either people will go all the way to the Left and start protesting for a Democratic, less Federalist, Worker-run system of Socialism. Or things shift all the way to the Right with "Misean" style Capitalism or Facism (or maybe a mixture of both?).

With the absence of a Left in the United States, it looks like things are going to eventually shift to the Right. If thats the case I wouldn't be suprised if the result was a military coup or something to that end.

....fuck, I hope I'm wrong.

My being here was triggered by the crisis and polarization. though, i think for a while before then i had a mild predisposition to socialism and before that, bushism :blushing:

[LeninistKing]

take a look around your city when u go out at the people who drive luxury SUVs, new Hondas, new foreign cars, new Lexus, the people who shop at Best Buy Stores, Sams, Target, Sears and Macys etc. they are either blue-dog democtrat voters, or Sarah Palin suppoters, they don't care about a real change for America, they support wars even.

What i mean is that as long as USA has a large middle-class who is able to have fun, drive new cars and live a comfortable life, the left in USA is doomed. In other words, we still gotta wait for the middle-class to dissapear so that poverty levels to rise, in order to see for a socialist party to win elections in USA


LeninistKing




My being here was triggered by the crisis and polarization. though, i think for a while before then i had a mild predisposition to socialism and before that, bushism :blushing:

[Hexen]

take a look around your city when u go out at the people who drive luxury SUVs, new Hondas, new foreign cars, new Lexus, the people who shop at Best Buy Stores, Sams, Target, Sears and Macys etc. they are either blue-dog democtrat voters, or Sarah Palin suppoters, they don't care about a real change for America, they support wars even.

What i mean is that as long as USA has a large middle-class who is able to have fun, drive new cars and live a comfortable life, the left in USA is doomed. In other words, we still gotta wait for the middle-class to dissapear so that poverty levels to rise, in order to see for a socialist party to win elections in USA


LeninistKing

I always suspected that things have to get worse before there can be any real changes sadly. I guess revolution comes when the times right.

[RadioRaheem84]

take a look around your city when u go out at the people who drive luxury SUVs, new Hondas, new foreign cars, new Lexus, the people who shop at Best Buy Stores, Sams, Target, Sears and Macys etc. they are either blue-dog democtrat voters, or Sarah Palin suppoters, they don't care about a real change for America, they support wars even.

What i mean is that as long as USA has a large middle-class who is able to have fun, drive new cars and live a comfortable life, the left in USA is doomed. In other words, we still gotta wait for the middle-class to dissapear so that poverty levels to rise, in order to see for a socialist party to win elections in USA


No it doesn't. The Middle class today is largely different from the middle class of our parents and grandparents. The only thing holding up today's middle class is debt finance whereas the previous generations actually had real wages and bigger purchasing power. When that credit hits the fans again, then we can see the middle class in the US start to worry.

We have to explain to them how this growth is fake and wobbly. That we need to look for ways of producing real wealth and that wealth will never come from speculative finance or any other form of capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

What i mean is that as long as USA has a large middle-class who is able to have fun, drive new cars and live a comfortable life, the left in USA is doomed. In other words, we still gotta wait for the middle-class to dissapear so that poverty levels to rise, in order to see for a socialist party to win elections in USA


No, I have to fervently disagree -- revolutions in the past took place when the ruling elite was at the *height* of their opulence -- King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in France, Tsar Nicholas II and the Romanovs in Russia, and so on.

What you're using is a crude materialism that attempts to gauge the political weather by measuring wealth distribution and consumer consumption levels alone. Politics has its own rhythm, and while it's *tied to* economic developments -- like the ongoing bank bailouts -- it can't be ascertained just by looking at consumer habits or simple economic levels.

Besides, many of the people in the demographic you describe may very well be *working class* people who just happen to pick up a new purchase here and there, but may not be fanatical shoppers. It's not very kind to suggest that regular people should tighten their belts in order to be politically self-empowering -- it's the *politicians* who call for widespread austerity measures with the excuse that "it's for the better".

People don't have to *suffer* in order for them to rethink their politics. It's more of a mass-group kind of phenomenon that changes minds, where a series of events snowballs and creates a sea change in *everyone's* thinking in a short period of time. Look at how abruptly and dramatically Obama's honeymoon period has ended....





we still gotta wait for the middle-class to dissapear so that poverty levels to rise, in order to see for a socialist party to win elections in USA




Now is a good time for most USA small socialist parties to get together, to think about a plan, and to propose a United Front with an alternative to the 2 corporate traditional political parties for the 2012 elections.





This is one regular *strategy* for political visibility and gauging an estimate of popular support, but we certainly have no interest, either objectively or strategically, to actually *participate* in the bourgeois system -- the *point* is to *overthrow* it based on class solidarity and rank-and-file activity.





Hello, you are very right !! indeed !! political changes is not a walk in the park, it is not a piece of cake. Politics, the world out there is complex, and socialism won't come by decree or by elections like you said. It requires a massive participation of workers.

[LeninistKing]

i disagree with you. Hunger for changes are caused by economic crisis, most people who would welcome a socialist system do it because they see how their living standards decrease in the capitalist system. And not because of fanatism for Marx and socialist ideology

,


No, I have to fervently disagree -- revolutions in the past took place when the ruling elite was at the *height* of their opulence -- King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in France, Tsar Nicholas II and the Romanovs in Russia, and so on.

What you're using is a crude materialism that attempts to gauge the political weather by measuring wealth distribution and consumer consumption levels alone. Politics has its own rhythm, and while it's *tied to* economic developments -- like the ongoing bank bailouts -- it can't be ascertained just by looking at consumer habits or simple economic levels.

Besides, many of the people in the demographic you describe may very well be *working class* people who just happen to pick up a new purchase here and there, but may not be fanatical shoppers. It's not very kind to suggest that regular people should tighten their belts in order to be politically self-empowering -- it's the *politicians* who call for widespread austerity measures with the excuse that "it's for the better".

People don't have to *suffer* in order for them to rethink their politics. It's more of a mass-group kind of phenomenon that changes minds, where a series of events snowballs and creates a sea change in *everyone's* thinking in a short period of time. Look at how abruptly and dramatically Obama's honeymoon period has ended....

[LeninistKing]

Most shoppers who shop at Best Buy Stores, Target Stores, Macys, Sears, and Sams wholesale stores are workers, but they are high salary, high-wage workers, or petty bourgeoise citizens with a relativiely stable comfortable lifestyle. However most people in USA who live off food stamps, who are unemployed, or under-employed and who are plain poors and beating the bullets economically would even dare to visit a Best Buy Store to buy a computer. Either they buy it at a Pawn Store, a Thrifty Store or from e-bay.

.



No, I have to fervently disagree -- revolutions in the past took place when the ruling elite was at the *height* of their opulence -- King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in France, Tsar Nicholas II and the Romanovs in Russia, and so on.

What you're using is a crude materialism that attempts to gauge the political weather by measuring wealth distribution and consumer consumption levels alone. Politics has its own rhythm, and while it's *tied to* economic developments -- like the ongoing bank bailouts -- it can't be ascertained just by looking at consumer habits or simple economic levels.

Besides, many of the people in the demographic you describe may very well be *working class* people who just happen to pick up a new purchase here and there, but may not be fanatical shoppers. It's not very kind to suggest that regular people should tighten their belts in order to be politically self-empowering -- it's the *politicians* who call for widespread austerity measures with the excuse that "it's for the better".

People don't have to *suffer* in order for them to rethink their politics. It's more of a mass-group kind of phenomenon that changes minds, where a series of events snowballs and creates a sea change in *everyone's* thinking in a short period of time. Look at how abruptly and dramatically Obama's honeymoon period has ended....

[KarlMarx1989]

OP: I completely agree with your professor. I have heard the US described as having a "dying culture." This is really close to that. Ever since I started studying the dying culture of America, I have been able to see it all happening before me. It's almost like my eyes were opened. If there is anything I've learned from history, it's that a dying culture is something that cannot be stopped from happening. I agree with your professor that it very well could happen int he next 20 - 25 years if not sooner. :thumbup1:

[The Douche]

Most shoppers who shop at Best Buy Stores, Target Stores, Macys, Sears, and Sams wholesale stores are workers, but they are high salary, high-wage workers, or petty bourgeoise citizens with a relativiely stable comfortable lifestyle. However most people in USA who live off food stamps, who are unemployed, or under-employed and who are plain poors and beating the bullets economically would even dare to visit a Best Buy Store to buy a computer. Either they buy it at a Pawn Store, a Thrifty Store or from e-bay.

.


I make $8 an hour (that is 75 cents above minimum wage in my state) and I work about 30 hours a week (which is not full time). I am "poor", I meet the qualifications for food stamps and government assisted housing.

You obviously are young, and don't have experience with the things you talk about, food stamps for instance, do you realize that you have to take your food stamps to the store in order to buy food with them? Do you know who has cheap groceries? Wal-mart/sams club. But in your opinion those places are for the "upper class"? Dude, have you ever been inside of one of those stores?


Either you are a complete and total idiot. Or maybe you're very young. I did used to have some similar ideas to you when I was 11 or 12, you need to stop being so arrogant and defensive about your views. You're just plain wrong, so don't get all pissy when it gets pointed out. (like the last rep comment you left me about how I need to stop doing drugs (which I don't) and how I am a stalinist (which is laughable))

[bricolage]

The US has been overstretched as a superpower since Iraq, probably before, this is nothing new. That this will turn into it 'collapsing' seems very unlikely, as has been said it will most likely result in a shift to a more multi-polar world with proxy wars across Africa, already being seen in land grabbing. Declining resources will likely see an increased level of wars being fought for control of them. In this scenario the only people that would benefit are those who benefit at the moment. Rising imperialism from China, Russia, EU, India... anyone, would not lend itself to any kind of emancipation.

It is also true that if the US 'collapsed' tomorrow there is not fucking way it would result in anything near any type of idea of socialism.

[Raúl Duke]

To my knowledge, whenever "collapses" or periods of crisis like this pop up, political polarisation occours.

Take a look at "Gorbachev era" Soviet Union. At that point, there was a crisis situation and polarisation occoured. The moderates were gone and instead it was a battle between the Unreconstructed Stalinists who wanted a return to Stalin era repression, and The "Yeltsinites" who wanted to take down the whole system of a Command Economy and shift over to Western style "Democratic Capitalism". In the end, Yeltsin won.

Here with America it's a similar situation, either people will go all the way to the Left and start protesting for a Democratic, less Federalist, Worker-run system of Socialism. Or things shift all the way to the Right with "Misean" style Capitalism or Facism (or maybe a mixture of both?).

With the absence of a Left in the United States, it looks like things are going to eventually shift to the Right. If thats the case I wouldn't be suprised if the result was a military coup or something to that end.

....fuck, I hope I'm wrong.

I think civil war/states seceding might ensue in either case.
In the case of a military coup/fascism/corporate state I might as well join whatever resistance movement forms, go to a seceding state (like Vermont...lol), or just lay low/emigrate.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think civil war/states seceding might ensue in either case.
In the case of a military coup/fascism/corporate state I might as well join whatever resistance movement forms, go to a seceding state (like Vermont...lol), or just lay low/emigrate.

Emigrate. I am going to Venezuela if it hasn't already been taken over by a coup too.

[ckaihatsu]

i disagree with you. Hunger for changes are caused by economic crisis, most people who would welcome a socialist system do it because they see how their living standards decrease in the capitalist system. And not because of fanatism for Marx and socialist ideology


Many widespread radicalizations occurred during times of *increased* productivity and *gains* for the working class -- the wartime labor of the '40s and the counterculture movement of the late '60s come to mind offhand....

[RadioRaheem84]

Many widespread radicalizations occurred during times of *increased* productivity and *gains* for the working class -- the wartime labor of the '40s and the counterculture movement of the late '60s come to mind offhand....

Correct. The 60s were a time of great prosperity for the working class much more so than today. They had higher wages and a greater purchasing power. They didn't need to rely on cheap credit to keep the middle and working class afloat. Yet, they still rebelled. This was due mostly to the people learning that their government can and will lie to them. It was due to the people awakening from the clutches of conformity and realizing that life was unlike what was being told to them repeatedly by the establishment. It was also due to civil rights.

Today though, the working class is in much worse shape and in debt to boot. The propaganda is twice as strong and the concentration of wealth a thousand times our own. Capitalism/Conservatism/Libertarianism is seen as "revolutionary" by many in the working ranks and the gains made during the New Deal and the 60s as failed.

Anything anti-establishment is seen as vulgar and crass and outdated. The most you can hope to be in terms of a reformist and be "accepted" into the debate is a liberal. It takes revolution these days to be a progressive!

The people of the 60s revolted against the establishment that was largely Social Democratic, Keynesian, and liberal. Today debates flare up about being Social Democratic!

It's a strange time and one that reflects the insanity of living under a capitalist system.

[ckaihatsu]

Liberals still seem to be in shock from "their guy" turning into Bush's third term in office -- we haven't heard a peep out of them lately and so the Republicans slipped in and nabbed Massachusetts.

I'll agree that the sound of the void is deafening. In lieu of any real political program -- or even the normal smug, self-satisfying posturing -- liberals seem to be more phantom-like than usual....

So then the establishment turns to whoever is left still making an effort to mouth some words, I guess.... Here's a good article on where things are at:


Obama courts the Republican right

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/pers-f01.shtml


From the article it sounds like the establishment is in danger of taking away the very ground they're standing on. If they go too far and piss off even the *Republicans'* core constituency then it's *really* difficult to keep the show going when *no one's* light-hearted and fooled anymore....

[LeninistKing]

Hey my brother, sorry if i offended you. Besides our differences, what we need is unity. A United Socialist Front, but like many people in this forum said socialism can't be achieved electorally in USA because the electoral department in America is rigged and controlled by capitalists. So i think that the US revolutionary marxist left would have to think about a feasable plan on how can a Socialist Workers Front rise to US government.

And sorry again if i said something wrong or offended you, so again what we need is to unite !!

take care

.



I make $8 an hour (that is 75 cents above minimum wage in my state) and I work about 30 hours a week (which is not full time). I am "poor", I meet the qualifications for food stamps and government assisted housing.

You obviously are young, and don't have experience with the things you talk about, food stamps for instance, do you realize that you have to take your food stamps to the store in order to buy food with them? Do you know who has cheap groceries? Wal-mart/sams club. But in your opinion those places are for the "upper class"? Dude, have you ever been inside of one of those stores?


Either you are a complete and total idiot. Or maybe you're very young. I did used to have some similar ideas to you when I was 11 or 12, you need to stop being so arrogant and defensive about your views. You're just plain wrong, so don't get all pissy when it gets pointed out. (like the last rep comment you left me about how I need to stop doing drugs (which I don't) and how I am a stalinist (which is laughable))

[Psy]

From the article it sounds like the establishment is in danger of taking away the very ground they're standing on. If they go too far and piss off even the *Republicans'* core constituency then it's *really* difficult to keep the show going when *no one's* light-hearted and fooled anymore....
The real threat is that the establishment losing the ability to bribe the working class anymore, remember the US tamed the uprisings of the 60's and 70's with both violence and bribery for those that conformed. Remember that it took a massive army of police and FBI agents a decade to crush the Black Panthers and the Black Panthers were a very small force. Without buying off the working force into conformity the US ruling class would be in deep trouble as it doesn't have the means to put down the US working class by force without consolidating its forces (meaning pulling its troops from abroad to put down workers at home), so the US ruling class needs the working class to think it is better to conform then fight the ruling class yet as unemployment and poverty grows the advantages of conformity diminishes for the working class.

[RadioRaheem84]

The real threat is that the establishment losing the ability to bribe the working class anymore, remember the US tamed the uprisings of the 60's and 70's with both violence and bribery for those that conformed. Remember that it took a massive army of police and FBI agents a decade to crush the Black Panthers and the Black Panthers were a very small force. Without buying off the working force into conformity the US ruling class would be in deep trouble as it doesn't have the means to put down the US working class by force without consolidating its forces (meaning pulling its troops from abroad to put down workers at home), so the US ruling class needs the working class to think it is better to conform then fight the ruling class yet as unemployment and poverty grows the advantages of conformity diminishes for the working class.

Excellent analysis. I think that we're in a different boat than in the 60s. We're in a similar scenario to the early thirties right after the crash. The only difference is that Obama is no FDR and we have a huge right wing opposition. I think that the rouse of Obama and the rise of an opposition (as long as it doesn't get fascistic) is what's keeping the US public from swinging left and what's keeping the establishment from getting too nervous.

What I don't get is that with the exception of minorities, Americans had it all, relativley speaking. They had high real wages, a great purchasing power, no need for cheap credit or debt, strong middle class, pensions, unions, employment and social mobility. Why did they rebel?

We have none of that today and we're idle!

[Psy]

Excellent analysis. I think that we're in a different boat than in the 60s. We're in a similar scenario to the early thirties right after the crash. The only difference is that Obama is no FDR and we have a huge right wing opposition. I think that the rouse of Obama and the rise of an opposition (as long as it doesn't get fascistic) is what's keeping the US public from swinging left and what's keeping the establishment from getting too nervous.

What I don't get is that with the exception of minorities, Americans had it all, relativley speaking. They had high real wages, a great purchasing power, no need for cheap credit or debt, strong middle class, pensions, unions, employment and social mobility. Why did they rebel?

We have none of that today and we're idle!

They still had to go through the daily grind, workers are not stupid they understand they are being exploiting in the workplace by the bosses were they lack class consciousness is they miss the larger exploitation of the capitalists class thus why their demands was simply reforms in the workplace not the overthrow of the capitalist class. This made it easier for the US ruling class to bride the working class since the workers were only looking for reforms anyway.

As for the students they had the draft and as soon as Vietnam ended conformity become far more attractive especially with the better deal workers got.

[LeninistKing]

Hi Radio: well to tell you the truth. Politics, and societies are complicated. Observing the behaviour patterns of a whole society, specially a complicated society like America requires some sort of Carl Jung, Eric Fromm, Nietzsche and Aldous Huxley's psychological analysis. What i mean is that from my own personal humble opinion, I think that one of the major reasons of why most americans don't rebel might be conformism, and excess of conformism.

However I am humble and open in my opinion, in that I might be wrong, What i mean is that the other hypothesis that i think of the real reason of why americans are are not rebelling and protesting against rising food prices and low-wages, is plain fear of a super-fascistic police-state like the current Homeland Fascism Security, taser guns, patriot acts, and dissapearances of people in FEMA, GITMO, ICE Immigration detention camps and presidential assasinations of US citizens, and all that.

So I think that you should consider that option/answer as to why are americans are not rebelling. Maybe americans are not rebelling because of pure fear of police, CIA and FBI

.



Excellent analysis. I think that we're in a different boat than in the 60s. We're in a similar scenario to the early thirties right after the crash. The only difference is that Obama is no FDR and we have a huge right wing opposition. I think that the rouse of Obama and the rise of an opposition (as long as it doesn't get fascistic) is what's keeping the US public from swinging left and what's keeping the establishment from getting too nervous.

What I don't get is that with the exception of minorities, Americans had it all, relativley speaking. They had high real wages, a great purchasing power, no need for cheap credit or debt, strong middle class, pensions, unions, employment and social mobility. Why did they rebel?

We have none of that today and we're idle!

[ckaihatsu]

Politics, and societies are complicated.


Not as much as you might think.

I chose a sociology (and history) major when I was in school because I liked the premise of sociological study -- that the whole of society *could* be studied rationally and made sense of. Since then I've been able to refine some major concepts on a materialist / Marxist basis, and present them as structural concepts in graphic images. The following two graphics together are meant to frame the heights (magnitude) and scope (social progress) for *any* specific instances / factors of study, for *any* period of history -- feel free to have a look:


History, Macro-Micro -- Precision

http://i45.tinypic.com/149030w.jpg


Ideologies & Operations

http://i46.tinypic.com/ndoaau.jpg





Observing the behaviour patterns of a whole society, specially a complicated society like America requires some sort of Carl Jung, Eric Fromm, Nietzsche and Aldous Huxley's psychological analysis.


Coincidentally I happened to address the libertarian outlook on this basis not too long ago. Basically my position is that, because of their constricted nationalist orientation they wind up *projecting* their own subjective political mindsets out into their descriptions of the political world.





I run into a fair number of these [libertarian] types, and my overall impression is that their NWO political worldview comes from a subconscious herding-instinct kind of group behavior. The biggest telltale indicator of this is their continuous "Chicken Little"-"the sky is falling" kind of anxiety -- the latest one that I recall, from about a year ago, was about some kind of imminent martial law that they said would be declared in the U.S.

Really, because of the lack of a scientific or clear-headed thought process behind their politics their corpus is much better analyzed with the tools of *psychology* rather than as a political program.

[Nolan]

What are the chances of a US military coup against Obama?

[Psy]

What are the chances of a US military coup against Obama?

None, why would the military want to overthrow Obama?

[RadioRaheem84]

None, why would the military want to overthrow Obama?

Obama is as establishment as it gets. No one will want to overthrow his rule, unless he actually goes through with what people thought he was going to do. There are factions of the business community and the military that do not like him but he is no great danger.

[chegitz guevara]

I suspect people will be predicting the fall of the United States for some decades. There's an old joke, "Communists have successfully predicted 10 of the last three recessions."

In the spring of 1989, our professor asked us how soon the Wall would come down. No one in the class thought less than twenty years. It was six months.

In Winter 2008, I broke my rules and made a prediction that the coming recession would be a small one.

Making predictions is a fools game.

[ckaihatsu]

What about the current spate of threats of sovereign debt defaults?

We *know* that the capitalist system rests on a set of "tectonic plates" of the nation-states. If the contagion reaches down to the bedrock of questioning what a *country* is worth economically (taking into account massive degrees of leveraging current and unknown-declining future tax receipts), then there's no more lender of last resort for capitalism's network of central banking.

If banking can't be assured of enough public-funds backing to underwrite their perpetual balance-sheet capsizing then the uncertainty of risk regarding inter-bank transfers would skyrocket again, raising the threat of financial balkanization to the point of dissolution of trading altogether.

To put it simply, the *risk* of taking a single step forward overshadows *any* foreseeable possible gain. That's the problem (for capitalism) of dealing with a downturn of indeterminate length -- all the numbers go to shit because all that shows up ahead is a black hole -- it's like driving in a snowstorm.

[True_Liberal]

Concerning the issue of Socialism, it's mixed. Many are blaming Capitalism ("Capitalism: A Love Story" was a testament to this)

The only ones blaming capitalism are the ones that can not distinguish it from Mercantilism, like that fat asshole of Michael Moore


There is a split between people who want socialism and people who oppose and want right wing capitalism, but remember that both camps don't know what socialism really is.

There is no right wing capitalism, its just Capitalism, ok?

First get your facts straight before you tell other people they don't know what wonderful bullshit socialism really is


The American left appears weak and disorganized in the face of the right's extremely selfish, contradictory, but CLEAR principals. Not to mention the fact that liberals in America distance themselves from true socialists every chance they get.

The selfishness to own the fruits of your own labor without a omnipotent state taking them from you for the benefit of "society"? :rolleyes:


I know it's rather embarrassing. I am so jealous and awestruck when I watch documentaries about Venezuela and they show a surprisingly conscious working class that can beautifully articulate their position and struggles in Venezuelan society.

Amazing what socialist propaganda can do to weak minds


I just don't get what is wrong with my fellow countrymen. Why do they identify so much with the bourgeois?Because America was built over the liberal ideals of Individual Liberty, Free Markets and Justice.


I admire the libertarian spirit that this nation exudes and the cynicism toward state and sometimes corporate power, but why does it always translate into more capitalism, better capitalism, or pure capitalism? Because Capitalism is Individual Liberty under Social Cooperation and Socialism is Collective Slavery under Coercion and Violence.


If managed right, the US could be a bastion for Libertarian Socialism and workers self management, but the way things are going, I see this nation descend into a form of fascism
Don't you mean the state managing the people and their property for their "own good"? :lol:

[dar8888]

A U.S. on the verge of collapse will be even worse than it is now. The government will do anything it can to hold on to its power - and damn the law, justice, democracy, peace, etc...

A collapsed U.S. will turn into a hodge-podge of small states - each with its own (probably) totalitarian regime vying for dominance over the others. It will be a frightening, violent, period.

Many think-tanks predict that China and India will claim the top superpower slots by 2040, and Russia may be in the top three (depending on whether or not it can get its act together). The U.S. is unlikely to settle for number 4 and, should this prediction hold true, will undoubtedly not be content to let history work itself out. Again - a terrifying period.

We can see the warped philosophies of right wingers in this country. A U.S. on the way down will only give rise to more of them.

All of these things are the real reasons why Communists need to prepare, and act - before it's too late.

[ckaihatsu]

This is all overblown movie-script drama -- we *know* that the international bourgeoisie is *never* this careless and chaotic. They'll do everything they can to keep the competition and ranking orderly and will only resort to arms if they happen to butt heads over a group of particularly important colonies / territories -- think Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, South Ossetia.

I maintain that the period of intense nationalism (including fascism) was limited to a certain era in history, when industrialization and colonization was at stake for each modernizing country. While things are far more stable and boring today internationally that doesn't relieve the bourgeoisie *as a whole* from the systematic effects of their economics going into crisis. They'll have more to attempt to justify and more to fear from the world's amalgamated population than from any nationalistic rivalries.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is all overblown movie-script drama -- we *know* that the international bourgeoisie is *never* this careless and chaotic. They'll do everything they can to keep the competition and ranking orderly and will only resort to arms if they happen to butt heads over a group of particularly important colonies / territories -- think Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, South Ossetia.

I maintain that the period of intense nationalism (including fascism) was limited to a certain era in history, when industrialization and colonization was at stake for each modernizing country. While things are far more stable and boring today internationally that doesn't relieve the bourgeoisie *as a whole* from the systematic effects of their economics going into crisis. They'll have more to attempt to justify and more to fear from the world's amalgamated population than from any nationalistic rivalries.

I agree to an extent. The Nationalistic fever the country is witnessing, in my opinion, will get stronger but will never amount to more than a slightly more authoritarian administration ala Park Chung Hee of South Korea. I'm thinking Pinochet in a Brooks Brothers Suit. More COINTELPRO stuff. A huge clamp down on leftists and even anti-government rightists.

[dar8888]

This is all overblown movie-script drama -- we *know* that the international bourgeoisie is *never* this careless and chaotic. They'll do everything they can to keep the competition and ranking orderly and will only resort to arms if they happen to butt heads over a group of particularly important colonies / territories -- think Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, South Ossetia.

I maintain that the period of intense nationalism (including fascism) was limited to a certain era in history, when industrialization and colonization was at stake for each modernizing country. While things are far more stable and boring today internationally that doesn't relieve the bourgeoisie *as a whole* from the systematic effects of their economics going into crisis. They'll have more to attempt to justify and more to fear from the world's amalgamated population than from any nationalistic rivalries.

The premise of this is The Fall of the United States, not the stagnation of the world.

Nationalism is not dead - and give the right circumstances, it will rear its ugly head and cause havoc. All you have to do is listen to nearly any Republican candidate to see that jingoism, nationalism, and xenophobia are alive and well.

Humans today are no better than they were during the worst periods of the past, we're just smarter. We're more efficient killers, and we can bring that efficiency to other nations in the relative blink of an eye.

Believe it or not, much of the world stays in line because they fear U.S. retribution. With the U.S. gone, or severly weakened, the vultures would swoop in and attempt to pick the bones clean.

Finally, extreme violent nationalism tends to take root when times are very bad. If pre-Hitler Germany had been prosperous and content, National Socialism never would have arisen to prominence.

[RadioRaheem84]

The only ones blaming capitalism are the ones that can not distinguish it from Mercantilism, like that fat asshole of Michael Moore


It's all capitalism. The fat asshole showed how private enterprises can be run democratically in his documentary.


There is no right wing capitalism, its just Capitalism, ok?Aren't you the guys that think that anything to the left of unbridled capitalism is left wing?






First get your facts straight before you tell other people they don't know what wonderful bullshit socialism really isBy the way you're describing it on here it shows that you don't know what socialism is.




The selfishness to own the fruits of your own labor without a omnipotent state taking them from you for the benefit of "society"?Ridiculous. You guys are obsessed with this notion that we're obsessed with the state. State control on any industry is nothing without the workers actually taking control of the means of production. We don't want everything to be run like the US Post Office. There is a major difference. We don't want to nationalize the contradictions of capitalist enterprises. The State doesn't even have to get involved. The recovered factories movement in Argentina is a great example of workers taking over the factory and running it democratically.




Amazing what socialist propaganda can do to weak minds


Because America was built over the liberal ideals of Individual Liberty, Free Markets and Justice.Right. For the few who own capital.



Because Capitalism is Individual Liberty under Social Cooperation and Socialism is Collective Slavery under Coercion and Violence.Social cooperation? Don't give me that harmony of interests crap. A laborer can do nothing more except sell his labor to a capitalist, unless he wants to live it out in the woods or become a capitalist himself.


Don't you mean the state managing the people and their property for their "own good"? :lol:What is this issue with the state you people have? We are as much against a coercive state as you are.



How did everyone miss this guy?

[ckaihatsu]

I agree to an extent. The Nationalistic fever the country is witnessing, in my opinion, will get stronger but will never amount to more than a slightly more authoritarian administration ala Park Chung Hee of South Korea. I'm thinking Pinochet in a Brooks Brothers Suit. More COINTELPRO stuff. A huge clamp down on leftists and even anti-government rightists.


- Whatever -

You're all over the place and forgetting that the U.S. has occupied a privileged position in relation to the rest of the world, both economically (U.S. dollar as world reserve currency) and politically (the world's political and cultural "leadership"). When the rest of the world comes down with fever the U.S. gets a little itch on its nose.

The greatest determining factor will be whether the economic centrifugal force throws some countries, like the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain), out of the EU orbit or not. The U.S., because of the dollar and its (slipping) neocolonization of China, will continue to enjoy an internal cohesion that the EU can only be jealous of.

Are you likening Obama to a strongman?

Instead of upheavals over the management of industrialization and imperialism I think we'll be seeing whether the respective empires (U.S., EU, Israel, Colombia) can hang tight enough through a prolonged, indeterminate period of economic uncertainty to prevent the economic crises from becoming political ones for them. The working class will feel a new sense of empowerment in the wake of the political void opening up in the U.S. and EU establishments and it remains to be seen whether organized rank-and-file labor, particularly in China and India, will be able to make gains on it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Does anyone else realize how ridiculous right libertarians think? They have this obsession with the State and think that we are all about the State, the State, the State. All of their arguments are based around this presupposition that we accept the acts of any state, including a bourgeoisie one, to nationalize an industry and not give it to the workers but keep it for the benefit of the state and the bureaucrats that manage it. They act like we're A-OK with the social relations of the US Post Office or any other state enterprise? They have no concept as to why we would object to it due to the obvious exploitation factor that still exists and the fact that the workers don't really own the enterprise. Instead, idiots like True Liberal think that the workers "do own it" because the State is the "collective representation of the people". I remember wasting my time with one right libertarian on this very same issue and he wouldn't stop harping on the idea that the Party/State is the people and therefore if they own, then symbolically the people own it. :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

- Whatever -

You're all over the place and forgetting that the U.S. has occupied a privileged position in relation to the rest of the world, both economically (U.S. dollar as world reserve currency) and politically (the world's political and cultural "leadership"). When the rest of the world comes down with fever the U.S. gets a little itch on its nose.

The greatest determining factor will be whether the economic centrifugal force throws some countries, like the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain), out of the EU orbit or not. The U.S., because of the dollar and its (slipping) neocolonization of China, will continue to enjoy an internal cohesion that the EU can only be jealous of.

Are you likening Obama to a strongman?

Instead of upheavals over the management of industrialization and imperialism I think we'll be seeing whether the respective empires (U.S., EU, Israel, Colombia) can hang tight enough through a prolonged, indeterminate period of economic uncertainty to prevent the economic crises from becoming political ones for them. The working class will feel a new sense of empowerment in the wake of the political void opening up in the U.S. and EU establishments and it remains to be seen whether organized rank-and-file labor, particularly in China and India, will be able to make gains on it.

I fail to see where I likened Obama to a strongman. I meant that I could see a right wing politician being voted in if the economy gets worse and he would tighten up the country security wise. I never meant that we would actually see an obvious right wing junta like the Shah's Iran but more like a less apologetic Bush Jr. regime. I thought I had the tamest scenario. At the most I could see roving bands of para-military whackos attacking people they deem "leftist" but that's about as Mad Max as I get.

But you're right. I don't see the US sinking into total anarchy.

[ckaihatsu]

How did everyone miss this guy?


(Ehhhhh, I was hoping someone would take care of that one. I'll get the next one.)

[Psy]

Does anyone else realize how ridiculous right libertarians think? They have this obsession with the State and think that we are all about the State, the State, the State. All of their arguments are based around this presupposition that we accept the acts of any state, including a bourgeoisie one, to nationalize an industry and not give it to the workers but keep it for the benefit of the state and the bureaucrats that manage it. They act like we're A-OK with the social relations of the US Post Office or any other state enterprise? They have no concept as to why we would object to it due to the obvious exploitation factor that still exists and the fact that the workers don't really own the enterprise. Instead, idiots like True Liberal think that the workers "do own it" because the State is the "collective representation of the people". I remember wasting my time with one right libertarian on this very same issue and he wouldn't stop harping on the idea that the Party/State is the people and therefore if they own, then symbolically the people own it. :lol:

Well libertarians tend to view labor struggles in nationalized industries as workers not wanting to do a "fairs day work" and overlook class antagonisms in nationalized industries.

[ckaihatsu]

Are you likening Obama to a strongman?





I fail to see where I likened Obama to a strongman.


I wasn't *accusing* you of likening Obama to a strongman -- I was *asking*.

Actually, *I* think that Obama *has* the strongman role since there's not even the *pretense* here anymore of a democracy (a populist-style referendum of the public's sentiment to drive policy). Rather, the dictates come from the monolithic voice of major capital interests for the U.S. political structure to fulfill as best it can. This resembles what's typical in colonized Third World proxy states, with a strongman like the Shah, Noriega, Aideed, or Saddam Hussein installed to keep the local situation in check.





I meant that I could see a right wing politician being voted in if the economy gets worse and he would tighten up the country security wise. I never meant that we would actually see an obvious right wing junta like the Shah's Iran but more like a less apologetic Bush Jr. regime.




Obama is as establishment as it gets. No one will want to overthrow his rule, unless he actually goes through with what people thought he was going to do. There are factions of the business community and the military that do not like him but he is no great danger.





I thought I had the tamest scenario. At the most I could see roving bands of para-military whackos attacking people they deem "leftist" but that's about as Mad Max as I get.


Hmmmmmm, on the other hand the U.S. *is* always in the spotlight, and is supposed to be the showpiece of civilization for the rest of the world. Right now there's some media attention being given to the marginalized right, but it's more showbiz than politics.

I don't think the establishment would need to resort to fascistic methods at this point, as you're suggesting.

[RadioRaheem84]

They sure have before during the 60s with cointelpro

[Roquentin]

I think a lot of you are looking in the wrong direction. Washington DC is the PR wing of Wall Street, plain and simple. I don't want to say it doesn't matter at all who gets in, because on a small handful of issues it really does. The point is that it's only a small portion of them.

If I have to guess, I'd wager the elections will become more and more farcical. As more and more power is bled out of the White House and Congress (even quicker now that corporations can directly finance elections), we will see who comes into power there be less and less consequential. The more the politicians in DC fight, the more ineffectual they become, the more time the financial sector gets to consolidate wealth and power. It works even better because they get the public in on the act, in on the bickering. If you grease down both sides with cash and watch them duke it out, it disguises the structure enough that most people won't see it for what it is...even on the supposed left.

Where it goes from there is anyone's guess.

[chegitz guevara]

What about the current spate of threats of sovereign debt defaults?

What about them? What does it have to do with being able to pin a date on the fall of the United States? When it will the U.S. fall? No one can predict. Maybe in a few months, maybe in a few centuries. Maybe some time in between. Maybe it won't fall, it will transform into another state. We just don't know what is going to happen or when, and attempting to make such predictions is wishful and foolish or cult-like.

When I engage in such discussions, it is in a limited and provisional way, based on probability. For example, it is very likely that there will be a communist revolution in Nepal this year. It's not inevitable, but it probably will happen.

[ckaihatsu]

What about [the current spate of threats of sovereign debt defaults]? What does it have to do with being able to pin a date on the fall of the United States?


This is rather dismissive of you. You think that our ability to make a case for the near-term disintegration of bourgeois control over the capitalist economy is unimportant???

Ever hear of the fall of Rome?

Already we're seeing that the liberals now have *zero* presence in the public eye or political arena -- whatever remained of their credibility has now been dashed by their unrealized hopes in Obama, and the mainstream media has gone over to covering the right-wing libertarian fringe as a way of keeping some chatter going. Do you really think this is all inconsequential???





When it will the U.S. fall? No one can predict. Maybe in a few months, maybe in a few centuries. Maybe some time in between. Maybe it won't fall, it will transform into another state. We just don't know what is going to happen or when, and attempting to make such predictions is wishful and foolish or cult-like.


No, not at all -- the clearer a picture we can make of what's going on, the better prepared we'll be for what's coming whether it's relatively unchanging or more tumultuous. You don't have to call it a 'prediction' if you don't want, but nonetheless we'll inherently be harboring certain expectations about the near future based on our assessment of the present.

And since as Marxists we're nowhere near a position of effecting policy we can only gain ground by providing a clearer portrayal of the state of the world than anyone else possibly could (as well as agitating for rank-and-file independent organizing, of course).





When I engage in such discussions, it is in a limited and provisional way, based on probability. For example, it is very likely that there will be a communist revolution in Nepal this year. It's not inevitable, but it probably will happen.


Hey -- there's nothing wrong with thinking in terms of probability. After all, we can only *extrapolate*, at best, based on the pool of knowledge that we have in the present. When new developments arise we then have to incorporate them so as to update our understandings and re-weight (and/or introduce new possible) scenarios for the revised, pushed-back future. It's an ongoing process....

There *has* been a communist revolution in Nepal already, displacing the nationalists with a provisional assembly that better reflects the widespread popular support for the Maoists. It seems like it's come to a standstill, though, with limited political / geographical maneuvering room and an agrarian economic base.

[ckaihatsu]

---




As more and more power is bled out of the White House and Congress (even quicker now that corporations can directly finance elections), we will see who comes into power there be less and less consequential.





February 3, 2010 | Issue 46•05


WASHINGTON—In a landmark decision that overturned decades of legal precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday to remove all restrictions that had previously barred corporations from holding public office. "This is an unfair, ill-advised, and tragic mistake," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said before boarding a flight to Arizona in response to primary poll numbers that show him trailing the Phoenix-based company PetSmart by a double-digit margin. "Despite the deep discounts and exciting promotions that they may be able to offer, these huge, soulless entities are not capable of truly serving the American people's—or their pet's—needs." Corporate attack ads have already begun to hit the airwaves in New York, where a new Pepsi commercial set to a catchy modern remix of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" blasts incumbent governor David Paterson as "unrefreshing" and urges New Yorkers to "taste the choice of a new generation this Nov. 2."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows

[GPDP]

---

Ha! I know "news" from The Onion are just jokes, but imagine if that were to actually happen. Already corporations are considered "legal persons," so what's stopping them from running as independent candidates?

EDIT: Oh wait. (http://blog.miller-mccune.com.s72010.gridserver.com/politics/office-seeks-higher-office-8325/)

[ckaihatsu]

Corporate attack ads have already begun to hit the airwaves in New York, where a new Pepsi commercial set to a catchy modern remix of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" blasts incumbent governor David Paterson as "unrefreshing" and urges New Yorkers to "taste the choice of a new generation this Nov. 2."


Yeah, I think the incumbent's had enough time in office to implement his reform program, and all I see is corruption and pork-barrel politics. We need an outsider, but with experience, who can better represent our tastes -- instead of backing yet another *human*-person, my vote's going for * Pepsi * -- !!!

% D





Ha! I know "news" from The Onion are just jokes, but imagine if that were to actually happen. Already corporations are considered "legal persons," so what's stopping them from running as independent candidates?


Heh -- at this point does it really matter anyway???! They *might* get some public interest back by running their election campaigns with comic-book characters!


x D