is something can be done with a people who is suffering from general apathy?

[danyboy27]

I have been reading some stats recently about Politics and my province come first in FUCKING NORTH AMERICA of the places who are uninsterested in politics and international affairs.

Its not hard to understand, we are a French province(language berlin wall), Our politicians suck and are extremely corrupted, people are just cynical about everything, People dont vote, people dont even protest much, this is just fucking sad.

Is there something that can be done to make people interested into politics on a massive scale?

[Ele'ill]

I have been reading some stats recently about Politics and my province come first in FUCKING NORTH AMERICA of the places who are uninsterested in politics and international affairs.

Its not hard to understand, we are a French province(language berlin wall), Our politicians suck and are extremely corrupted, people are just cynical about everything, People dont vote, people dont even protest much, this is just fucking sad.

Is there something that can be done to make people interested into politics on a massive scale?

Where? (ballpark) Edit- I see now, nevermind

You can still engage people locally by getting involved in issues that are affecting them. You don't necessarily need 200k people in the street with tear gas flying back and forth.

[Bud Struggle]

In the US the apothetic people have been joining the Tea Party.

It's been a great success.

[Ele'ill]

In the US the apothetic people have been joining the Tea Party.

It's been a great success.

If by success you mean not doing anything at all. I played Guild Wars since it came out up until about a year ago as did millions and millions of other people- can I consider that to be a success too?

I can't argue about the 'apathetic portion of what you said though- it seems as though they found something that vaguely resembles something they like so they use it to engage in racism and idiotic political misinformation.

[ComradeMan]

I know what Dannyboy means.

No offence intended towards Americans- but a lot of Americans, or at least the ones who get broadcast seem astonishingly ignorant of world at large and far too readily believe what they see on TV.

However it's not just an American phenomenon. Here, I am amazed at times at the ignorance and apathy of people- especially the younger generation (left and right). More people get fired up about calcio (football) than anything else.... :(

Books? What are books? Oh no, they are things you must read for school. Pleasure? Oh that would be the games console or the social networking sites.... get me? Fashion-food-football- the three F's that are fucking up people's mentality and lead to a general apathy and ignorance.

I think apathy is worst.

In Italian there is a proverb-

"Chi tace acconsente"- "who is silente gives consent"- so perhaps who is apathetic gives consent in a sense.
(Pope Bonifacio VIII supposedly)

[Revolution starts with U]

We just need a pretty revolutionary. People are sheep when pretty people want them to be :laugh:

[Noinu]

No offence intended towards Americans- but a lot of Americans, or at least the ones who get broadcast seem astonishingly ignorant of world at large and far too readily believe what they see on TV.

Ohhhh like this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

[Revolution starts with U]

^ :laugh::laugh::laugh:

"I didn't notice that south Korea was so much smaller than north korea (pointing at australia)" what a bunch of tools :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Noinu]

^ :laugh::laugh::laugh:

"I didn't notice that south Korea was so much smaller than north korea (pointing at australia)" what a bunch of tools :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I know, that one cracks me up every time :laugh::laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

I have to admit. It took me a min to think of a country beginning w U. Mine.... Ukraine. I would have put america in the a's :blushing:
/facepalm

[Noinu]

I have to admit. It took me a min to think of a country beginning w U. Mine.... Ukraine. I would have put america in the a's :blushing:
/facepalm

I thought of Uganda, for some reason, I mean the US and the UK would both be rather obvious choices, maybe it's the fact that they're composed of common nouns and not proper nouns that make it easier to start thinking of something else...

[ComradeMan]

I thought of Utopia- what we are working towards! :lol:;)

Be wary of those Youtube "revelations" they only ever deliberately target people who will somehow "prove" their point. But the fact those people do exist, or rather that level of ignorance exists, is worrying too.

[Noinu]

Be wary of those Youtube "revelations" they only ever deliberately target people who will somehow "prove" their point. But the fact those people do exist, or rather that level of ignorance exists, is worrying too.

Oh yes definitely, didn't actually even think of trying to prove anything with it. An old school friend of mine linked that on her facebook one day and it was so hilarious, I just couldn't help but to think of it when I read your comment.

It is worrying! 'United Kingdom? What's that?'.

[Ele'ill]

I kind of touched on this already but a lot of people are apathetic because they're hopeless and feel powerless. Simply talking to people at a neighborhood level or at a labor level can boost their spirits and get a game plan rolling in your head. My experience has been that people often want to see someone else taking the first step or to make the first challenge against an oppressive presence within their community because they are too scared to do it first.

[Skooma Addict]

I think there are some people who just live in a totally different paradigm than what I know and they are only concerned about themselves and those they know directly. They only really think about people less fortunate than them when they meet such people directly, like if they had some community event or something. They are very materialistic and only concerned with furthering their own personal self interest even if it causes considerable harm to others. I am of course referring to about 40% of college students.

And no, I do not believe there is anything that could possibly be done to change this. They will either change themselves or they won't. There is nothing anyone else can do.

[Revolution starts with U]

You can set up less of a dog-eat-dog society wherein they have more freedom to worry less about self-interest...

[Skooma Addict]

I dont think I can rationally plan society.

[Revolution starts with U]

You do everyday, on a small scale. Micro planning, sometimes you win big, sometimes you fall.

[Skooma Addict]

I plan my own day if that is what you mean....and I always win big.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, we don't have to delude ourselves friend. Tho it is expected from the "greed is good" crowd ;)

[Skooma Addict]

May as well make greed work for the best since there's always gunna be greed. That's how I see it.

[Bud Struggle]

I dont think I can rationally plan society.

No one can.

[Ele'ill]

First define society and then describe 'plan'.

[Revolution starts with U]

Greed; mindless pursuit of self interest, no regard for consequences, is never good for anyone but the greedy.
Greed, contrary to Ayn Rand fantasies, is not the same thing as self-interest. Class struggle is self-interest.

[Ele'ill]

To suggest that you can't 'plan' society is taking the stance that you have to work within a concrete set of 'plans' once they're created and will be unable to recreate- this isn't the case at all.

[Skooma Addict]

First define society and then describe 'plan'.

"WE CALL A MULTITUDE of men a society when their activities are mutually adjusted to one another. Men in society can successfully pursue their ends because they know what to expect from their fellows. Their relations, in other words, show a certain order. How such an order of the multifarious activities of millions of men is produced or can be achieved is the central problem of social theory and social policy." -Hayek

As for "plan," Hayek showed that it is impossible to rationally construct society to ones linking.

http://web.missouri.edu/~podgurskym/Econ_4970/readings/The%20Use%20of%20Knowledge%20in%20Society.pdf

[Ele'ill]

"WE CALL A MULTITUDE of men a society when their activities are mutually adjusted to one another. Men in society can successfully pursue their ends because they know what to expect from their fellows. Their relations, in other words, show a certain order. How such an order of the multifarious activities of millions of men is produced or can be achieved is the central problem of social theory and social policy." -Hayek

As for "plan," Hayek showed that it is impossible to rationally construct society to ones linking.

http://web.missouri.edu/~podgurskym/Econ_4970/readings/The%20Use%20of%20Knowledge%20in%20Society.pdf (http://web.missouri.edu/%7Epodgurskym/Econ_4970/readings/The%20Use%20of%20Knowledge%20in%20Society.pdf)




It wouldn't be done to one's liking- I mean that's what we're living now- a select few orchestrating how our world operates. It's why so many people are suffering. It's a small group of people setting up the world to operate for and towards their desires rather than towards what people need.

[Revolution starts with U]

"to one's liking."

[ComradeMan]

No one can.

I can. I'm the man who can. ComradeMan! :lol:

[Ele'ill]

"to one's liking."

Exactly.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have said to many right wingers, public control of government works fine. It's mostly when you right wingers (and other such autocrats) get in charge that government stops working at all.

[ComradeMan]

Niccolò Machiavelli more or less reached the conclusion that the best form of government was a benevolent dictator... :(

[Skooma Addict]

It wouldn't be done to one's liking- I mean that's what we're living now- a select few orchestrating how our world operates.

That actually isn't what we are living now at all. There are people with too much power, but it is nowhere near to the degree to where a few people are intentionally orchestrating the entire world.


It's why so many people are suffering. It's a small group of people setting up the world to operate for and towards their desires rather than towards what people need.

So many people are suffering for many reasons. Most can be attributed to a lack of the necessary free market reforms in my opinion.


"to one's liking."


What are you saying? I don't follow...

[Bud Struggle]

Niccolò Machiavelli more or less reached the conclusion that the best form of government was a benevolent dictator... :(

I am here for you.

[Revolution starts with U]

Cuz he's a right wing troll. Of course, who would have this benevolence? He may be correct, perhaps someone could lead us to the promised land. Anybody who thinks it could be them is exactly the person who could not. Benevolent dictator is a paradox.
Only the people, together, can mitigate the negative effects of power over societies.

[revogirl]

Don't worry we could have a fucking royal wedding to cheer us all up.
The press are asking if we are too cynical as a nation to be interested in the next royal wedding after the 1981 one.
Surely this is just too easy to answer for anyone other than a completely fucking brainless twat
I was cynical in 1981 and apart from the usefulness of identifying your enemies why would any sad fuckers be interested in the lives of this exploitative bunch of c##nts.
Cameron says it's good news for a change well it just goes to show how absolutely horrific the news has been since he's been in power.

Btw I would of preferred to have started a new thread on this subject I could not work out how to obviously I am being thick but could someone help out me and tell me how would I start a new thread.

[Skooma Addict]

Did you just call Machiavelli a "troll?"

[ComradeMan]

I am here for you.

Hmmm... don't think you would have liked the Medici or the Borgia- Italian city states were pretty nasty... good places to get poisoned.

[Ele'ill]

That actually isn't what we are living now at all. There are people with too much power, but it is nowhere near to the degree to where a few people are intentionally orchestrating the entire world.

Political governance isn't global. Each individual region is controlled by a top percentage rather than by the masses.




So many people are suffering for many reasons. Most can be attributed to a lack of the necessary free market reforms in my opinion.

The cause of a lot of the suffering in the Global South is because of predatory neo-liberal free market reforms, in my opinion.

[ComradeMan]

I don't think you can really Niccolò Machiavelli rightwing- ruthless and cynical yes- but he was a product of his times. To say he's rightwing is anachronistic. Nevertheless, if you read Il Principe- and then read the modern news... it's an eye-opener.:crying:

Hey we are "restricting" for "trolling" Machiavelli here.... LOL!!! Antonio Gramsci took great inspiration from Machiavelli's writing.

Quote:-
The 20th century Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci drew great inspiration from Machiavelli's writings on ethics, morals, and how they relate to the State and revolution in his writings on Passive Revolution, and how a society can be manipulated by controlling popular notions of morality. Marcia Landy, "Culture ansd Politics in the work of Antonio Gramsci," 167–88, in Antonio Gramsci: Intellectuals, Culture, and the Party, ed. James Martin (New York: Routledge, 2002).

[Skooma Addict]

Political governance isn't global. Each individual region is controlled by a top percentage rather than by the masses.


What do you mean it is "controlled?" Are you talking about Mayors? Its not like rich people control what I do. Laws and social institutions evolved over centuries. Its not like anyone can come to power and do whatever they want.


The cause of a lot of the suffering in the Global South is because of predatory neo-liberal free market reforms, in my opinion.


So do the ruling people who control the world just dislike the global south and like the U.S.?

[Revolution starts with U]

That actually isn't what we are living now at all. There are people with too much power, but it is nowhere near to the degree to where a few people are intentionally orchestrating the entire world.
It is said a fraction of 1% of the world controls 30%+ of its wealth. What is 1% of 7b? Somewhere less than 70 million of 7billion people control 30% of the world's wealth.
What, do you think feudalism was just a king and ten nobles?





So many people are suffering for many reasons. Most can be attributed to a lack of the necessary free market reforms in my opinion.

That's been the IMF's position for half a century as well. It has not worked then, it did not work in our early history, and it will not work in the future. As logical as you think your theories are, they just don't play out in the real world.
Empiricism is a necessary component of understanding reality.




What are you saying? I don't follow

:D <~~ he can't :confused:<~~ he can't :lol:<~~ he can't :mad: he can't either
^ but ^ they ^ can ^ and always have

[Revolution starts with U]

What do you mean it is "controlled?" Are you talking about Mayors? Its not like rich people control what I do. Laws and social institutions evolved over centuries. Its not like anyone can come to power and do whatever they want.

If you don't think our legal and political structures heavily favor the rich you are deliberately deluding yourself. I would say "open your eyes," but you have them open, and just choose to see a fantasy.



So do the ruling people who control the world just dislike the global south and like the U.S.?
They like money. And they dislike challenge to their control. Just like nearly anybody... as Chomsky calls them, unaccountable private tyrannies.

[Skooma Addict]

It is said a fraction of 1% of the world controls 30%+ of its wealth. What is 1% of 7b? Somewhere less than 70 million of 7billion people control 30% of the world's wealth.
What, do you think feudalism was just a king and ten nobles?

For starters, the top 1% does not get together and plot how to control the world. The top 1% aren't even united. Secondly, if the rich and specifically the top 1% controlled everything, then we wouldn't expect people to jump in and out of income brackets. But people do, and people jump in and out of being in the top 1%.


That's been the IMF's position for half a century as well. It has not worked then, it did not work in our early history, and it will not work in the future. As logical as you think your theories are, they just don't play out in the real world.
Empiricism is a necessary component of understanding reality.

Yes I agree the IMF is not what we need.


:D <~~ he can't :confused:<~~ he can't :lol:<~~ he can't :mad: he can't either
^ but ^ they ^ can ^ and always have

People do not get together and plan society. It is spontaneous and evolutionary.


If you don't think our legal and political structures heavily favor the rich you are deliberately deluding yourself. I would say "open your eyes," but you have them open, and just choose to see a fantasy.

I think the current systems favors some people more than others. Some rich people fall in the category of being favored. But this is due to a divergence from the "Rule of Law" as Hayek put it. In other words, government takes most of the blame.


They like money. And they dislike challenge to their control. Just like nearly anybody... as Chomsky calls them, unaccountable private tyrannies.

So are socialists the only people who are aware of and know the intentions of these rulers? I guess they decided they had a bad day and said "Hey, lets piss off the south."

[Ele'ill]

What do you mean it is "controlled?" Are you talking about Mayors? Its not like rich people control what I do. Laws and social institutions evolved over centuries. Its not like anyone can come to power and do whatever they want.

Controlled as in set up by- enforced by and perpetuated by the ruling class.

Those laws and social institutions were created by and maintained by the ruling class to benefit the ruling class.




So do the ruling people who control the world just dislike the global south and like the U.S.?

It isn't an issue of like or dislike it's an issue of can weak governments sign onto SAPs, can we claim that environmental laws are a barrier to trade, can we claim that the workers of those countries ability to unionize is a barrier to trade so on and so forth

They exploit the Global South to benefit - not the 'U.S' as a generic entity- but the ruling class of the Republicrats 'the business party' and any corporation that is involved.

[Revolution starts with U]

For starters, the top 1% does not get together and plot how to control the world. The top 1% aren't even united.
Nobody said they do. And neither was England united with France. But their people were still slaves to the feudal system. Tyranny doesn't have to be planned. In fact, many times it is not.

Secondly, if the rich and specifically the top 1% controlled everything, then we wouldn't expect people to jump in and out of income brackets. But people do, and people jump in and out of being in the top 1%
Some do. Not many. The capitalist system inherently favors inheritance over hard work, or even "creating value" (what an austrian [such as yourself?] would say).




Yes I agree the IMF is not what we need.
I'm sorry to inform you, but it's the logical outcome of the capitalist system. Persons amass large concentrations of wealth, and ergo power, and use that to tilt the system in their favor. As capitalism globalizes the world economy, it is only natural that the top capitalists (especially "old money") will do the same to the larger system.
The problems of capitalism are systemic more than personal. It's like a cancer.




People do not get together and plan society. It is spontaneous and evolutionary.
Crusoe's island never has existed. It is theoretical construct that more resembles a fairy tale than anything that has ever happened in history. The reality is there was social planning since the days we were chasing around mammoths for meat.




I think the current systems favors some people more than others. Some rich people fall in the category of being favored. But this is due to a divergence from the "Rule of Law" as Hayek put it. In other words, government takes most of the blame.
No crap. The state (government) inherently favors some over others. Even things as simple as peaceful people over murderers. The difference is who does it favor? Democratic systems attempt to, and comparably do, favor society as a whole, rather than some privaleged class

[Ele'ill]

For starters, the top 1% does not get together and plot how to control the world. The top 1% aren't even united. Secondly, if the rich and specifically the top 1% controlled everything, then we wouldn't expect people to jump in and out of income brackets. But people do, and people jump in and out of being in the top 1%.

Their shared interest is in keeping trade policy in tact. The trade policy is exploitive and sends money one way- to them. Their shared interest is in trade organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization and the trade policies and predatory practices associated with them.

People flow in and out of income brackets as their individual competence serves the corporations. The actual corporations maintain steady profit because of what I mentioned in the first part and the top individuals maintain a fairly steady profit as well. Within the US corporations are engaging in unfair labor practices especially during the 'recession' and banking on as in making more than their projected earnings of the previous year all while handing out bonuses to those at the top that dwarf those given to the 'common laborers' if they see anything at all.



People do not get together and plan society. It is spontaneous and evolutionary.


There is ground work laid out by people who have ideas- who do those ideas benefit?

Consider the coming revolution to be spontaneous and evolutionary for all intents and purposes of this conversation.




I think the current systems favors some people more than others. Some rich people fall in the category of being favored. But this is due to a divergence from the "Rule of Law" as Hayek put it. In other words, government takes most of the blame.

This is incorrect as the government certainly shares interests with corporate power and the laws and trade policies put into play benefit both.

[WeAreReborn]

Their shared interest is in keeping trade policy in tact. The trade policy is exploitive and sends money one way- to them. Their shared interest is in trade organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization and the trade policies and predatory practices associated with them.

People flow in and out of income brackets as their individual competence serves the corporations. The actual corporations maintain steady profit because of what I mentioned in the first part and the top individuals maintain a fairly steady profit as well. Within the US corporations are engaging in unfair labor practices especially during the 'recession' and banking on as in making more than their projected earnings of the previous year all while handing out bonuses to those at the top that dwarf those given to the 'common laborers' if they see anything at all.

Don't forget how the World Health Organization won't give medicine to countries who don't take a long from the IMF. Then once they are forced to do so they raise the interest and make the government in mass amounts of debt. The IMF forces the government to raise the hours of standard work and the taxes and the worker is just trapped and stuck in a life of hard work just so a few people can be disgustingly wealthy.

[Ele'ill]

Don't forget how the World Health Organization won't give medicine to countries who don't take a long from the IMF. Then once they are forced to do so they raise the interest and make the government in mass amounts of debt. The IMF forces the government to raise the hours of standard work and the taxes and the worker is just trapped and stuck in a life of hard work just so a few people can be disgustingly wealthy.

Yeah, this is what the SAPs (Structural Adjustment Policies) do.

[Skooma Addict]

It isn't an issue of like or dislike it's an issue of can weak governments sign onto SAPs, can we claim that environmental laws are a barrier to trade, can we claim that the workers of those countries ability to unionize is a barrier to trade so on and so forth

They exploit the Global South to benefit - not the 'U.S' as a generic entity- but the ruling class of the Republicrats 'the business party' and any corporation that is involved.
Well at least under this delusion you aren't attributing a free market to the U.S. That much is nice. However, the U.S. does not dominate the South anywhere near to the degree that you are suggesting. I would have definitely expected to see a different President of Brazil had this been the case.

[Skooma Addict]

Some do. Not many. The capitalist system inherently favors inheritance over hard work, or even "creating value" (what an austrian [such as yourself?] would say). There is a fair amount of income mobility, especially when you look at longer periods of time. If the rich controlled everything, one would expect to see very little if any income mobility towards the upper income brackets. The fact that there is inequality of wealth is not sufficient to prove your point.


Crusoe's island never has existed. It is theoretical construct that more resembles a fairy tale than anything that has ever happened in history. The reality is there was social planning since the days we were chasing around mammoths for meat.Sure tribes can make plans about how to run things. But for modern society, tacit knowledge problems would make any kind of rational plan impossible. This has been the case for a very long time too. The truth of the matter is none of you have any idea what America would look like post-revolution. Nobody does. I personally believe that another state would just emerge, but I don't claim that to be anything more than a hunch.


No crap. The state (government) inherently favors some over others. Even things as simple as peaceful people over murderers. The difference is who does it favor? Democratic systems attempt to, and comparably do, favor society as a whole, rather than some privaleged class Democratic systems many times favor a group who that is willing to gain parasitically off of another group. This parasitic group can be a majority, or it can be a smaller group of rich people. But those who are willing to be politically active and organized can benefit at others expense fairly easily in a democracy.

[Skooma Addict]

People flow in and out of income brackets as their individual competence serves the corporations. The actual corporations maintain steady profit because of what I mentioned in the first part and the top individuals maintain a fairly steady profit as well. Within the US corporations are engaging in unfair labor practices especially during the 'recession' and banking on as in making more than their projected earnings of the previous year all while handing out bonuses to those at the top that dwarf those given to the 'common laborers' if they see anything at all.
If corporations control everything then why don't they just prevent new corporations from arising to compete with them? Why don't they have absolutely astronomical profits all the time? 100 years from now do you think the same corporations will be dominant? If they were so controlling then they should be dominant forever.


There is ground work laid out by people who have ideas- who do those ideas benefit?

Consider the coming revolution to be spontaneous and evolutionary for all intents and purposes of this conversation.Do you think some guys just came up with an idea "don't steal" and then enforced that idea on the entire population, and now suddenly thousands of years later we still follow this guys idea?

By "revolution" do you mean a bunch of teenagers dressing in all black, yelling, and throwing stuff at buildings while being laughed at by 99% of the population?

Like anyone in their right mind trusts them to implement some ideal society?:lol:


This is incorrect as the government certainly shares interests with corporate power and the laws and trade policies put into play benefit both. Some laws help corporations, but many don't. Take many of the environmental or property laws for example. Again if corporations control the government then idk why corporations aren't allowed to just pollute wherever they want.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well at least under this delusion you aren't attributing a free market to the U.S. That much is nice. However, the U.S. does not dominate the South anywhere near to the degree that you are suggesting. I would have definitely expected to see a different President of Brazil had this been the case.

Brazil's not capitalist enough? :laugh:


There is a fair amount of income mobility, especially when you look at longer periods of time. If the rich controlled everything, one would expect to see very little if any income mobility towards the upper income brackets. The fact that there is inequality of wealth is not sufficient to prove your point

So 5 or 10 new families join the house of nobles and that's "a fair amount of income mobility" to you? There is scant evidence, if any at all, that any meaningful kind of income mobility exists at all. Maybe 40k'ers making 80k... but not so much for the big money. It happens, but it's rare.
The fact that 1 in 100m people can expect some small modicum of income mobility does not prove your point either.


Sure tribes can make plans about how to run things. But for modern society, tacit knowledge problems would make any kind of rational plan impossible. This has been the case for a very long time too. the truth of the matter is none of you ave any idea what America would look like post-revolution. Nobody does. I personally believe that another state would just emerge, but I don't claim that to be anything more than a hunch

It's possible. If it's a democratic proletarian state, I'm content. I will still fight its abuses (if they exist, and if it's a state, they probably will), but it's much better than the bourgie state we are subject to now.


Democratic systems many times favor a group who that is willing to gain parasitically off of another group. This parasitic group can be a majority, or it can be a smaller group of rich people. But those who are willing to be politically active and organized can benefit at others expense fairly easily in a democracy

I imagine you consider welfare or unemployment as parasitical, and I absolutely disagree.
Either way, it gives the general populace the ability to express themselves politically. As opposed to just having to live w the parisites under feudal and earlier systems.


If corporations control everything then why don't they just prevent new corporations from arising to compete with them? Why don't they have absolutely astronomical profits all the time? 100 years from now do you think the same corporations will be dominant? If they were so controlling then they should be dominant forever.

They do stop competition from entering the market. Wal Mart gets huge subsidies and tax breaks, unlike the small local shops.
Some of these corporations (if the system remains capitalist) will still dominate markets in 100 years. Goldman Sachs and Chase/JP Morgan are doing just fine.


Some laws help corporation, but many don't. Take many of the environmental or property laws for example. Again if corporations control the government then idk why corporations aren't allowed to just pollute wherever they want.

Because there is at least still some semblance of democracy in this country. Give the righties their free market fantasies and those companies will pollute willy nilly... like they did.

[Ele'ill]

Well at least under this delusion you aren't attributing a free market to the U.S. That much is nice. However, the U.S. does not dominate the South anywhere near to the degree that you are suggesting. I would have definitely expected to see a different President of Brazil had this been the case.

lol



If corporations control everything then why don't they just prevent new corporations from arising to compete with them?

They do.



Why don't they have absolutely astronomical profits all the time?They do.


100 years from now do you think the same corporations will be dominant? If they were so controlling then they should be dominant forever.They likely will be still dominant with some failing and getting crushed and other new ones rising into the market. The system in place allows for whater exists to engage in exploitive practices. This doesn't take blame away from those taking advantage of it.


Do you think some guys just came up with an idea "don't steal" and then enforced that idea on the entire population, and now suddenly thousands of years later we still follow this guys idea?There are ideas that have been passed down from one time to the next that are universally agreed upon by entire populations but it becomes an issue when 'don't steal that car' is accepted while 'wage theft', 'rent' and 'private property' is also accepted and enforced by a top percentage for personal gain. The problem lays with a small group of people making the rules while not allowing many millions of willing people to engage in decision making for their immediate living and working environment.



By "revolution" do you mean a bunch of teenagers dressing in all black, yelling, and throwing stuff at buildings while being laughed at by 99% of the population?This is a fallacy as I will mention those people in black agitating and using force along side liberal progressives and radical labor alike to change policies that benefit that '90%' of the population (which isn't accurate in itself) through labor reforms and revolutionary labor pressures. I can also state those in black engaging in grassroots organizing and bringing communities together in solidarity against unwanted laws and policies that only benefit a handful of people at the top. Those people in black are the population and their numbers are growing and even more importantly their ideas are spreading. They are willing to work with many other individuals and people that do not consider themselves to be 'anarchists'.

The revolution is built through small and large acts of community organizing.




Like anyone in their right mind trusts them to implement some ideal society?:lol:I've been gassed along side local residents- with linked arms while being patted on the back and thanked because people were appreciative of what I was doing and why I as there- they liked the ideas that were being exchanged amongst themselves as well as with myself. I think the above percentage you mentioned is better stated as- 90% of those at the top are laughing but it's a nervous laugh because they need chemical weapons, military vehicles, the actual military (National Guard) and 10-15,000 police officers in riot gear to stop 2,000 people from engaging in militant direct action against state and corporate infrastructure and they need illegal bureaucratic decisions to be made in the form of 'law' so that 100-200,000 people, mostly local residents couldn't assemble and march in their own city. There is far more outrage towards the system than you would like to imagine.


Some laws help corporations, but many don't. Take many of the environmental or property laws for example. Again if corporations control the government then idk why corporations aren't allowed to just pollute wherever they want.In the US the EPA is owned. This aside- US corporations set up shop in the Global South and take advantage of weak and desperate governments who sign onto SAP's. These governments are often corrupt with their election process being devoid of anything resembling democracy- the people of the country have very little if not no control at all over their environment. What a US based corporation couldn't quite get away with in the US they're going to get away with in the Global South and this is actually heavily understated. If the governments of the Global South complain the companies can sue for barrier to trade.

[Unclebananahead]

I would like to do some class consciousness raising work myself, possibly by creating some revolutionary Marxist comics, sort of in the style of 'Mr. Block'