The success of capitalism and the road to recovery.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Jobless Benefits on the chopping block (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703670004575616863209401130.html?m od=googlenews_wsj)

17.4 Million(which is likely an underestimation) went hungry last year (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-usda-hunger-20101115,0,6617883.story)

And now, the US Government is using the hail mary of economic salvation techniques, they are pumping billions of dollars into the economy which is set to hit a period of inflation as the world economy stagnates.

Austerity measures will be implemented in the US to save the economy as well while bailouts are given to the rich. We are made to pay while the bourgeois government lines the pockets of financiers and bankers.

[Bud Struggle]

All they really need to do is increase taxes on people making more than $250,000.

[Skooma Addict]

All they really need to do is increase taxes on people making more than $250,000.

And then what? The economy is saved?

[Rusty Shackleford]

The problem is becoming very acute. i doubt a simple tax increase on the bourgeoisie would do anything.

Also, i doubt congress would have the proverbial cojones to raise the taxes enough to actually resolve the debt issue. so long as the bourgeoisie is fine, the government can go into debt for all they care.

in the end, we all know what capitalism collapses into when the wealth and power of the bourgeoisie is mortally threatened. so, unless they are finitely(had revolution happened in the west first. we would be in a socialist world by now, no doubt.) overthrown by the working class and its allies, the bourgeoisie has its means of self-preservation.

[RGacky3]

All they really need to do is increase taxes on people making more than $250,000.


And regulate wallstreet, HEAVILY, What they should do is just nationalize some of the banks, what they'll always need to do is start supporting unions. THe taxes will help, but your gonna need a lot more than that.

Right now Liberals are calling for infistructure, which yeah, will help, but thats just a short term, I think a MUCH better long term solution would be government sponsered coops.

And for gods sake rase the capital gains tax, the top rate tax and inheretence tax.

None of this is gonna happen though because most of congress has no interest in fixing the economy, only keeping those who pay them happy. So in my opinion step one is changing who pays them.

[Thirsty Crow]

And then what? The economy is saved?
No, then just sit back and wait for a proletarian revolution. That is when the economy, meaining the people, will be saved.

[Bud Struggle]

A
And for gods sake rase the capital gains tax, the top rate tax and inheretence tax.

Yes, I should have mentioned that. The Cap gains tax should be about 50%--for older companies though maybe 25% for startups and companies making under $10 million a year. Also, there should be inheritance tax--right now it is ZERO-it should be something. The problem with that is there are so many ways to get around it.

[RGacky3]

ANd take the cap of social security, get rid of caps in general.

But taxing is'nt a solution, its a painkiller, ultimately control has to be shifted.

[Budguy68]

All they really need to do is increase taxes on people making more than $250,000.

I don't get people like you.

Our government is found to be corrupt, they make their own money, pay themselves more and more 6 figure salaries plus everyone gets full benefits, are full of buerocrates who dotn do shit all day, waste money on pointless wars, They give bail out money to their corporate friends, yet you think they deserve more money...... Are you working for them or something? Or are you just very jealous of successful people?

[Bud Struggle]

I don't get people like you.

Our government is found to be corrupt, they make their own money, pay themselves more and more 6 figure salaries plus everyone gets full benefits, are full of buerocrates who dotn do shit all day, waste money on pointless wars, They give bail out money to their corporate friends, yet you think they deserve more money...... Are you working for them or something? Or are you just very jealous of successful people?

DAMN!!! I'm getting hit from the left AND the Right today! :D

Well here's the problem--I have no issue with rich people. They are some of the nicest people I know. I have no problem with them making money. But they have to be reasonable about where and how they get their money. And meney to run the economy has to come from somewhere--we have a deficit--yea it came from poor economic planning by the government, but that is another story, it has to be fixed and someone has to pay for it. Either it is going to be the rich people or the poor people--but SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it.

The rich have more money.

Look:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.dailyfinance.com/media/2010/10/wealth-distribution-usa.png


I have no problem with unequal wealth distribution--in fact I like it. People that work hard should get more--plenty more than everyone else. But the should share the responsibility for the problems of America, too.

That's why I like the FLat tax--everyone pays the same. Right now the rich pay every little of their income in tazes. I know this first hand.

[Budguy68]

Your LoLgic is to tax the people more.

Thats like some spoiled rich girl asking her rich dad for more money because she is spending too much. Would make much more sense to spend less...

Maybe have less wars....


Those top earners already pay for most of all taxes

[Bud Struggle]

Your LoLgic is to tax the people more.

Thats like some spoiled rich girl asking her rich dad for more money because she is spending too much. Would make much more sense to spend less...

Maybe have less wars....


Those top earners already pay for most of all taxes

I agree we should spend less but we have a huge defecit: where's the money going to come from is we don't tax someone? We should go back to what it was in the Eisenhower years.

[ComradeMan]

I agree we should spend less but we have a huge defecit: where's the money going to come from is we don't tax someone? We should go back to what it was in the Eisenhower years.

Huge government bailouts of the banking system?

:crying:

Where did the money go?

[Revolution starts with U]

You assume Bud, that buying a press is somehow working harder than a coal miner. If people really got paid by how hard they worked, or how much risk they took, my dad would be a billionaire.

All those liberal "raise taxes" blah blah blah is just a bandaid. Sure, in a capitalist economy higher taxes on the wealthy would help, but that's it, it won't fix anything. What we need is anti-trust laws and necessary industries run for public benefit.

And a flat tax is a regressive tax. What we need is to cut out all the loopholes so that we really have a progressive taxing system. (I make 1000, you make 100. we both pay 10%. I pay 100, you pay 10. I have 900 left, you have 90. A flat tax punishes the poor. In reality I should pay 10% or more, and you should pay 1% or less.)

[Bud Struggle]

Huge government bailouts of the banking system?

:crying:

Where did the money go?

To the people that shorted the banks and their insurance companies. There were people and instituions that "bet" that the mortage market would fail. They bought insurance to hedge against that failure--the insurance companies didn't have he capital to back up such (as they thought) a long range risk.

The gamblers won and the banks and the insurance companies that backed them up lost. The government could have let the banks and the insurance companies fail--but that would have led to instability in the market so the government backed them up and payed off the money they owed to the gamblers.

Rich people got VERY rich on that deal. In essesce the banks didn't do a good job in the Capitalist marketplace and should have gone broke paying their debts--but the government (you and me) payed for their losses. (Socialism here?)

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, government bail out of private banks w no strings attached resembles socialism in any way shape or form. Brilliant political critique Bud :thumbup1:
You should go work for Faux News :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

Ya, government bail out of private banks w no strings attached resembles socialism in any way shape or form. Brilliant political critique Bud :thumbup1:
You should go work for Faux News :laugh:

It was a joke. :(

[Revolution starts with U]

I know. So was mine :D
all in fun, all in fun

[Budguy68]

Speakin about Bailouts. I mostly only see tea Partiers makign a fuss about it. Where is the outrage from the commies and Modern Liberals?

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't get people like you.

Our government is found to be corrupt, they make their own money, pay themselves more and more 6 figure salaries plus everyone gets full benefits, are full of buerocrates who dotn do shit all day, waste money on pointless wars, They give bail out money to their corporate friends, yet you think they deserve more money...... Are you working for them or something? Or are you just very jealous of successful people?
I don't get shitheads such as yourself. Try to realize that these "pointless wars" keep a lot of these "successful people" successful. Fuckwit.

Shit, I'm having a really bad day...well, I guess OI is the best place to lash out at someone :D

EDIT:


Speakin about Bailouts. I mostly only see tea Partiers makign a fuss about it. Where is the outrage from the commies and Modern Liberals?

If a bailout means that several tens of thousands of workers will still be able to feed themselves and their household members who don't/can't work, then I am more than ok with it.
Of course, it would be preferable that the state takes over the companies which need bailouts in the first place


It was a joke. :(

You never know what pro-capitalists are capable of constrcting, in terms of arguments against "socialism" :tt2:

[Revolution starts with U]

Every time I see you post Bud Guy, I wonder how you've slipped past the restriction (I've even commented on how it wouldn't surprise me if you were Bud Struggle's secret trolly avatar. name's the same, but you're far more right wing)...
But..
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/are-bailouts-marxist/
http://www.revleft.com/vb/bailout-protest-escalation-t90338/index.html?t=90338&highlight=bailout
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2008/09/26/wall-street-should-be-looking-for-bail-not-a-bailout/

[Ele'ill]

Speakin about Bailouts. I mostly only see tea Partiers makign a fuss about it. Where is the outrage from the commies and Modern Liberals?

It can be seen in every bank vandalization and leftist street demo in the US.

[Bud Struggle]

Every time I see you post Bud Guy, I wonder how you've slipped past the restriction (I've even commented on how it wouldn't surprise me if you were Bud Struggle's secret trolly avatar. name's the same, but you're far more right wing)...
But..
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/are-bailouts-marxist/
http://www.revleft.com/vb/bailout-protest-escalation-t90338/index.html?t=90338&highlight=bailout
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2008/09/26/wall-street-should-be-looking-for-bail-not-a-bailout/

NO RELATION!.

But as a fellow Bud--I like him. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Anyway--bottom line Bud Guy if you don'w want to see Commies goose stepping in our streets and Big Commie Hats all over the place--we need to even out the wealth a bit. No need for THAT MUCH WEALTH to be centeralized in 500 people. Is there?

We can still be plenty Capitalistic without Huge Companies controling everything. Everybody talks about Capitalism--but how many self make millionaires have you ever talked to (well there's one. ;) ?)

Spread the wealth around--not Socialism, but fair practice Capitalism.

[ComradeMan]

Capitalism cannot be fair. When things are going well, capitalists say they are going well because they are fine and the damage caused is far away from their reality. When things are going bad it strikes home. It's a bit like a smoker who can't see his own lungs so he thinks everything is fine and keeps on smoking until he starts coughing up blood.

Remember- in capitalism everyone is indeed free to play the game and be a winner- but for there to be a winner there must also be a loser and that's why it doesn't work in the end.

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism cannot be fair. When things are going well, capitalists say they are going well because they are fine and the damage caused is far away from their reality. When things are going bad it strikes home. It's a bit like a smoker who can't see his own lungs so he thinks everything is fine and keeps on smoking until he starts coughing up blood.

Remember- in capitalism everyone is indeed free to play the game and be a winner- but for there to be a winner there must also be a loser and that's why it doesn't work in the end.

It isn't fair. :rolleyes: Guys it isn't Kindergarden.

That beng said--I'm out for me you are out for you, there are sules so we don't kill each other--now let's play. There should be no promises in life--that's what makes it interesting.

[ComradeMan]

It isn't fair. :rolleyes: Guys it isn't Kindergarden.

That beng said--I'm out for me you are out for you, there are sules so we don't kill each other--now let's play. There should be no promises in life--that's what makes it interesting.

Easy to say in your position, but tell the Guatemalan fruitgrowers of the 1950's about the rules. The trouble is, capitalists don't even stick to their own rules a lot of the time do they? I don't mean you. I don't even class you as a capitalist in the full sense of the world- you are a broker- you buy and sell for a profit in order to buy and sell again. In Italy we call it making the "ricotta".

You are no different to a shopkeeper who buys and sells- you do it with real estate though. I am talking about the concept of "usury" making money from money, speculation, and coercion- all the bullshit that goes on. I qualify my statement too that in "mydeology" everyone has a right to a nice house, like clean running water and so on.

I don't suppose you will see it that way though.

[Bud Struggle]

Easy to say in your position, Right, I do. But I find myself here and I take advantage of being here. My Dad found himself in 1936 Poland and did something about that.



but tell the Guatemalan fruitgrowers of the 1950's about the rules. The trouble is, capitalists don't even stick to their own rules a lot of the time do they? I don't mean you. Really--if you are expecting to people toplay by some rules--unless you have the US Calvary enforcing them. You are missing the point about how life really works.


I don't even class you as a capitalist in the full sense of the world- you are a broker- you buy and sell for a profit in order to buy and sell again. In Italy we call it making the "ricotta". I EAT ricotta. :D


You are no different to a shopkeeper who buys and sells- you do it with real estate though. YEA!



I am talking about the concept of "usury" making money from money, speculation, and coercion There are a couple of bishops--maybe a Cardinal in you blood line! :D


all the bullshit that goes on. I qualify my statement too that in "mydeology" everyone has a right to a nice house, like clean running water and so on. As a catholic--I most certainly agree. As a Business man--no. As I mentioned before--my morality and way of life comes from being a Catholic.


I don't suppose you will see it that way though. We're not that far off.

[ComradeMan]

As a catholic--I most certainly agree. As a Business man--no. As I mentioned before--my morality and way of life comes from being a Catholic.

Which are you then Bud? A Catholic or a businessman?

Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God." Matthew 6:24

"Go forth and announce the kingdom! Possess no copper or silver or gold. Take no bag or bread or extra garment. Take with you not even a staff" Luke 9:1-3

"He who will not have renounced all that he possesses, cannot be My disciple" Luke 14:33


Have some Liberation Theology.
:thumbup1:

[Ele'ill]

But I'm not out for me- :(

kYiKdJoSsb8

[Bud Struggle]

As a catholic--I most certainly agree. As a Business man--no. As I mentioned before--my morality and way of life comes from being a Catholic.

Which are you then Bud? A Catholic or a businessman?

Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God." Matthew 6:24

"Go forth and announce the kingdom! Possess no copper or silver or gold. Take no bag or bread or extra garment. Take with you not even a staff" Luke 9:1-3

"He who will not have renounced all that he possesses, cannot be My disciple" Luke 14:33


Have some Liberation Theology.
:thumbup1:

All good. Check out:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm

And especially:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm

[ComradeMan]

All good. Check out:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm

And especially:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm

The failures of man are not a triumph over the words of Christ.

ndyqezkr0dU

[RGacky3]

They give bail out money to their corporate friends, yet you think they deserve more money...... Are you working for them or something? Or are you just very jealous of successful people?

Well I can vote for them, I can't vote for the top 1% of the people i.e. the ruling class.



Speakin about Bailouts. I mostly only see tea Partiers makign a fuss about it. Where is the outrage from the commies and Modern Liberals?


They were the ones yelling about it from the begining, progressives hated the bailouts AND THE SITUATION THAT CAUSED THEM!!!


It isn't fair. :rolleyes: Guys it isn't Kindergarden.

That beng said--I'm out for me you are out for you, there are sules so we don't kill each other--now let's play. There should be no promises in life--that's what makes it interesting.

Living in a monarchy fits your premise exactly, are you ok with that?

The fact is we live in a society, and we have a choice to set up society in a good way and a bad way. Either we can do it democratically OR autocratically, I'm for democratically.

[Bud Struggle]

The fact is we live in a society, and we have a choice to set up society in a good way and a bad way. Either we can do it democratically OR autocratically, I'm for democratically.

There is nothing democratic about a Revolution.

[ComradeMan]

There is nothing democratic about a Revolution.

Well, it depends on what you mean by democratic.

If we are talking about the "demos" in the original Greek sense- it's pretty democratic, but that's not what a lot of people mean by "democratic" these days.

[RGacky3]

was the American revolution democratic?

THe whole point of revolution, (which means changing the societal power structure), is to make things more democratic.

[Ele'ill]

There is nothing democratic about a Revolution.

There's nothing democratic with multiple people stopping a rape. :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

Demos (people) Kratos (power). Revolution = people rising up and seizing power.
Power to the people, is the cry of the revolutionary. Democracy now!

[ComradeMan]

Demos (people) Kratos (power). Revolution = people rising up and seizing power.
Power to the people, is the cry of the revolutionary. Democracy now!

The problem is we never have had real democracy

9zloveXUhHY

[Bud Struggle]

was the American revolution democratic?

THe whole point of revolution, (which means changing the societal power structure), is to make things more democratic.

There are people out there that will gain vast amounts of power if you ever attempt a Revolution. They aren't nice, and they know how to consolidate power and use it.

I'd be very careful.

[RGacky3]

It depens what you mean by revolution, if by revolution you mean storming with guns then maybe, if by revolution you mean changing society, thats the reason we don't have a monarchy now.

[ComradeMan]

It depens what you mean by revolution, if by revolution you mean storming with guns then maybe, if by revolution you mean changing society, thats the reason we don't have a monarchy now.

Err.... where the monarchies toppled peacefully? I seem to remember a lot of heads being cut off somewhere?

The American Revolution wasn't exactly bloodless either.

[Bud Struggle]

Err.... where the monarchies toppled peacefully? I seem to remember a lot of heads being cut off somewhere?

The American Revolution wasn't exactly bloodless either.

There's always room after the Revolution for a Napoleon or a Struggle.

[Revolution starts with U]

The hardest parts of the revolution is the before and after; how to start it, and what to make of it.

[ComradeMan]

There's always room after the Revolution for a Napoleon or a Struggle.




http://www.fullissue.com/wp-content/uploads/Napoleon_Bonaparte.jpeg



Go to 1:09

-KL76edqCKc

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.bunkreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/north-korean-leader-kim-jong-il.jpg



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8t59jorH2DM/Sh4SMxakUWI/AAAAAAAAETs/PXSTwqtykYs/s400/Obama+-+Glorious+Leader+2.jpg

[ComradeMan]

Only in America could Obama be seen as a communist!!!!!!!! LOL!!! What does that make Michael Moore--- positively a dangerous subversive!!!!

LOL!!!

[Bud Struggle]

Only in America could Obama be seen as a communist!!!!!!!! LOL!!! What does that make Michael Moore--- positively a dangerous subversive!!!!

LOL!!!

Moore is a Christian (Catholic) Socialist--same as ME! :)

[Revolution starts with U]

Moore never advocates socialism; at least not in words. He calls himself a democrat.
He's probably a socialist, but doesn't want to face the consequences of that in american society. But he calls himself a democrat.

[ComradeMan]

Moore never advocates socialism; at least not in words. He calls himself a democrat.
He's probably a socialist, but doesn't want to face the consequences of that in american society. But he calls himself a democrat.

I think he's a socialist and like you say... he calls himself a democrat! ;)

Huh!!! The consequences???? :confused::confused::confused: Freedom and democracy eh?:laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

The consequence being the "witch" calls from american ignorami

[ComradeMan]

The consequence being the "witch" calls from american ignorami

Would that be people like, for example, Glenn Beck?

[Revolution starts with U]

Ha. Beck already calls him a socialist. I'm talking about Obama and Pelosi.

[ComradeMan]

Ha. Beck already calls him a socialist. I'm talking about Obama and Pelosi.

Peloso means hairy in Italian! :lol: I think Pelosi comes from the original word "peloso". :thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

Moore is a Christian (Catholic) Socialist--same as ME! :)

Your not a socialist.

[LeftSideDown]

You assume Bud, that buying a press is somehow working harder than a coal miner. If people really got paid by how hard they worked, or how much risk they took, my dad would be a billionaire.

Working hard is not the criterion for pay, because, honestly, someone who works VERY VERY HARD digging ditches and filling them in doesn't deserve anything, unless someone likes seeing someone doing that, and he'll pay a wage they both agree on. Wages are based on Discounted Marginal Value Product in an evenly rotating economy, and the income of 'capitalists' is the discount (the going rate of interest). Since we're not in an evenly rotating economy (and I would never want to be, since that would be the end of innovation), wages only tend towards DMVP and Capitalist income tends towards the discount (interest rate), but they also receive some not unsignificant amount for innovating (using an undervalued resource in a way that more people value more highly)


All those liberal "raise taxes" blah blah blah is just a bandaid. Sure, in a capitalist economy higher taxes on the wealthy would help, but that's it, it won't fix anything. What we need is anti-trust laws and necessary industries run for public benefit.

Higher taxes, actually, tend to insulate the rich as often new capitalists need large sums of money to build up their capital, but if their income is taxed they cannot (as effectively) stock up on capital, while their older competitors already have the capital. While I will admit in the current/awful mixed economy we have, private firms often don't act in the best interest of the "public" (whoever that is) because they can use funds from government and regulation to stifle competition, but in a free market exchanges are voluntary and necessarily benefit both parties. While you'll point out examples of "market failure", I will go ahead and point out something that you may find surprising. Market failure occurs when two parties, voluntarily exchanging, impose costs on a third party. Market failure is the worst the market can get, lets say. All government action, however, is AT BEST market failure. Two parties (the businessman and congress, or the lobbyist and congress, or whatever two parties you want) get together and make an exchange (the teachers union gets higher wages and offers support to the candidate, or whatever). The higher wages of teachers comes at the cost of a third party (Joe, Tim, Bob, anyone who isn't a teacher and pays taxes).


And a flat tax is a regressive tax. What we need is to cut out all the loopholes so that we really have a progressive taxing system. (I make 1000, you make 100. we both pay 10%. I pay 100, you pay 10. I have 900 left, you have 90. A flat tax punishes the poor. In reality I should pay 10% or more, and you should pay 1% or less.)

A flat tax is a flat tax. You can make the argument that the effects are regressive, but you cannot say A = B because A looks like B. Thats a semantical argument. You make a lot of normative statements but you don't back them up in the least. What you're arguing for is discrimination, which I'm sure you argue against everywhere else. Because of a person's income you would discriminate and tax them more. Besides that, all arguments for progressive taxation have no logical conclusion other than income inequality. If you're not an outright communist/socialist, this should worry you at least somewhat.

[Revolution starts with U]

Working hard is not the criterion for pay, because, honestly, someone who works VERY VERY HARD digging ditches and filling them in doesn't deserve anything, unless someone likes seeing someone doing that, and he'll pay a wage they both agree on.
Yes, yes. I gave the nod to "creating value rather than hard work," but you must have missed that. Still creating value is a sham. Sure, that's what we pay for, depending on how you define value. But it is far easier for the ineheritor to "create value" than for the low wage worker. Also, your definition relies upon that I value every transaction I'm involved with; the praxeological definition of value. Which is a strange way to define value. If my choices were death or rape, did I value the rape over death? Of course, but I didn't really value either of them.


Wages are based on Discounted Marginal Value Product in an evenly rotating economy, and the income of 'capitalists' is the discount (the going rate of interest).
That's just a fancy way of saying "you can be fired at any time. As such, you should just be happy with what ownership pays you."
In the real world (not Crusoe's island) wages are determined through contract negotiation, and the amount of backbone supporting collective bargaining.


Since we're not in an evenly rotating economy (and I would never want to be, since that would be the end of innovation), wages only tend towards DMVP and Capitalist income tends towards the discount (interest rate), but they also receive some not unsignificant amount for innovating (using an undervalued resource in a way that more people value more highly)

It doesn't matter. The point is that it ^ heavily favors inheritance over actual innovation; supply creates demand. Do you assume the sons of the rich are naturally superior to the sons of the poor? Than why do the sons of the rich get rewarded more often for creating value?



Higher taxes, actually, tend to insulate the rich as often new capitalists need large sums of money to build up their capital, but if their income is taxed they cannot (as effectively) stock up on capital, while their older competitors already have the capital
Yes yes, notice where I said "blah blah blah" meaning it's not a real fix. Just to point it out to you tho; what you said in no way says taxing the super rich is harmful to social mobility.

While I will admit in the current/awful mixed economy we have, private firms often don't act in the best interest of the "public" (whoever that is) because they can use funds from government and regulation to stifle competition, but in a free market exchanges are voluntary and (removed because it's nonsense) benefit both parties.
In crusoe's fantasy land this is true. If only we lived in a Rothbardian fairy tale :rolleyes:
In the real world, there never was a free market, and there almost certainly cannot be. But let's take Laissez faire as an example. In real laissez faire that competition stifling happens in smoke-filled backrooms and country clubs.
If your theory, which is based not off history, but off a fantasy island, were true, the early stages of capitalism would have played out much different. Rothbard admits this, tho he doesn't realize it, in his critique of the early crash of the 1800s (1817 i think). The amount of intervention was nil, still the capitalist economy tended toward overproduction and waste.
(The public is the collection of individual who make up society. People are generally the same on many points, so this makes up the "public interest" for all intents and purposes.)

While you'll point out examples of "market failure", I will go ahead and point out something that you may find surprising. Market failure occurs when two parties, voluntarily exchanging, impose costs on a third party.
I didnt' realize market failure only meant externality :confused:
For reallys tho dawg ;) "market failure" is enron circa late 90s early 2000s and the california energy crisis.

Market failure is the worst the market can get, lets say. All government action, however, is AT BEST market failure. Two parties (the businessman and congress, or the lobbyist and congress, or whatever two parties you want) get together and make an exchange (the teachers union gets higher wages and offers support to the candidate, or whatever). The higher wages of teachers comes at the cost of a third party (Joe, Tim, Bob, anyone who isn't a teacher and pays taxes)
Once again, those are negative externalities, not market failure per se (also, based on your definition of "neccessarily mutually beneficial" how could a market fail? Only actors within a market could fail. [Which should obviously point out to anyone paying attention that negative externalities are not market failure. Market failure is about crashes and unemployment.


An economic term that encompasses a situation where, in any given market, the quantity of a product demanded by consumers does not equate to the quantity supplied by suppliers. This is a direct result of a lack of certain economically ideal factors, which prevents equilibrium

~ market failure])
Either way, in a democratic system he gets to "choose" his candidates (tho in capitlist democracy, those choices are based on who ownership will pay for), elect his board of education, and attend his PTA meetings. Bob at least has some control over the decisions being made. In your free market utopia, only purchasing power would.
And purchasing power is tyranny in politics (1 man, 1,000,000 votes)


A flat tax is a flat tax. You can make the argument that the effects are regressive, but you cannot say A = B because A looks like B. Thats a semantical argument. You make a lot of normative statements but you don't back them up in the least.
If you know anything about interest you know that is false right on it's face. But, seeing as how many free marketeers are not actually capitalists (meaning they don't own capital), it seems they don't know about how interest works.
10% means something wildly different to $200 than it does to $20,000. Just do the math.


What you're arguing for is discrimination, which I'm sure you argue against everywhere else. Because of a person's income you would discriminate and tax them more. Besides that, all arguments for progressive taxation have no logical conclusion other than income inequality. If you're not an outright communist/socialist, this should worry you at least somewhat.

Good thing I'm an outright socialist :laugh: /facepalm
But please, spare me the rhetoric. We discriminate against murderers. We discriminate against theives. We (should) also discriminate against the accumulation of power as well.
Taxes are only really needed for ownership societies anyway. Public good societies would have the freedom to be far more lenient (because the distribution of wealth would be much grander, allowing more diverse opinions into the fray).

[Tablo]

Moore never advocates socialism; at least not in words. He calls himself a democrat.
He's probably a socialist, but doesn't want to face the consequences of that in american society. But he calls himself a democrat.
After Capitalism: A Love Story was released he actually openly admitted to being a socialist(though obviously one of the democratic socialist type) and even later he rejected Obama. Not like he is a real socialist though.
neyMdjrbM18

[RGacky3]

After Capitalism: A Love Story was released he actually openly admitted to being a socialist(though obviously one of the democratic socialist type) and even later he rejected Obama. Not like he is a real socialist though.


Real Socialist? Shut up, what are you a freaking hipster? He's fighting for a more democratic economy, and advocating it loud and clear, enough with your purism.

The last minute of waht he says is something that socialists need to hear. It does'nt matter what you call it, its what most people believe in, so stop trying to be purists and just fight for a more democratic economy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Are you saying "Propaganda; A Love Story?" :D

[Revolution starts with U]

Marge: "I know where we are! This is the neighborhood where I grew up. That tree used to be a smaller tree. And that Food Bank used to be a regular bank."
Homer: "The march of progress :)"

[Tablo]

Real Socialist? Shut up, what are you a freaking hipster? He's fighting for a more democratic economy, and advocating it loud and clear, enough with your purism.

The last minute of waht he says is something that socialists need to hear. It does'nt matter what you call it, its what most people believe in, so stop trying to be purists and just fight for a more democratic economy.
Umm, what? He is not a real socialist. Democratic Socialists usurped the term. Unless your idea of socialism is a welfare state then he is certainly not a real socialist. Wait, I forgot this is OI.

[RGacky3]

Unless your idea of socialism is a welfare state then he is certainly not a real socialist. Wait, I forgot this is OI.

Michael Moore does'nt argue for a welfare state, he argues for nationalization and worker ownership.

[Tablo]

Michael Moore does'nt argue for a welfare state, he argues for nationalization and worker ownership.
Nationalization does NOT entail worker ownership. It entails state control and rule by a bureaucratic elite. Also, Moore has clearly shown himself to be a supporter of welfare states.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Is it me, or is this thread missing the entire point that capitalisms problem is not too much or too little regulation, social welfare or progressive policies. Its problem is that it allows a small group of people to control political power and exploit the majority working class.

There is one solution. Not higher taxes, not earlier retirement, but the complete overthrow of the capitalist system by the working class and organization into a socialist economy.

[RGacky3]

Nationalization does NOT entail worker ownership. It entails state control and rule by a bureaucratic elite. Also, Moore has clearly shown himself to be a supporter of welfare states.

Fine, look, if Michael Moore is'nt Socialist then neither is Evo Morales, neither is Subcomondante Marcos, also yeah he is a supporter of the welfare state, arn't you? Would you be ok with cutting social security? THey arn't mutually exclusive.

He's an out spoken supporter of unions, worker owned companies and the such.



Is it me, or is this thread missing the entire point that capitalisms problem is not too much or too little regulation, social welfare or progressive policies. Its problem is that it allows a small group of people to control political power and exploit the majority working class.

There is one solution. Not higher taxes, not earlier retirement, but the complete overthrow of the capitalist system by the working class and organization into a socialist economy.


Of coarse, we want to get rid of capitalism, but different people have different ways of approaching it, some want a gradual shift of power, some want an INSTANT shift, some think it can be helped through the democratic processs, others think it can only be done through direct action.

In my opinion its gonna be done case by case, and things are not mutually exclusive.

[Tablo]

Fine, look, if Michael Moore is'nt Socialist then neither is Evo Morales, neither is Subcomondante Marcos, also yeah he is a supporter of the welfare state, arn't you? Would you be ok with cutting social security? THey arn't mutually exclusive.

He's an out spoken supporter of unions, worker owned companies and the such.
I seriously do not think Evo Morales is a socialist, but that is just the anarchist in me speaking out. I'm pretty sure Marcos is a Marxist of some sort so I am pretty confident he is a socialist.


Is it me, or is this thread missing the entire point that capitalisms problem is not too much or too little regulation, social welfare or progressive policies. Its problem is that it allows a small group of people to control political power and exploit the majority working class.

There is one solution. Not higher taxes, not earlier retirement, but the complete overthrow of the capitalist system by the working class and organization into a socialist economy.

I'm not a supporter of a welfare state, I am a supporter of REAL socialism. Socialism is democratic control of the economy by the workers. None of this evolution bs is ever in any way, shape, or form is going to bring socialism. We need revolution! Do I get pissed when social services are cut? Hell yeah! Do I like short term gains that improve the quality of life for workers? YEAH!! Does this mean I think socialism can be brought about through electoral politics within a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? Fuck no!
It has been well established that no democratic socialist parties are actually working towards socialism. They just want to make capitalism suck less by establishing welfare states.

[RGacky3]

I seriously do not think Evo Morales is a socialist, but that is just the anarchist in me speaking out. I'm pretty sure Marcos is a Marxist of some sort so I am pretty confident he is a socialist.


THey are both Socialists, stop nit picking.


We need revolution! Do I get pissed when social services are cut? Hell yeah! Do I like short term gains that improve the quality of life for workers? YEAH!! Does this mean I think socialism can be brought about through electoral politics within a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? Fuck no!


THere we go, you agree with me, and really in a way, Michael Moore.

[ComradeMan]

I'm not a supporter of a welfare state, I am a supporter of REAL socialism. Socialism is democratic control of the economy by the workers. None of this evolution bs is ever in any way, shape, or form is going to bring socialism. We need revolution! Do I get pissed when social services are cut? Hell yeah! Do I like short term gains that improve the quality of life for workers? YEAH!! Does this mean I think socialism can be brought about through electoral politics within a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? Fuck no!
It has been well established that no democratic socialist parties are actually working towards socialism. They just want to make capitalism suck less by establishing welfare states.

I'm not a supporter of a welfare state, I am a supporter of REAL socialism

And in the meantime what do people do who are on welfare? Starve?

None of this evolution bs is ever in any way, shape, or form is going to bring socialism

How do you know that? Empirically speaking? You could look at the capitalist argument that all socialist revolutions have ended in failed states and brutal totalitarian regimes so we may as well not bother with socialism then. That's the same logic you are applying.

It's very easy to talk from the theory books- it's not so easy if you are in the position of someone like Chavez or Morales?

What would you do then in their position....?

[Tablo]

I'm not a supporter of a welfare state, I am a supporter of REAL socialism

And in the meantime what do people do who are on welfare? Starve?

None of this evolution bs is ever in any way, shape, or form is going to bring socialism

How do you know that? Empirically speaking? You could look at the capitalist argument that all socialist revolutions have ended in failed states and brutal totalitarian regimes so we may as well not bother with socialism then. That's the same logic you are applying.

It's very easy to talk from the theory books- it's not so easy if you are in the position of someone like Chavez or Morales?

What would you do then in their position....?
Again, I will repeat myself since you somehow missed like half of my fucking post. I said I do support short term gains for the workers. I certainly prefer a welfare state over no welfare state. I'm not arguing that short term gains are bad at all. I'm saying they aren't socialism and that I want real socialism much much more than a welfare state. I WANT SHORT TERM GAINS, BUT I WANT SOCIALISM MORE! So what I'm trying to say is that I was not arguing that short term gains are bad, I was arguing that welfare states are not socialism as they do not provide workers economic control. I was also pointing out that democratic "socialist" parties will not bring socialism as socialism cannot come out of electoral politics under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Please read my posts all the way through and process the information.

[Mo212]

Is it me, or is this thread missing the entire point that capitalisms problem is not too much or too little regulation, social welfare or progressive policies. Its problem is that it allows a small group of people to control political power and exploit the majority working class.

There is one solution. Not higher taxes, not earlier retirement, but the complete overthrow of the capitalist system by the working class and organization into a socialist economy.

You're naive it's not going to happen this way. Human beings do not work like marx tried to predict. Human beings are stupid feral killing monkeys. They are not rational. Marx's theory depends a lot on on human capacity for rationality. One only has to look at how deluded human beings are with religion. Especially the americans for fuck sakes in their ideologies. Look how easy it was to convince them "capitalism is the win".

Now take computers. The most successful computers on earth are ones that bent over backwards to support legacy code. This is the whole problem with communism/socialism by revolution is that it denies the actual legacy and logistical costs and upkeep of legacy systems (i.e. people with shitty more primitive, selfish, narcissistic psychologies)

The whole idea of revolution is silly. What the left needs to do is undermine private control of prices.

What really needs to be done: Criticism of human control of the price mechanism and move to a system of automated pricing and take the power to set prices legally away from private individuals and move to a more scientific/automated based pricing model.

I can't see anyone wanting to do hard jobs (doctors, chemical engineers, etc) in enough numbers to meet societal needs without incentives. Also human beings have shown themselves too diverse and fragmented. After the fall of the USSR and east germany, there's too much propaganda and negative sentiment in the west for anything but modification of existing systems.

[ComradeMan]

You're naive, it's not going to happen this way. Human beings do not work like marx tried to predict, human beings are stupid feral killer monkeys, they are not rational. Marx's theory depends a lot on on human capacity for rationality, look at how deluded human beings are with religion and especially americans are for fuck sakes in their ideologies. Look how easy it was to convince them "capitalism is the win".

Now take computers, the most successful computers on earth are ones that bent over backwards to support legacy code, this is the whole problem with communism/socialism by revolution, it denies the cost and upkeep of legacy systems (i.e. people with shitty more primitive, selfish, narcissistic psychologies)

The whole idea of revolution is silly, what the left needs to do is undermine private control of prices.

What really needs to be done: Criticism of human control of the price mechanism and move to a system of automated pricing and take the power to set prices legally away from private individuals and move to a more scientific/automated based pricing model.

I can't see anyone wanting to do hard jobs (doctors, chemical engineers, etc) in enough numbers to meet societal needs without incentives. Also human beings have shown themselves too diverse and fragmented. After the fall of the USSR and east germany, there's too much propaganda and negative sentiment in the west for anything but modification of existing systems.


Look what happened to Allende.....! :( The same Allende that the USSR left out to dry and the US crucified economically.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Stamp_Salvador_Allende.jpg/200px-Stamp_Salvador_Allende.jpg (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Stamp_Salvador_Allende.jpg)

[Bud Struggle]

But 202's critique of Communism is dead on. Communism is logical and would be great if we were all robots--but we aren't. As I said before-people are a logical as cats, motivations and reactions are all personal. You and predict "trends" but you can't predict particular actions. I just may waqnt a Red Flag car--who the hell knows why? Napoleon may just want to rule the world--who the hell knows why?

And unless you motivate people correctly (i.e. with substantial gains) people won't do hard jobs. I know there's big long explainations on how it will happen some entailing the use of ass wiping maching, but in the end it's all artificial. IF we can't sustain a system without vast amounts of mechanisms to make the system possible--it becomes problematic.

Lastly as 202 points out there is so much dislike of Communism (through Propaganda)--especially in the First world that any Revolution seems quite remote.

Communism is a lovely idea, but like all lovely utopian ideas--they don't work out. BUT--and here's the happy news! Communist ideas of fairness and equality have and will continue to filter through society giving us unions and better wages and better ecology and general fair treatment.

The world will evolve into better systems slowly and the Communist ideal will be on of the main factors that bring that evolution along.

[ComradeMan]

But 202's critique of Communism is dead on. Communism is logical and would be great if we were all robots--but we aren't. As I said before-people are a logical as cats, motivations and reactions are all personal. You and predict "trends" but you can't predict particular actions. I just may waqnt a Red Flag car--who the hell knows why? Napoleon may just want to rule the world--who the hell knows why?

And unless you motivate people correctly (i.e. with substantial gains) people won't do hard jobs. I know there's big long explainations on how it will happen some entailing the use of ass wiping maching, but in the end it's all artificial. IF we can't sustain a system without vast amounts of mechanisms to make the system possible--it becomes problematic.

Lastly as 202 points out there is so much dislike of Communism (through Propaganda)--especially in the First world that any Revolution seems quite remote.

Communism is a lovely idea, but like all lovely utopian ideas--they don't work out. BUT--and here's the happy news! Communist ideas of fairness and equality have and will continue to filter through society giving us unions and better wages and better ecology and general fair treatment.

The world will evolve into better systems slowly and the Communist ideal will be on of the main factors that bring that evolution along.


The first and fundamental revolution is the one that many seem to forget, revolutions begin in the mind.

[Mo212]

Look what happened to Allende.....! :( The same Allende that the USSR left out to dry and the US crucified economically.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Stamp_Salvador_Allende.jpg/200px-Stamp_Salvador_Allende.jpg (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Stamp_Salvador_Allende.jpg)

Using my idea of price automation, the left needs to infiltrate recouche their ideas in terms of just markets at least when it comes to american society, americans are so bat-shit ignorant any advance against their ignorance and barbarity is better then nothing. This idea that the battle has to fought in a certain way through revolution is what stifles the left, you can wage multiple wars on multiple fronts by infiltrating the right.

The left needs to get just as subversive as the right, the right has a monopoly on the dialogue of and politics of the united states, the only way this is going to change is not to turn off your listeners (i.e. you need to adopt the FRAME of how americans view themselves and then couche your ideas in terms of their interests and favored worldview).

There is no way I can see america becoming more humane without steady erosion of ignorant violent right wing thinking that spews forth from its media outlets and publications. The left is getting slaughtered and it's numbers of dwindled to nothing and we got these ridiculous elections in the US happening.

[Mo212]

The first and fundamental revolution is the one that many seem to forget, revolutions begin in the mind.

As long as leftists remain ignorant and refuse to engage in propaganda techniques that actually work, the left is effectively dead. The right has scores of scientists and think-tanks, advertisers, dataminers and mathematicians they use to manipulate the public mind, the left has no such organization. The wealthy are highly organized bunch with technological sophistication the left could only dream of having.

If the left is going to get anywhere we're going to have to pool our resources and have wealthy left organizations that infiltrate the right and reframe the whole idea of what free market means, without using stigmatized words that leave most people dead or shaking their heads is not going to win battles, in north america at least. We need to change the whole idea of what free-market means and we need to become "the right" itself. The lefts refusal to get dirty in the class war means you're just divided tribal monkeys on the african desert going to get picked off one by one by big business and big money.

[Bud Struggle]

There is no way I can see america becoming more humane without steady erosion of ignorant violent right wing thinking that spews forth from its media outlets and publications. The left is getting slaughtered and it's numbers of dwindled to nothing and we got these ridiculous elections in the US happening.

The problem with the Left (Radical and otherwise) is that their message is in such disarray and their internal tensions are self serving that the Right never needs to address any concerns or ideas that the Left raises. The Left is a huge block that just gets pummeled on a daily basis.

Vast differences in economic wealth are overlooked because we don't want "Socialism" (when of course Socialism is no where in sight.) Really helpful social programs and even the infrastructure of the country can't be affored because the people the would benefit most by these things are being deluded that taxing Billionaires would erode their basic freedoms.

The poor are their own worst enemies.

[RGacky3]

You and predict "trends" but you can't predict particular actions. I just may waqnt a Red Flag car--who the hell knows why? Napoleon may just want to rule the world--who the hell knows why?

And unless you motivate people correctly (i.e. with substantial gains) people won't do hard jobs. I know there's big long explainations on how it will happen some entailing the use of ass wiping maching, but in the end it's all artificial. IF we can't sustain a system without vast amounts of mechanisms to make the system possible--it becomes problematic.


So because people are not logical we should leave the economy in the hands of just a few???? Because democracy is less logical than autocracy???

[Bud Struggle]

So because people are not logical we should leave the economy in the hands of just a few???? Because democracy is less logical than autocracy???

"Should" has nothing to do with it. It just is--it might change somewhat, but a Revolution where everything is thrown up in the air and it all falls together in a world of peace and love--well I just don't believe it.

[RGacky3]

but a Revolution where everything is thrown up in the air and it all falls together in a world of peace and love

I don't know anyone that argues that, but democracy is better than a monarchy, that does'nt mean it does'nt have problems.

Reverse 200 or so years and your arguments were being made against political democracy.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know anyone that argues that, but democracy is better than a monarchy, that does'nt mean it does'nt have problems.

Reverse 200 or so years and your arguments were being made against political democracy.

So are you saying that we actually have democracy?

[RGacky3]

Americans don't really, but many other countries do have a relatively healthy democracy.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're saying the left is losing cuz it tries too hard to be truthful?

[Bud Struggle]

You're saying the left is losing cuz it tries too hard to be truthful?

I'm saying I think we have what we have and if we try hard we can improve thing little by little.

There's no Easter Bunny, there's no Tooth Fairy and there's gunna be no Revolution. :(

If we want Social and political gains-we're are going to have to gain them step by step.

[Ele'ill]

I'm saying I think we have what we have and if we try hard we can improve thing little by little.

There's no Easter Bunny, there's no Tooth Fairy and there's gunna be no Revolution. :(

If we want Social and political gains-we're are going to have to gain them step by step.

There never was an Easter Bunny and there never was a Tooth Fairy- there have been successful revolutions and violent uprisings for change.

The step by step is correct. There is no rush in and do it. The new world needs to be organized and built but it will reach a certain point where the state resistance will turn violent. Do we wait to be on the defensive or do we perhaps utilize violence earlier for specific goals. It totally depends on how things materialize during the building.

[Bud Struggle]

There never was an Easter Bunny and there never was a Tooth Fairy- there have been successful revolutions and violent uprisings for change. So Revolutions have been better than others--but Communism, real Communism? I don't think so. :D


The step by step is correct. There is no rush in and do it. The new world needs to be organized and built but it will reach a certain point where the state resistance will turn violent. Do we wait to be on the defensive or do we perhaps utilize violence earlier for specific goals. It totally depends on how things materialize during the building.

That will never happen: the sheep wil stay the sheep and the hawks--fighting in the streets is worhtless. Any one policeman with his fire power can blow away 1000 proterters.

The fact that every protester at every protest isn't dead can be attributed to the kindness of law enforcement.

As far as organization goes--the Left can't even organize RevLeft. Seems they are reorganizing AGAIN. :D

[Ele'ill]

So Revolutions have been better than others--but Communism, real Communism? I don't think so. :D

I don't know if the vision you have in your mind of 'real communism' is an accurate one.




That will never happen: the sheep wil stay the sheep and the hawks--fighting in the streets is worhtless.Street battles aren't the main battle by any stretch and even with that said they serve a purpose.



Any one policeman with his fire power can blow away 1000 proterters.This highlights a particular issue fairly well.



The fact that every protester at every protest isn't dead can be attributed to the kindness of law enforcement.I would say this isn't true (at all) because in those instances where officers have killed they had no ground to stand on and the situation escalated far out of their control. I attribute what you said to fear, not kindness.


As far as organization goes--the Left can't even organize RevLeft. Seems they are reorganizing AGAIN. It's because we're creative and working- not out of a sense of brutal competition but instead together and the changes made help everyone and not just individuals. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know if the vision you have in your mind of 'real communism' is an accurate one. Classless stateless (mindless) society.


Street battles aren't the main battle by any stretch and even with that said they serve a purpose. The only purpose they serve is for sadists to see people getting beaten up to a pulp for no reason that anyone can remember.



This highlights a particular issue fairly well. Of course the Army could do it at 10,000 to one!



I would say this is true (at all) because in those instances where officers have killed they had no ground to stand on and the situation escalated far out of their control. I attribute what you said to fear, not kindness. No one knows why exactly the protesters died--so it really doesn't matter.


It's because we're creative and working- not out of a sense of brutal competition but instead together and the changes made help everyone and not just individuals. ;) But that was a metaphor for the Left in general. They are too busy fighting themselves to be of any signifigance.

[Ele'ill]

Classless stateless (mindless) society.

It would be the opposite of mindless- it would involve far more minds working together than we see now under capitalism because the opportunity would actually be there.

No more winners from losers- that world is dead.



The only purpose they serve is for sadists to see people getting beaten up to a pulp for no reason that anyone can remember.They give a voice to the voiceless and regain control of space for those who have been steamrolled by the system.

I think I've discussed this point enough here in OI for it to not be an issue and the tone of your posts are a bit out of character (but perhaps I'm wrong) so I don't feel the need to go down these roads that upset you.




Of course the Army could do it at 10,000 to one! I meant the obviously oppressive show of force by the state. It doesn't mobilize unless there's a threat.

I don't actually understand what your reply means.



No one knows why exactly the protesters died--so it really doesn't matter.Yes they do- from the witnesses, videos and photographs taken of the incidents. The aftermath of such events spiral out of state control and the threat isn't in torched police cars and rocks thrown it's in the big question 'why shouldn't we defend ourselves from something that governs us but doesn't serve us?' What serves is community because it isn't top down.


But that was a metaphor for the Left in general. They are too busy fighting themselves to be of any signifigance.In-fighting is a problem amongst some groups- yes. That isn't to say that they don't do good work. It isn't to say that all leftist groups are fighting eachother.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes they do- from the witnesses, videos and photographs taken of the incidents.

Nobody actually watches your riot porn but you and, and well I don't know who. Form the youtube numbers there certainly arn't many takers.

It's a private club, I guess. :D

[Ele'ill]

Nobody actually watches your riot porn but you and, and well I don't know who. Form the youtube numbers there certainly arn't many takers.

It's a private club, I guess. :D

The last thing I was referring to would be the riot porn videos although it can be seen there as well and judging by the actual views of those videos I'd say a lot of people have watched them.

The riot porn videos and most of the requests for them are in a joking nature amongst the left- the real evidence- not so much a joke.

[RGacky3]

There's no Easter Bunny, there's no Tooth Fairy and there's gunna be no Revolution. :(

If we want Social and political gains-we're are going to have to gain them step by step.

REvolution IS step by step, it never just happens.