US Government Shutdown

[RGacky3]

Is it gonna happen? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/government-shutdown-not-y_n_846462.html) I don't know, I think ultimately Obama will fold, which is what the republicans are betting, Obama has really shot himself in the foot by having not even half a ball for the first 3 years, its not like he has the gravitas to make a stand now, except their cuts are so insane Obama CANNOT accept it, these cuts are gonna have a worse effect than the Hoover policies.

So predictions?

[Agent Ducky]

It seems like they're just gonna keep bickering and it's gonna happen unless someone can pull something together really fast. It's ridiculous, the American political machine....

And it's gonna suck because my mom is gonna be out of work, unpaid until they can decide on something... =[

[Revolution starts with U]

What's funny is they're doing to him what he should have done to them.
Start with the extreme stance, and negotiate to moderation. Instead he started with their original proposition and negotiated to nothing.
If I owned the Pawn Stars shop, I would pray for Obama to sell me something :D

[RGacky3]

This is why I say he's worse than a republican president, if he takes the republicans position OF COARSE they are gonna go further right.

[StockholmSyndrome]

This is why the 60% of Americans who don't vote need to get off their fucking asses.

[RATM-Eubie]

11 Ways The Tea Party-Inspired Government Shutdown Will Hurt the Economy


A wide variety of important government functions could be halted in the event of a government shutdown, threatening to harm the nation's fragile economy.
April 7, 2011 |

Advertisement


Ed note: At about 9:30pm Eastern on Thursday, the president announced that a deal had yet to be reached with the House Republicans. As such, a government shutdown continues to loom.
The White House made yet another effort to broker a deal to prevent a government shutdown Wednedsay night, with President Obama saying that a shutdown would be “inexcusable (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hill-negotiators-struggle-to-reach-budget-deal-to-avert-shutdown/2011/04/06/AFh8KjpC_story.html).” Even though Democrats have agreed to the initial House Republican position (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/31/gop-boehner-deal/) of roughly $30 billion in cuts from 2010′s funding level, House Republicans are still holding out for deeper spending cuts and various policy riders demanded by the Tea Party (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0324/Planned-Parenthood-showdown-could-reveal-true-nature-of-tea-party), such as cuts to funding for Planned Parenthood.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said on Thursday that “the two sides have essentially agreed on the amount of money (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/07/6424941-reid-on-shutdown-it-looks-like-its-headed-in-that-direction) set to be cut from the long-term budget but that Republicans have drawn a line in the sand over ‘ideology.’” As Steve Benen noted, “what we’re talking about here is Republicans shutting down the government over access to contraception (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/028835.php) and family planning services.”
If the government shuts down on Friday night, all government functions deemed “non-essential” will be stopped in their tracks. But “non-essential” describes a wide variety of important government functions, which, if they stop, threaten to harm the nation’s fragile economy. Here are some of the economic consequences that will occur under a Tea-party inspired government shutdown:
– SLOWER ECONOMIC GROWTH: According to analysts at Goldman Sachs, a shutdown “could shave 0.2 percent (http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?aid=42380178&afid=1) off the growth of Gross Domestic Product for every week it continued.”
– HOUSING MARKET THREATENED: During a shutdown, the Federal Housing Administration, “which insures and guarantees (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52704.html#ixzz1IqbT4sQN) a large number of single-family mortgages and even more rental and multifamily properties,” would cease operations, blocking home loan and insurance applications.
– BLOCKED TAX REFUNDS: A shutdown would “delay $42.1 billion of refunds (http://www.bgov.com/news_item/GpA8Br4SixphnhrdNO49Uw) to about 14 million U.S. taxpayers,” the majority of whom are middle-class or low-income.
– INCREASED DEFICITS: By increasing the costs of funding the debt (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html), a shutdown could actually increase the federal deficit.
– SMALL BUSINESS LOANS BLOCKED: During the shutdown, the Small Business Administration’s processing of loan applications is halted (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-06/government-shutdown-would-suspend-irs-audits-close-parks-2-.html). The SBA approves about $50 million (http://thesbaloan.com/sba-loans-for-your-startup.php) in small business loans per day.
– INSIDER TRADING INVESTIGATIONS HALTED: At the Securities and Exchange Commission, the shutdown would stop most investigatory activities, “including routine sweeps and examinations of investment advisers and broker-dealers and most work on in-progress enforcement cases (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704101604576247323745108158.html?m od=googlenews_wsj).”
– SOCIAL SECURITY ENROLLMENTS SLOWED: While Social Security checks still go out during a shutdown, applications for new enrollment will be processed more slowly and “a huge backlog of applications (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/us/politics/07shutdown.html?_r=1&ref=politics) for Social Security disability benefits would grow even larger.”
– WORKPLACE SAFETY INSPECTIONS STOPPED: At the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which polices workplace regulations, only “‘imminent dangers’ to life or property (http://www.nsc.org/safetyhealth/Pages/Possiblegovernmentshutdown%E2%80%99seffectonOSHA_2 .28.11.aspx) could be investigated,” leaving 95 percent (http://www.nsc.org/safetyhealth/Pages/Possiblegovernmentshutdown%E2%80%99seffectonOSHA_2 .28.11.aspx) of workplace complaints unanswered.
– TOURIST INDUSTRY AROUND NATIONAL PARKS HURT: National parks close during a shutdown, while “tourists spend about $32 million a day (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-impact-of-shutdown-danger-comes-if-it-goes-for-a-long-period-of-time/2011/04/06/AFcGWIqC_story.html) in the communities just outside the parks,” according to the National Park Service.
– 800,000 FEDERAL WORKERS FURLOUGHED: A shutdown would force the furlough of about 800,000 federal employees (http://www.bgov.com/news_item/Cj_moSVQ2tIqVO3yaedbtQ), and “leave the Treasury owing them $174 million a day in back wages (http://www.bgov.com/news_item/Cj_moSVQ2tIqVO3yaedbtQ).
– STATE BUDGET WOES EXACERBATED: If a shutdown occurs, “the federal money that helps states pay the administrative costs of their stretched unemployment programs could dry up (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/us/06states.html), forcing states to advance the money to keep the programs running.”

[RGacky3]

This is why the 60% of Americans who don't vote need to get off their fucking asses.

They did, and got Obama, voting does'nt change it, you have to put pressure, you have to FORCE politicians to listen, the FDR reforms did'nt happen because FDR was a nice guy, they happened because the labor movement forced him to make the reforms.

[StockholmSyndrome]

They did, and got Obama, voting does'nt change it, you have to put pressure, you have to FORCE politicians to listen, the FDR reforms did'nt happen because FDR was a nice guy, they happened because the labor movement forced him to make the reforms.

No, you're not paying attention if you think the government we currently have is a product of high voter turnout. There's more than just presidential elections.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

And FDR had a Democratic majority in Congress....

[RGacky3]

So did Obama, and he ran as a progressive.

When FDR was around there was a strong labor movement and a very strong radical left movement.

[RGacky3]

BTW, I know its really really low voter turnout, and thats because people realized voting does'nt change anything, and they're kind of right, does'nt mean they should'nt vote, but other stuff they could be doing is way way more usefull, USuncut, revamping the labor movement, protests and civil disobedience are way way more effective at change.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Lol are progressives in charge of Congress currently? I agree that doing other things is equally important, and democracy does not end at the ballot box. But, nevertheless, the strong labor movement and vocal radical left during FDR's time skewed votes toward the progressive side. You aren't really saying anything and you seem out of touch tbh.

[RGacky3]

really? Because before the 2010 election there was a democratic senate and a democratic house and a democratic president, WHAT PROGRESSIVE MEASURES DID WE GET?

Name one.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Look I'm not here cheering for Obama or the Democrats. All I'm saying is that when people don't participate in democracy, they leave the door open for somebody else to take the helm. It's not like the 60% turnout in 2008 changed everything all of a sudden. The current state of affairs is a result of many years of voter apathy and neoliberal encroachment. It should also be noted that FDR's New Deal was at the height of the Progressive movement in this country, and he had a majority in Congress for 12 years straight.

[Dimentio]

The only alternatives to a reform of the Constitution would soon be either dissolution of the United States or a military dictatorship.

[#FF0000]

This is why the 60% of Americans who don't vote need to get off their fucking asses.

i remember things being not different at all when we had a democratic supermajority.

so really this is a good example of why voting is useless. Class politics > Parliamentary politics.

EDIT: I guess this depends if you're a communist or not. Or if you're just a liberal, then yeah vote all you want.

[StockholmSyndrome]

i remember things being not different at all when we had a democratic supermajority.

so really this is a good example of why voting is useless. Class politics > Parliamentary politics.

Having a "democratic supermajority" means nothing when that supermajority was elected on a neoliberal platform by 40% of the eligible voting population.

There is no reason to believe that the liberal-democratic state is inherently an instrument of bourgeois oppression. Your basic argument is thus: the proletariat should not participate in democracy because the proletariat does not participate in democracy.

[agnixie]

i remember things being not different at all when we had a democratic supermajority.

so really this is a good example of why voting is useless. Class politics > Parliamentary politics.

EDIT: I guess this depends if you're a communist or not. Or if you're just a liberal, then yeah vote all you want.

if the people on the left who don't vote actually bothered to, they could minimally pass reformist social democrats (and I don't mean as in Democrats), if not more.

[RGacky3]

EDIT: I guess this depends if you're a communist or not. Or if you're just a liberal, then yeah vote all you want.

WTF does "liberal" mean, I'm sick of Leninist throwing around this word to describe every leftist that does'nt agree with them.


There is no reason to believe that the liberal-democratic state is inherently an instrument of bourgeois oppression. Your basic argument is thus: the proletariat should not participate in democracy because the proletariat does not participate in democracy.

I'm not saying don't vote, it can make a difference, if just slightly, but the only difference will be made in the streets, the shops, and communities.

The reason things are this bad is'nt because people hav'nt voted, its because the US has followed a corporatist neo-liberal policy for decades and the ruling classs has had a genius strategy for essencially taking over the country.

[Skooma Addict]

There is no point in voting. Your vote is too small to mean anything.

[Dean]

They did, and got Obama, voting does'nt change it, you have to put pressure, you have to FORCE politicians to listen, the FDR reforms did'nt happen because FDR was a nice guy, they happened because the labor movement forced him to make the reforms.

This is a good point. The labor unions were significant contributors to FDR - but at this time, labor unions were starting to weaken already. FDR truly put the nails in the coffin by defunding key parts of the New Deal.

What really allowed pro-worker new deal reforms were:
-A coalition of monetary-expansionist banks trying to ruin JP Morgan's monopoly on banking (see Glass-Steagall Act)
-The threat of class war, which appeared to be stronger than ever

Critical reading into these topics will yield the same kinds of conclusions we get upon critically assessing contemporaries like Obama: they followed the money, just like anyone else.

[Bud Struggle]

They did, and got Obama, voting does'nt change it, you have to put pressure, you have to FORCE politicians to listen, the FDR reforms did'nt happen because FDR was a nice guy, they happened because the labor movement forced him to make the reforms.

That is what is so brilliant about the Tea Parties. They are a small minority that are controling the Republican party that is a minority in the government that is controling the government.

A couple of people are changing the entire course of American politics.

[Ele'ill]

That is what is so brilliant about the Tea Parties. They are a small minority that are controling the Republican party that is a minority in the government that is controling the government.

A couple of people are changing the entire course of American politics.


That doesn't sound very brilliant.

[Bud Struggle]

That doesn't sound very brilliant.

I'm not for it, but you have to admire the way they turned the government around to do what they want--even the President is afraid of them.

[Ele'ill]

I'm not for it, but you have to admire the way they turned the government around to do what they want--even the President is afraid of them.

But I don't admire it because I resent it- and I resent the power-structure that allows it.

[Bardo]

The democrats will fold, it's what they do. The republicans will get their way and the middle/working class will take the hit, leading to a major defeat for the republican senators and the presidential race. Then the republicans will demand compromise.

Deja Vu?

[#FF0000]

if the people on the left who don't vote actually bothered to, they could minimally pass reformist social democrats (and I don't mean as in Democrats), if not more.

That's fine but that's not all we're after, and whether or not we have social-democratic reforms has nothing to do with how viable a working class movement is. You can have a country full of wonderful programs, but that doesn't mean you're a single step closer to socialism.


Look I'm not here cheering for Obama or the Democrats. All I'm saying is that when people don't participate in democracy, they leave the door open for somebody else to take the helm.

But that is exactly what people do when they vote. They just get to have a tiny bit of a voice over which representative gets to serve the ruling class.


It's not like the 60% turnout in 2008 changed everything all of a sudden. The current state of affairs is a result of many years of voter apathy and neoliberal encroachment. It should also be noted that FDR's New Deal was at the height of the Progressive movement in this country, and he had a majority in Congress for 12 years straight.


Yeah I remember back when FDR passed the New Deal and ushered in decades of legitimate working class rule in the United States.

Do you see why I am saying that voting is a Maguffin now?


Having a "democratic supermajority" means nothing when that supermajority was elected on a neoliberal platform by 40% of the eligible voting population.

So, what, more people voting for the democrats makes them less neoliberal?


There is no reason to believe that the liberal-democratic state is inherently an instrument of bourgeois oppression. Your basic argument is thus: the proletariat should not participate in democracy because the proletariat does not participate in democracy.

No. My argument is that parliamentary politics are a dead end because we as Communists and Anarchists propose a change that is more than political in character. We advocate for a social change that with it changes the political and economic character of society.

These are not things you vote for. These are things that require an organized and militant class to carry out it's side of the struggle. You can't vote that into existence.


That is what is so brilliant about the Tea Parties. They are a small minority that are controling the Republican party that is a minority in the government that is controling the government.

A couple of people are changing the entire course of American politics.

It's not really brilliant. It's a group funded by two extremely wealthy people who, because of their wealth, are by themselves a deciding factor in elections across the country.

That's pretty business-as-usual.

[Revolution starts with U]

You admire it if you're a shill to power. If you're any kind of anti-authoritarian it is a travesty.

[Bud Struggle]

You admire it if you're a shill to power. If you're any kind of anti-authoritarian it is a travesty.

It's the gamesmanship I admire. Politically I'm on Liberal side.

[#FF0000]

It's the gamesmanship I admire. Politically I'm on Liberal side.

I understand that but I personally don't see the gamesmanship in literally throwing money at politicians you like and paying other people to whip the senile and confused into a frothing racist/nationalist fervor.

[Revolution starts with U]

Do you admire Stlain and Hitler's rise to power?

[#FF0000]

Do you admire Hitler's rise to power?

I don't think it's possible not to admire how someone can do literally nothing but fuck up everything he's ever attempted an then somehow manage to get to where he got.

Admire's the wrong word, though.

Personally I think Hitler is evidence that there's something to that The Secret bullshit.

[StockholmSyndrome]

So, what, more people voting for the democrats makes them less neoliberal?

Not necessarily, no. But bringing a more informed and conscious public into the dialog and implementing reforms in areas such as campaign finance and redistricting can go a long way.


No. My argument is that parliamentary politics are a dead end because we as Communists and Anarchists propose a change that is more than political in character. We advocate for a social change that with it changes the political and economic character of society.

That sounds like one big giant juicy Maguffin.

[RGacky3]

FDR truly put the nails in the coffin by defunding key parts of the New Deal.


No he did'nt the labor movement was relatively strong until the 1980s, he put the nails in the coffin of revolution sure.


That is what is so brilliant about the Tea Parties. They are a small minority that are controling the Republican party that is a minority in the government that is controling the government.

A couple of people are changing the entire course of American politics.

Theres nothing brilliant about billionaires controlling government Bud, its not gamesmanship, its just power.

Nothing about Capitalism is gamesmanship, anymore than A king with an army subjecting a village is "gamesmenship," your a shrill for power Bud, admit it.

All you do here (very clumsily) is defend power and defend the institutions of power. Theres no gamesmanship there.


even the President is afraid of them.

I could scare the president with a wiffle ball bat and a loud whistle, thats why walstreet loves him, he's a pushover.

[#FF0000]

That sounds like one big giant juicy Maguffin.

u dont even no wut that is!!!!!!!!1

but seriously are you suggesting that socialism can be achieved through the ballot box because that really seems ridiculous to me.

[RGacky3]

Thats not what he's suggesting, I'm pretty sure he's suggesting that certain people in power are way way way more destructive than other people.

Theres more to being a socialist than just waiting until we achieve socialism.

[Ele'ill]

Theres more to being a socialist than just waiting until we achieve socialism.


Like work place organizing and community organizing.

[Fulanito de Tal]

What's the situation? It seems like we're all discussing different issues and not even addressing the government shutdown.

[StockholmSyndrome]

u dont even no wut that is!!!!!!!!1

but seriously are you suggesting that socialism can be achieved through the ballot box because that really seems ridiculous to me.

No, I'm saying that socialism is not simply a social or economic or political or whatever movement. I reject the materialist conception of history in favor of holistic spheres of influence vis a vis Michael Albert. Just because some things can't be voted into existence, doesn't mean we shouldn't vote into existence the things that we can.

[RGacky3]

Like work place organizing and community organizing.

Absolutely, never said otherwise, never said voting actually achieved anything substancial.


What's the situation? It seems like we're all discussing different issues and not even addressing the government shutdown.

At this point it seams they won't shut it down, thats just my opinion, the tea party is pressuring bohner to cut a deal, but honestly, its a loose loose situation. If it passed, Obama just passed a budget that will lead the US into another great depression.

The budget was the republican plan, and then it got worse, if the policies stand, the next recession will come quicker and will be MUCH worse. A government shut down would be disasterous too.

So really our options here are catastrophy AND THEN depression, or just the depression.

But the democrats are drawing their line in the sand over planned parenthood, which is a nothing issue, planned parenthood is'nt threatening any major industry, its important for families and people, but it does'nt impress me, what would impress me would be if their line was drawn over something that actually effected corporate pocket books, not gonna happen.

[Bud Struggle]

Theres nothing brilliant about billionaires controlling government Bud, its not gamesmanship, its just power.

Nothing about Capitalism is gamesmanship, anymore than A king with an army subjecting a village is "gamesmenship," your a shrill for power Bud, admit it.

All you do here (very clumsily) is defend power and defend the institutions of power. Theres no gamesmanship there.

No the money got these guys into office--the interesting thing is what they have done with the sight (or rather non existant mandate) they were given. They stole the Bully Pulpit from the President and the Hopey-Changey thing and are taking the spotlight. Paul Ryan's plan for America is fromthe 19th centruy, but he's getting a lot of interest. Again-- I OPPOSE him, but I think he's pretty clever.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This is why the 60% of Americans who don't vote need to get off their fucking asses.

I would have to respectfully disagree. 60% of Americans don't vote because there is no one to vote for.

There is very little difference between the two parties and the electoral system is pretty much rigged. Most people inuititively know this.Instead of trying to get more people to vote for one of the two ruling class corporate parties, its much better to work to create a working class alternative.

Excuse my French, but fuck the Democrats. They are our real enemy.

Dump the elephant/dump the ass!
Build a party for the working class!

[Viet Minh]

Obama needs to hold out and call their bluff. The Republicans have no right to dictate the budget, and the majority of the US public realise this. Its not the first time the Republicans have played this game either. I suspect they will fold, and the Tea Party can be nicely humiliated.

[Sasha]

and what does it boil down too? its about attacking women:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/its-really-gop-t152801/index.html?p=2072953#post2072953

[StockholmSyndrome]

I would have to respectfully disagree. 60% of Americans don't vote because there is no one to vote for.

There is very little difference between the two parties and the electoral system is pretty much rigged. Most people inuititively know this.Instead of trying to get more people to vote for one of the two ruling class corporate parties, its much better to work to create a working class alternative.

Excuse my French, but fuck the Democrats. They are our real enemy.

Dump the elephant/dump the ass!
Build a party for the working class!

Cool then. Lets do that. But lets not flatly dismiss voting per se because its not "revolutionary" enough or because its "capitulating to the bourgeoisie".

[RGacky3]

The Tea Party is loosing out, pretty soon I'm guessing corporate funders are gonna dump them (once they get too out of control), and they'll go back to what they were under bush. THe Tea Party republicans will just go back to being regular old Bohner style corporate whores.

But I'm guessing the republicans fold, which just means disaster slightly later, bring out the champaine.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Bud Struugle is right. Because of the dynamics of our "two party" system, it was easy for the Koch bros. to get their drones into a position of political leverage. .The Tea Party was created to protect finance capital. When it became apparent Obama wasn't going to do anything untoward with the banks, that project was left out to dry. The Dems have a "populist constinuency"They're for the small guy, workers, minorities, disenfranchised people. The GOP is for the petty bourgeois, for "middle America" and for corporations. In reality neither party is remotely accountable and operate as branches of the ruling class. The Dems are usually "plan B".

The Dems have a working class constituency but because they depend on corporate support, they have to tone down expectations. They "compromise" and "reach out" to their opponents. The GOP doesn't have this handicap, they main thing that stops them from giving felt to their extremists are the possibility of turning off would be "mainstream" voters with fringe wackiness, but they can "energize the base" all they want.

Because there is no workers movement to speak of, people in the US have virtually no historic memory. This has been destroyed so the cycle keeps rapeating itself.

[#FF0000]

Just because some things can't be voted into existence, doesn't mean we shouldn't vote into existence the things that we can.

That seems like a waste of time when the goal is to get rid of capitalism.

[Viet Minh]

u dont even no wut that is!!!!!!!!1

but seriously are you suggesting that socialism can be achieved through the ballot box because that really seems ridiculous to me.

If socialism can never (ever) be achieved through Democratic means then its probably not worth fighting for, and if you do it would need to be in the form of a dictatorship of sorts. The key is reform and education imo, maybe thats why I'm restricted though! :D


and what does it boil down too? its about attacking women:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/its-really-gop-t152801/index.html?p=2072953#post2072953

When their rights to force women to undergo the most painful experience imaginable come face to face with the rights of soldiers to be paid, I suspect the former will lose out. Although of course the whole thing will still be blamed on Obama.. :rolleyes: Honestly whats the point in a presidency if you have to negotiate?


The Tea Party is loosing out, pretty soon I'm guessing corporate funders are gonna dump them (once they get too out of control), and they'll go back to what they were under bush. THe Tea Party republicans will just go back to being regular old Bohner style corporate whores.

But I'm guessing the republicans fold, which just means disaster slightly later, bring out the champaine.

Here's hoping! But ultimately the Tea Party will just turn it into more right-wing propaganda, especially if there is a shutdown. They are masters of the public outrage..

[Ele'ill]

The tea party is like a tabloid headline that everyone in the world simultaneously decided to acknowledge, thus it became reality, sort of.

[Che a chara]

Unfortunately the reason why the Republicans gained in the recent elections was that they promised to make cuts to the deficit and stop government spending. I'm not excusing what they're looking to slash, but all they're doing now is trying to deliver on that promise.

The Dems are partly (or largely) to blame for the deficit and now they're trying to redeem themselves by portraying the Republicans as bogeymen, and use them as scapegoats -- which actually seems likely to work. Obama needs to get a backbone. He's the President for fuck sake and he has shown absolutely no leadership during this crisis. While the Republicans are looking to cut education and health programmes, the filthy fucking rich yet again get to accumulate and get their tax breaks.

Plus, I don't share the optimism of others that the Tea Party may somehow disintegrate after this. The Tea Party are the opposition now.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If socialism can never (ever) be achieved through Democratic means then its probably not worth fighting for, and if you do it would need to be in the form of a dictatorship of sorts. The key is reform and education imo, maybe thats why I'm restricted though! :D



In the US the vast majority of people have very little control over their lives. Workplaces, where people spend the most important part of their lives, are sometimes run like feudal despotisms. The only input allowed in the political process is to vote every four years for candidates who have already been pre-approved.

The "political conventions" every four years are getting to be a national embarassment. All the decisions of the Dems and the GOP have already been made in private by a handful of businessmen and politicians. Everybody knows this, the conventions are boring as hell and their TV ratings are going way down. In 2012 everyone in the US of A who has a Netflix subscription will be using it on those days. The TV networks are in a bind, they have to air this shite or they'll expose it for the propaganda ploy it is.

Anyway there are other ways of democratically (if perhaps extra-legal) ways of participating in the political process. Strikes, demos, workplace occupations as in Europe and (eventually) contesting control of the means of production. "That is what democracy looks like". (although I hate that slogan).Of course this is all a ways off here in the land of the "free".Voting though in a pre-arranged election is the least of it.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There is a danger that the Tea Party and assorted right wing lunatics will scare disillusioned voters back into the "politics of lesser evilism" and they'll grudgingly flock back to Obama. The Dems will use this to their fullest advantage. Yin/yang.

The rightists do want to curtail women's rights and this is a very serious danger. The way to fight this though is to show the systemic reasons way the Dems are spineless. We want the same "progressive values" as they say they do but they are structurally incapable of fighting for it.

[Viet Minh]

Unfortunately the reason why the Republicans gained in the recent elections was that they promised to make cuts to the deficit and stop government spending. I'm not excusing what they're looking to slash, but all they're doing now is trying to deliver on that promise.

The Dems are partly (or largely) to blame for the deficit and now they're trying to redeem themselves by portraying the Republicans as bogeymen, and use them as scapegoats -- which actually seems likely to work. Obama needs to get a backbone. He's the President for fuck sake and he has shown absolutely no leadership during this crisis. While the Republicans are looking to cut education and health programmes, the filthy fucking rich yet again get to accumulate and get their tax breaks.

Plus, I don't share the optimism of others that the Tea Party may somehow disintegrate after this. The Tea Party are the opposition now.

The economic downturn was unavoidable, both parties blamed each other to some extent but it was a global phenomena. The Republicans (like the Conservatives in the UK as well) feel the answer is to slash public funding, cutting services from the poorest, where in reality just a few of their country club buddies could move a little money around and slash the defecit overnight.

And this is a sign of the Tea Parties growing power, but I feel they have over-extended themselves and arrogantly over-estimated their popularity and support, or the general support for their ideology.

[Per Levy]

If socialism can never (ever) be achieved through Democratic means then its probably not worth fighting for, and if you do it would need to be in the form of a dictatorship of sorts. The key is reform and education imo, maybe thats why I'm restricted though! :D

so what is your suggestion then? i mean the usa is a 2 party system, and both partys are pro capitalism, also both of these partys will hinder a 3. party to chalenge their power. how would you then go forth to socialism if the "democratic" way is out of the question?

[B5C]

http://www.cagle.com/working/110331/stein.jpg

Remember the last time the GOP try to shutdown government?

They made Clinton the most popular president.

[Viet Minh]

so what is your suggestion then? i mean the usa is a 2 party system, and both partys are pro capitalism, also both of these partys will hinder a 3. party to chalenge their power. how would you then go forth to socialism if the "democratic" way is out of the question?

Its not though. The way they challenge the power of the third party is to incorporate their beliefs, and thus try to siphon their voters. They are very much self-serving, but that doesn't mean they won't make progressive changes. So whats needed is a single united leftist front, possibly the term socialist or communist won't serve too well in the US but regardless a party of anti-capitalist ideology. That party needs to represent the people and make a big noise, and people will listen. In an ironic way the right-wingedness of the media like Fox news will work to their advantage, in their hatred of leftism they will probably give it undue publicity. And its not only at National level that politics count, if any state can vote in a leftist party they can be a positive example to the rest.

[#FF0000]

If socialism can never (ever) be achieved through Democratic means then its probably not worth fighting for, and if you do it would need to be in the form of a dictatorship of sorts. The key is reform and education imo, maybe thats why I'm restricted though!

Yeah but the thing is that parliament, no matter what you do, is the battleground of the ruling class. I mean, you can say "oh man, you need to do things democratically", but that assumes what we've got is properly democratic. It is not. Every state is a dictatorship -- a dictatorship of class. It's a futile effort to try to change society from a capitalist one to a socialist one by playing by the ruling class' rules.

So, sure. Go ahead and vote, but all you'll ever, ever get is bread and circuses.

[Viet Minh]

Yeah but the thing is that parliament, no matter what you do, is the battleground of the ruling class. I mean, you can say "oh man, you need to do things democratically", but that assumes what we've got is properly democratic. It is not. Every state is a dictatorship -- a dictatorship of class. It's a futile effort to try to change society from a capitalist one to a socialist one by playing by the ruling class' rules.

So, sure. Go ahead and vote, but all you'll ever, ever get is bread and circuses.

By 'doing things democratically' I didn't mean entirely thorugh electoral procedure, although I believe thats a big part of it. I mean the left needs the support of the working class, which means there has to be solidarity among all leftists to support workers rights, womens rights, challenge discrimination.. This is whats happening already, there's nothing new to this idea, its just maybe not being done enough.

[StockholmSyndrome]

That seems like a waste of time when the goal is to get rid of capitalism.

Wow, that's one for the books.

[Bud Struggle]

So, sure. Go ahead and vote, but all you'll ever, ever get is bread and circuses.

One could easily get the impression from the voters that bread and circuses is all they want.

[#FF0000]

Wow, that's one for the books.

Hey, I'm not saying we ought not fight the bosses for crusts of bread. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to be gained my fighting for it as a class, in the streets and all that, rather than as some nonthreatening milquetoast voting bloc once every 4 years, or two years if you're into that Senate stuff.

[Viet Minh]

Wow, that's one for the books.

I can understand disenfranchisement with the current system, but I don't understand the alternative.. We've ruled out violent revolution a la Libya as a logistical near impossibility (in the USA I mean)

[#FF0000]

One could easily get the impression from the voters that bread and circuses is all they want.

I think that's and overly simple and cynical way to look at it.

But you know Erich Fromm sorta kinda wrote a book about this kind of thing called ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM about why people vote for fascists, nazis, and people who are out to relentlessly brutalize them. I haven't read it yet, but I'll report back when I do.

I think it's time we start a book club.


I can understand disenfranchisement with the current system, but I don't understand the alternative.. We've ruled out violent revolution a la Libya as a logistical near impossibility (in the USA I mean)

Well, keep in mind that we don't really advocate for that urban guerilla or protracted people's war in America thing. Certain folks might disagree but I don't see (and I'd wager most around here don't see) THE REVOLUTION as a military campaign but as a social thing, you know?

I mean, the Russian Revolution didn't happen like that. The civil war came later!

[Viet Minh]

Hey, I'm not saying we ought not fight the bosses for crusts of bread. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to be gained my fighting for it as a class, in the streets and all that, rather than as some nonthreatening milquetoast voting bloc once every 4 years, or two years if you're into that Senate stuff.

I'm fully in support of illegal activity to defend people's rights from the opressive system we live under, but unfortunately that sort of action just results in good leftists locked up, and unable to demonstrate or speak out against further ongoing abuses by the state. Besides the brainwashing is such that figures like that are all too easily labelled 'terrorist' which actually alienates even the working classes they are fighting for.

EDIT: just read your response and yeah I agree. The question is if people demonstrated en masee would the US Government eventually step down (and slightly reshuffle, like in Egypt) or do a gadaffi on them? Cuz I suspect the latter..
:(

[#FF0000]

Is the Urban Guerilla/RAF vibe I give off really that strong? :lol: 'Cause it seems like everything I'm saying is getting interpreted as being a little more... violent than I'm intending it

[Viet Minh]

Is the Urban Guerilla/RAF vibe I give off really that strong? :lol: 'Cause it seems like everything I'm saying is getting interpreted as being a little more... violent than I'm intending it

I'm undercover FBI, I'm paid to be paranoid! :lol: No sorry I guess I'm just new to this, I am still not very clued up on Socialist Ideology or practise, but I'm learning, I think.. :)

[Ele'ill]

I'm undercover FBI

Ha. Ha. Ha. Good Joke.

[Viet Minh]

Ha. Ha. Ha. Good Joke.

Civil defence force I mean.. :che:

[Lt. Ferret]

I'm only getting half my paycheck on the 15th. I want to line all these motherfuckers up, if any of them get re-elected I'll fall either hard left or hard right. this shit is for the birds.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm fully in support of illegal activity to defend people's rights from the opressive system we live under, but unfortunately that sort of action just results in good leftists locked up, and unable to demonstrate or speak out against further ongoing abuses by the state. Besides the brainwashing is such that figures like that are all too easily labelled 'terrorist' which actually alienates even the working classes they are fighting for.

EDIT: just read your response and yeah I agree. The question is if people demonstrated en masee would the US Government eventually step down (and slightly reshuffle, like in Egypt) or do a gadaffi on them? Cuz I suspect the latter..
:(

Foreclosure blockades are technically illegal but they have been successful in forcing the B of A to back away, somewhat.The factory occupation at Republic Windows was technically illegal but even Obama was forced to pay a visit. The 1930s saw important fightbacks. Without the CP to derail it, very possibly the US todaywould have had a large worker's party to challenge capital.

We have no idea how or if the working class will take power. It will not involve "adventurism", isolated leftists "blowing up shit" but will be more but will be a democratic mass process essentially of revival of a collapsing society.

The alternative to the class taking power...doesn't actually exist.

I don't think its exaggerating to say that last fall France was just at the brink of what could have erupted into a full blown revolutionary situation. If education and organisation had been at a higher level, very possibly there would have been revolution in that country.A few more intelligent activists in the right places could have made a huge difference.

A friend of mine said that 20 years from now however is president will have to be very mean, because the ruling class will have exploit that much more surplus value from the working c lass.

Things are not gonna get better.

[Pretty Flaco]

Does anyone have any information on what's being cut in this deal they just made? crazy cuts... :(

[StockholmSyndrome]

Hey, I'm not saying we ought not fight the bosses for crusts of bread. I'm just saying that there's a lot more to be gained my fighting for it as a class, in the streets and all that, rather than as some nonthreatening milquetoast voting bloc once every 4 years, or two years if you're into that Senate stuff.

Mook, maguffin, milquetoast. What's next?

Anyways, your poetic little one liners sound nice but they seriously oversimplify things.

[#FF0000]

Mook, maguffin, milquetoast. What's next?

Anyways, your poetic little one liners sound nice but they seriously oversimplify things.

mmmmmmmmmshutthefuckup

i'm kidding i just thought it'd be funny and go with the "words that start with m" thing

[StockholmSyndrome]

i loled

[RGacky3]

Well, pull out your party hats, it did'nt shut down. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/federal-budget-deal-government-shutdown_n_846614.html)



"This is historic, what we've done," agreed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the third man involved in negotiations that ratified a new era of divided government.


NO Reid, this is not Historic, its embarrasing that it even came to this, and its depressing because 38 billion in cuts is gonna really screw the economy, even worse than it is now.



Obama hailed the deal as "the biggest annual spending cut in history." House Speaker John Boehner said that over the next decade it would cut government spending by $500 billion – and won an ovation from his rank and file, tea party adherents among them.


Look at Obama gloating about this, he's gloating that he mad the biggest cuts, in the middle of a recession, good job Obama I hope your proud of yourself, get ready for another great depression, this is Hoover all over again.

[Per Levy]

so what will be cut then? the "essential" things like military, wars and so on wont be touched i guess, so wich social programms will be cut?

[Per Levy]

just thinking, obama could've been the most popular president in history, if he did some kind of "new deal" and end the wars and put the money into public funded jobs and the lousy infrastructure.

[Bud Struggle]

just thinking, obama could've been the most popular president in history, if he did some kind of "new deal" and end the wars and put the money into public funded jobs and the lousy infrastructure.

He's popular with the people that count. :)

[Thirsty Crow]

That seems like a waste of time when the goal is to get rid of capitalism.
Well, it seems to me that we've got a classic reform vs. revolution situation here.
But it may be that this is a false dilemma (given the economic and political situation nowadays - when workers are faced with austerity, public service privatization or shutdown, "flexsecurity" and the growing tide of nationalism). Let me quote Rosa Luxemburg on this one:


The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/intro.htm

Wha should be noted here, of course, is that unlike "evolutionary socialists" (another manifestation of all those strands properly called "utopian socialists" in the 19th century), we as communists and revolutionary socialists shouldn't even begin to think of legal political procedures as the only means acceptable for the formation of class consciousness.
Indeed, a radical transformation of society will not come off as a result of parliamentary procedures. There will never be a referendum on "what mode of production you prefer". This, I think, is important to keep in mind while nevertheless acknowledging those specific reforms which ameliorate the condition of the working class and other oppressed groups.
(as a side note, I do sympathize with the position taken by the organizations within the World Socialist Movement - that any explicit political support for bourgeois organizations advancing reforms is completely unacceptable; as you can see, my thoughts on this problem are far from a closed and entrenched position)

[StockholmSyndrome]

Wha should be noted here, of course, is that unlike "evolutionary socialists" (another manifestation of all those strands properly called "utopian socialists" in the 19th century), we as communists and revolutionary socialists shouldn't even begin to think of legal political procedures as the only means acceptable for the formation of class consciousness.

That's not what evolutionary socialists believe


This, I think, is important to keep in mind while nevertheless acknowledging those specific reforms which ameliorate the condition of the working class and other oppressed groups....any explicit political support for bourgeois organizations advancing reforms is completely unacceptable; as you can see, my thoughts on this problem are far from a closed and entrenched position)

It sounds like your thoughts on this problem are confused, flip-floppy, hypocritical and extremely arrogant in my opinion.

[RGacky3]

He's popular with the people that count. :)

What count?

[Bud Struggle]

What count?

That have plenty of money to count. :D

[Thirsty Crow]

That's not what evolutionary socialists believeThis is a great piece of criticism. Deny an assertion an leave it at that.
Care to back that up (which is not to say that I think my opinions are completely correct; in order that I may advance my understanding, it'd be great if folks like yourself could actually make an argument instead of worthless denial )?




It sounds like your thoughts on this problem are confused, flip-floppy, hypocritical and extremely arrogant in my opinion.
Yeah, I made a mistake: I didn't properly distinguish the position laid out by WSM and the specific consequences it could bring.
The real question concerns the specific relationship between a revolutionary organization and a reformist one (bourgeopis, that is). As far as I understood WSM's position, they argue that revolutionary organizations should not offer, as revolutionary organizations, explicit support for these bourgeois organizations, while at the same time they may hold the position according to which a specific set of reforms is deemed positive for the working class as a whole.
Since I hold to the opinion which states that political positions should always be counterposed to the concrete experience and knowledge resulting from it - I cannot but conclude that I agree with some aspects with that position, but not as a whole. I apologize sincerely for a lack in a kind of dogmatic insistence (and agreement with) on a specific position regarding this problem.
Now, your accusations are (yet again) not backed up by any kind of argument. They are rather vague moralizations (I presume that "hypocritical" in your world means "unable to wholly reject one position in favour of another"; "arrogant" is another moralist buzzword which may work nicely in an egalitarian community when it comes to baseless accusations).
So, to reitarate the starting point of this post: care to explain or offer some concrete argument or do you wish to remain firmly entrenched in this swamp of vague and meaningless accusations?

[StockholmSyndrome]

This is a great piece of criticism. Deny an assertion an leave it at that.
Care to back that up (which is not to say that I think my opinions are completely correct; in order that I may advance my understanding, it'd be great if folks like yourself could actually make an argument instead of worthless denial )?

Its pretty simple really. You said, and I paraphrase, "evolutionary socialists believe legislative action is the only way to form class consciousness." I said "that is not what evolutionary socialists believe." That means evolutionary socialists believe "class consciousness" can be formed through extra-parliamentary means such as labor unions, cooperatives, etc.





Now, your accusations are (yet again) not backed up by any kind of argument. They are rather vague moralizations (I presume that "hypocritical" in your world means "unable to wholly reject one position in favour of another"; "arrogant" is another moralist buzzword which may work nicely in an egalitarian community when it comes to baseless accusations).
So, to reitarate the starting point of this post: care to explain or offer some concrete argument or do you wish to remain firmly entrenched in this swamp of vague and meaningless accusations?

It is hypocritical to say that you do not support reformist organizations in principle but at the same time to recognize the good they do for working people.

It is simultaneously arrogant and self-alienating to take such a high and mighty position in the name of ideological purity.

You can call it "moralist", sure. But, then I suggest you read this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm

And tell me that's not how you feel about liberals.

[Thirsty Crow]

Its pretty simple really. You said, and I paraphrase, "evolutionary socialists believe legislative action is the only way to form class consciousness." I said "that is not what evolutionary socialists believe." That means evolutionary socialists believe "class consciousness" can be formed through extra-parliamentary means such as labor unions, cooperatives, etc.Fine, point taken.
Although, we could debate the specific direction and manifestation class consciousness assumes with the "evolutionary socialist" framework (it would be more correct to say that this aspect of the theory is "utopian" in the sense of the 19th ct. term "utopian socialist").



It is hypocritical to say that you do not support reformist organizations in principle but at the same time to recognize the good they do for working people.

It is simultaneously arrogant and self-alienating to take such a high and mighty position in the name of ideological purity.You're quite obsessed with "ideological purity", aren't you? Well, in my opinion, the abolition of capitalist productive relations and the resulting broader social relations is not a matter of "ideological purity" but rather a matter of historical possibility of global working class and other disposessed and opressed groups to put an end to their conditions of existence. It's that simple, and does not have anything to do with your projected phantoms.
But let's go into more details.

So, in your opinion, the organization is identified with the outcomes of their political campaing. This is problematic in itself, but it becomes completely unacceptable when we take into consideration the political platform of the before mentioned reformist organizations - then everyone is forced to conclude that their primary goal is to function as a part of the political managment of capitalism. Why would I support certain reforms without freely criticizing the ultimate goal of the organization(s) which campaing for them? Is it "either reform or revolution" for you? Cause, for me it isn't since I am one of the workers who will benefit from specific policies (in other words - if I consider certain reforms which will ameliorate my labour conditions, and at the same time hold the position that my long term interest is the abolition of capitalism - why would I conclude that these two interests are mutually exclusive?)

It is you , in fact, who insist on a kind of "ideological purity" in the form of "coherency" or "principles" which would bind any politically minded person to support wholly the institutional and political role of reformist organizations if they supported a specific set of reforms. Your ridiculous moralist notion may also be effectively used to dismiss founded criticism and debate based on it in favour of...not being hypocritical, right?

Moreover, there is another problem with your little tirade: you assume that, without any kind of difference, these organizations are the active element who hands down good reform to passive working people...yet I think that these working people, in the moments of their self-organization and militancy, push any kind of political organization into adopting pro-labour demands for reform. It speaks volumes about who is actually arrogant here.


You can call it "moralist", sure. But, then I suggest you read this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm

And tell me that's not how you feel about liberals.
Yeah, all self-professed communists and revolutionaries hold the same opinion. We all follow great leaders from our glorious past.
I'm not going to waste my time on Mao's pamphlets. After all, he uses the word "liberal" so freely as to devoid it of any meaning. Jeez, that's a surprise.

If you want to know what do I think about liberals, I'll tell you this: they support status quo. I'm fundamentally opposed to their position, on class grounds. End of story (wit regard to the core of their political platform).
Now, if I were to debate specific policies enacted by these organizations...that'd be a different story.

[Pretty Flaco]

Does no one know what is being cut? I can't find any information on it.

[manic expression]

Look I'm not here cheering for Obama or the Democrats. All I'm saying is that when people don't participate in democracy,
:lol: Uh-huh...there is no democracy in the US. Liberals are so funny.

[Viet Minh]

:lol: Uh-huh...there is no democracy in the US. Liberals are so funny.

There is NO democracy in DPRK, there is NO democracy in Libya, there is very little democracy in the USA but to say there's none is an insult to many many people who fought for the 'Liberal' system you have now. Or are we to believe the civil rights movements, the womens lib, gay rights activists etc etc achieved absolutely nothing?

[Skooma Addict]

there are socialists who support the DPRK. Lol :laugh:

[Viet Minh]

there are socialists who support the DPRK. Lol :laugh:

They have every right to, but to suggest there is no democracy in the US is misleading.

[manic expression]

there is very little democracy in the USA but to say there's none is an insult to many many people who fought for the 'Liberal' system you have now. Or are we to believe the civil rights movements, the womens lib, gay rights activists etc etc achieved absolutely nothing?
In terms of winning concessions from the ruling class? Of course there have been improvements, but only through the militant struggle of the working class. However, are we talking changes in the fundamental character of the US government? Well then, those reforms accomplished nothing in that regard. It's a government owned and controlled entirely by the rich, as it has been for long over a century.


there are socialists who support the DPRK. Lol
Yeah, that whole "progressive principles" thing again.

[#FF0000]

there are socialists who support the DPRK. Lol :laugh:

Depends on what you mean by support.

[Viet Minh]

I don't get it! :confused: Why the hell would Obama back down, not just to the Republicans but to the Tea Party who now think they can dictate policy to the president, to both political parties! What the hell did Obamas adminstration gain from this, they are in a position of power they had the chance to play this to their advantage and show the World what arrogant self-righteous assholes the Tea Party really are.

[RGacky3]

Exactly, its this always wanting to be in the Washinton center, either that, or they are just service corporatist interests.

Right now I'm starting to think its beyond just corporatist interests and juts fundemental weakness. (I guess the system selects the weaker ones on the left that won't fight for leftist causes)

[Bud Struggle]

Exactly, its this always wanting to be in the Washinton center, either that, or they are just service corporatist interests.

Right now I'm starting to think its beyond just corporatist interests and juts fundemental weakness. (I guess the system selects the weaker ones on the left that won't fight for leftist causes)

Kind of. The system was set up by a bunch of guys that really didn't trust any government whatsoever. Now that was overcome by political parties and the expanded power of the exectuve (cabnet) etc. But the system isn't really designed to run very well.

The system was designed by a bunch of land owners to keep the status quo. And 240 years later this land owner (moi)--can see the wisdom in their actions.

[Gorilla]

It scares me that the US government has become so bogged down in protecting existing capital formations and backward structures of local class rule, and shown itself completely inadequate to addressing the needs of capital as such, let alone the social demands of the proletariat.

I mean, the present crisis would have been a perfect time to address the shortcomings of infrastructure and education, not to mention the bone-brittleness of state and local finances, which pose huge threats to smooth growth and contined capitalist development. Having punted on any of these questions, all that's left is an economic model based on financial jiggery-pokery and tourism.

If there were anything like a revolutionary movement in the offing - or even grand politics within the system like the New Deal etc. - this disorganization might be a hopeful sign. But such as things are it is simply terrifying.

[Bud Struggle]

It scares me that the US government has become so bogged down in protecting existing capital formations and backward structures of local class rule, and shown itself completely inadequate to addressing the needs of capital as such, let alone the social demands of the proletariat.

I mean, the present crisis would have been a perfect time to address the shortcomings of infrastructure and education, not to mention the bone-brittleness of state and local finances, which pose huge threats to smooth growth and contined capitalist development. Having punted on any of these questions, all that's left is an economic model based on financial jiggery-pokery and tourism.

If there were anything like a revolutionary movement in the offing - or even grand politics within the system like the New Deal etc. - this disorganization might be a hopeful sign. But such as things are it is simply terrifying.

Except there is no real need to address anything. The economy is turning around. Employment is up, spending is up, etc. For 85 % of the population, things are good if not every good. There's those at the bottom--but they don't vote anyway.

[Viet Minh]

Except there is no real need to address anything. The economy is turning around. Employment is up, spending is up, etc. For 85 % of the population, things are good if not every good. There's those at the bottom--but they don't vote anyway.

Why so serious all of a sudden bud?

[agnixie]

Except there is no real need to address anything. The economy is turning around. Employment is up, spending is up, etc. For 85 % of the population, things are good if not every good. There's those at the bottom--but they don't vote anyway.

Oil is at 120 the barrel and 85% of the american population only has a diminishing 13% of its wealth, nice try.


Unemployment is actually going up in some states, and states where it isn't have a rise of underemployment instead (case in point: Texas). And the info is largely taken from CPPP reports, not from ideological comrades.

[Bud Struggle]

Oil is at 120 the barrel and 85% of the american population only has a diminishing 13% of its wealth, nice try.


Unemployment is actually going up in some states, and states where it isn't have a rise of underemployment instead (case in point: Texas). And the info is largely taken from CPPP reports, not from ideological comrades.

All minor turns of events. Oil prices will level off--they will soon as things cool off in the Middle East, the minority economic position of most Americans doesn't really matter to them if they are kept in bread and circuses.

No issues. It will take a while to get things back to normal.

[agnixie]

All minor turns of events. Oil prices will level off--they will soon as things cool off in the Middle East, the minority economic position of most Americans doesn't really matter to them if they are kept in bread and circuses.

No issues. It will take a while to get things back to normal.

Or it will cause an economic meltdown. Your certainty that things will quiet down as everybody is now whispering about ground forces in Libya and Abdullah II acting like Alexander II of Russia is... optimistic. To say it the most politely.

The current policies pushed by congress are eerily familiar when you look at the Hoover presidency.

Also, Bread and Circuses can and do fail. Especially as bread is coming in less reliably, leaving about 25% of children in some states in situations where they have no idea where the next meal will come from.

Or as the french said "Ah, ça ira, ça ira"

[Bud Struggle]

Or it will cause an economic meltdown.

The current policies pushed by congress are eerily familiar when you look at the Hoover presidency.

Also, Bread and Circuses can and do fail. Especially as bread is coming in less reliably, leaving about 25% of children in some states in situations where they have no idea where the next meal will come from.

Or as the french said "Ah, ça ira, ça ira"

That's just the usual "gloom and doom." Not to say there aren't problems--but if 15% of the people control 85% of the money--they just won't let an economic breakdown happen. There is a good side to a plutocarcy.

I'd like to see the stats on the 25% of kids being hungry. Welfare, and food stamps, etc. are the "Bread" de jure, these days. It does it's job.

[agnixie]

That's just the usual "gloom and doom." Not to say there aren't problems--but if 15% of the people control 85% of the money--they just won't let an economic breakdown happen. There is a good side to a plutocarcy.

I'd like to see the stats on the 25% of kids being hungry. Welfare, and food stamps, etc. are the "Bread" de jure, these days. It does it's job.

Plutocracy failed, regularly. Where was your infallible plutocracy in 1929? What about 1846? Or maybe in 1787?

Also, would the same welfare that largely being defunded? Food stamps are being largely reduced, and the current GOP budget is pretty much cutting most kinds of welfare to not even survival level.

[Bud Struggle]

Plutocracy failed, regularly. Where was your infallible plutocracy in 1929? What about 1846? Or maybe in 1787? Sure but Communism has failed regularly, so has fascism and kingdoms. Right now we're on a pretty good roll.


Also, would the same welfare that largely being defunded? Food stamps are being largely reduced, and the current GOP budget is pretty much cutting most kinds of welfare to not even survival level. As I might have said, that's kind of a mistake. Too much is going on Medicade/Medicare healthcare cost. That has to be brought down and other programs refunded. Personally I'd tax the rich a bit--it just would look better.

[agnixie]

Sure but Communism has failed regularly, so has fascism and kingdoms. Right now we're on a pretty good roll.

As I might have said, that's kind of a mistake. Too much is going on Medicade/Medicare healthcare cost. That has to be brought down and other programs refunded. Personally I'd tax the rich a bit--it just would look better.

Yeah, but you're not the one in charge, and the ones in charge are having victory disease. "There are no american tanks in Bagdad" "There is no insurgency in Iraq" "Plutocracy never fails" ;)

Also, communism has never been tried. Socialism and state capitalism are a different matter. That said, that's also a fine strawman, given the tendencies of who is pointing out the flaws in your denial.

You're a funny troll, probably inadvertently. Sad you're playing the useful idiot.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, but you're not the one in charge, and the ones in charge are having victory disease. True there.


Also, communism has never been tried. Socialism and state capitalism are a different matter. Oh, it's been tried--lots of times. It just has never been made to work properly. Lenin ande Mao and all of the rest never intended to set up State Capitalism. It happened despight their best efforts.

State Capitalism is Communism when tried in the REAL WORLD. On paper--Communism does look good--I'll grant you that. In real life you need the Stazi and the KGB to make an attempt at something Communist even vaguely functional.

[agnixie]

State Capitalism is Communism when tried in the REAL WORLD. On paper--Communism does look good--I'll grant you that. In real life you need the Stazi and the KGB to make an attempt at something Communist even vaguely functional.

Actually, you don't, the anarchists in Spain had no need for the Stazi and the KGB. Sadly between your side and the stalinists, such a succesful example couldn't be let be.

And of course, from a reformist point of view, Emilian cooperatives got pretty close to showing you can do away with corporations.

Strawmen don't make for a good troll.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually, you don't, the anarchists in Spain had no need for the Stazi and the KGB. Sadly between your side and the stalinists, such a succesful example couldn't be let be. Ouch. We don't know that. We don't know if the Spanish Anarchists would have fizzled out in no time. No sure thing there. And there were VERY brutal in their day.


And of course, from a reformist point of view, Emilian cooperatives got pretty close to showing you can do away with corporations. They are cutsie in their way. So are the Amish and the Bruderhof Communities and the Trappist Brothers and the Shakers-Amana stoves comes to mind. But they are what they are. Interesting abnomalities. Oh yea, and don't forget the Zapatistas. I buy their coffee.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I buy the Trappists' beer.

[RGacky3]

Ouch. We don't know that. We don't know if the Spanish Anarchists would have fizzled out in no time. No sure thing there. And there were VERY brutal in their day.


Probably not, considering they were growing stronger until they were killed. As for them being brutal, yes, they did kill people in the civil war.


They are cutsie in their way. So are the Amish and the Bruderhof Communities and the Trappist Brothers and the Shakers-Amana stoves comes to mind. But they are what they are. Interesting abnomalities. Oh yea, and don't forget the Zapatistas. I buy their coffee.

Thats not the point at all Bud, the point is that there IS an alternative, and people that are honestly looking to make a better society, and not people like you childishly just trying to score team-USA points against the commies, will take those alternatives as examples.

[Gorilla]

Except there is no real need to address anything. The economy is turning around. Employment is up, spending is up, etc. For 85 % of the population, things are good if not every good. There's those at the bottom--but they don't vote anyway.

Just because you managed to pull the baby out of the well this time means there's no need to fill it in?

[agnixie]

Just because you managed to pull the baby out of the well this time means there's no need to fill it in?

Nonsense, as Bud reassured us, "L'ordre règne à Tripoli" ;)

[masty]

Look I'm not here cheering for Obama or the Democrats. All I'm saying is that when people don't participate in democracy, they leave the door open for somebody else to take the helm. It's not like the 60% turnout in 2008 changed everything all of a sudden. The current state of affairs is a result of many years of voter apathy and neoliberal encroachment. It should also be noted that FDR's New Deal was at the height of the Progressive movement in this country, and he had a majority in Congress for 12 years straight.
right, it's the people's fault that they don't participate in the transparent fraud of liberal democracy.

[RGacky3]

That's just the usual "gloom and doom." Not to say there aren't problems--but if 15% of the people control 85% of the money--they just won't let an economic breakdown happen. There is a good side to a plutocarcy.

I'd like to see the stats on the 25% of kids being hungry. Welfare, and food stamps, etc. are the "Bread" de jure, these days. It does it's job.

That 15% controlling 85% is SOOOO conservative, laughably conservative, its Waaayyyy more unequal then that.

But the fact is that they WILL allow an economic breakdown to happen because thats the nature of capitalism, they are in competition with each other and they are obliged to maximize profits, and they thus cannot think of externalities, and the main externality is the whole economy.

No CEO is gonna take a financial hit now on his company because 5 or 10 years down the road if everyone makes the same decision he is making the economy will collapse, if he does, he gets kicked out by someone who can make returns, so he'll maximise profits, even if that ultimately will contribute to the economy being destroyed.

Thats what happened, and its whats happeninig again.

As for the stats. Take a look at this thread. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/interesting-statistics-inequality-t152654/index.html)

[RGacky3]

Sure but Communism has failed regularly, so has fascism and kingdoms. Right now we're on a pretty good roll.


Monarchism lasted for 5800 or 5900 years and "worked" (depends on what you mean by working), Capitalism has lasted about 150 or 200 years, and Capitalism in its modern form (financial capitalism) has lasted less than 50 or 60 years, and it is FAILING.

As far as communism, you mean state controlled autocracy, you won't stop with this argument will you :P, your a one trick pony, and its a shitty trick.

[RATM-Eubie]

Communism really has never worked on a "national level"
State Authoritarian Socialism kind of has under Lenin, and Mao's China...

[Bud Struggle]

That 15% controlling 85% is SOOOO conservative, laughably conservative, its Waaayyyy more unequal then that. It doesn't matter.


But the fact is that they WILL allow an economic breakdown to happen because thats the nature of capitalism, they are in competition with each other and they are obliged to maximize profits, and they thus cannot think of externalities, and the main externality is the whole economy. There are no "natures of Capitalism" there are nor "rules" there is only the day to day function of how things actually are. Capitalism isn't some definition, neither is Communism. You are just a foolish dreamer. Good for you. But nothing will ever come of it.


No CEO is gonna take a financial hit now on his company because 5 or 10 years down the road if everyone makes the same decision he is making the economy will collapse, if he does, he gets kicked out by someone who can make returns, so he'll maximise profits, even if that ultimately will contribute to the economy being destroyed. I don't know--for all those predictionsof the failure of Capitalism itstill lives, but all those "attempts" at Communism and Anarchism are only in the history books.


Thats what happened, and its whats happeninig again.

As for the stats. Take a look at this thread. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/interesting-statistics-inequality-t152654/index.html)

No it won't. Things are always different. I'm not saying that things don't need to be improved--they will be.

[#FF0000]

State Capitalism is Communism when tried in the REAL WORLD. On paper--Communism does look good--I'll grant you that. In real life you need the Stazi and the KGB to make an attempt at something Communist even vaguely functional.

Not only is this wrong but it gets wronger every time you say it, somehow.

[RGacky3]

It doesn't matter.


No Bud, facts matter, and the level of inequality is absolutely important, ask any economist worth his salt.


There are no "natures of Capitalism" there are nor "rules" there is only the day to day function of how things actually are. Capitalism isn't some definition, neither is Communism. You are just a foolish dreamer. Good for you. But nothing will ever come of it.


Jesus Christ Bud have you heard of economics? There is a nature of Capitalism, its called the way it works.

Son of a ***** what a shitty attempt at an argument.

Day to day functions and how things really are under Capitalism (which is a word that has a definition describing a certain type of economic structure) have causes and outcomes.


I don't know--for all those predictionsof the failure of Capitalism itstill lives, but all those "attempts" at Communism and Anarchism are only in the history books.


In other words you don't know shit about economics and thus cannot formulate a proper response to a post regarding economics.


No it won't. Things are always different. I'm not saying that things don't need to be improved--they will be.

We'll good luck with that Bud, keep believing in a failing system, nothings being improved now, and there is no indication that the powers that be have any intention of improving it.

You call me a dreamer, yet you STILL believe in American Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

No Bud, facts matter, and the level of inequality is absolutely important, ask any economist worth his salt. Percentages don't matter. the relative satisfaction of people with their lives matters. Nobody and I mean NOBODY is looking to change the governmental system in the USA.


Jesus Christ Bud have you heard of economics? There is a nature of Capitalism, its called the way it works.

Son of a ***** what a shitty attempt at an argument.

Day to day functions and how things really are under Capitalism (which is a word that has a definition describing a certain type of economic structure) have causes and outcomes. Except Capitalism keeps going and going and going. Communist revolutions come and go. You can't fight the reality of what happens each and every time someone tries Communism or Anarchism. It looses.


In other words you don't know shit about economics and thus cannot formulate a proper response to a post regarding economics. I know I live in the real world--not one of fighting unions and Socialist movements. Communism is the last thing on the mind of Revolutions these days.


We'll good luck with that Bud, keep believing in a failing system, nothings being improved now, and there is no indication that the powers that be have any intention of improving it. It may be aq failing system but it is the only one that exists in the REAL WORLD. There aren't any Anarchists--they few that existed are long dead. You are living in the past Brother Gacky. Believeing that going out and organizing a hot dog chain is going to change the world--is just foolishness.


You call me a dreamer, yet you STILL believe in American Capitalism. I now believe in Chinese Capitalism, too. :D

[agnixie]

[
Except Capitalism keeps going and going and going. Communist revolutions come and go. You can't fight the reality of what happens each and every time someone tries Communism or Anarchism. It looses.
I wouldn't call "being backstabbed, destroyed and crushed militarily by both our friends and foes alike in the middle of a civil war" a proof of anarchism's failure as an economic system.

Also there's a thread with data and stats. So as kids playing would say: I showed you mine, show me yours.

Otherwise we have sources, and you have an ass to talk out of.

[RGacky3]

I wouldn't call "being backstabbed, destroyed and crushed militarily by both our friends and foes alike in the middle of a civil war" a proof of anarchism's failure as an economic system.

Also there's a thread with data and stats. So as kids playing would say: I showed you mine, show me yours.

Otherwise we have sources, and you have an ass to talk out of.

Pretty Much this.

Bud, you don't have ANY proper arguments and you keep rehashin old and used bullshit statements, I mean look at this.


Percentages don't matter. the relative satisfaction of people with their lives matters. Nobody and I mean NOBODY is looking to change the governmental system in the USA.


Its as if you did'nt even read what I wrote, percentages matter in economics dumbass, because the decide whether economies fail or are successfull, and right now the American Economy is failing, and its in a downward spiral and continuing to fail.

Numbers and facts matter to intelligent people.


I now believe in Chinese Capitalism, too. :D

Great ... Its pretty clear what your priorities are Bud.

Why are you still here? No one has respect for your posts, you don't write anything intelligent, you don't have proper arguments or an interesting point of view, you don't even have an ethical position, you don't understand economics nor politics, you troll the same points without backing anything up.

It seams your whole point being here is just to tumb your nose at people that actually care about making the world a better place, your a grown ass man, why are you still here?

[agnixie]

Why are you still here? No one has respect for your posts, you don't write anything intelligent, you don't have proper arguments or an interesting point of view, you don't even have an ethical position, you don't understand economics nor politics, you troll the same points without backing anything up.

It seams your whole point being here is just to tumb your nose at people that actually care about making the world a better place, your a grown ass man, why are you still here?

Because he's a troll and an obvious one at that. Why else?

[Gorilla]

I know I live in the real world--not one of fighting unions and Socialist movements. Communism is the last thing on the mind of Revolutions these days.

We live in that world too.



Percentages don't matter. the relative satisfaction of people with their lives matters. Nobody and I mean NOBODY is looking to change the governmental system in the USA.

Except Capitalism keeps going and going and going. Communist revolutions come and go. You can't fight the reality of what happens each and every time someone tries Communism or Anarchism. It looses.


The United States has a fucked immigration system, a fucked education system, fucked infranstructure, a method of financing schools and local services that crumbles every time the economy goes sideways, a federal tax system that's complicated and anti-competitive being set up entirely to protect established economic interests, levels of social inequality normally seen in the 3rd world and historically correlated with high levels of social unrest, a death-trap of a war in Afghanistan, spiralling healthcare costs and don't even get me started on the financial system.

Two years ago, America elected its most far-sighted president in a generation with the largest congressional majorities in two generations, and they managed to fix...two or three of those things, and those halfway at best.

American capitalism is in no position to brag at the moment.

[Bud Struggle]

I wouldn't call "being backstabbed, destroyed and crushed militarily by both our friends and foes alike in the middle of a civil war" a proof of anarchism's failure as an economic system.


I would. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Why are you still here? No one has respect for your posts, you don't write anything intelligent, you don't have proper arguments or an interesting point of view, you don't even have an ethical position, you don't understand economics nor politics, you troll the same points without backing anything up.

It seams your whole point being here is just to tumb your nose at people that actually care about making the world a better place, your a grown ass man, why are you still here?

It's none of your fucking business why I am here. Just like it's none of my business why you are here. It's none of anyone's funcking business why anyone's here. It's not a Communist world yet so my personal business is still MY PERSONAL BUSINESS. Keep your nose out of it.

Get it?

[Ele'ill]

Hey, let's all get really angry and not post for five minutes but then come immediately back to revleft and make more posts.

[Ele'ill]

I would. :)

Why?

[agnixie]

Why?

Because until that point he's avoided every substantial point in return for maintaining a carefully groomed troll act, of course he's not going to deal with anything requiring serious thought if his only intent is to act like a troll.

In short, if his only intent is to get a rise out of people, of course, he would.

[Bud Struggle]

Why?

It flaired up and died within a couple of years, 75 years ago and never tried again. How would anyone with even a shread of understanding of reality think this is some sort of living movement?

[Ele'ill]

It flaired up and died within a couple of years, 75 years ago and never tried again. How would anyone with even a shread of understanding of reality think this is some sort of living movement?

Never tried again? Never attempted? There is no struggle?

I don't understand the living moment comment. Explain?

[Ele'ill]

"Well everyone, here's capitalism working"

"but I'm not saying change isn't NEEDED"

"It's needed and we advocate revolution"

"But when's the last time THAT worked"

[Bud Struggle]

Never tried again? Never attempted? No not Anarchism.


There is no struggle? I never said that. There is a struggle. Some struggle, but it's fragmented and disjointed and these days points in a thousand directions.


I don't understand the living moment comment. Explain? Anarchism as a movement on any scale is dead. Kind of like the Shakers.

[RGacky3]

It's none of your fucking business why I am here. Just like it's none of my business why you are here. It's none of anyone's funcking business why anyone's here. It's not a Communist world yet so my personal business is still MY PERSONAL BUSINESS. Keep your nose out of it.

Get it?


64QkD5pBWWE

Serriously though, either stop trolling for just leave, or at least stick to chit chat, your doing no one any good derailing what could be good discussions with your pointless nonsense.

This thread is about the American government shut down, and your still arguing the same strawman you do everythread, so yeah, it is relevant why your here. Its a question Bud, don't shit your pants over it.

[Bud Struggle]

Serriously though, either stop trolling for just leave, or at least stick to chit chat, your doing no one any good derailing what could be good discussions with your pointless nonsense.

This thread is about the American government shut down, and your still arguing the same strawman you do everythread, so yeah, it is relevant why your here. Its a question Bud, don't shit your pants over it.

Sorry Gacky but it seems news is in: the Government isn't shutting down--so whatever this thread was about isn't going to happen. And in that respect it is similar to everything you post about.

[Ele'ill]

Serriously though, either stop trolling for just leave, or at least stick to chit chat, your doing no one any good derailing what could be good discussions with your pointless nonsense.

This thread is about the American government shut down, and your still arguing the same strawman you do everythread, so yeah, it is relevant why your here. Its a question Bud, don't shit your pants over it.

Sorry Gacky but it seems news is in: the Government isn't shutting down--so whatever this thread was about isn't going to happen. And in that respect it is similar to everything you post about.

Yeah, both of you knock off the infantile tirades and seriously get back on track.

[RGacky3]

[QUOTE]Sorry Gacky but it seems news is in: the Government isn't shutting down--so whatever this thread was about isn't going to happen. And in that respect it is similar to everything you post about. [QUOTE]

I said it probably was'nt going to shut down ..... and it did'nt.

[Bud Struggle]

[QUOTE]Sorry Gacky but it seems news is in: the Government isn't shutting down--so whatever this thread was about isn't going to happen. And in that respect it is similar to everything you post about. [QUOTE]

I said it probably was'nt going to shut down ..... and it did'nt.

You have OCD?

[RGacky3]

Is it gonna happen? (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/government-shutdown-not-y_n_846462.html) I don't know, I think ultimately Obama will fold, which is what the republicans are betting, Obama has really shot himself in the foot by having not even half a ball for the first 3 years, its not like he has the gravitas to make a stand now, except their cuts are so insane Obama CANNOT accept it, these cuts are gonna have a worse effect than the Hoover policies.

So predictions?


That was my first post in the thread, of me predicting Obama will fold and there won't be a shut down, which is exactly what happened.

[Bud Struggle]

That was my first post in the thread, of me predicting Obama will fold and there won't be a shut down, which is exactly what happened.

Oops sorry. I don't usually read you posts all the way through. :(

[Revolution starts with U]

Shows how much you give one shit about the truth.