For the Tea Party Morons

[RichardAWilson]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304778_2134377440467_1276982138_32136304_107145164 1_n.jpg

[RichardAWilson]

There you go =)

[Revolution starts with U]

The right wing has long since given up on a factual based account of reality. Posting more facts isn't going to win any of them over. They will just blame it on a conspiracy, or call it a lie.

You may win a few lurkers tho :D

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Conservatives seeing truth is like a fascist being tolerant: it just doesn't exist.

[redhotpoker]

Chomsky: We Shouldn't Ridicule Tea Party Protesters


mWs6g3L3fkU

[Robert]

Who exactly prepared that graph? Note the date. Note the time periods covered.

Compare this:

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.
The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

[TheGodlessUtopian]

To Noam Chaomsky: I disagree with your conception that the Tea Party hates Wall Street and the rich.

That is all.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

If you look at the democratic presidents, they came into office with large amounts of debt (especially Obama) and the republican presidents (Bush) came into office with very little debt. Thus, the PERCENT INCREASE measured by that graph is a flawed measure because a fourteen percent increase under Obama is very different from a fourteen percent increase under Bush.

I hate bad statisticians. I hate intentional misrepresentation of data. I hate manipulation of information in order to achieve one's own agenda.

*EDIT* Also, the Republican debt was accumulated over the course of TWO terms and the Democrat's debt was accumulated over only ONE term. Grumble grumble, manipulation of the truth, grumble...

[Seth]

Yeah the state has taken on mindboggling amounts of debt since the crisis began. I thought that was common knowledge.

[RichardAWilson]

The numbers are taken from the Department of Treasury and have been verified.

The information and figures are reflective of Public-Indebtedness. Treasuries purchased and held by the Federal Reserve and the SS Trust Fund aren't incorporated into the data because those are methods of intergovernmental financing.

[Seth]

But you don't get it. This is just percent increase. It doesn't really tell you anything.

[RichardAWilson]

Furthermore, you have to remember the 2009 deficit can be attributed to Bush. There's a one year lag between Administrations and Fiscal Budgets. I.e. Clinton's last budget was the 2001 budget, during which we still had a surplus.

As long as the economy remains weakened, it's possible that this Administration will have added more indebtedness than the Bush Administration. Democrats have always been more fiscally responsible than Republicans.

However, with the economy in the toilet and Tea Party Republicans fighting the expiration of Bush's tax reductions that have benefited the super-rich, there's little that can be done if the taxable base (I.e. Wages and Jobs) doesn't turn around.

[Seth]

Are you aware how Clinton got that surplus?

[RichardAWilson]

In Clinton's first term, the Democratic Congress increased marginal tax rates on higher-income households, raising hundreds of billions of dollars that was used toward deficit-reduction.

Furthermore, after the dissolution of the Soviet-Union, the Clinton Administration axed the nation's defense budget.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Defense&year=1993_1999&sname=US&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=344.17_336.49_326.60_316.46_325.29_323.3 9_333.52&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a

Growth in social welfare spending was restrained via. welfare reform and triangulation with the Republican Congress.

Clinton didn't need to triangulate with the Republicans in curbing social spending, as we would have had fiscal surpluses even if social spending had continued growing in line with the historical norm.

Meanwhile, the budget deficits that were incurred under the Bush Administration can be attributed to large tax reductions for the super-rich (I.e. Hedge Fund Managers and Wall St. Bankers) and surging defense spending for the so-called War on Terror.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Defense&year=2001_2008&sname=US&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=366.63_422.18_484.17_544.08_601.27_622.2 2_653.67_730.67&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a

[RichardAWilson]

As you can see, federal spending was just as restrained during Clinton's first term, when we had a Democratic Congress, as it was during the second term. Those that would claim the Republicans deserve the applause for Clinton's surpluses are ignoring the factual evidence.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&year=1993_2001&sname=US&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=2420.95_2507.06_2634.87_2719.43_2813.59_ 2923.39_3053.51_3240.18_3434.00&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a

[Robert]

The numbers are taken from the Department of Treasury and have been verified. I saw the numbers. I asked who prepared the graph. I suspect it was Pelosi's office. Anyway, they appear to compare 8 years of Bush to 2 years of Obama.

Good comparison?

The CBS numbers I cited also came from Treasury. And they are from last month.

Yours are from May.








I hate manipulation of information in order to achieve one's own agenda.Listen to the man.

[MattShizzle]

The Tea party members are beyond idiotic but their leaders are not stupid. They know how to lie to manipulate racist right wing religious people to advance their bourgoise agenda. Not to go for a Poe but the Tea Party in the US now reminds me of the Nazi party in 1920s Germany. Take them seriously or they may be a disaster for the US (and the rest of the world.)

[RichardAWilson]

You're right, it was Nancy's Office.

[Robert]

Is the point of the thread to prove to the Tea Party that Republicans spend too much? They were saying that before you were.

"The Tea Party" movement was born out of a rebellion against one of President Bush's signature policies: TARP, the bailout for Wall Street investment banks. Tea Party activists have been extremely critical of the willingness of Republicans to turn to the federal government to solve some domestic problems.

and

http://articles.cnn.com/images/pixel.gif
The Tea Party movement has opened up a civil war within the Republican Party. Recently these tensions exploded when Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, said the Tea Party was not very "sophisticated."


http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-01/opinion/zelizer.tea.party.bush_1_tea-party-republicans-big-government-conservatism?_s=PM:OPINION


And the feeling is mutual:

[Bush is] clearly not taken by the Sarah Palin crowd. "Here's what I am most concerned about: isolationism, protectionism and nativism, the evil triplets that occasionally hold hands in America."


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100062929/george-bush-warns-america-against-the-tea-partys-isolationism/

[Bardo]

To Noam Chaomsky: I disagree with your conception that the Tea Party hates Wall Street and the rich.

That is all.

While I can't really speak for the Tea Party, there were some libertarian-capitalist and anarcho-capitalist groups present at the occupy wall street protest.

[Klaatu]

It isn't only massive government spending and tax cuts that contribute to national debt.

Part of this problem is the massive outsourcing of good-paying jobs. See, when a worker is laid off because of outsourcing, that worker stops paying income tax (except the short time he is on unemployment compensation, which is only about one-third of his working income, therefore he pays much less tax, if any at all)

This means less public revenue (the same thing as if Republicans had cut taxes for their wealthy overlord/owners)

Outsourcing must stop. Just heard that General Motors is going to build the "Volt" electric car in China. (and this is after the U.S. taxpayer bailed out that company with billions of dollars... how's that for gratitude?)

[RichardAWilson]

We've be bleeding millions of high-paying manufacturing and service jobs (I.e. Computer programming, database administration, accounting and health care) to Mexico, China, India and even Bangladesh.

Each time a job is outsourced, we're loosing a portion of our tax base and we're having to spend more money on social welfare (Jobless Benefits, Housing Subsidies and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance).

Manufacturing Jobs (In millions)

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/images/story/2010/11/1/1-1332-will-clean-energy-manufacturing-create-us-jobs.jpg

[Klaatu]

We've be bleeding millions of high-paying manufacturing and service jobs (I.e. Computer programming, database administration, accounting and health care) to Mexico, China, India and even Bangladesh.

Each time a job is outsourced, we're loosing a portion of our tax base and we're having to spend more money on social welfare (Jobless Benefits, Housing Subsidies and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance).

Manufacturing Jobs (In millions)

http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/50xx/doc5078/507801.gif

From the chart, I notice that manufacturing employment dropped like a brick during George W. Bush's years in office. (2001-2009)

And they're blaming unions for the decline of the country? That's like blaming a baby for peeing his diapers.

[Robert]

Taking a long and revolutionary view ...

why is it good for American comrades to have jobs if it comes at the expense of Chinese, Indian and Mexican comrades?

There is a whiff of nationalism about these last few posts. Not that I object.

Anticipating "because they don't pay the Chinese comrades enough," it seems to me that they won't be paying the Chinese comrades anything if
they repatriate the jobs to the USA.

[RichardAWilson]

:) Over 2.8 million of those jobs have disappeared to China.

However, let's not blame Bush too much on the trade issue. Clinton, after all, signed NAFTA and began the liberalization of trade with the Chinese. Our Democratic White House is now wanting to push free trade with South Korea, which would lead to the outsourcing of over a hundred thousand high-paying manufacturing jobs.

[RichardAWilson]

"Comrades" aside, it's because the Chinese, Koreans, Taiwanese and Japanese are using Mercantilism. They're undervaluing their currencies to undermine our economy and jobs. Those weak currencies have allowed them to displace our manufacturers and industrial workers.

We're not talking about free trade, we're talking about one sided trade.

[Klaatu]

Taking a long and revolutionary view ...

why is it good for American comrades to have jobs if it comes at the expense of Chinese, Indian and Mexican comrades?

There is a whiff of nationalism about these last few posts. Not that I object.

Anticipating "because they don't pay the Chinese comrades enough," it seems to me that they won't be paying the Chinese comrades anything if
they repatriate the jobs to the USA.

Hey I'm not against Chinese, Mexicans, etc having good-paying jobs. They certainly deserve them. But that misses the point.

Let me draw an analogy here:

Think of your own family. You have a little brother/sister. Instead of hiring YOU to babysit, your parents instead hire the teen down the street to babysit. Whatever the reason, shouldn't the parents look out for the welfare of their own family before bringing in outside help?

[Robert]

No offense, but you sound like Pat Buchanan.


Buchanan on the trade deficit and jobs (http://www.freetrade.org/new/buch3.html): "In 1996 the U.S. merchandise trade deficit hit an astounding $191 billion. Never before had an advanced industrial nation recorded such a deficit. If, as Presidents Bush and Clinton have contended, $1 billion in exports equals twenty thousand jobs, America loses between 3.5 million and 4 million manufacturing jobs annually."3
Buchanan on the North American Free Trade Agreement (http://www.freetrade.org/new/buch4.html): "Two years after NAFTA, the predictions of its opponents had all come true. The U.S. trade surplus with Mexico had vanished; a trade deficit of $15 billion had opened up. . . By 1997, 3,300 maquiladora factories were operating, employing 800,000 Mexican workers in jobs that not long ago would have gone to Americans."4
Buchanan on imports (http://www.freetrade.org/new/buch5.html): "Americans no longer make their own cameras, shoes, radios, TVs, toys. A fifth of our steel, a third of our autos, half our machine tools, and two-thirds of our textiles and clothes are made abroad."5
http://www.freetrade.org/new/buchanan.html

[Robert]

Whatever the reason, shouldn't the parents look out for the welfare of their own family before bringing in outside help? Yes, of course. But now you are overtly alleging kinship with American workers. They are members of your "family" through accident of birth. And if you live near a southern border state, you are geographically closer to Mexicans than you are to Yankees.

Yours isn't any flavor of communism I ever heard of. You'd better be careful or one of the cop moderators will take you for a nationalist and restrict you. I'm not kidding.

[RichardAWilson]

I see nothing wrong with using protectionism to preserve American jobs when they're being threatened by the Mercantile Policies of Southeastern Asia.

As I've said, there's a difference between free trade and one sided trade. In the long run, our trade imbalances are unsustainable and will lead to a serious balancing (I.e. we're experiencing the beginning of such balancing) that will harm us and them.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with trading with the Chinese and Mexicans when the trade is on a fair and equal footing. The problem is that there has been nothing fair, free, or equal about our trade with them.

The same holds true for Western-Europe. Even the Germans, with a world class manufacturing sector, are running trade imbalances with the Chinese. As a whole, the European Union is now running an overall trade deficit because of China's Mercantile Trade and Industrial Policies.

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis//Internet/EN/Graphics/Publications/STATmagazin/ForeignTrade/ChinaForeignTrade,property=image.gif

There are those that would have us to believe these trade deficits are resulting from China's competitive (I.e. low) wages.

The truth is that these global imbalances can be attributed to the Chinese Central Bank, which has been maintaining a weak currency and which has been purchasing American Bonds and Treasuries.

The Chinese have intervened to make our dollar too strong, which in turn has more our manufactured goods too expensive.

[Robert]

I see nothing wrong with using protectionism to preserve American jobs when they're being threatened by the Mercantile Policies of Southeastern Asia.

Quite. Neither does Pat. Nor I.

We're not communists.

Are you?

[RichardAWilson]

I'm a Left-wing Social-Democrat (Democratic Socialist).

Patrick Buchanan, as I've said, is a Social and Cultural Nazi (I.e. Homophobia, Sexism, Racism and Xenophobia).

[Robert]

Patrick Buchanan, as I've said, is a Social and Cultural Nazi (I.e. Homophobia, Sexism, Racism and Xenophobia).

As you've claimed.

And you agree with him on trade.

No big.

[Seth]

Pat Buchanan is not a "nazi"

[RichardAWilson]

A certain moderator needs to read a few books so he can learn the meaning of what I've written. Nowhere did I support an "America first trade policy." I am attacking Mercantilism.

I wouldn't expect you to know what Mercantilism is though, so it comes as no surprise that I'm banned for stating a progressive position.

[RGacky3]

Chomsky: We Shouldn't Ridicule Tea Party Protesters


I disagree with Chomsky, their ideas should be ridiculed, A LOT, and they should be ridiculed for buying into them.

[Obs]

A certain moderator needs to read a few books so he can learn the meaning of what I've written. Nowhere did I support an "America first trade policy." I am attacking Mercantilism.

I wouldn't expect you to know what Mercantilism is though, so it comes as no surprise that I'm banned for stating a progressive position.
Okay, first of all: you're not banned, you're restricted to the Opposing Ideologies forum. We still want to hear you out and discuss with you, we've just got enough disagreements on the rest of the forum to open up completely to everyone.

Second of all, this is a forum for revolutionary socialists. You may perceive your position as being progressive all you want, but if you're not looking for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism itself, you're gonna get restricted. It's not an "anti-freedom-of-speech" thing either, it's for purely practical purposes. Chill out.

Also we're perfectly aware of what mercantilism is.

[Dumb]

Okay, first of all: you're not banned, you're restricted to the Opposing Ideologies forum. We still want to hear you out and discuss with you, we've just got enough disagreements on the rest of the forum to open up completely to everyone.

Second of all, this is a forum for revolutionary socialists. You may perceive your position as being progressive all you want, but if you're not looking for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism itself, you're gonna get restricted. It's not an "anti-freedom-of-speech" thing either, it's for purely practical purposes. Chill out.

Also we're perfectly aware of what mercantilism is.

Wilson has called himself a social democrat before, but I don't see what's reactionary about countering the monetary policy of the PRC. It's not revolutionary to oppose that policy, sure, but in what way does opposing PRC monetary policy mitigate revolutionary politics? How is it anti-revolutionary? I could buy the argument that it's like supporting universal health care within a capitalist system - you want to support the best policies you can get now, while ultimately pushing for a complete overthrow of the current system.

Don't get me wrong; Wilson firmly belongs in OI, for better or worse. That being said, I don't understand the specific argument being made and am curious to understand.

[RGacky3]

Revolutionaryism and reformism are not mutually exclusive, I would prefer having public health insurance rather than having none, but I would also not be satisfied with that.

[Revolution starts with U]

Okay, first of all: you're not banned, you're restricted to the Opposing Ideologies forum. We still want to hear you out and discuss with you, we've just got enough disagreements on the rest of the forum to open up completely to everyone.

Second of all, this is a forum for revolutionary socialists. You may perceive your position as being progressive all you want, but if you're not looking for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism itself, you're gonna get restricted. It's not an "anti-freedom-of-speech" thing either, it's for purely practical purposes. Chill out.

Also we're perfectly aware of what mercantilism is.

That's the problem tho. Nowhere did he refuse the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. What he did do was make a statement on how free trade is helping neither chinese workers nor american. The proletariat gets fucked on both sides.

This is a textbook example of cliquism (Vanguardism) at its finest.

[RichardAWilson]

I've never opposed a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. If it came down to such, I damn sure wouldn't be on the side of those that sit at a trading desk making millions from the hard work of others. (I.e. Wall St.)

With that said, I'd rather see socialism achieved from within the system. None other than Karl Marx happened to believe the transition could be made in the advanced industrial economies. In Europe, I think it could work.

Here in America, I fear we'd become a Nazi-State before our political institutions changed to conform with too much progressive change. A large degree of change and progress is still possible though, even within the confines of our American System. (I.e. Union Check Cards, Universal Healthcare, Universal College Education, Living Wage, Maximum Working Week, Minimum Paid Leave, Progressive Taxation, Fair Trade and Guaranteed Jobs)

If I'm going to be restricted, the least you people could do is change the "Reactionary" label, which brands me alongside of Tea Party Nazis and Free-Market Libertarians that defend Liberia and Singapore.

[RGacky3]

I don't think you can achieve socialism within hte system, any changes within the system never come from within the system, the only way change ever happens is from outside the system.

If you ask a guy for a piece of a pie, a guy who wants the whole thing, he'll tell you no, if you come with a baseball bat and demand the whole thing, he'll give you at least a couple pieces.

Insider style change gives you Obama, getting out the vote gives you Obama, what happened with FDR only happened because there was a damn near revolution in the US.

[RichardAWilson]

Look at Norway though, even you've admitted the progress that was made from within the system. The Labor Party isn't even a socialist party and those changes were still made.

Politicians, in most cases, are, to a degree, form a separate class with their own interests. During normal times, those interests are correlated and connected with the interests of the nation's bourgeoisie.

During more unusual times, those interests can diverge - (thus creating opportunities for meaningful and lasting change.) Politicians, after all, need an electorate as much as they need campaign contributions. A radicalized electorate will force politicians into implementing radical change.

[RGacky3]

Back when the socialist policies were put through the labor party WAS a socialist party, not a social-democrat party, and it was very much pressured by the communist party that was popular at the time and strong strong unions.

Also remember it was RIGHT after WW2, so no strong ruling class to fight against.

[RichardAWilson]

=/

[Bud Struggle]

Back when the socialist policies were put through the labor party WAS a socialist party, not a social-democrat party, and it was very much pressured by the communist party that was popular at the time and strong strong unions.

Also remember it was RIGHT after WW2, so no strong ruling class to fight against.

Nonsense. The British and MAerican union were staunchly Capitalisic. They worked within the Capitalist system. Buy union=buy American.

The CNT (of which I am a proud member) was something different alltogether.

There is no connection between American/British unions and things like the CNT.

[Robert]

I've never opposed a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. If it came down to such, I damn sure wouldn't be on the side ofNever opposed it? Now you're making things worse.

You need to stop posting altogether until you read the FAQ section, and then proceed directly to the "unfair restrictions" thread or whatever its called. That's your only avenue of appeal. Otherwise you'll never get out of here.

Not that that's a bad thing.:cool:

[Klaatu]

Yes, of course. But now you are overtly alleging kinship with American workers. They are members of your "family" through accident of birth. And if you live near a southern border state, you are geographically closer to Mexicans than you are to Yankees.

It's an analogy, silly.



Yours isn't any flavor of communism I ever heard of. You'd better be careful or one of the cop moderators will take you for a nationalist and restrict you. I'm not kidding.

I doubt that! If you are a regular reader of my postings, you will find that I align myself in very tightly with the Socialists here. (I subtly and respectfully disagree with the Communists on a few issues, but they have a right to their own opinions)

Anyway, I explicitly stated that all of the world's workers deserve equal pay for equal work. This is a basic tenet of both Socialism and unions. What I am saying in my post is that one worker's pay should not be compromised for the benefit of another. That would be capitalism!

Think about it

My solution is for the workers of the world to unite, not rob-peter-to-pay-paul, the way it is being done by the world's uber-powerful capitalists! (their goal is to suppress everyone's wages!)

[Robert]

Yours isn't any flavor of communism I ever heard of. You'd better be careful or one of the cop moderators will take you for a nationalist and restrict you. I'm not kidding.

mistakenly followed by ...


I doubt that! If you are a regular reader of my postings, you will find that I align myself in very tightly with the Socialists here.My comment was directed at Richard, not you. It just looked otherwise because of the way the posts appeared. And I was dead right. Poor Richard was restricted not two hours after I predicted it.



I subtly and respectfully disagree with the Communists on a few issues, but they have a right to their own opinions They have a what? A right? What is a "right"? Revolutionary socialists do not believe in "rights"; they are bourgeois manifestations of idealism.

See here:

No, because "right" is an idealistic concept that is completely removed from the real world.

And here:

Strange, since communism is founded on the upholding of every person's right to satisfaction of biological needs. No it isn't, this 'foundation' is entirely idealistic and worthless. Communism is founded upon the material reality of the working class. This material reality is one of exploitation and oppression, and it is in our interest as a class to change this reality.

And here:

Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/freedom-speech-right-t151596/index.html?t=151596



Anyway, I explicitly stated that all of the world's workers deserve equal pay for equal work. This is a basic tenet of both Socialism and unions. What I am saying in my post is that one worker's pay should not be compromised for the benefit of another. That would be capitalism!

Think about it"Deserve?" Equal pay? Unions? You're on a slippery slope to restriction my friend. Richard didn't think they'd come for him either.

[Klaatu]

mistakenly followed by ...My comment was directed at Richard, not you. It just looked otherwise because of the way the posts appeared. And I was dead right. Poor Richard was restricted not two hours after I predicted it.

If you can predict things, why not go on TV and make some money with your skills? :D



They have a what? A right? What is a "right"? Revolutionary socialists do not believe in "rights"; they are bourgeois manifestations of idealism.

See here:

No, because "right" is an idealistic concept that is completely removed from the real world.

And here:

Strange, since communism is founded on the upholding of every person's right to satisfaction of biological needs. No it isn't, this 'foundation' is entirely idealistic and worthless. Communism is founded upon the material reality of the working class. This material reality is one of exploitation and oppression, and it is in our interest as a class to change this reality.

And here:

Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/freedom-speech-right-t151596/index.html?t=151596

That is bullshit! Communism/Socialism represent freedom. Freedom of the working class! It is capitalism that is all about opression and dictatorship! The USA is on it's way there right now, as we speak (do you watch the news every day?)

The link you have provided is one man's opinion.



"Deserve?" Equal pay? Unions? You're on a slippery slope to restriction my friend. Richard didn't think they'd come for him either.

Restriction for WHAT? :confused: Standing up for (A) the workers of the world, and (B) supporting Socialism (a vastly-superior economic system?)

Oh... I get it now... you're just messing with me (silly me!)

[Robert]

If you can predict things, why not go on TV and make some money with your skills? I can't predict everything. I'm not even predicting your restriction. Yet. It's just that I know commies and I don't think you are one of them. Maybe I'm wrong.


The link you have provided is one man's opinionIncorrect. It includes several, and is representative of materialist thought. Go to the philosophy forum and start a thread called "What are 'rights'?"

Here's some more:

freedom of speech is an ideological cornerstone of liberalism, like the right to property and profit. i'm against it for that reason ...

i'm a marxist. i don't believe in enshrining ideas or principles over human beings ...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-speech-discussion-t156582/index2.html?highlight=natural+rights

You agree with all that, do you?



Restriction for WHAT? :confused: Standing up for (A) the workers of the world, and (B) supporting Socialism (a vastly-superior economic system?)I'm telling you again, that's not enough. You are still talking JUST LIKE RICHARD. Look up above at this very representative post: Second of all, this is a forum for revolutionary socialists. You may perceive your position as being progressive all you want, but if you're not looking for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism itself, you're gonna get restricted.
Oh... I get it now... you're just messing with me (silly me!) No, I'm not messing with you. You think I was messing with Richard?

You talk like a progressive and an idealist. I like that. But that's bad.

Now tell me what you think of this again: i'm a marxist. i don't believe in enshrining ideas or principles over human beings ...

[RichardAWilson]

By the definition of Revolutionary Socialism around here, it would seem that a number of leading historical Marxist thinkers and contributors would have been silenced.

I don't care though, most of the interesting debate happens in this forum and anything that's being discussed in another forum can be discussed in this one. I just didn't appreciate being labeled a "Reactionary" without there even being an elaboration on the reason I was restricted.

[AmericanCommie421]

Yeah, for the Tea Partiers who believe that Obama has added more to the defecit than previous presidents, and those that believe Conservative Presidents run up less debt, that's good. But, like all belief groups, the more dogmatic members would never be convinced. Even though that might convince some of the more open mided Tea Partiers and Conservatives.

[Robert]

By the definition of Revolutionary Socialism around here, it would seem that a number of leading historical Marxist thinkers and contributors would have been silenced.


I always knew you were smart.:thumbup1:


Yo, Klaatu, here's another one for you:

More importantly, there should be no arbitrary rights of any kind, because any potential situations cannot be judged beforehand. Things might be guaranteed to large extent and generally, but to off-hand declare them to be sacrosanct and holy is not any more materialist than the exact opposite.

You feelin' it yet?

[RGacky3]

Nonsense. The British and MAerican union were staunchly Capitalisic. They worked within the Capitalist system. Buy union=buy American.


So how are the American Unions doing now? How about the British Unions?

The CNT gets shit done, as does the French Unions, in its hayday, the IWW got things done, the Scandanavian Unions also got things done, now they are on almost equal footing to the capitalist class.

The Amercan Unions, when they played nice ... well ... look.

[MattShizzle]

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/307773_1996768119154_1242001905_1695477_1528572251 _n.jpg

[Klaatu]

Robert: are your quotes from Marx/Engels? Or are they from some poster on this board?

Because if it is the latter, they do not understand that their own freedom of speech itself might be in jeopardy (by the state) if they do not believe in individual rights. And that alone would be pretty ass-backwards thinking, wouldn't it? Like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

I am in favor of the complete overthrow of capitalism. The US system is like an old, rotting, termite-infested house. It needs to be torn down, because it cannot be repaired.

[Robert]

Robert: are your quotes from Marx/Engels? Or are they from some poster on this board?
Well, they're from "some posters" on this board. Lots of different ones. But materialism informs their worldview. And there's no room in there for your notion of "rights."

There is also this, which I think I cited above, and which is ascribed to Lenin: "Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas or ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for the uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters." Vladimir Ilylich Lenin

I'm too disgusted by all that to inquire whether it originated with Marx or Engels. You can dig it up if you want to. But it was cited approvingly in this thread which you might want to read if you think you are a revolutionary leftist. Note the number of moderators who chime in and applaud:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-free-speech-t140598/index2.html



Because if it is the latter, they do not understand that their own freedom of speech itself might be in jeopardy (by the state) if they do not believe in individual rights. Now you're gettin' it. :thumbup1:

But "they" are in charge of Revleft. Not Marx. Not Engels. I think they are mostly Leninists (since they like that quote so much), and they claim to be Marxists too, but I don't know whether Leninism is consonant with Marxism. Do you?


I am in favor of the complete overthrow of capitalism. Complete, eh? Okay. But via gradual reform or via revolution? Be damned sure you know what you're saying before you answer that. You're under surveillance.

Take it easy.

[Klaatu]

Now you're gettin' it. :thumbup1:

(now?) I always have "gotten it."



Complete, eh? Okay. But via gradual reform or via revolution? Be damned sure you know what you're saying before you answer that. You're under surveillance.

Take it easy.

"under surveillance" by whom? the FBI? CIA? Koch Brothers? FUCK THOSE FUCKING CAPITALIST BASTARDS where the sun don't shine :lol:

BTW I don't believe in violence; I am a peacenik to the core. ;)

[Robert]

Are you kidding? I was referring to the revleft moderators, not the CIA.

I honestly don't think you understand what this forum really is. Not Opposing
Ideologies, I mean ... oh, f____ it, I can't explain it any better than I already have.

Go read that thread on free speech I just linked to and then read the FAQ section.

Good luck.