Liberalism in 21st Century America

[Bud Struggle]

A modern Justine could, in New York City, wake up in the morning with a room she shares with her unemployed husband and two children, crowd into a subway in which she is hardly able to breath, disembark at Grand central station and take a crosstown bus which takes twenty minutes to go ten blocks to her textile loft, work a full day and receive her paycheck from which a sizable deduction is withdrawn in taxes and union fees, return via the same ordeal, prepare supper for her family and tune up the radio to full blast to shield the children from the gamy denunciations her next-door neighbor is hurling at her husband, walk a few blocks past hideous buildings to the neighborhood park to breath a little fresh air, and fall into a coughing fit as the sulphur dioxide excites her latent asthma, go home, and on the way, loose her handbag to a purse snatcher, sit down to oversee her son's homework only to trip over the fact that her really doesn't know the alphabet even though he had his fourteenth birthday yesterday, which he spent in the company of a well known pusher. She hauls off and smacks him, but he dodges and smacks her head against the table. The ambulance is slow in coming and at the hospital there is no doctor in attendance. An intern finally materializes and sticks her with a shot of morphine and she dozes off to sleep. And she dreams of Barak Obama.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm not sure I appreciate your point. Is this supposed to be a denunciation of socialistic values?

Her taxes and union fees pale into insignificance compared to her grocery shop, landlord's rent and utility bills. All thanks to the 'wonderful' free market.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not sure I appreciate your point. Is this supposed to be a denunciation of socialistic values?


No. I'm not denouncing socialistic values in the least. Please, change the taxes and the union fees to groceries and rent--you are right, they make more sense.

[Dr Mindbender]

No. I'm not denouncing socialistic values in the least. Please, change the taxes and the union fees to groceries and rent--you are right, they make more sense.

Lumping union fees and barack obama together in the same paragraph made it sound like some pseudo-conservative rant about the 'evils' of liberal society.

That would have sounded more politically consistent, so now I am lost. Please, what is your point?

[spartan]

So are you saying that nationalised health care for all citizens is good or something, what with the remark about the hospital and Barack Obama at the end and all?

[Jazzratt]

I'm still not entirely sure I follow you? This woman has a shit life because of liberalism?

[Xiao Banfa]

Jesus Christ that's not what he's saying. He's saying the horribly oppressed woman takes comfort in the prospect of Barack Obama.

[Bud Struggle]

Jesus Christ that's not what he's saying. He's saying the horribly oppressed woman takes comfort in the prospect of Barack Obama.

That's it.

I don't know what you folks think of him but he's the perfect product branding change for America. Nothing about America (substantive) will change about America if he gets in, but he will be universally loved in America and around the world--America suddenly wil become a wonderful country again in people's eyes, but Exxon will still be Exxon and GE will still be GE and America will still have soldiers around the world.

But America will reinvent itself again. It's like Kentucky Fried Chicken a few years ago was selling chicken to mostly Black people and their logo was Col. Sanders--an earstwhile "slave owner." They changed their name to KFC (which stands for nothing) and did some smarmy outline of Col. Sanders that will go away in a few years and now we have "nice" product branding. Now Blacks can buy their chicken in peace.

I'm not making a statement pro or con Obama--or pro or con Socialism, I'm just pointing ourt what's going on. I find the way Capitalism and America reinvents itself really interesting.

[MT5678]

Why? What's so interesting about a corporate-funded fake liberal?

[Bud Struggle]

Why? What's so interesting about a corporate-funded fake liberal?

Because he will be the most powerful man in the world. I guess that's a start. :rolleyes:

[Bright Banana Beard]

The media portrays Obama as popular powerful charismatic guy. Don't fall for the America media since they rarely show it outside the country border, but fall for international and you will be surprised that American politics is rarely mention.

[Zurdito]

So: Obama gets in. After 4 years in charge, there is another Katrina. He handles it as badly as Bush. Just as many people die. And you're saying no-one will protest, just because he's Obama?

Don't make me laugh TomK.

[Bud Struggle]

So: Obama gets in. After 4 years in charge, there is another Katrina. He handles it as badly as Bush. Just as many people die. And you're saying no-one will protest, just because he's Obama?

Don't make me laugh TomK.

Peope will protest. They always do. So what?

[вор в законе]

It is called Mediocracy.

[Bud Struggle]

It is called Mediocracy.

But that doesn't make the world a better place for all people.

[вор в законе]

No shit.

[Dr Mindbender]

Because he will be the most powerful man in the world. I guess that's a start. :rolleyes:
I dont believe that the US president is the world's most powerful person anyway. They barely even register on the league table.

He's never as powerful as the big business people who bankroll the party. They're not stupid, they know what side their bread is buttered on so they will never rock the boat by that much.

[Dr Mindbender]

So: Obama gets in. After 4 years in charge, there is another Katrina. He handles it as badly as Bush. Just as many people die. And you're saying no-one will protest, just because he's Obama?


What will most likely happen is that the american voters will forget how badly the republicans treated them last time and vote them back in after 5 years after their half assed promises about low taxes and ''zero tolerance on terror''.

This is why we have 3 big parties in the UK, we don't seem to be so gullible.

[Bud Struggle]

I dont believe that the US president is the world's most powerful person anyway. They barely even register on the league table.

He's never as powerful as the big business people who bankroll the party. They're not stupid, they know what side their bread is buttered on so they will never rock the boat by that much.

Well, that's the point of my thread. :hammersickle:

[apathy maybe]

You know, I keep making the point that no matter who gets in, they never fundamentally change anything. But the thing is, they change enough so that people notice, and think that they must be changing more. (Now switching to an Australian bias, please discontinue use if this is disorientating for you.) Tax-cuts, an extra $500 a year, yay! Free dental work from the Federal Government, just like it used to be under Labour!
So yes, things change, but what is that saying? The more things change the more they stay the same. We still have capitalism.

Anyway, back to the USA. You know the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? The Republicans say "we are going to bomb you", and they do (observe, Iraq et al.). The Democrats say, "we are not going to bomb you", and yet they do (Iraq, Kosovo et al.). What is the difference? One has a better 'image' for saying that they aren't going to bomb you, and for some reason people believe!
Why does Bill Clinton have a better image then George Bush? Because he said he wouldn't bomb you, even though he did.

Domestically the same thing happens. The two parties are both equally in the pocket of big business (the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act passed when Bill was prez, and if I'm not mistaken, when the Dems had the majority in at least one house). Anyway, there are plenty more comparisons to be made, but I'll let others do that.

[RedStarOverChina]

I find the way Capitalism and America reinvents itself really interesting.
You mean the same way Feudalism "reinvents" itself by hereditary succession of its kings and emperors?

Enthroning new emperors/kings did not change the oppressive nature of Feudalism one bit, and thus when their time is up, their time is up.

[Xiao Banfa]

Fuck he's not complimenting it. He's realising what an anti-democratic sham the US is. Let's fuck it up shall we?

[RedStarOverChina]

Sorry. I tend to avoid reading capitalists' posts in detail, with a few exceptions. Usually aren't much substance there.

[Xiao Banfa]

Don't worry it's a common failure on the left. We want to rip their heads off before they've opened their mouths. I've been there.

But their humans who mostly can be brought around.

[Bud Struggle]

Fuck he's not complimenting it. He's realising what an anti-democratic sham the US is. Let's fuck it up shall we?

I don't think I'm turning into a Commie or anything, but I REALLY try to look at the world as it is rather than as I would like to see it. There is a lot of good in Capitalism, and a lot bad. Same goes for Communism. The thing is, as HUMANS, not as Communists or (in my case, Christian) Capitalists we need to make this world a better place for EVERYONE. There is no need for starvation and death and curable illnesses in a rich and bountiful world. We all may differ on the method--but I think our ends are the same.

Personally, I'm all for the solution that works the best--to hell with the politics.

[RGacky3]

I don't think I'm turning into a Commie or anything, but I REALLY try to look at the world as it is rather than as I would like to see it. There is a lot of good in Capitalism, and a lot bad. Same goes for Communism. The thing is, as HUMANS, not as Communists or (in my case, Christian) Capitalists we need to make this world a better place for EVERYONE. There is no need for starvation and death and curable illnesses in a rich and bountiful world. We all may differ on the method--but I think our ends are the same.

Personally, I'm all for the solution that works the best--to hell with the politics.

If your really into making a better world for everyone, you would be against private property, how in any way could a system where a few people carve up the world and its Capital for profit, and control it while others have no right to any of it, and must sell themselves to live possiblly make anything close to a better place for everyone.

The only way the world can be a better place for everyone, is if everyone has an equal right to the world and to its capital.

[Dean]

I don't think I'm turning into a Commie or anything, but I REALLY try to look at the world as it is rather than as I would like to see it. There is a lot of good in Capitalism, and a lot bad. Same goes for Communism. The thing is, as HUMANS, not as Communists or (in my case, Christian) Capitalists we need to make this world a better place for EVERYONE. There is no need for starvation and death and curable illnesses in a rich and bountiful world. We all may differ on the method--but I think our ends are the same.

Personally, I'm all for the solution that works the best--to hell with the politics.

Don't you think that, as a Christian, you should suport the redistribution of wealth, an end to tyranny and private property in general? These are all things that were central to Jesus' teachings, and as a Christian it is supposed to be your duty to act as followers of Jesus.

[Bud Struggle]

Don't you think that, as a Christian, you should suport the redistribution of wealth, an end to tyranny and private property in general? These are all things that were central to Jesus' teachings, and as a Christian it is supposed to be your duty to act as followers of Jesus.

I think you are pushing was Jesus said. He said nothing about property. He said "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Much different. So I have to ask--personally--what would I, TomK, want as an act of love if I was poor (which I was at one time)? A hand out? Equal ownership? And the answer is--for me--a fair playing field to succeed, which I (a son of Polish immigrants to the USA) got and a kick in the butt.

It worked wonderfully well for me. I wish the same for everyone else. America, while it isn't fair to everyone, is mostl fair if you want to work a bit.

[Dr Mindbender]

It worked wonderfully well for me. I wish the same for everyone else. America, while it isn't fair to everyone, is mostl fair if you want to work a bit.

that last point is dichotomy because by in large, those with the most don't have to work for it. They are born into it. So its a particulary vile double standard really.

[Bud Struggle]

that last point is dichotomy because by in large, those with the most don't have to work for it. They are born into it. So its a particulary vile double standard really.

Here's where we disagree. I could care less about how anyone else got their money. I just don't care if daddy gave it to you or you earned it or won it in the lottery or found it in an old shoe.

I just care that I and other can earn as much as they want if they want to work for it. As long as it can be done and people are doing it--I can't be anything other than happy.

[Dr Mindbender]

Here's where we disagree. I could care less about how anyone else got their money. I just don't care if daddy gave it to you or you earned it or won it in the lottery or found it in an old shoe.

I just care that I and other can earn as much as they want if they want to work for it. As long as it can be done and people are doing it--I can't be anything other than happy.
thats your prerogitive.
Personally, I'm outraged at the thought of having to bust my ass in menial work all day while a beourgiose society full of workshy jack osbourne and paris hilton clones live off of my production value, chew truffles and stroke lapdogs all day, never knowing the meaning of the word work.

Capitalists seem to think they have some sort of monopoly of sense of self preservation. I'm a pretty selfish person in my own right- thats why I hate capitalism! I want my own damn work value!
:mad:

[Xiao Banfa]

And the answer is--for me--a fair playing field to succeed, which I (a son of Polish immigrants to the USA) got and a kick in the butt.

Congratulations for succeeding, but without socialist and communist parties, trade unions and the mass action of the working class most immigrants as well as most people in general would have been treated as sub-human beasts of burden.

It is an indisputable proven fact of history that capitalists will treat their workers as badly as they can get away with.

It is not possible to make serious steps towards a fairer world without breaking the stranglehold a small group of capitalists have on the means of production.

Forget the complete abolition of private property down to the shoe shine boys, most serious socialists don't propose that as the immediate pre-requisite for the establishment of socialism.

It's about class, TomK. That's why the capitalist always tries to break working class power. It's a power struggle.

[RedStarOverChina]

The thing is, as HUMANS, not as Communists or (in my case, Christian) Capitalists we need to make this world a better place for EVERYONE.
A capitalist cannot make this world a better place more than a slave owner could.

There are otherwise "nice" capitalists that hug old ladies and help them cross the road, and similarly there are "nice" slave owners who treat their slaves in more dignified ways.

But as capitalists and slave owners, they have institutional roles--That of rulers, and exploiters of the "infirm".

Human beings have institutional roles they must fulfill, and "the job has to be done" regardless of the person's moral values.

Many of the Japanese troops who carried out massacres in China turned out to be loving husbands and devoted fathers. But as soldiers of the "Japanese Imperial Army", their job is to terrify their enemies with unimaginable acts of cruelty.

Similarly, no matter how nice a capitalist or a slave owner appears to be, it is part of their job to keep the laborers obedient, subdued and exploited as much as possible---And that's something they always do, or else they wouldn't be capitalists.


Human beings are social animals, and we generally all behave systematically as "gears" of the capitalist Machine. There's no way one day a large number a capitalists would suddenly turn into philanthropists and halt their exploitation of oppressed classes and peoples.

[RNK]

he's the perfect product branding change for America

Hi, will you still be here in 4-8 years? Because I'd love to say "we told you so".

Statements like yours are all the more reason revolutionary change is necessary -- you just don't realize you're proving our "point". For the past 50 years, every politician has campaigned around "change", and if I remember correctly, every politician in this campaign, even Republicans, are doing the same.

The fact that you people (neoliberals) are crying for change, time and time again, says a lot. And in 2012 or 2016, you'll probably be doing the same thing, without even realizing the tragic irony.

But anyway, it's nice to see you atleast recognize that change is needed, even if you don't quite understand why or, perhaps more importantly, how (but, to be honest, even the most die-hard materialists don't really know "how"; our impetus is the knowledge that things must change for the better).

[Joby]

Why? What's so interesting about a corporate-funded fake liberal?

In the last period of at least moderate social upheaval in the West, the mid to late 1960's, many 'radicals' looked back on JFK and saw nothing but a glorious sellout.

But next to none of them could claim that it wasn't JFK who turned them on.

[Joby]

A capitalist cannot make this world a better place more than a slave owner could.

There are otherwise "nice" capitalists that hug old ladies and help them cross the road, and similarly there are "nice" slave owners who treat their slaves in more dignified ways.

Ummm....Yeah.

Except these slaves all have the option of telling that "slave-owner" to shove it, and go work somewehere else, increase their education in order to benefit themslves and their families (anotheer reason to vote Obama), or become "slave-owning Capitalists" themselves.

But as capitalists and slave owners, they have institutional roles--That of rulers, and exploiters of the "infirm".

Human beings have institutional roles they must fulfill, and "the job has to be done" regardless of the person's moral values. [/QUOTE]

Most people like being led. Seriously.



Many of the Japanese troops who carried out massacres in China turned out to be loving husbands and devoted fathers. But as soldiers of the "Japanese Imperial Army", their job is to terrify their enemies with unimaginable acts of cruelty.


That horrible. It's incredible the amount of horrors people can do in wartime. There's no right or wrong anymore...just killing.

And raping, something occupiers share.

Of course, the Red's did their fair share in Easetern Europe and the conquered portions of Germany...



Similarly, no matter how nice a capitalist or a slave owner appears to be, it is part of their job to keep the laborers obedient, subdued and exploited as much as possible---And that's something they always do, or else they wouldn't be capitalists.


Tom will be the first to tell you, "A good worker is a happy worker."


Human beings are social animals, and we generally all behave systematically as "gears" of the capitalist Machine. There's no way one day a large number a capitalists would suddenly turn into philanthropists and halt their exploitation of oppressed classes and peoples.

The Capitalist machine, unlike the Socialist, and especially Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist strains, allow's for the most social and political freedoms in the world. Were Capitalism has been the strongest tp develop, people are free to pursue any lifestyle they so choose.

Labor-unions, socialist parties, et al, serve as a great tool. Once a group of workers become organized, they can really begin to make more and increase the speed of industrialization. Once a middle class develops, the fruits of the struggle will pay off with increased social mobility and a truly meaningful political process.

It's the overly-hasty revolution's which result in slavery, whether you believe that to be inherent in the socialist systems, or when the Baskin-Robin's and Micky D's show up 60 years later.

Oh, and would you like the list of the world's biggest philanthropists?

[Xiao Banfa]

The Capitalist machine, unlike the Socialist, and especially Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist strains, allow's for the most social and political freedoms in the world. Were Capitalism has been the strongest tp develop, people are free to pursue any lifestyle they so choose.

Labor-unions, socialist parties, et al, serve as a great tool. Once a group of workers become organized, they can really begin to make more and increase the speed of industrialization. Once a middle class develops, the fruits of the struggle will pay off with increased social mobility and a truly meaningful political process.


Christ almighty you are full of shit. Where capitalism has been the strongest to develop; labour unions, socialist parties have been mercilessly repressed and neutered.

The only selling point capitalism now has, and it's a seductive one, is "anyone can make it".

Why you can come to this country as a nobody, give it time, effort and a bit of luck and, why, you can make it as a multi-millionaire.

Every man a potential king! How equal!

None of this old world crap. This is the market baby! Play the game!

It's a myth designed to dupe people.

What happens? What has always happened. Most people are de facto indentured into long hours and insecurity.

It may not look like slavery. But I'll bet you mate that if the capitalists needed full blown slavery to get what they feel they deserve by their intelligence and 'hard work' we'd be working to the sound of whips cracking. If they could get away with it.

Security and socialistic policies get adopted by capitalist states when workers get bolshie and need to be bought off.

When there are big fuck-off states like the Soviet Union giving money and guns to the Sandinistas and the ANC as the fuel of capitalist-enforced poverty feeds the fire of revolutions capitalism starts acting a bit more progressive.

But when they've snuffed out progressive (or relatively progressive) movements in favour of whoever the fuck will keep things safe for capitalism then Keynes gets thrown out and Friedman, Hayek and Mises come sniveling forth with advice for the boys.

Yeah you have the freedom to get rich under capitalism allright but in practice most don't and you can forget all the other freedoms if they get in the way.


Oh, and would you like the list of the world's biggest philanthropists?

We'd all give our ego a wank every now and again if we had all that money.

[RNK]

allow's for the most social and political freedoms in the world

L-O-FUCKING-L.

Social freedoms? Marriage for men and women only; no abortion; persecution of protesters and repression of public demonstrations; increasing police brutality; 1 in 99 Americans in jail -- hah!

Political freedoms? Bourgeois democracy is little more than multi-face dictatorship. All we've got is a choice between two or three rich fucks, all of whom have irrefutable ties to big-money capitalists and corporate interests -- and this, to you, is political freedom? I call it a conflict of interest. If your boss was ever in a position where he could dictate by law your wages, your benefits, your job security and your overall quality of life, would you really trust him?

If so, you're a dumbass. Or a boss yourself, in which case it's in your best interests to support other bosses and the laws they enact that benefit bosses like them. Fuck trying to "appeal to emotional outcries". This is how it is.

[Joby]

Christ almighty you are full of shit. Where capitalism has been the strongest to develop; labour unions, socialist parties have been mercilessly repressed and neutered.

The places were Capitalism is strongest no longer need labor unions or socialist parties in the 19th Century sense of those institutions.

Yes, physical labor is still required to keep the system working, but most of the populations in these nations are doing things found uniquely in Countries were the economy might be labeled as "post-industrial." Like working in high-tech, bilogical, egineering, medical or other scientific pursuits. Or working in the service industry, ie the sell luxuries to the overwhelming amount of the population who indulge in anything from fast-food to mud-baths.

Sure, the remaining labor-intensive industries union's generally suck. But as transport, for instance, advances, it's making more and more sense to invest in institutions of higher learning while sending the industrial jobs to underdeveloped nations.

This makes goods cheaper for the populations of the developed nations, while spreading Capital to people's of the world who don't have any. Once it arrives, the workers of these places can Unionize, fight for an eight hour day, higher wages, et al, and advane along the same path.

One day, if these nations economies are allowed to develop freely (as I've states before, I'm as much against US imperialism as anyone), they'll reach the post-industrial plateau that we have.


The only selling point capitalism now has, and it's a seductive one, is "anyone can make it".

Yeah. Though the end material results may not be same, in a Capitalist economy anyone should be able to reach a comfortable living standard.

Those who spend 6 years in college then work their ass off for a law firm for years will not have the same measure of success as someone working at a Petstore with their only goal being to eat their body weight in acid.

The government shouldn't get involved in making these people "equal," though I agree it's a priority to make some level of healthcare, housing, foodstuffs, and education available to every member of the population.



Why you can come to this country as a nobody, give it time, effort and a bit of luck and, why, you can make it as a multi-millionaire.

Every man a potential king! How equal!


That's never been promised.

You can, however, come here and forget about that tribe you belonged to (I have had Persian, Jewish, Russian, Black, Mexican and German neighbors. Nobody cared). You can practice whatever religion you want. You can hold any political ideology you want.


None of this old world crap.

Thank God.


It's a myth designed to dupe people.

And after so many years, they still don't see it that way.


What happens? What has always happened. Most people are de facto indentured into long hours and insecurity.

And that hasn't happened in every socialist system?

Anyway, the life they get is the one they made for themselves. Yes, the path has been closed for certain groups with a "Glass ceiling," though most of these are being raised, if not disappearing entirely.

And I'm all for increasing opportunities in higher learning, increasing their, and indirectly my, standard of living. One reason I'm considering to vote for Obama today.



It may not look like slavery. But I'll bet you mate that if the capitalists needed full blown slavery to get what they feel they deserve by their intelligence and 'hard work' we'd be working to the sound of whips cracking. If they could get away with it.


If that were the case, the Capitalist system as we know it would most certainly collapse.



Security and socialistic policies get adopted by capitalist states when workers get bolshie and need to be bought off.


In other words, when people get organized and vote, they amend the system to one which is more satisfactory to the majority.

The Nazi's, for instance, weren't packing beerhalls when the economy was growing. Likewise, those calling for extreme change find their calls falling on the deaf ears of the masses when they feel the system is fair.


When there are big fuck-off states like the Soviet Union giving money and guns to the Sandinistas and the ANC as the fuel of capitalist-enforced poverty feeds the fire of revolutions capitalism starts acting a bit more progressive.

Playing chess with the 3rd world was something neither side in the East/West divide should be proud of.



But when they've snuffed out progressive (or relatively progressive) movements in favour of whoever the fuck will keep things safe for capitalism then Keynes gets thrown out and Friedman, Hayek and Mises come sniveling forth with advice for the boys.


And during Stagflation, Keynes makes a comeback. The government spends its way out via social programs or war. Once it's been restrored, and usually grown exponentially, the vast majority no longer cares enough to vote on economical issues as opposed to social ones (which hides the supply-side features of these movements).



Yeah you have the freedom to get rich under capitalism allright but in practice most don't and you can forget all the other freedoms if they get in the way.


Then how come Capitalist-styled "economic" freedom led to the largest amounts of political freedoms seen in the history of mankind?

Hopefully, this trend will make a comeback as the Chinese middle class develops.



We'd all give our ego a wank every now and again if we had all that money.


Though that may be some of the motivation, it can't explain away the huge contributions for social growth and charity that such people as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner have made (to name a few).

[Joby]

L-O-FUCKING-L.

Social freedoms? Marriage for men and women only; no abortion; persecution of protesters and repression of public demonstrations; increasing police brutality; 1 in 99 Americans in jail -- hah!

Outlawing Gay Marriage, while very discriminatory and quite despicable, is an issue which would have been unheard of not too long ago.

No Abortions? :confused:

The persecution of protestors is seen under every political and economic system that's ever been around. However, I'm confident in saying that a Western "Liberal-democracy" is the #1 place to voice your opinion on how horrible our leaders are.

The 1 out of 99 Americans in jail should embarass every American. We need to end the War on Drugs/War for Christian Mrality fororal, humanistic, and economic reasons.


Political freedoms? Bourgeois democracy is little more than multi-face dictatorship.

As opposed to the one-faced dictatorship's most of the world has.


All we've got is a choice between two or three rich fucks, all of whom have irrefutable ties to big-money capitalists and corporate interests -- and this, to you, is political freedom?

:confused: Ralph Nader? Brian Moore? Any other person on the ballot?

The fact that those with big money behind them usually win is a failure of the masses to Organize true alternatives, not those taking advantage of them. You can't rape the willing.


I call it a conflict of interest. If your boss was ever in a position where he could dictate by law your wages, your benefits, your job security and your overall quality of life, would you really trust him?

Probably not.

Which is why the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideologies worry me.


If so, you're a dumbass. Or a boss yourself, in which case it's in your best interests to support other bosses and the laws they enact that benefit bosses like them. Fuck trying to "appeal to emotional outcries". This is how it is.

No, just a college student trying to eventually have a modest house, beautiful wife, yellow lab, couple of kids, and a nice retirement plan. Maybe a nice vacation every once in a while.

[RGacky3]

Its impossible to have a 'fair playing field' when 10% own 90%.

[Bud Struggle]

Its impossible to have a 'fair playing field' when 10% own 90%.

Except I see people joining the 10% all of the time. I did. Most of my friends are business men that came from nothing and made it (I don't much hang around with the Waltons or the Rockefellers.)

It's fairly easy to be successful, at least in the USA. The question I have is how do you enfranchise people to become successful?

[RGacky3]

thats the American dream buddy, the dream that one day, with hard work, a lot of fallacio, a hardening to stone of the human heart, destroying any sense of moral obligation to anything, one can raise above the crap he came from leave behind those poor douch bags he was once apart of, and become a money making son of a *****, and then, he can get other poor suckers to do his work for him, and still make all the money.

Thats the dream, to become one of the 10%.

You seam to believe that everyone in a Capitalist system can make it, but you forgot the nature of Capitalism, the 10% own 90%, the other 90% work it. You can't have the Master without the Slaves, you need the Slaves.

So if your going to honestly support Capitalism, your view has to be the Amoral view of, 'I made it, to hell with everyone else, I'm getting money on other peoples backs, I'm a winner they are loosers, so they can all lick my wealthy balls." If you still want to have the view of Human Equality and Solitarity, you can't support Capitalism, its an oxymoron. Its like stop STDs but still encourage everyone to have sex without protection.

[Dr Mindbender]

Except I see people joining the 10% all of the time. I did. Most of my friends are business men that came from nothing and made it (I don't much hang around with the Waltons or the Rockefellers.)

It's fairly easy to be successful, at least in the USA. The question I have is how do you enfranchise people to become successful?
the problem is, being 'successful' equates to being good at stoking the coals of the status quo. It doesnt matter how bright, hard working or creative you are if you arent a good 'capitalist' you will never be as well off as the most 'successful'. Which is unfair when you consider that those 10% probably contribute the least work, or creativity.

[Dr Mindbender]

thats the American dream buddy, the dream that one day, with hard work, a lot of fallacio, a hardening to stone of the human heart, destroying any sense of moral obligation to anything, one can raise above the crap he came from leave behind those poor douch bags he was once apart of, and become a money making son of a *****, and then, he can get other poor suckers to do his work for him, and still make all the money.

Thats the dream, to become one of the 10%.

You seam to believe that everyone in a Capitalist system can make it, but you forgot the nature of Capitalism, the 10% own 90%, the other 90% work it. You can't have the Master without the Slaves, you need the Slaves.

So if your going to honestly support Capitalism, your view has to be the Amoral view of, 'I made it, to hell with everyone else, I'm getting money on other peoples backs, I'm a winner they are loosers, so they can all lick my wealthy balls." If you still want to have the view of Human Equality and Solitarity, you can't support Capitalism, its an oxymoron. Its like stop STDs but still encourage everyone to have sex without protection.

that single post has reinforced my conviction that communism is correct.

You have my thanks. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

that single post has reinforced my conviction that communism is correct.

You have my thanks. ;)

There's a whole issue of REAL MEN support their families--no matter what. Without social support.

[Xiao Banfa]

Except I see people joining the 10% all of the time. I did. Most of my friends are business men that came from nothing and made it (I don't much hang around with the Waltons or the Rockefellers.)

It's fairly easy to be successful, at least in the USA. The question I have is how do you enfranchise people to become successful?


Rubbish the middle class going under and the wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, this is still the Reagan era.

Anyway, you're saying your friends are joining the super rich yet they aren't the super-rich, you seem to be talking nonsense.



There's a whole issue of REAL MEN support their families--no matter what. Without social support.


You're describing most workers here.


The places were Capitalism is strongest no longer need labor unions or socialist parties in the 19th Century sense of those institutions.

What does this mean? Wokers need unions more than ever especially in countries where capitalism is strongest.

What do you mean


Yes, physical labor is still required to keep the system working, but most of the populations in these nations are doing things found uniquely in Countries were the economy might be labeled as "post-industrial." Like working in high-tech, bilogical, egineering, medical or other scientific pursuits. Or working in the service industry, ie the sell luxuries to the overwhelming amount of the population who indulge in anything from fast-food to mud-baths.

You have the common libertarian disease of not being able to recognise a worker unless he wears a cloth cap and churns out widgets.

The working class is more stratified and employed in more diverse industries, but the same productive relations persist.

One class works, one class own the means of production.

And yes, a capitalist organising his firm is doing 'work' but his means of earning is primarily his property, while the workers' is his labour.

There are of course sections of the working class whose interests are arguably furthered more by capitalism such as some technical workers with very very large salaries, but these are a minority.

The biggest class is, however, the working class. They are essentially disenfranchised under capitalism.

Sure they can vote and have a certain degree of freedom of speech but the newspaper owners are capitalists, the campaign financers are capitalists, the ones with the resources are capitalists...

The power of the capitalist class is undeniably greater and not based on any democratic eligibility.

Whether they have aquired by fair means or foul, by luck or by intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with it.


This makes goods cheaper for the populations of the developed nations, while spreading Capital to people's of the world who don't have any. Once it arrives, the workers of these places can Unionize, fight for an eight hour day, higher wages, et al, and advane along the same path.

Effective unionism is not a feature of capitalist investment.


One day, if these nations economies are allowed to develop freely (as I've states before, I'm as much against US imperialism as anyone), they'll reach the post-industrial plateau that we have.

It is correct that capitalism must continue developing the economy in the third world untill some kind of industrial base is reached.
This has got to happen with restrictions, however. It's not a question of more market, more market.


And that hasn't happened in every socialist system?

Well the siege economies of the USSR etc are not the best examples to go by. But let's just say that community, security, leisure and relative comfort were more a feature of soviet than post soviet times.

If a nation can reach the status of second biggest trading bloc in the world with state of the art universities, universal this and that under the extreme conditions imposed on it by capitalist interference and aggression then that tells you something of the potential of public ownership.

And this is just bureaucratic socialism we're talking about.


And after so many years, they still don't see it that way.

Well, you think about it and think about whom that well propagated myth migh serve.


Quote:
Why you can come to this country as a nobody, give it time, effort and a bit of luck and, why, you can make it as a multi-millionaire.

Every man a potential king! How equal!
That's never been promised.

You can, however, come here and forget about that tribe you belonged to (I have had Persian, Jewish, Russian, Black, Mexican and German neighbors. Nobody cared). You can practice whatever religion you want. You can hold any political ideology you want.



It has been promised. And if there hasn't been any persecution that's because it hasn't been in the ruling classes interest do any.



Quote:
It may not look like slavery. But I'll bet you mate that if the capitalists needed full blown slavery to get what they feel they deserve by their intelligence and 'hard work' we'd be working to the sound of whips cracking. If they could get away with it.
If that were the case, the Capitalist system as we know it would most certainly collapse.


Yes, I know. My point is they would do it if they could get away with it.



Quote:
Security and socialistic policies get adopted by capitalist states when workers get bolshie and need to be bought off.
In other words, when people get organized and vote, they amend the system to one which is more satisfactory to the majority.

The Nazi's, for instance, weren't packing beerhalls when the economy was growing. Likewise, those calling for extreme change find their calls falling on the deaf ears of the masses when they feel the system is fair.

It's not about voting essentially (certainly not in countries with two party systems). It's about mass action by the working class and revolutionary gains in other countries.

"Extreme change" is vulgar manipulative language. Manipulating the masses despair and desparation to push an agenda that has doesn't correpond with their interests is what your accusing us of.

Socialist policies, through prosperous times and hard ones been most popular amongst the working class for aver a hundred years.

The Nazi analogy is quite shaky, BTW.


Then how come Capitalist-styled "economic" freedom led to the largest amounts of political freedoms seen in the history of mankind?

Well, you're right in a way. Capitalism for a long time was the latest most progressive stage in history. It was the victory of the bourgeoisie over feudalism and the revolutionisation of the means of production.

It also created a working class which through its solidarity and mass action forced, against the will of the ruling class, huge democratic gains.


Once it's been restrored, and usually grown exponentially, the vast majority no longer cares enough to vote on economical issues as opposed to social ones (which hides the supply-side features of these movements).

And this proves that capitalism is clever at buying workers off, ruining oppurtunities for progressive change.

Believe me when workers are conscious, they will go all the way.


Though that may be some of the motivation, it can't explain away the huge contributions for social growth and charity that such people as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner have made (to name a few).

Why aren't they on record as making landmark gains bettering the lives of masses and masses of people.

It is not phililanthropy that makes the serious differences, it's essentially a humiliating phenomenon.

[Lector Malibu]

There's a whole issue of REAL MEN support their families--no matter what. Without social support.

A "man" stands for what is fair and just no matter the odds period.

[RGacky3]

Socialism is not about Social Support, its about Social justice, with Social justice no one will need social support. Real Men do support their families no matter what, even if they must do so in a wage-slavery system where they are exploited and don't have a say in the matter, But real men also fight back if they are in that situation,

[Joby]

What does this mean? Wokers need unions more than ever especially in countries where capitalism is strongest.

What do you mean

They do? Why aren't they forming them?

I meant that, essentially, people are no longer bound to the farm/fatory. They have a choice in what they want to be for the most part.


You have the common libertarian disease of not being able to recognise a worker unless he wears a cloth cap and churns out widgets.

I'm not a libertarian, I am a worker.



The working class is more stratified and employed in more diverse industries, but the same productive relations persist.

One class works, one class own the means of production.

What about workers who own property.

Second, the 'means of production' isn't owned by some feudal aristicracy. What's a defining characteristic between Capitalism and everything that proceeded is the access all people have to the 'means of production.'

It's gotten incredibly easier, with things like what we're arguing thru being in existence. You now have a place to sell your watercolors.

But, most people prefer to work for a set wage.



And yes, a capitalist organising his firm is doing 'work' but his means of earning is primarily his property, while the workers' is his labour.


Property he bought from some source with money he earned, then expanding and employing people who didn't do this work and just want money for their labor at a price they obviously agree to.


The biggest class is, however, the working class. They are essentially disenfranchised under capitalism.

Nothing's stopping them from becoming 'franchised'


Sure they can vote and have a certain degree of freedom of speech but the newspaper owners are capitalists, the campaign financers are capitalists, the ones with the resources are capitalists...

Who owns this site?



The power of the capitalist class is undeniably greater and not based on any democratic eligibility.

Whether they have aquired by fair means or foul, by luck or by intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with it.


The power of the Capitalists is great because it's fed everyday by billions of people.


Effective unionism is not a feature of capitalist investment.

It is a feature of industrialization, in most non-Fascist nations.



It is correct that capitalism must continue developing the economy in the third world untill some kind of industrial base is reached.
This has got to happen with restrictions, however. It's not a question of more market, more market.


Agreed.



Well the siege economies of the USSR etc are not the best examples to go by. But let's just say that community, security, leisure and relative comfort were more a feature of soviet than post soviet times.

If a nation can reach the status of second biggest trading bloc in the world with state of the art universities, universal this and that under the extreme conditions imposed on it by capitalist interference and aggression then that tells you something of the potential of public ownership.

And this is just bureaucratic socialism we're talking about.


But is what essentially became a forced march towards the future really the best way to accomplish things?


Well, you think about it and think about whom that well propagated myth migh serve.

That's the 'oppressed' fault, really. In this case, everything the oppressed needs to find out how oppressed they are is at their fingertips.


It has been promised. And if there hasn't been any persecution that's because it hasn't been in the ruling classes interest do any.

Were has it been promised? That may be the 'dream,' (for some), but it was never guaranteed.



It's not about voting essentially (certainly not in countries with two party systems). It's about mass action by the working class and revolutionary gains in other countries.

"Extreme change" is vulgar manipulative language. Manipulating the masses despair and desparation to push an agenda that has doesn't correpond with their interests is what your accusing us of.

Socialist policies, through prosperous times and hard ones been most popular amongst the working class for aver a hundred years.

The Nazi analogy is quite shaky, BTW.


First, you're right. General strikes and the like have certainly scared quite a few bosses into shorter work weeks, some vacation time, and a minimum wage.

Second, you're right. "Extreme" might be a bit of editorializing...Still, socialism is a very large change.

Third, I'm saying pretty much that. Were where all the socialists helping after Katrina; I volunteered in New Orleans 2 weeks after and none were there.

They were all at home criticizing the President.



And this proves that capitalism is clever at buying workers off, ruining oppurtunities for progressive change.

Believe me when workers are conscious, they will go all the way.


That's the ***** of it, ain't it?

Until they become conscious, there will be no Revolution. Until the Revolution, they will not be conscious. George Orwell.

[Xiao Banfa]

I wil reply to your truisms and ill-informed rosy view of capitalism later, but first;



Third, I'm saying pretty much that. Were where all the socialists helping after Katrina; I volunteered in New Orleans 2 weeks after and none were there.



There were socialists helping. A great many of (as far as I can immediately recall) the anarchist and maoist variety.

Thats the US left probably the most demoralised, pathetic and degenerate in the world.

Believe me, you dont want to get into a debate of who are more altruistic of the socialist left and the capitalist 'left' and right.

What you sturbornly refuse to realise (citing only the consideral freedom of some advanced, predatorial capitalist societies) is the fact that the dominance of the propertied class endangers the wellbeing of the other classes. Whether they are property owners or not.

The bourgeoisie are also stratified and the top strata have massively disproportionate power to the rest of society.

This section of society throughout history (and I sincerely defy you to prove me otherwise) has been the consistent champion of the most regressive and backward indignity.

Now the next question is 'how do we counter their influence?'.

If you are still with me at this point we can begin to have a constructive debate. If your not it just nonsense.