Socialist Revolutions within the US

[Arkham]

Does anyone have a list of socialist/communist revolutions inside the US handy? The earliest and most successful I can find is the one in St. Louis in 1877, but I would be greatly indebted to anyone who can supply me with more information.

[Capitalist Imperial]

No contemporary ones, you have no popular support for installing a dictatorial regime in the land of the free.

[Arkham]

Given that corporate control of media and legislation is tantamount to dictatorial control in the US, I'm not sure you're correct.

Incidentally, what does socialism have inherently to do with dictatorship?

[vodun]

Quote: from Arkham on 6:40 pm on Jan. 24, 2003

Given that corporate control of media and legislation is tantamount to dictatorial control in the US, I'm not sure you're correct.Even if that were true, I would much prefer that kind of "dictatorship" over the far more oppressive socialist/communist dictatorship.


Incidentally, what does socialism have inherently to do with dictatorship?Ideally, maybe nothing. In application, take a look at history and the world around you. When socialism can give the people as much freedom as capitalism, then I'll listen. For whatever reason, that hasn't happened yet. So far, all I can conclude is that it is a more flawed system than capitalism.

[Arkham]

Given that this topic has most assuredly been argued more eloquently elsewhere on this board, I'm not going to delve deeply into the refutation thereof.

I'm more interested in my original question than off-topic sniping that could be better confined elsewhere.

[Arkham]

Although, permit me if you will, a small quote from a paper on wednesday.

“The President considers this nation to be at war,” a White House source says,” and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”

This does not cause you concern?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_1587.shtml (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1587.shtml)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Arkham on 7:05 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
Although, permit me if you will, a small quote from a paper on wednesday.

The President considers this nation to be at war, a White House source says, and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.

This does not cause you concern?
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1587.shtml

No, as the rules during wartime must and can be adjusted per the constitution.

[Arkham]

Just checking. Last I heard congress hadn't declared war, the only legal body able to do so.

It doesnt frighten you that a sitting president can pretend to be at war and suspend your freedom of speech? You've got a lot more trust wealthy war profiteers than I suspect is warranted.

[Tkinter1]

I would think the president was talking about violent opposition... or willfully withholding information that affects national security. He's not suspending freedom of speech either. Where do you see that happening?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Arkham on 7:11 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
Just checking. Last I heard congress hadn't declared war, the only legal body able to do so.

It doesnt frighten you that a sitting president can pretend to be at war and suspend your freedom of speech? You've got a lot more trust wealthy war profiteers than I suspect is warranted.


You have a point, but I don't think that free speech has really been compromised in the practical sense.

[Arkham]

In how many senses does it need to be compromised for you to think of it as "practical".

Bear in mind, the concept of "Free Speech" has always been on somewhat shaky ground in this country. The founding fathers didnt want it in the first place, and only added the bill of rights after great protests by the people. Even after that, they established what was known as "No prior restraint", which to some extent still exists to this day. Basically it says they won't stop you from saying what you want, but they can jail, fine, or execute you afterwards. This is how the Sedition acts got put into place.

Free speech is only allowed when it doesnt encroach on elitest, plutocratic business interests.