Capitalism = Crime - crooked crazy crooks

[hazard]

First off, capitalism is such a bad system that crime reigns in all of the cities. There is no control over the wage labourer who are constantly agitated, degraded and humiliated. They are forced into crime under the capitalist lure of material dreams. When the slave class are treated as animals, one can expect nothing less than this sort of behaviour. The definition, and enforcement, of crime switches also to suit the needs of the ruling class. Sickening.

Then you got the capitalists themselves. So, its not okay to steal a single dollar, but perfectly legal to steal millions of them? Crooks, I say, all of them. From lowered slave wages, inflated selling prices and taxes the pigs don't just committ theft, they commit mass theft.

capitalism and crime are virtually inseperable. to accept capitalism is to accept crime. either you are stolen from or you steal. and unless you are a capitalist, it is illegal to steal. unless you are a capitalist, it is illegal to committ murder. unless you are a capitalist, it is illegal to not work. and when I say capitalist, I of course mean the "ruling" class of capitalists. not any of the functionally deficient morons who support their own slavery.

[Boris Moskovitz]

Power, hatred and greed. It is not a crime, capitalism is more of a cancer...

[Tkinter1]

**Yawn**

[CopperGoat]

Yeah, just ask Enron, Worldcom, Exxon, Shell, Dubya, etc........

[Boris Moskovitz]

Common, life is so hard for those people, because they didn't have the exact sort of mega expensive steak they wanted! You don't want to disturb them, do you? :biggrin:
They are suffering! Meanie...

(Edited by Boris Moskovitz at 7:23 am on April 7, 2003)

[hazard]

yeah, you yawn tk

compare crime rates in any communist nation to that in a capitalist nation

there is no comparison

[Boris Moskovitz]

You shouldn't have told him that. Tk can't handle the truth!

[hazard]

no shit

tk seems to have made only the"yawn" post and run off, presumedly to bed

although when one is asleep even when awake, I don't really see a difference.

[peaccenicked]

This is an interesting article.


BLAMING THE FLIES FOR THE GARBAGE

by John Jonik
Michael Moore recently wrote on his website and elsewhere a Letter from Flint called "A Sad Truth About America." It might have been subtitled "A Sad Truth About the American Left"--disregarding, for now, the patriotic US Über Alles co-option of the name "America" to mean just the United States. One half-expected Moore's story about a school shooting of a six-year-old girl in Flint to be an indictment of poverty, racism, government-perpetuated fear, denial of social services, under-funded schools, job exportation, lack of living wages, destruction and failure of unions, the violence-producing "war on drugs," industrial chemicals that sometimes promote violent behavior, and the fact that the US government itself is the global role-model for the use of violence and weapons as problem-solving tools. As Moore might word it, one would have been wrong.

Moore didn't jump on any of these things as contributing factors to the epidemic of shootings nor the shooting of the little girl in Flint. Instead, he reworded the Clinton/Gore administration's line on handgun control to make it more down-to-earth. This administration, naturally enough, ignores social and governmental factors in causing gun (and other) violence, even as it has brought the United States into the record books for the death penalty, arms exports, weapons development, militarizing the police, creating space warfare programs, and utterly indiscriminate bombing of non-compliant countries.

The anti-hand gun Clinton/Gore administration has the dubious distinction of presiding over the point of the Iraq Sanctions where deaths caused by that vile program (over a million and a half) have exceeded the number of deaths caused by any military campaign in US history of warfare--including the atomic bombing of Japan. Iraq sanctions have killed about 15 times more than the US killed at Hiroshima. And Moore, without qualification, joins this administration in advocating handgun control? If it isn't patently obvious, this is to merely swat the flies--the inevitable symptoms that were bred and fed by a corporate-serving government. The garbage that nurtures the flies, apparently, may be left right there on the backs of people; it's just the visible consequences that Moore, Clinton, and Gore don't like. After all, these symptoms expose and indict illegitimate, cruel, and unjust corporate-serving policies. And riding to the rescue with newer, "tougher" restrictions serves to increase state power, thus leading to more negative symptoms, and on we go towards outright authoritarianism.

Moore may be sincere in his anguish for the slain child, but it is hard to see the balance as about four thousand children (under eight years old), no less innocent and valuable human beings, die every month in Iraq from the effects of Clinton's vicious sanctions. If, as Meddlin' Albright, et ilk, is fond of saying, this is Saddam Hussein's fault; it sure was not apparent before the Bush bombings when Iraq had one of the best, if not the best, health-care systems and child survival levels in the entire Middle East. Unlike the shooting in Flint, Moore's tax dollars help pay for the horrors in Iraq. He may have even voted for US representatives who support the atrocity. All of this makes any "concern" for even hundreds of shootings in the US ring disharmoniously as unbalanced and disingenuous. The priority concern for only those nearby, in one's own community or country, is understandable, but it must not be more than a partial, although top, concern. It must not override the integrity of empathy for all. Are Moore and others not concerned about killings of children but just about killings close to home that are hard to ignore or hide?

Until recently, Amnesty International seemed to care--not about all human rights violations--but only about those that were not in the US or not caused by US programs. There were no grounds for respecting AI's integrity. Thankfully, that's changed. As for Clinton and the rest of the very selective folks who aver that they don't approve of the killing of children (bring out the halos), one can drive a truck through the hole where their integrity and human empathy should be. As US handgun control proponents leave the funeral for a slain US child, they go home to continue the denial of health care to millions of children; they allow pesticides to contaminate children's food; they allow toxic incinerators and other smokestack industries to dump poisons onto schools and neighborhoods; they foist questionable, dangerous, and barely-tested drugs like Ritalin and Prozac onto children; they advocate executions of juvenile offenders; they cut funding for safer public transportation; they let public schools go to hell; they let culpable industries avoid cleanups of lead and other toxins; they experiment on kids (and everyone) with genetically-mutated foods; they destroy everyone's receptivity to antibiotics by failure to adequately regulate animal-based foods; and they allow chlorine and its by-product, dioxin, to contaminate foods, food packaging, diapers, paper products, household cleansers, lawns, typical cigarettes, school sanitation chemicals, and every other damn thing, even though the elements are especially damaging to children.

These people prove, by their own actions or silence, that they are not concerned about the welfare of children. There ought to be a "Megan's Law" to warn us if they live or work in our communities. So, why do they SAY they care? Many, for unfathomable reasons, actually believe the official rhetoric as-seen-on-TV. However, it is more than a little obvious that the anti-gun campaign is yet another authoritarian ploy "for our protection," as ever, (a) to increase the balance of power in favor of a still out-of-control and increasingly dangerous police force, (B) to disarm the public (especially poor, especially black) in expectation of possible justifiable and expected reaction (if not revolt) against neoliberal austerity programs and deprivation of rights, © to let the government monitor owners of weapons owners in case a total prohibition is wanted in the future, and (d) to make the killers in government office appear to have warm human feelings so that they can remain in power to continue what can only be called mass-murder.

This gun-control deal is a classic ruse in that anyone who opposes it or criticizes it is easily painted, by a compliant and complicit corporate media, as supporting the killing of children. Identical tactics are afoot to privatize and hand over control of Internet communications to the government. If you support Internet freedom and oppose government monitoring, censorship, and control, you are painted as an advocate of kiddyporn or terrorism. If you question the anti-smoking campaign that intentionally ignores some of the world's worst industrial chemical contaminants added to typical cigarettes, you are considered an advocate of lung cancer and the addiction of kids. If you resist urine tests and drug searches in schools, etc., you must be a dope addict or pusher. If you oppose the Iraq Sanctions and bombing of Yugoslavia, you must support brutal dictators and genocide. "Liberals" and many "Lefties" have fallen for these cynical, manipulative tactics. Indeed the campaigns are AIMED at those who have, or claim to have, empathy for others to bring them, for "safety" reasons, onto the side of the authorities. The idea, though, is to tightly LIMIT the concern so that it does not indict, challenge, embarrass, weaken, or discredit the US Corporate/Government establishment.

It is not that it wouldn't be a fine idea to disarm the US population to "save the children" (any implications that one does not want to protect children ought to be treated as slander), but it is a BAD, ominous idea when THIS incredibly violent, sociopathic, authoritarian, ruthless, capital-Über-Alles, increasingly Police-State government wants to limit gun ownership. It is absurdly arbitrary. The "concerns" cannot be believed. This government program ought not be supported as if it is being promoted by anyone who actually cares for the health and welfare of children. If you want to stop violence in schools and the streets to protect the kids, get to work ENDING the "war on drugs" that brought so many guns to the underground economy. Demand living wages, adequate unemployment subsidies, and national public-funded health care so that armed robbery will not be just about the only career option for so many, and so that millions won't be arming themselves for protection. Do not tolerate racism, which dehumanizes races in each other's eyes and makes killing all the more easy. Divert Pentagon money to public schools so that kids will be exposed to alternatives and learn enough to get a decent job or make a living by themselves. Stop the death penalty and rein in killer-cops so that most of the population won't become coldly accustomed to death as a legitimate problem-solving option. Do not accept the "risk/benefit" policies that let certain numbers of people die, with no consequences to the perpetrators, so that some novel drug or chemical can rake in profits for the few. Perhaps above everything, remove all corporate influence from Public Broadcasting airwaves so that all the above can be exposed, communicated, and discussed, and so that alternatives can be presented to the mainstream public. "Democratically" allowing the "alternative" press to exist when it is economically barred from the mainstream is inadequate.

To oppose gun (and all) violence in these ways is not to "side with the NRA," Repuglicans, or right-wing militias. It is to oppose the culture of death that is, preposterously, pretending to be anti-death by "protecting the kids from guns." Those on the left might do an integrity check on themselves by thinking a little about the (reluctant) use of guns by the Zapatistas, for one, but also the Cuban overthrow of Batista, the Sandinista revolution, and--what the heck--the US revolution against England. If one prefers a nonviolent Gandhi route for removing corrupt governments, that may not work nowadays against pepper-spray, rubber bullets, tear gas, stun-guns, police torture, and 'justifiable shooting" techniques--not to mention media propaganda that will describe your peaceful action as "a violent confrontation." Attend anti-gun rallies if you wish, but bring along signs and leaflets that address the corporate/government CAUSES of the immediate problems. Don't elect homicidal officials by casting compromise votes for "lesser evils." Oppose all candidates if they do their killing "cleanly" by supporting deadly chemicals, the death penalty, weapons, war, or whatever. Do the whole thing at once--not just the disarming; that is, advocate gun control but with a vital reservation: as long as it does not benefit the arguably most homicidal establishment in history.

[hazard]

I see the point of the article, although I don't really agree with the conclusion.

In other words, one should not support any facet of the fascist capitalist ruling class. I agree. And in the case of guns, unless the country is on the eve of revolution, I disagree. The living conditions that force people of all ages to turn to crime and violence as a means of survival are so decrepit that having armed proletariats only leads to further crime and violence. As long as people use crime as a means of survival, revolution cannot be sparked. If, however, these same people are disarmed, I think they have a better of chance of at least rebelling and perhaps one day revolting.

The idea behind an armed revolutionary rebellion is slightly foolish. The strength of a revolution is not in the weapons but rather in the numbers. Guns don't strengthen the revolution, they keep the revolution in check.

I also see the legalization of guns as a means to denigrate the proles forced into crime. They are used as a tool against their class by the capitalist elitists. Somehow, the average american never understands the conditions that lead to crime and only the criminal. The more dangerous the criminal, the more necessary it becomes for the capitalists to protect their slaves. So, if the underprivileged and exploited criminals are disarmed, the capitalists lose a valuable tool against their counter class. That is not only why I support criminalizing all firearms, but why I support most liberal movements against the ruling class.

[Chiak47]

red's have no crime cause criminals get purged on the spot.Or get sent to America straight out of the mental/prison facilities.

[hazard]

yeah, thats why chiak

maybe if you bothered reading any of the posts you'd see there is an intelligent discussion being carried on here

just like a fascist to blame their own crime on communism. sorta like in scarface.

I'm sure you'd understand that communists, in turn, may easily blame their crime on capitalism. you see, one wants to steal when one desires to participate in the flawed and evil practice of owning private property. therefore, any crime in communism that deals with possession is capitalisms fault.

[Chiak47]

buzzard,

We have a high crime rate here in this country cause leftist liberals teach that it ok to be stupid.
They put in people heads that they are being held down by the "man".

Instaed of teaching them to get off there lazy asses and become productive.

It's easier for them to steal rob sell dope and mureder there own mothere for $20 than it is too get up and get a job.

Why should they work?Leftist liberals hand them money like nothing and feed them like it was nothing at all...It's easier to sit back and live off the teat.

So sit back grab your moms teat and chow down son.It's a free for all.

BTW if communism is so damn good than why are most of the great thinkers and inventors under the soviet era now capitalists making big bucks?


Thanks,
Standing Strong

[hazard]

well, you're partially right

why should they have to work is a valid question. I side with these people on that idea, they shouldn't have to work for the reasons provided by the right fascist rank of pitch fork pitchin pigs.

in other words, as long as people are working to make somebody else rich, they're not lazy. but the people for who they work, the TRULY LAZY, who never have to work a day in their lives, thats okay.

stop being hypocritical.

if laziness is bullshit, then you should be *****ing about the capitalists who are the epitome of laziness. the poor sobs who don't like the system of forced slavery are just trying to survive.

[Boris Moskovitz]

A capitalist would only name the flaws of the communists, one can't recognize the other's advantages and can't recognize their own flaws. I think that's it...

[Chiak47]

I love to work.It makes me feel good when I get my check.

The guy who owns the shop where I work makes more than me.But he pays the light bill,buys the $$$ equipment,Pays my co-workers and I,Pays property taxes,and yet you call the buisness owners lazy sob's?
They pay the most taxes in this country they are the ones supporting the damn nancy blanket laws you socialist pinko's love to push on us.
Like I want to pay taxes to take care of yolanda and her 10 bastard children.Get real.Pave my roads feed my troops and give me water.Thats all I need.

Prisons?NOPE penal colonies in the north pole.

Mass transportation?NOPE-Have private corps run it.
AMTRACK IS A DEAD DEAL.

Corporate bailouts?One time only-other than that split it up and let someone else make it boom.

Welfare?6 month maximum.Get a job after that.Use the 6 months for burger flipping training.

Medical for the poor and rich-yes.100% I agree.

Social security with the option to invest-YES..

post office-NOPE privatize it already.See Amtrack/Metra/etc/etc

I'm sure there are more money flaws I want fixed.But there's my starting list.Cut it all.

Thanks,
Greedy

[hazard]

all those bills to pay, gosh, that sounds like such hard work

and working for the petty bourgeois capitalist wannabees, thats not quite the same thing, is it? I didn't think so. these deluded retards, not much unlike yourself, have to borrow money from capitalists, the real ones, in order to start they stupid little business up. so, they too work for the LAZY SOBS who never have to work a day in their lives. no, they sit on their billions of dollars and loan it out and get three times the principle in interest payments. thats even lazier than paying bills. thats receving payment for bills.

everything else you blabbed on about. three words. I don't care. naturally I would assume that your position would be all of those things.

you are either a hypocrite for thinking its okay for he capitalists to never ever have to work a single day, or you're an idiot if you think what the trillionare pigs do is work. wake up, whoa-ho


(Edited by hazard at 1:51 pm on April 8, 2003)