Right-wing nuts blame socialists for crash...

[BraneMatter]

OJyrgBijlvU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJyrgBijlvU)

Things are getting ugly out there. With all the references to government intervention in the financial markets as "socialism for the rich," a lot of ignorant people out there on the right are looking for a scapegoat, and rather than blame capitalism, MARXISTS are being set up.

I would not be surprised if this guy is a plant by the campaign.

[Kassad]

This is nothing but corporate deregulation and corporate welfare. Blaming socialists for this is the most warped and ridiculous assertion I think I've ever heard.

[BraneMatter]

This is nothing but corporate deregulation and corporate welfare. Blaming socialists for this is the most warped and ridiculous assertion I think I've ever heard.

No kidding. These 'conservative' McCainites of the Palin far-right religious fundamentalist type think Obama is a commie plot. They all belong back in the days of McCarthy and the "Great Red Scare."

[Red_Dialectics]

I bet they'll say it was the socialists, the muslims, the mexicans, AND the jews.

[BraneMatter]

Anti-Obama Anger Erupts At McCain Rallies (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27123224/)

McCain forced to defend Obama today after attacks fan flames of hatred:

Kf6YKOkfFsE

Good gawd, ya'll...

If we are headed for the depression I think we are, then these right-wing fascist thugs are likely to be on the rise, and they will definitely be looking for scapegoats. It would not surprise me to see anti-communist laws passed. It was not that long ago that it was illegal to be a communist in my state.

[spice756]

Things are getting ugly out there. With all the references to government intervention in the financial markets as "socialism for the rich," a lot of ignorant people out there on the right are looking for a scapegoat, and rather than blame capitalism, MARXISTS are being set up.



They say it is socialism for the rich or you are saying it? What do you meen they are looking for a scapegoat.

They never blame capitalism but blame the problems with socialism .Many people say Bush was better than clinton.

[spice756]

If we are headed for the depression I think we are, then these right-wing fascist thugs are likely to be on the rise, and they will definitely be looking for scapegoats. It would not surprise me to see anti-communist laws passed. It was not that long ago that it was illegal to be a communist in my state.


Too them Obama is too radical and always 50% or 60% in US history hated the left wing democradic party in US history.

Now socialism to them is just way way too radical .

It will be interesting to see what is going to happen.

[BraneMatter]

They say it is socialism for the rich or you are saying it? What do you meen they are looking for a scapegoat.

They never blame capitalism but blame the problems with socialism .Many people say Bush was better than clinton.

No, I am not saying it. Others in the media keep calling it "socialism for the rich." I am pointing out that this is a deliberate distortion, and that right-wing nuts will be only too happy to use socialism as the scapegoat for the economic disaster instead of capitalism.

[bcbm]

It would not surprise me to see anti-communist laws passed.

Why would they pass laws against a marginal fringe?

[BraneMatter]

Why would they pass laws against a marginal fringe?

Why did they do it in the Fifties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism)? Why the Smith Act of 1940 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act)and other similar laws in the states?

They always need an enemy, a scapegoat. Hysteria keeps the people from seeing the truth, and it divides them.

You don't think the capitalists are going to accept the blame for the mess, or the politicians, do you?

The fellow in the video thinks that the socialists and commies are taking over the U.S.! That was why I showed the video. To illustrate the hysteria that Palin and McCain are feeding (along with others, like Sean Hannity). These extreme right-wingers are tied to various fascist and racist groups, and they need very little excuse to demonize communists or become violent.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Your average American media pundit couldn't distinguish a quote from Thomas Paine with one from Karl Marx, let alone explain why this is socialism. I was watching Glenn Beck tonight for shits and giggles, and he had the author from Liberal Fascism on. The two were engaging in fervent masturbation over the possibility of a communist coup. I was sitting there thinking, if only!

[RadioRaheem84]

It's times like these where I just don't think that a right leaning person can really be trusted with having any intellectual capacity what so ever. It's watching a video like this that makes me wonder just how insanely stupid the conservatives can really be and how they just do not understand politics or economics at all.

HOW MANY TIMES, tell me people, HOW MANY TIMES have progressives, Marxist historians, Left Economists have been shouting and saying that the government intervention in the market has been caused by rich people enacting "socialism for the rich". From Noam Chomsky to Michael Parenti to Bernie Sanders to even liberals like Paul Krugman! This is all what we've been saying.

Yet, the right has the nerve to pin this on what we've been trying to warn you guys about for the last 15 years! I can count more sources telling these numbskulls that their system is NOT LAISSEZ-FAIRE and has huge elements of state intervention that favor the rich. BUT I CAN BARELY COUNT 2 sources from the Republican-Right machine. The closest would be good Libertarian sources.

It's official. If this is the sentiment of many conservatives out there, then they're hopeless. Just utterly hopeless and deserve to be dragged down into the depths of facscist manipulation. Give them over to McCain, Palin or any other crypto-fascist that wants a mass movement of idiots.

This shit pisses me off.

[Red_Dialectics]

good Libertarian sources
:lol:

[spice756]

It's times like these where I just don't think that a right leaning person can really be trusted with having any intellectual capacity what so ever. It's watching a video like this that makes me wonder just how insanely stupid the conservatives can really be and how they just do not understand politics or economics at all.

It is the conservative people that want a free-market and small government.They believe republican party will do that :lol:but they will not.

No the republican are not for the conservative people or is the democratic for the liberal people.

When it comes to economics they are the same.The only different thing here is on social issues.Has the republican party are for the christian nuts..

That is it, other than social issues on economics they are the same and not for the poor but for the rich and capitalists.



Yet, the right has the nerve to pin this on what we've been trying to warn you guys about for the last 15 years! I can count more sources telling these numbskulls that their system is NOT LAISSEZ-FAIRE and has huge elements of state intervention that favor the rich


But CNN or fox will never say this or any mainstream media.The conservative people will never believe this.

It all started when they allowed lobbying and government people to have friends that are capitalist.Than the US change and the US government got own by capitalists.

[BraneMatter]

It's official. If this is the sentiment of many conservatives out there, then they're hopeless. Just utterly hopeless and deserve to be dragged down into the depths of facscist manipulation. Give them over to McCain, Palin or any other crypto-fascist that wants a mass movement of idiots.

This shit pisses me off.

Well, we damned sure can't count on the corporate mass media to tell the truth.

Try to talk politics or economics with a lot of people these days, and their eyes just glaze over. Mention socialism, and they either run away or get hysterical.

If the right looses the election, which it now seems they will, they will blame "illegal aliens," "Muslims," "Commies," "liberals," "Mexicans," "terrorists," or Sixties radicals like Bill Ayers, etc. -- anyone but themselves or Bush's stupid policies and crimes.

[Sweetpotos]

We shouldn't get discouraged by this. The fact is that the masses are decisively shifting to the left in their thinking. There are always at least 10 level-headed workers for every racist psychotic out there.

And besides, it makes me glad to see that the specter of Communism still haunts the dreams of the bourgeoisie. :lol:

[Sendo]

Too them Obama is too radical and always 50% or 60% in US history hated the left wing democradic party in US history.

Now socialism to them is just way way too radical .

It will be interesting to see what is going to happen.


No.

The vast majority of Americans have been far to the left of federal politics since the late 60s/70s. They either don't vote b/c there's no choices, are tricked by propaganda ("welfare" has little support but "govt helping out the needy" has strong support), or are scared by evangelicals. The slightly left people flounder around and the ideological right looks strong. When faced with depoliticized elections people vote based on personality.

The next turn has been a large sector of America is no longer silently leftist. People will clamor for socialized healthcare and hit the streets very quickly when the bail out was planned. The protests were small, but the fact there was something so quickly at Wall Street shows that Americans are not to be written off. Though movements are weak the fact that there are some many activist groups shows that we are not below Canada or Europe.

The bible-toting rednecks are a minority and they will soon fade away. Like with Bush in 2004, a lot of would be leftist feel "safer" with McCain. If Nader or McKinney got the chance to speak they could use evidence to prove how the wars have made us less safe and that every day there only makes things worse. (Sadly, many Americans were fooled into thinking the surge "worked").

Americans are ready for socialism, just under a different name, though. When I can sit down people and explain what socialism is, the people who don't have a turn around usually think it's hopeless and we should make do with liberal or social democracy or they think it won't work. Very few actually believe that infringing on the right to exploit workers is sacrosanct. Unfortunately "Free enterprise" has been conflated with "prosperity" by our textbooks so even though we have desire to run a Fortune 500 we equate assaults on the free market with assaults on our right to prosper. Because workers are underpaid they don't want to be told to wallow in Russian-style poverty. They assume socialism will drag down overall living standards and bring forced equalitarianism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If you get down it, the Left is the only group which constantly challenges big government and big business. That should be a winner right there. Of the different ideologues I've come across, few are defensive of either. They'll resort to defending one out of defense for their own ideologies, but it doesn't mean Mister Conservative/Libertarian really likes Wal-Mart.

I think we have a marketing problem. We're painted as hopeless utopians who want to go out and burn mom-and-pop stores and steal guns.

[Incendiarism]

Hm...crisis in capital, scapegoats, thugs in business suits...sound familiar?!

Let the good times roll :(

[spice756]

The next turn has been a large sector of America is no longer silently leftist. People will clamor for socialized healthcare and hit the streets very quickly when the bail out was planned. The protests were small, but the fact there was something so quickly at Wall Street shows that Americans are not to be written off. Though movements are weak the fact that there are some many activist groups shows that we are not below Canada or Europe.


Have you seen the web sites and the talk about healthcare ? All the anti-posts on healthcare ?

Sure there will be some saying I want free healthcare but they are small group.

Look at the polls Obama is not that different than McCain getting in. Yes Obama has 50% chance getting in looking at the polls.

Even if Obama will like to have free healthcare he is one man and need support from all the democradic party.




The bible-toting rednecks are a minority and they will soon fade away. Like with Bush in 2004, a lot of would be leftist feel "safer" with McCain. If Nader or McKinney got the chance to speak they could use evidence to prove how the wars have made us less safe and that every day there only makes things worse. (Sadly, many Americans were fooled into thinking the surge "worked").


The bible-toting rednecks are on rise after 911.Are you saying people will feel safer with McCain than Bush ?


Americans are ready for socialism, just under a different name

Why should we change the name? People should understand what socialism is and how it works.



social democracy


Where are a social democracy or social democradic party in the US?

[Plagueround]

Have you seen the web sites and the talk about healthcare ? All the anti-posts on healthcare ?

Sure there will be some saying I want free healthcare but they are small group.

America is generally more left than it's politicans. The majority want free healthcare, those websites and posts are a vocal minority.


Look at the polls Obama is not that different than McCain getting in. Yes Obama has 50% chance getting in looking at the polls.

Obama will likely win at this point unless people buy into the "terrorist" accusations that have been resurrected .


Even if Obama will like to have free healthcare he is one man and need support from all the democradic party.

Unfortunately, Obama doesn't want free healthcare. The democrats just believe in a slightly (and I must stress slightly) more bottom up economic plan...if you can call it that since their emphasis for the campaign seems to be on the fictional middle class. They don't want free healthcare, they want to find a way to bring more people into the healthcare system.


The bible-toting rednecks are on rise after 911.Are you saying people will feel safer with McCain than Bush ?

Most people feel disenfranchised with Republicans. To be quite honest, Obama would be landsliding this election if he were white. I wish this weren't the case, but I've seen recent polls that suggest 1/3 of self-described democrats have misgivings about him because he is black.


Why should we change the name? People should understand what socialism is and how it works.

Where are a social democracy or social democradic party in the US?

You have the red scare and the US's main enemy for almost 50 years being a "socialist" country to thank for that. :(

[BraneMatter]

We shouldn't get discouraged by this. The fact is that the masses are decisively shifting to the left in their thinking. There are always at least 10 level-headed workers for every racist psychotic out there.

And besides, it makes me glad to see that the specter of Communism still haunts the dreams of the bourgeoisie. :lol:

Yeah, the psychotic, paranoid bastards deserve to see commies and devils hiding under every rock and lurking behind every bush, ready to jump out and rape their daughters!!! :laugh:

Only trouble is, it makes them more dangerous...

[BraneMatter]

I think we have a marketing problem. We're painted as hopeless utopians who want to go out and burn mom-and-pop stores and steal guns.

I think you've got something there, alright! Maybe we should hire a Madison Ave ad agency!

Seriously, though, the internet is our best platform for reaching large numbers, at least for now.

[BraneMatter]

Hm...crisis in capital, scapegoats, thugs in business suits...sound familiar?!

Let the good times roll :(

Deja vu all over again... :laugh:

Time to break out all your Pete Seeger records!


Solidarity Forever MP3 (http://www.airmp3.net/download/pete_seeger/mp3/dla_836e4_2) (click to visit download page)

We Shall Overcome (http://www.airmp3.net/download/pete_seeger/mp3/dla_836e4_3)

October Surprise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f01UehWq3v8)!

Talkin' 'bout my generation... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEFsBF1X1ow)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3152/2928806197_dd44fbc7f8_m.jpg

[Psy]

Yeah, the psychotic, paranoid bastards deserve to see commies and devils hiding under every rock and lurking behind every bush, ready to jump out and rape their daughters!!! :laugh:

Only trouble is, it makes them more dangerous...

Since when did the nuts like those in the John Birch Society ever matter? These are the same loons that even today swear the U.S.S.R created a weather machine and the K.G.B was responsible for Katrina.

[BraneMatter]

Since when did the nuts like those in the John Birch Society ever matter? These are the same loons that even today swear the U.S.S.R created a weather machine and the K.G.B was responsible for Katrina.

Well, it matters if one of them is shooting at ME!!! :laugh:

They do know the Soviet Union and the KGB ceased to exist long before Katrina, don't they??? Didn't Reagan rid the world of the Red manace once and for all?

Besides, we've got HAARP!

[Psy]

Well, it matters if one of them is shooting at ME!!! :laugh:
True but they are just like the tinfoil hat loons that think the FBI is firing beams at them to read their mind.

[BraneMatter]

True but they are just like the tinfoil hat loons that think the FBI is firing beams at them to read their mind.

Tin foil is fine, but a stainless steel pot with a copper bottom works even better... :scared:

[RadioRaheem84]

I have to disagree with some of the members in here. This nations seems very RIGHT-bent than left. MANY people do not want their meager wages and their small gains to be taken away from them, so that is why they're dead afraid of Socialism. Most people out in the Midwest and the South (what used to be bastions of Socialist and Democratic activism), are now very very Libertarian minded. They really believe that the cause for all of this was greedy Wall Street people AND government intervention in the market.

They believe that somehow people "stealing from the poor to give to the rich" is socialism. :rolleyes:

Secondly, most people in America do not have the slightest idea about politics/economics, or follow right leaning politics because it's so easy to understand. The right wing radio hosts explain their ideology in such plain-speech that it's while it seems silly to be taken seriously, surprisingly it is.

So in essence, the only motivated organized group in America today is a scary group of radical Christians and Conservatives. They think of themselves as the "middle class" and live as though it's a badge of honor to be middle class and will raise Hades and a wave of brimstone to keep being middle class. Yes, they will fight for their SUV and Dish Network.

The only people that I would venture a guess as being left-leaning in the slightest are minorities. Even then they're like Obama, just reformists that believe in some elements of social welfare but for the most part hate the idea of socialism and want the free market to make them rich beyond their wildest dreams. No struggling Latino family is really going to be adamant about socialism after receiving so many minor gains from the "capitalist" USA. No African American family is going to want to give up their chance at the American Dream. Most of their struggles have been centered around INCLUSION into the American system, NOT the disolvement of the American system.

[Psy]

Secondly, most people in America do not have the slightest idea about politics/economics, or follow right leaning politics because it's so easy to understand. The right wing radio hosts explain their ideology in such plain-speech that it's while it seems silly to be taken seriously, surprisingly it is.

So in essence, the only motivated organized group in America today is a scary group of radical Christians and Conservatives. They think of themselves as the "middle class" and live as though it's a badge of honor to be middle class and will raise Hades and a wave of brimstone to keep being middle class. Yes, they will fight for their SUV and Dish Network.

That is not the case for the industrial workers. Go to any factory or mine and the workers all know the bosses are exploiting their asses and haven't revolted yet because they have no hope that it could be any other way.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well you could be right, but most of the working class is involved in the service sector, i.e. retail. I guess people over worked but less exploited than industrial workers.

[Psy]

Well you could be right, but most of the working class is involved in the service sector, i.e. retail. I guess people over worked but less exploited than industrial workers.
And right now most Americans are facing evictions, and this crisis will effect consumer spending so those in the retail sector is going to be hit hard.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Austrian and Chicago school need to be evicted from the contemporary school of thought.

[Psy]

Free-Market rally (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2560&updaterx=2008-10-11+04%3A10%3A45). Wow these guys are clueless, they think because they were able to pay for breakfast and lunch that it is proof of free-markets with the whole, We were able to pay minimum wage restaurant workers to get breakfast and lunch, see the free market works.


Now lets look at the earlier anti-bailout rally not by free-market loons Bailout Protest at Wall Street (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNvzMSuNlSg). They understand that there is arbitrary value within the financial markets. They understand it is the capitalists that created the mess and have to agree with the saying "burn down wall street".

You might also want to notice how much larger the earlier protest was compared to the smaller free-market protest that had more time to organize.

[RadioRaheem84]

So apperently, from day one they supported Republican policies to deregulate the economy. Even if they still believed that Republicans were not pure Libertarians, they still went along with the lesser of two evils. NOW, that the shit hit the fan, they're saying that it was all government and socialists within the mainstream parties. Apparently, ALL of the deregulation that went from the 80's on down to Clinton and Bush II, was not adhering to free market principles.

Ok, so I will give them that the application of free market theory was different than the textbook example of pure competiton, but how can they deny that policy makers were not influenced by the works of Friedman and other right leaning economists?

[rén]

Neoliberalism, the latest effort by those with the capital to get a world wide bill of rights, has brought itself to the brink of its own demise once again. What's evolved is a kind of managed democracy Inc., as Wolin calls it, with interlinked institutions of pretty much the same framework, within elite run nation states calling themselves democracies, creating a vast, interlinked global system, utterly dependent on itself. What we are seeing is the demise of a complex system, only this one is far more dangerous as it comes apart than past collapses of such complex systems, because it has been sustained for so long, and it was put together so quickly with extremely cheap nonrenewable energy, that the breaking up into smaller parts (as all past complexity collapse has) is going to be a real challenge, so many of the globe's population are completely unprepared to make small communities work again. There are so many versions of socialism I don't know which one someone is talking about when they use the term. Personally I think something that will be self instructive and adaptive will have to be based on something like anarcho syndicalist principles and broken up into rhizome like sub units in order to reconstruct a viable adaptive solution to a world without cheap energy.


RadioRaheem84 wrote;

Ok, so I will give them that the application of free market theory was different than the textbook example of pure competiton, but how can they deny that policy makers were not influenced by the works of Friedman and other right leaning economists?Denial is one of their basic psychological fundamentals for engaging the world.

After all, the free market ideology as the libertarians speak it is about as impossible as any other vision of ideological perfection imagined to be simply planted on the planet by fiat. If it could evolve, it already would have. People will form power groups if it's possible, meanwhile spouting Orwellian double speak about the values of individual achievement. Capital is a direct means to power and influence, and those with it want the least risk possible. It's not too hard to see that the results are imperialistic governance under various guises, such as the one that evolved in the US after WWII with it's military industrial complex.

[BraneMatter]

Neoliberalism, the latest effort by those with the capital to get a world wide bill of rights, has brought itself to the brink of its own demise once again. What's evolved is a kind of managed democracy Inc., as Wolin calls it, with interlinked institutions of pretty much the same framework, within elite run nation states calling themselves democracies, creating a vast, interlinked global system, utterly dependent on itself. What we are seeing is the demise of a complex system, only this one is far more dangerous as it comes apart than past collapses of such complex systems, because it has been sustained for so long, and it was put together so quickly with extremely cheap nonrenewable energy, that the breaking up into smaller parts (as all past complexity collapse has) is going to be a real challenge, so many of the globe's population are completely unprepared to make small communities work again. There are so many versions of socialism I don't know which one someone is talking about when they use the term. Personally I think something that will be self instructive and adaptive will have to be based on something like anarcho syndicalist principles and broken up into rhizome like sub units in order to reconstruct a viable adaptive solution to a world without cheap energy.

Denial is one of their basic psychological fundamentals for engaging the world.

After all, the free market ideology as the libertarians speak it is about as impossible as any other vision of ideological perfection imagined to be simply planted on the planet by fiat. If it could evolve, it already would have. People will form power groups if it's possible, meanwhile spouting Orwellian double speak about the values of individual achievement. Capital is a direct means to power and influence, and those with it want the least risk possible. It's not too hard to see that the results are imperialistic governance under various guises, such as the one that evolved in the US after WWII with it's military industrial complex.

What you seem to argue in the first part about anarcho-syndicalism being the future solution, seems to be disproved by what you argue in the second part about Libertarianism.

If syndicalism could have evolved successfully, it already would have. But the IWW's time has past, and I don't see how you can confine the struggle against the capitalists to the point of production only.

Does not the struggle have to be on many fronts (political, educational, cultural, even armed revolution in some cases, etc.?) Isn't this proven by the actual historical dialectics, making the Marxist approach right?

The "new global order" is indeed now in danger of collapsing before becoming permanently entrenched. It was spurred on mainly by the U.S., and based on three propositions:

1. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. would be the world's only military superpower, and thus could enforce its will on the world.
2. The U.S. would also remain the world's top economic power.
3. U.S. style "democracy" and free-market, trickle-down capitalism must be spread globally, so that the whole world would look like the United States.

This was also the neo-con wet dream of American empire, put forth in the PNAC documents. It was Reganism for the whole world! Never mind the Europeans, they would, like everybody else, just have to follow the U.S. lead in establishing this new global order.

It was stupid, it was arrogant, and now the chickens have come home to roost...

[rén]

What you seem to argue in the first part about anarcho-syndicalism being the future solution, seems to be disproved by what you argue in the second part about Libertarianism.

If syndicalism could have evolved successfully, it already would have. But the IWW's time has past, and I don't see how you can confine the struggle against the capitalists to the point of production only.

Does not the struggle have to be on many fronts (political, educational, cultural, even armed revolution in some cases, etc.?) Isn't this proven by the actual historical dialectics, making the Marxist approach right?

The "new global order" is indeed now in danger of collapsing before becoming permanently entrenched. It was spurred on mainly by the U.S., and based on three propositions:

1. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. would be the world's only military superpower, and thus could enforce its will on the world.
2. The U.S. would also remain the world's top economic power.
3. U.S. style "democracy" and free-market, trickle-down capitalism must be spread globally, so that the whole world would look like the United States.

This was also the neo-con wet dream of American empire, put forth in the PNAC documents. It was Reganism for the whole world! Never mind the Europeans, they would, like everybody else, just have to follow the U.S. lead in establishing this new global order.

It was stupid, it was arrogant, and now the chickens have come home to roost...

At the moment I have no reasonable idea what this message means:


To be able to post links or images your post count must be 25 or greater. You currently have 2 posts.

Please remove links from your message, then you will be able to submit your post.I have only two posts to my "credit" so I can't link my links to the references? Ok. I guess if anyone cares they can ask me for my references 22 posts from this one.

I'm personally not arguing for anything. Like I said, it would have to be "something like." We essentially evolved these large hierarchically ordered nation states from small group settings, within which we apparently evolved to our full cognitive capacity as thinking beings quite some time ago, maybe forty thousand to a hundred thousand years ago. And I agree, all ideas that are ideologically based as a paradigmatic blueprint I consider to be inherently flawed.

However, I'd also note that ground up rhizome linked social organizations are different in nature than no social organization at all, just individuals autonomously making decisions for their individual self satisfaction in a mass market of generally socially isolated individuals. So I would be hesitant to compare the two on that basis.

If you haven't, then perhaps you'll be interested in looking at the history of collapsed societies. Joseph Tainter has a pretty good analysis: The Collapse of Complex Societies. From his book you'll find that when most have collapsed what happens is the existing local economies just continue on as the superstructure that calls itself an empire withdraws like the tide, revealing the fundamental economy that it has been parasitically drawing from. I wouldn't exactly call it evolution if as the superstructure of neoliberalism on the globe collapses pockets of worker based economic communities find ways to adapt to its disappearance.

I'm not a revolutionary in the sense of promoting a mass movement on many fronts. I think it has built in contradictions, one fairly significant one is that with size goes the need to economize the energy needed to organize to get things done; that leads inevitably to hierarchical organization solutions. Hierarchy is a basic structure needed for authoritarianism, and we see it being put in place in the US with a movement towards what is called the Unitary Executive Theory, a theory designed to put the President in a better position to control the massive Federal bureaucracy that's grown over the two hundred some odd years of the nation's existence. People then find themselves in institutional settings and begin to adapt to those conditions and behave accordingly. One of the negative results of that is, I believe, exemplified by such experiments as those tried by Zimbardo about thirty some years ago, he describes it in his book The Lucifer Effect. Such experiments were part of a concerted effort by the social sciences to attempt to find explanations for some of the atrocities that took place during WWII. But I appreciate your passion in that regard. I guess if I were to say I promote anything it would be individual self realization of some sort.

I would argue that the latest version of the new global order was already well underway when the Bretton Woods Conference took place in 1944 (I put the following in a search engine and came up with lots of sources: Bretton Woods Conference 1973 Brzezinski), US militarization and the cold war as I've analyzed it seems to have been promulgated by that capitalist world order ideology and blue print, setting up that financial capitalist world order binary opposition against the Soviets, and what was perceived as a populist based communism. What it really was, was just another form of totalitarian top down authoritarianism, nothing whatsoever to do with the principles of communism, at least as thinkers like Trotsky imagined it. Then the 1973 Bretton Woods conference set up the Trilateral Commision and from it emerged the neoliberal democratization paradigm that the US began to initiate after Reaganism took off. You'll find Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brezinski mixed up in all that. Brezinski is credited with suckering the Soviets into Afghanistan which is also linked to their eventual financial collapse.

The neoconservative wet dream was just an extremist imperialist variant of that program and I consider it a subset of the larger model of neoliberalism that, indeed, Reaganomics represented. The larger brain behind it was Milton Friedman. All it's done, combined with the extreme stupidity of this gang of clowns in the White House, is hasten the demise of the US economy. But I think that was eventual anyway, because the world economy is based on vanishing finite resources for which increasing numbers of nations are competing.

[BraneMatter]

I'm personally not arguing for anything. Like I said, it would have to be "something like." We essentially evolved these large hierarchically ordered nation states from small group settings, within which we apparently evolved to our full cognitive capacity as thinking beings quite some time ago, maybe forty thousand to a hundred thousand years ago. And I agree, all ideas that are ideologically based as a paradigmatic blueprint I consider to be inherently flawed.



In Marxist theory, dialectics should be the practical and scientific basis for how things take shape towards building a socialist society. The ideological principles remain basically intact, but strategy and tactics are fluid.

I am not sure I agree about reaching, "...our full cognitive capacity as thinking beings quite some time ago..." It may well be that all world-view paradigms have inherent flaws for various reasons, but our "cosmic egg" has evolved considerably over time, and is still doing so. As "cracks" appear in our old world view, the whole egg is eventually transformed into a new paradigm, such as took place during the Renaissance, and then things really hit the fan during the Enlightenment. The effects of that last big change are still being worked out today, and I believe that technology and science are already putting us on the edge of another big shift. To use another metaphor, the old "food" which nourished the civilization inside the existing Cosmic Egg (world-view/paradigm) is replaced when a crack occurs with new "food," which shapes, eventually, a whole new Egg.

I guess what I was trying to say was that a 'model' like anarcho-syndicalism, which tends to focus only on point of production (labor union struggles, worker takeover of factories, etc.) and treats the state and other outside forces as if they were not even there, is not realistic. In the same way, libertarianism ignores certain facts about human nature, society, the state, and history, which is not to say that Marxists have a perfect record either.

Of course, during the Great Depression, and during the war years, people did fall back on small co-op farming projects and "Victory Gardens," and I imagine there was a lot of trade and barter going on as well, so I see what you are suggesting about pockets of alternative economies coming into existence as the global macro-system chokes-up during the crisis.

[rén]

In Marxist theory, dialectics should be the practical and scientific basis for how things take shape towards building a socialist society. The ideological principles remain basically intact, but strategy and tactics are fluid.

I am not sure I agree about reaching, "...our full cognitive capacity as thinking beings quite some time ago..." It may well be that all world-view paradigms have inherent flaws for various reasons, but our "cosmic egg" has evolved considerably over time, and is still doing so. As "cracks" appear in our old world view, the whole egg is eventually transformed into a new paradigm, such as took place during the Renaissance, and then things really hit the fan during the Enlightenment. The effects of that last big change are still being worked out today, and I believe that technology and science are already putting us on the edge of another big shift. To use another metaphor, the old "food" which nourished the civilization inside the existing Cosmic Egg (world-view/paradigm) is replaced when a crack occurs with new "food," which shapes, eventually, a whole new Egg.

I guess what I was trying to say was that a 'model' like anarcho-syndicalism, which tends to focus only on point of production (labor union struggles, worker takeover of factories, etc.) and treats the state and other outside forces as if they were not even there, is not realistic. In the same way, libertarianism ignores certain facts about human nature, society, the state, and history, which is not to say that Marxists have a perfect record either.

Of course, during the Great Depression, and during the war years, people did fall back on small co-op farming projects and "Victory Gardens," and I imagine there was a lot of trade and barter going on as well, so I see what you are suggesting about pockets of alternative economies coming into existence as the global macro-system chokes-up during the crisis.

I just want to focus on this:


I am not sure I agree about reaching, "...our full cognitive capacity as thinking beings quite some time ago..."

Theoretically you could take a newborn human from a hunter gathering group forty thousand years ago and with a time machine put her in a modern day home to grow up and you couldn't tell the difference between her or anyone else. That's what I mean by cognitive capacity.

The rest of your discussion represents what I would see as belief in an ideology, which is what our cognitive capacities make possible. I like to keep cognitive capacity and human ideas derived from our cognitive tool box separated. I don't know if the ideas have any influence on the genotypic make up of human beings, but I'd be highly skeptical of any such claims. I don't know how they could be scientifically verified with a species that cannot be studied like a lab rat, that is, ourselves.

This is important in my world view because I see each of us starting from birth and pro actively learning to be human beings through the exercise of our cognitive capacities, and each uniquely developing our brains. As such we each are in the position to act on our own volition regarding the ideas we come to put together as the make up of our world view. We are in the position of having to agree through these ideas, which are but a map, not the territory of each of our minds. Hegel, who also drew from a philosophical history back to Plato and his dialectics, was a strong influence in the philosophical universe about the time Marx began to develop his structural diagnosis of capitalism, and that influenced what became known as the Marxist dialectic. What I see in them is a pattern of thinking that creates different variations, but the essential theme is the binary opposition pattern, a very Western philosophical tradition, but not necessarily the only tradition of value in the world of human beings.

I am skeptical of such philosophies being correlated with any deterministic human ontology because they are essentially idea based, and deeply culturally focused. The resulting conflict between other ideas expressed through complex cultures continue in the world, and it seems more likely that the winning and losing of the so-called best ideas are determined by the results of human conflict with their hierarchically developed militaries and other expressions of power, such as the accumulation of capital, rather than with the power of ideas themselves, what ever that might be imagined to be. Meanwhile the philosophers with their favorite ideas gloss over the human misery and see the noble truth working itself out in the abstract. This model was put forth by Plato with his Cave Allegory in which the philosopher elites were the one's most fit to lead while the rest of humanity struggled to make sense of the shadows on the wall of the cave. I'm just not compelled by that model.

[BraneMatter]

Theoretically you could take a newborn human from a hunter gathering group forty thousand years ago and with a time machine put her in a modern day home to grow up and you couldn't tell the difference between her or anyone else. That's what I mean by cognitive capacity.



Well, since there obviously has been an improvement in cognitive capacity since the time when our genetic ancestors branched off from the apes, it could be that not enough time has gone by to show a large increase since that time. On the other hand, since we have no living cave-men to test, how do you know that your theory is correct?

Granted, the genetics are likely very close, but small changes might make a big difference. Look at what just one bad gene can do! The difference between a moron and a genius perhaps! Change a gene or two, and you might unleash a race of super-Einsteins!

And why, for example, did it take so long to establish agriculture, or 'invent' the wheel? And why the seeming sudden and rapid acceleration in technology at the time of the Renaissance onward. Is that totally due to social environment? And why so long to create that environment that made the great leap possible? Looks like a cognitive leap may also be at work there, but again, evolution may sometimes move very slowly, or sometimes very suddenly, as with a mutation. Maybe it was due to better diet, which changed the genetics slightly over time. Who knows?

For example, a man living in the 1700's would have more in common, in terms of technology, with an ancient Egyptian than with a man living today. Why such a lopsided graph? Why the big leap in just the last 400 or so years?

Again, I'm not sure we have, as a species, been around long enough to measure cognitive leaps in a meaningful way, and since we can't raise the dead yet, all we have to go by and compare is written history and digging up old bones or artifacts. These may not be certain enough to draw any final conclusions about cognitive changes over time.

And are you saying that human evolution has come to an end, in terms of cognitive ability? How can you base that on any scientific evidence? How can we predict future mutations, or slow evolutionary changes over hundreds of thousands of years into the future? (If we last that long -- lol)

[BraneMatter]

What a surprise!!!

All the people on Paulson's TARP bailout teams are government, Wall Street, and banker guys who represent the same people who caused the problem!

They are all making speeches today saying they are working "for the people," and "for the taxpayers."

What a lying bunch of bushwhackers.

Don't see ANYONE on their team who represents the working class people paying for these bailouts.

It's the same ole song and dance, same ole dog and pony show for the serfs...

[rén]

Well, since there obviously has been an improvement in cognitive capacity since the time when our genetic ancestors branched off from the apes, it could be that not enough time has gone by to show a large increase since that time. On the other hand, since we have no living cave-men to test, how do you know that your theory is correct?I said theoretically. Most of what we think we know is theoretical.

They weren't "cave men." You may be thinking of Neanderthals.


And are you saying that human evolution has come to an end, in terms of cognitive ability? How can you base that on any scientific evidence? How can we predict future mutations, or slow evolutionary changes over hundreds of thousands of years into the future? (If we last that long -- lol)Why would I say that? I understand a number of theories about how evolution is supposed to happen.

Evolutionary pressure could very well be making humans much more stupid than our hunter gatherer ancestors. We may be creating an environment where sociopathology and other forms of potentially genetically based pathologies are not selected against, and thus they thrive to reproduce in our mega hierarchies that have ideas as their basis for change rather than immediate sociological interactive pressures as would be present in small hunting and gathering groups. Mass technology replaces the creative ability to respond directly to the environment. Specialization selects for certain types of abilities and ignores others, or perhaps even other disabilities and lets them thrive. I've looked into the notion of genetic loading as a result of our technological achievements on many fronts, not the least of which is medicine, it's potentially not a good thing, and we have seen what happens when bioengineers in the Third Reich got their hands on laboratories and subjects.

What do you think might have happened with the first industrial revolution had cheap energy not been discovered? What would you suppose are the correlations between cheap energy and technological development over the past 150 years?

Do you actually believe that technology is strongly correlated with advanced cognitive capacity? That because you have a car to drive or a computer to operate that makes you cognitively superior to someone in the 1700s? How would you support that belief if you do?

What do you know about the interactions between phenotype and genotype in human beings, or any similar organism? Good diet is a phenotypic pressure that allows certain hereditary aspects of genotype to develop in a given environment. But does phenotypic development in a lifetime actually effect change in the genotype transferred to offspring?

Honestly, I don't see much more to add to this discussion. I think we can see we are not discussing much that can be verified if we just stop and look at what's been said. It seems to me it's destined to be completely speculative from here on out and the only thing that will bear upon anything for either of us is our belief in the truth of various unverifiable hypotheses.

[Agrippa]

Why did they do it in the Fifties? Why the Smith Act of 1940 and other similar laws in the states?

The fifties were a different time period than now. The fifties were a period of power in which two rival states were vying for economic prominence. Thus it would make perfect sense for ideologists of state A (the u.s.) to scapegoat Marxist-Leninists, the ideology of state B. (the u.s.s.r.) Whereas, here in the turn of the 21st century, the u.s. is fading in terms of global prominence, having to share the pie with the e.u., the p.r.c., and the russian federation. (And in future perhaps the a.u. and u.n.a.s.u.r.) Now basically the u.s.'s primary goal is to struggle to keep a military and economic foothold in the Middle East amidst fully realized, neo-colonialism, rapidly-expanding social unrest, and growth of p.r.c./russian influence in the reigon. (Through proxies like Iran) Thus it would make more sense to scapegoat Islamists, as ideologues in the u.s. have been doing for the past 5 years, who serve as better scapegoats than "commies" anyway, as they are both racially charged (hence the constant obsession with Obama's Arabic ethnicity) and unbound to a specific geography. The state had fun during the mid 90s scapegoating right-wing populists, and scapegoating Northwestern green anarchist/primitivist types during the late 90s, but if you American M-Ls want the state and its mass-media puppets to even remotely care about you, you're going to have to just be generally less incompetent. (Compare "Marxist"-Leninist groups in the u.s. like the i.s.o., the r.c.p., m.i.m., and the evergrowing list of worker's world party splinter-groups to M-L groups in Europe, Asia, Latin America, the Mideast, etc. who are actually competent at fulfilling their own agendas and thus suffer from routine state repression)

(Also, I suggest you read J. Sakai's "Settlers" as it dispells the often-held myth that the 1950s was a period of "persecution" for white american Communists, rather than merely a successful attempt by the establishment to intimidate them back into a place of benign subservience)

Regarding "socialism for the rich", it's a matter of semantics. The average right-winger defines "socialism" as any state that relies on government intervention over the economy. Of course, rather than ridiculing this definition, we can roll with it and draw the conclusion, as Ward Churchill has done, that capitalist society from the early days of primitive accumulation has been "socialist".

Social Democrats and "laissez-faire" capitalists both uphold the ideology of a brick wall between the "pure" forces of the market and the forces of "government", (the former demanding increased welfare state/501(c)(3) totalitarianism to save us from the "greedy market", and the latter justifying random policy changes as "freeing us" from "big government") when in fact, the distinctions are meaningless and the dichtonomy false.


It is the conservative people that want a free-market and small government.

That's what they claim, but ideological rhetoric frequently exists to hide blatant truths. For example, is any self-proclaimed american "conservative" in favor of "small government" when it comes to law enforcement, the prison system, border control, state subsidies for agricultural, pharmaceutical, petroleum, etc. industries, etc.?



It is the conservative people that want a free-market and small government.

That's what they claim, but ideological rhetoric frequently exists to hide blatant truths. For example, is any self-proclaimed american "conservative" in favor of "small government" when it comes to law enforcement, the prison system, border control, state subsidies for agricultural, pharmaceutical, petroleum, etc. industries, etc.?


No.The vast majority of Americans have been far to the left of federal politics since the late 60s/70s.

9_9


The next turn has been a large sector of America is no longer silently leftist. People will clamor for socialized healthcare

If "socialized healthcare" is Leftist, are the u.k. and france Leftist regimes?



The bible-toting rednecks are a minority and they will soon fade away.

A. I don't think any self-proclaimed "leftist" (assuming by "leftist" you mean interested in some sort of class war or class struggle) should be using epithets rooted in class division such as "redneck". (I merely suggest you educate yourself on the origins of the term)
B. How rose-tinted is your perspective if you honestly believe "bible-thumpers" are the minority in the u.s.? Evangelical Christianity is one of the most popular movements in the u.s. and it is only growing in popularity.

[RadioRaheem84]

The US is a ferociously racist working class nation that leans to the far right these days. The days of progressive Democrats, populists and Mid-Western Socialists are long over. No more Woodie Guthrie, only Bob Roberts is left now.

Right-Wing populism seems to be the rule of the day in Middle America. It sort of reminds me of the people that supported Slobadon Milosovich in the Balkans. An anti-intellectual, fundamentalist Christian, racist, xenophobic, anti-leftist, populist faction has grown rapidly since a black man won the Democratic presidential nomination.

Look at the videos of McCain-Palin supporters calling Obama a monkey, communist, a terrorist, and an Arab. Why the hell do they think he is an Arab? How is a man who is half-Kenyan, Half-Irish an Arab? This is the type of lunacy that has been fostering in the rural areas of America. I am not kidding. These people are truly ignorant in a bad, easily manipulated by fascists, way. They have no idea what an Arab person really looks like.


Why do they blame corporate cronyism on socialists? The people involved were hardcore capitalists and believed in Friedman like they believe in Jesus.

This is the type of zaniness we're going to have to put up with. The country is heading for an even WORSE split than with Bush in '04. God Forbid that one of these people might want to assassinate Obama in an open square.

Point is, I have no hope for a huge portion of the working class in this nation. The minorities, white progressives, true Christians, and some of the youth are the only people I trust in these trying times.

[Psy]

Point is, I have no hope for a huge portion of the working class in this nation. The minorities, white progressives, true Christians, and some of the youth are the only people I trust in these trying times.
You underestimate the working class, in a revolutionary situation they will surprise you.

[BraneMatter]

The fifties were a different time period than now. The fifties were a period of power in which two rival states were vying for economic prominence. Thus it would make perfect sense for ideologists of state A (the u.s.) to scapegoat Marxist-Leninists, the ideology of state B. (the u.s.s.r.) Whereas, here in the turn of the 21st century, the u.s. is fading in terms of global prominence, having to share the pie with the e.u., the p.r.c., and the russian federation. (And in future perhaps the a.u. and u.n.a.s.u.r.) Now basically the u.s.'s primary goal is to struggle to keep a military and economic foothold in the Middle East amidst fully realized, neo-colonialism, rapidly-expanding social unrest, and growth of p.r.c./russian influence in the reigon. (Through proxies like Iran) Thus it would make more sense to scapegoat Islamists, as ideologues in the u.s. have been doing for the past 5 years, who serve as better scapegoats than "commies" anyway, as they are both racially charged (hence the constant obsession with Obama's Arabic ethnicity) and unbound to a specific geography. The state had fun during the mid 90s scapegoating right-wing populists, and scapegoating Northwestern green anarchist/primitivist types during the late 90s, but if you American M-Ls want the state and its mass-media puppets to even remotely care about you, you're going to have to just be generally less incompetent. (Compare "Marxist"-Leninist groups in the u.s. like the i.s.o., the r.c.p., m.i.m., and the evergrowing list of worker's world party splinter-groups to M-L groups in Europe, Asia, Latin America, the Mideast, etc. who are actually competent at fulfilling their own agendas and thus suffer from routine state repression)

The capitalists will scapegoat anyone and anything they see as a potential challenge. I don't think it's a matter of a particular time period, only the level of scapegoating varies depending on how the 'threat' is perceived. I have seen all sorts of anti-socialist propaganda in the media recently since the economic crisis has dominated the news.



(Also, I suggest you read J. Sakai's "Settlers" as it dispells the often-held myth that the 1950s was a period of "persecution" for white american Communists, rather than merely a successful attempt by the establishment to intimidate them back into a place of benign subservience)


Well, I lived during those times, and communists and labor leaders were beaten, arrested, spyed-on, set-up, deported and imprisoned. Careers were ruined, families torn apart, and there was a lot of fear and mistrust in the air.

I call that persecution.

And it continued on into the Sixties, under J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO and Dick Nixon, and today we have seen how the Bush regime has painted all its opponents as "terrorists," and used the FBI, CIA, NSA, the Patriot Act, etc. to intimidate and persecute. They will scapegoat anyone who is not "with them." Nixon, Reagan, and The Bush Boys are all birds of a feather.

As for Obama, I have heard just as many people calling him a "communist" as those who suspect he is a closet Muslim terrorist. That's what the whole Ayers/Weatherman thing is about. Fear of communism is rampant on the right in the U.S.

J. Sakai may wish to portray the McCarthy era as not all that bad, but I don't buy it. The capitalist system is reactionary and dangerous at any period, because that's just it's nature, that's what it does. J. Sakai may feel that white workers sold out, but he does admit there were "some good ones" (sounds familiar).

I understand his main thesis about "imported whites" (settlers, colonialists) stealing the land, and being the priviledged class in the U.S. and elsewhere, and his mistrust. It's understandable. He sees them as occupiers. I once met with Stokely Carmichael in Texas in the mid-Sixties, and he had much the same distrust of white student radicals like the SDS. But the fact remains, many whites did join the struggle, and they were persecuted for it. I also understand that Blacks and other minorities had things a lot worse, and so the bitterness exists towards whites. But a lot of whites also fought for civil rights, and to end the racist regime in South Africa.

It doesn't help if we all belittle each other's struggles against imperialism and oppression. Somehow, we have to end racism and live in peace.

Here is an article (http://www.sacurrent.com/columns/story.asp?id=57700)about an old friend of mine, John Stanford, a prominent member of the Communist Party, who lived through his own nightmare of persecution and oppression during those years of the Fifties and Sixties.

[redarmyfaction38]

We shouldn't get discouraged by this. The fact is that the masses are decisively shifting to the left in their thinking. There are always at least 10 level-headed workers for every racist psychotic out there.

And besides, it makes me glad to see that the specter of Communism still haunts the dreams of the bourgeoisie. :lol:
bad baby!:laugh:
it's what keeps me going and giggling too.
fuck the straights.
international socialism all the way!!!!!

[LunaSlave]

I bet they'll say it was the socialists, the muslims, the mexicans, AND the jews.

don't forget women who support abortion rights and the ACLU. gotta have all the bases covered in the lunatic right wing attacks on 'others'

[BraneMatter]

don't forget women who support abortion rights and the ACLU. gotta have all the bases covered in the lunatic right wing attacks on 'others'

And gays, who brought on hurricane Katrina and god's wrath because they wanted to parade down Canal street or whatever! So says Pastor Hagee.

It would seem there is just an endless supply of scapegoats for the right-wing witch hunters...

[spice756]

There are 3 options they are talking about :(:(a law that all businesses must give heath coverage ,The poor getting more money to get health insurance.The people do not want free heath they want more money to get health insurance or heath coverage from a job


The people don't want socialism they want better wages and jobs.They don't want free education or health care.They want more money to buy education and health care.

Many jails ,prisons and rescue service are private like alot of ambulance service now.The police and fire are starting to charge you to come your car crash or home.If you cut your harm it cost money to take you to the ER .

The army all the tools and stuff for the army is private .Most stuff NASA get now is private .

That look at it this way the US will like 100% private .I'm sure most cities hydro and gas are private along with road work being contracted out.

[spice756]

That is not the case for the industrial workers. Go to any factory or mine and the workers all know the bosses are exploiting their asses and haven't revolted yet because they have no hope that it could be any other way.


But that does not mean they want socialism.



America is generally more left than it's politicans. The majority want free healthcare, those websites and posts are a vocal minority.


Trust me If you could show a link that 20 or 25% US people will like free healthcare. I would be very shocked



Obama will likely win at this point unless people buy into the "terrorist" accusations that have been resurrected


The poor people have no one else to vote for they hope Obama will up the wages.

They want more money and jobs not socialism.The US is not like the UK or France .



Unfortunately, Obama doesn't want free healthcare. The democrats just believe in a slightly (and I must stress slightly) more bottom up economic plan...if you can call it that since their emphasis for the campaign seems to be on the fictional middle class. They don't want free healthcare, they want to find a way to bring more people into the healthcare system.


I believe Hilary clinton long ago talk about free healthcare.




You have the red scare and the US's main enemy for almost 50 years being a "socialist" country to thank for that


So was UK,France and sweden and they did not turn out to be like the US.

Look at the problem the US is so conservative and anti-socialism it is a culture thing.

[BraneMatter]

I said theoretically. Most of what we think we know is theoretical.

They weren't "cave men." You may be thinking of Neanderthals.

Why would I say that? I understand a number of theories about how evolution is supposed to happen.

Evolutionary pressure could very well be making humans much more stupid than our hunter gatherer ancestors. We may be creating an environment where sociopathology and other forms of potentially genetically based pathologies are not selected against, and thus they thrive to reproduce in our mega hierarchies that have ideas as their basis for change rather than immediate sociological interactive pressures as would be present in small hunting and gathering groups. Mass technology replaces the creative ability to respond directly to the environment. Specialization selects for certain types of abilities and ignores others, or perhaps even other disabilities and lets them thrive. I've looked into the notion of genetic loading as a result of our technological achievements on many fronts, not the least of which is medicine, it's potentially not a good thing, and we have seen what happens when bioengineers in the Third Reich got their hands on laboratories and subjects.

What do you think might have happened with the first industrial revolution had cheap energy not been discovered? What would you suppose are the correlations between cheap energy and technological development over the past 150 years?

Do you actually believe that technology is strongly correlated with advanced cognitive capacity? That because you have a car to drive or a computer to operate that makes you cognitively superior to someone in the 1700s? How would you support that belief if you do?

What do you know about the interactions between phenotype and genotype in human beings, or any similar organism? Good diet is a phenotypic pressure that allows certain hereditary aspects of genotype to develop in a given environment. But does phenotypic development in a lifetime actually effect change in the genotype transferred to offspring?

Honestly, I don't see much more to add to this discussion. I think we can see we are not discussing much that can be verified if we just stop and look at what's been said. It seems to me it's destined to be completely speculative from here on out and the only thing that will bear upon anything for either of us is our belief in the truth of various unverifiable hypotheses.

By "cave-men" I was referring basically to early hunter-gatherer groups, unscientific though that term may be.

I agree, we could be getting dumber rather than smarter.

I think I understand what you are saying a little better now, and our 'disagreements' are mostly semantic and of minor significance.

I am certainly no expert on genetics or evolution, and based what I said just on a general science model. You seem to have more specific knowledge in the area under discussion.

At any rate, it was a good discussion. Thanks.

[spice756]

That's what they claim, but ideological rhetoric frequently exists to hide blatant truths. For example, is any self-proclaimed american "conservative" in favor of "small government" when it comes to law enforcement, the prison system, border control, state subsidies for agricultural, pharmaceutical, petroleum, etc. industries, etc.?


Well part of the system they have no problem with lots of cops on the street and lots of jails.Even if 30% of the US people are in jail they have no problem.

They are pro-police and pro-army.

sorry I don't know about the subsidies for pharmaceutical or petroleum:cursing: You mean the US government gives money to pharmaceutical or petroleum industries?

[BraneMatter]

The McCain campaign is now openly accusing Obama of being a socialist and wanting to "redistribute the wealth" of Joe the Plumber.

Never mind that the current system distributes all the wealth to the top, and the rest of us must be content with the "trickle down." In addition, we are currently witnessing the largest redistribution of wealth perhaps in world history. And it's all being taken from the working class and redistributed to Wall Street gangsters and the greedy bankers. Some are calling it "nationalization," but the question really is, as one writer put it recently, "Whose taking over who here?" Calling it "socialism for the rich" is, of course, an oxymoron designed to blame the socialists instead of the capitalists for the mess.

Apparently, this "he wants to spread the wealth" and "he's a socialist" argument will be the main avenue of attack against Obama for the closing weeks of the McCain campaign, since the Bill Ayers thing went absolutely nowhere except with the gang of right-wing nuts that show up at the Palin rallies.

Now, even former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell has jumped the sinking McCain ship in disgust. :laugh:

Obama responded to the "socialist" charge today by saying, "You can call me whatever names you want, but I know what's right!" He then proceeded to point out all the money going to Wall Street, oil companies, and crooked CEO's.

(As for the Weathermen, regardless of how you view them, one must ask who the REAL terrorists were at the time - Bill Ayers or Richard Nixon and his gang of thugs? The actions of the Weathermen, or Kent State? The Weather Underground, or the illegal U.S. imperialist invasion of Vietnam and death and brutality beyond imagining? The Weathermen, or the brutal suppression of elections and liberty in Vietnam? The Weathermen, or the police and military violence against protestors in the streets of Chicago in '68? The Weathermen reacted to one of the most oppressive and imperialist regimes in U.S. history, and a hated war that was unjust, illegal, and ultimately sensless. The Weathermen reacted to the times they lived in, and many today forget how extreme those times were. The Vietnam War was ten times worse than our invasion of Iraq, as awful as that war is, and it bitterly divided our nation more than at any other time since the Civil War.)

_dkXX-6r_Kk

vyzoNCJvy4c

As Dick Nixon speaks in the above video, I can swear I've heard the SAME WORDS in more recent times.

I guess history does repeat itself...

-1H6DSzBlVk

[spice756]

The McCain campaign is now openly accusing Obama of being a socialist and wanting to "redistribute the wealth" of Joe the Plumber.

[spice756]

The McCain campaign is now openly accusing Obama of being a socialist and wanting to "redistribute the wealth" of Joe the Plumber.
[QUOTE]


That is what I was saying all along here .In the US he is a socialist and too radical for them.

Anyways you ignored my posts but members here keep bringing back quotes from other members but taking credit for it.

[Dr Mindbender]

jesus h christ.

Thank god for the atlantic ocean.

[Psy]

That is what I was saying all along here .In the US he is a socialist and too radical for them.

Anyways you ignored my posts but members here keep bringing back quotes from other members but taking credit for it.
It is too radical for the ruling class. The working class is really just apathetic, yet this current capitalist crisis probably force workers to pick a side. The capitalists have no choice but get capitalism back on track through even greater exploitation of workers, the working class can no longer turn to credit to maintain their living standards meaning workers will be faced with either consuming less or fighting back.

[spice756]

It is too radical for the ruling class. The working class is really just apathetic, yet this current capitalist crisis probably force workers to pick a side. The capitalists have no choice but get capitalism back on track through even greater exploitation of workers, the working class can no longer turn to credit to maintain their living standards meaning workers will be faced with either consuming less or fighting back.

Many of the blacks and non-white people are voting for him for 4 reasons .

1 better pay at work ( minimum wages)
2 trying to find jobs ( Hard to find jobs in the US now)
3 equality in work places
4 no one better than him ( the opposition party sucks)
5.better welfare money to the poor.

Not because he is a socialist.If you look at the election map the US is just has divide has in the 60's and confederate years .

They just feel safer with him than the opposition party .

[Bilan]

So what if they blame socialists?
No ones stupid enough to believe them, for it is totally ridiculous.

[spice756]

So what if they blame socialists?
No ones stupid enough to believe them, for it is totally ridiculous.

The problem is the US people are more Libertarian conservative and the government is for businesses.They don't understand this and think this is socialists messing the US up.

In other words people political views are different than the government .And in their views the US has never had a good person in power even Bush,Ronald Reagan ,Richard Nixon ,Lyndon B. Johnson so on..The evile type than JFK ,Bill Clinton,Obama who put on a nice face on the monster.

Well the socialists fear Bush,Ronald Reagan ,Richard Nixon ,Lyndon B. Johnson .

This may be the problem why the US is not moving on.If you get out of the US libertarian is dead.They support wars to to the media telling them to be scared they do not understand it is for profit the wars.