US stuck in time ?

[spice756]

What is your thought of the US? Why Europe or Latin American countries move some what left but not the US? Why some Asian countries move some what to the left but not the US .It had me thinking is culture some what involved here or is the US stuck in time ?

I got very very very depressed today on TV a poster saying love the US or leave it a poster with the US flag.Other quotes I see are land of a free .

This is so BS the US is not or any country in the world 100 free that is pure democracy and no country practice it at all.The libertarian party say you can do what ever to you self but must not harm others .But the US is not even libertarian :scared::scared:Well may be conservative libertarian but not liberal libertarian or libertarian socialism .

After analyzing the US it seems more a culture problem or people stuck in time.I believe religion ,political views,moral values,way of life so on is not free will :(but culture or shape of environment that will determine religion ,political views,moral values,way of life so on ..

The US seems to have both going for it :(culture problem or people stuck in time thus you get this redneck conservative fascist behavior.

I'm so mad we are in 2008 and not that much different in the way of thinking than after the 60's movement if not getting worse every year in the US.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

what remarkably unmaterialist hypotheses

[The Douche]

Look at the US 55 years ago, compare that to the US today, and tell me it hasn't changed, that it hasn't moved to the left, and that culture has not evolved in a more humanist manner. The material conditions don't exist for a socialist revolution, they are building up though.

[Annie K.]

I look from afar, and it doesn't seem to have moved to the left, except if you think that the expansion of the trade system to populations, activities and beliefs that once were excluded, is a move towards the left.

But i don't see Europe moving left either. "Love it or leave it" is a popular slogan here too.

[Abluegreen7]

Love it or Leave it?

Let them leave.... The Ultra Right can just leave before I leave.

[BraneMatter]

Basically, because Americans are arrogant assholes who think they are better than everyone else, and that the rest of the world exists to serve us. Plus, have become too lazy to think. We are victims of our own success. Just as Marx said, capitalism would flood the world with goods, and the U.S. led the charge. Americans are still not fully aware of, or refuse to see, the misery and consequences brought on by the system.

The psyche of the average American child has, for some time now, been raised up to believe that "It's all about ME!"

Historically, the notion of collectivism is pretty much alien to us. Although we had a few spurts of it in the early 20th century with the heyday of the unions, it was never really all that popular a notion here. And we have always had a love-hate relationship with our super-rich Andrew Carnegies and JP Morgans, as well as a secret admiration for the outlaws, bank robbers, and mob bosses like Jesse James and Al Capone.

Also, the myth and lure of the "frontier" was always there, firmly planted in the back of our minds, and the belief was that any man could get lucky and strike it rich in the gold rush or land rush. America was forever the land of "second chances" and starting over, the place where anything could happen, and that is why the immigrants flocked here.

So we became, eventually, the arrogant victims of our own success. America was geared for empire and imperialism from the start perhaps, and that goes back to our British roots. In so many ways, we were the perfect testing lab for capitalism, industry, and technology.

We "were"...

[GPDP]

While some progress has undoubtedly been made, it's no secret that, when compared to other advanced industrialized nations, the US is off the chart in terms of religious fundamentalism and social backwardness. A huge percent of the population (something like a third - I'm trying to find the statistics) believes in miracles, that the earth is 6000 years old, etc. In terms of social conservatism, we are up there with Iran, just about. And this despite the otherwise clean correlation between industrialization and secularization and socially progressive views present in almost every other country!

[The Douche]

I look from afar, and it doesn't seem to have moved to the left, except if you think that the expansion of the trade system to populations, activities and beliefs that once were excluded, is a move towards the left.


Really? So you don't consider desgregation to me a left-ward move? How about legalized abortion? How about the discussion in this election of some sort of government provided (in the case of the democrats) or government supportted (in the case of the republicans) healthcare? These are some pretty major developments toward the left that are being conceeded by the bourgeoisie. And these concessions don't occur in a vaccum, they occur because the proletariat demands them as they swing farther to the left.


Historically, the notion of collectivism is pretty much alien to us. Although we had a few spurts of it in the early 20th century with the heyday of the unions, it was never really all that popular a notion here. And we have always had a love-hate relationship with our super-rich Andrew Carnegies and JP Morgans, as well as a secret admiration for the outlaws, bank robbers, and mob bosses like Jesse James and Al Capone.

Collectivism is not alien to American history, it is just absent from the teaching of it and the spoonfed interpretation of it. Cooperation has always been present and necessary, frontier towns were operated on a largely mutualist basis, and defence was provided in common by all military aged males in the community, all buildings were erected by the community, and all people in the community were provided for by the rest of the community if necessary. But the bourgeois schools are not going to acknowledge that. Do you think English schoolkids learn about diggers and true levellers?

[Annie K.]

No i don't. Racial equality in a capitalist society is not a move to the left, it's a necessity of a modern capitalism, wich needs a broad middle class and can't afford to maintain a large, unified lumpenproletariat. Same goes for the others issues : abortion did not freed the women. And state interventionism has been accepted exactly at the same time by the socialist, liberal and conservative (and fascist) parties of europe : between 1914 and 1950.
It's not because a reform is not supported by the conservatives that it is mechanically a leftist reform. And everything that reduces misery and poverty is not a move to the left : ikea and sony are not leftist organizations.
Some people, in the richer classes of the USA, are against healthcare. That does not mean that their privileges and powers are endangered by healthcare, and that's even the contrary if they own parts of the pharmaceutical industry.

[The Douche]

No i don't. Racial equality in a capitalist society is not a move to the left, it's a necessity of a modern capitalism, wich needs a broad middle class and can't afford to maintain a large, unified lumpenproletariat. Same goes for the others issues : abortion did not freed the women. And state interventionism has been accepted exactly at the same time by the socialist, liberal and conservative (and fascist) parties of europe : between 1914 and 1950.
It's not because a reform is not supported by the conservatives that it is mechanically a leftist reform. And everything that reduces misery and poverty is not a move to the left : ikea and sony are not leftist organizations.
Some people, in the richer classes of the USA, are against healthcare. That does not mean that their privileges and powers are endangered by healthcare, and that's even the contrary if they own parts of the pharmaceutical industry.

It seems that you base your ideas of a "leftward shift" on the idea that it does damage to the ruling class. That is a flawed concept in my mind. If you don't think desegregation, abortion, and national healthcare a left concessions then you're a fool.

If the move from feudalism to capitalism is a shift to the left!

[freakazoid]

as well as a secret admiration for the outlaws, bank robbers,

I think that that is because of most people dislike of big government. And so they see these people as being able to live outside the system and say FU to it.


Also, the myth and lure of the "frontier" was always there, firmly planted in the back of our minds,

Pretty much the same as above. Living on your own without any government interference, putting your back into your living.

[Annie K.]

the move from feudalism to capitalism is a shift to the left! is it a joke ? The left didn't exist under feudalism, and I suspect that the concept did not start to be applied to non-french political parties before the socialism became an international movement.
The move from feudalism to capitalism is only the move from feudalism to capitalism. I may be a fool but when i make a one-line historical analysis i try not to make anachronisms.

My idea of a leftward shift is that it opposes the power of the ruling class. No movement is so radical that it can't be appropriated by the dominant ideology.

[Jazzratt]

I think that that is because of most people dislike of big government. And so they see these people as being able to live outside the system and say FU to it.

How romantic and idealist, pretty much a perfect picture of the American Zeitgeist. The dislike of "big government" has always been a right wing thing, along with a general fear of restrictions on markets and property rights. This is one of the major problems of American culture, especially when you consider the kind of scum from the american past that are idealised (gangsters, murderous outlaws and so on). Living outside the system helps no one but the selfish bastards doing it. Leftism is not a place for selfish bastards.

[freakazoid]

pretty much a perfect picture of the American Zeitgeist.

Huh?


The dislike of "big government" has always been a right wing thing

Really? So anarchists love big government? Or ANY government?


especially when you consider the kind of scum from the american past that are idealised (gangsters, murderous outlaws and so on).

I don't think anyone idealises people like Al Capone. More along the lines of outlaws who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor, the ones who wouldn't take from the working people.


Living outside the system helps no one but the selfish bastards doing it. Leftism is not a place for selfish bastards.

Hoarding something at the expinse of others is selfish. Wanting to make a life by your own two hands is not.

[Jazzratt]

Really? So anarchists love big government? Or ANY government?

Oh fuck off. Of course anarchists don't "love" governments but aside from the ones that believe in stupid shit like living outside the system or a revolution in the first world that is about to go off recognise the need for basic things - minimum wages, labour protection laws, legal protections for unions, healthcare and education for example. Recognising the necessity of something given material conditions and loving something are different. For example I do not love the market but I am more than willing to buy things in order to have them (food & drink for example).


I don't think anyone idealises people like Al Capone.

I'm not so sure.


More along the lines of outlaws who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor, the ones who wouldn't take from the working people.

People that didn't exist, you mean? The only reason I could imagine for the kind of people that actually preyed on the people of the frontier not stealing from the poor is because the poor have nothing worth stealing.


Hoarding something at the expinse of others is selfish. Wanting to make a life by your own two hands is not.

Maybe, but given that you don't need to and that the only person benefiting from your life, really, is you I'm still not convinced it's a leftist action.

[freakazoid]

Oh fuck off. Of course anarchists don't "love" governments

It was you who said that the the "dislike of 'big government' has always been a right wing thing." So no, I will not fuck off.


example. Recognising the necessity of something given material conditions

Maybe if less people found it acceptible for the government to exist it wouldn't be a problem.


I'm not so sure.

I am.


People that didn't exist, you mean?

No, people that did exist.


The only reason I could imagine for the kind of people that actually preyed on the people of the frontier not stealing from the poor is because the poor have nothing worth stealing.

I'm not talking about people who preyed on others on the frontier. There were people who would do exactly as I described. There were people who would help out poor people and farmers by leaving them money that was stolen from the banks.


Maybe, but given that you don't need to and that the only person benefiting from your life, really, is you I'm still not convinced it's a leftist action.

Pretty much most of someones life is torwards benefiting themselvs. Should we now mandate that your entire life must be torwards helping someone else? After all you don't want to be selfish now do you? Not everything you do has to be put in context of is this a leftist action. If it was then you should sell probably most of your stuff and stop drinking and smoking and put that money to helping someone else.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The USA is stuck in a system that makes sure only right-wingers get into power.
The president is always but a puppet of the large companies, such as the weapon companies, the tobacco companies, the chemical companies, the old-fashioned enery companies,...
The USA is a highly dangerous enemy of world peace, democracy and solidarity.
It's the most dangerous country on the planet. It can only be changed by radical change (Revolution, not necessarily armed).
It's not stuck in time, but it wants to control, enslave and consume all of the world.

[graaaaaagh]

Some of you seem to be confusing social liberalism with leftism. Left and right are economic, not sociopolitical, terms. Racial desegregation, legalized abortion, etc. are examples of social liberalization. In terms of economy, the US has not moved very much to the left at all in the last 50 years.

[The Douche]

is it a joke ? The left didn't exist under feudalism, and I suspect that the concept did not start to be applied to non-french political parties before the socialism became an international movement.
The move from feudalism to capitalism is only the move from feudalism to capitalism. I may be a fool but when i make a one-line historical analysis i try not to make anachronisms.

My idea of a leftward shift is that it opposes the power of the ruling class. No movement is so radical that it can't be appropriated by the dominant ideology.

Obviously you are confusing a "leftward shift" with "the left". Leftward moves in the social, political, or economic realm, do not have to come from the socialist movement. Just because the bourgeoisie does it does not mean it is not "left". "Left" does not equal revolutionary or socialist. It just is not right.

You just said your idea of a leftward shift is one which opposes the power of the ruling class. The classical liberals (i.e. the bourgeoisie) did oppose the ruling feudal class, therefore, by your definition the transition from feudalism to capitalism is "left". But also by your definition, fascism is left.:glare:


People that didn't exist, you mean? The only reason I could imagine for the kind of people that actually preyed on the people of the frontier not stealing from the poor is because the poor have nothing worth stealing.

Freakzoid is talking about people like "pretty boy floyd". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Boy_Floyd)

[Drace]

The American nation is filled with lies.

How else would someone be patriotic of an imperialist country?

[The Douche]

The American nation is filled with lies.

How else would someone be patriotic of an imperialist country?

They benefit from said imperialism, acknowledge that fact, and enjoy the fruits?

[cop an Attitude]

we have tons and tons of propaganda, its called the news

[DancingLarry]

Why doesn't the US move left?

Because we are the belly of the beast, the center of Empire, we are Metropolis, where even the poorest and most oppressed of us reap the rewards of the global redistribution of wealth that has for most of a century now been forcibly moved US-wards. In the process our own traditions of class solidarity have withered and died. There is no culture of solidarity left in our working class, all have bought into the same degenerate individualism that believes they can emerge triumphant and dominant in a social war of all against all. (Our bourgeoisie are of course very aware of the folly of that idea, and are highly, tightly organized, and always get their way as a result.) For those saying the US has become "more progressive". A century ago millions voted for a Socialist candidate for president, Eugene Debs got 12% of the vote in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma! Surely you'll acknowledge that a Socialist politician could not get 12% of the vote in Oklahoma today? Look at the withering and disappearance of working class institutions. True of formal institutions, such as labor unions, where 60 years ago 35% of private sector workers were in unions, today that number is less than a quarter of that, more like 8%. Also true of informal institutions, of neighborhood and community where there were strong bonds that reinforced working class values, today, those neighborhoods have been shattered and scattered rootlessly to the four winds of the faceless, nameless alienation of suburbia.

Times are changing now a bit on the economic front, the US is well advanced in the processes resulting from the long-tern tendency of the rate of return on capital to decline. Industrial capitalism has been forsaken for the quicker profit from finance, where the abstraction of capital is itself in turn abstracted, and riches are gained not by production but by arbitrage, by sleight-of-hand. Surely this hollowing out shall lead to cracking and then collapse of the empty shell. However, the lack of a culture of solidarity, of working class institutions and socialist ideas and activists, means that the response to the economic failure of late corporate capitalism will come from the hard reactionary-populist right. We've already seen that in the political mainstream it was the most reactionary right faction of Congress that led the fight against the Billionaire Bailout Bill of 2008. Ol' Mike Huckleberry is sitting over on the sidelines with an economic agenda more populist and more aligned to working class needs than anything bourgeois corporate liberal Dems like Obama and Biden would ever consider. When the corporatist liberals inevitably fail in their efforts to rescue American finance capital on the backs of the working class, who are better positioned to take advantage of that opening, the socialist left or the reactionary populist right?

I believe the next few years offer we on the Left more opportunities than we've had in this country since the end of World War II, but not a lot of time to get it right. And the consequences of not getting it right...well, I'm older than most of you here. I won't have to pay as many of those prices as you will.

[The Douche]

Why doesn't the US move left?

Because we are the belly of the beast, the center of Empire, we are Metropolis, where even the poorest and most oppressed of us reap the rewards of the global redistribution of wealth that has for most of a century now been forcibly moved US-wards. In the process our own traditions of class solidarity have withered and died. There is no culture of solidarity left in our working class, all have bought into the same degenerate individualism that believes they can emerge triumphant and dominant in a social war of all against all. (Our bourgeoisie are of course very aware of the folly of that idea, and are highly, tightly organized, and always get their way as a result.) For those saying the US has become "more progressive". A century ago millions voted for a Socialist candidate for president, Eugene Debs got 12% of the vote in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma! Surely you'll acknowledge that a Socialist politician could not get 12% of the vote in Oklahoma today? Look at the withering and disappearance of working class institutions. True of formal institutions, such as labor unions, where 60 years ago 35% of private sector workers were in unions, today that number is less than a quarter of that, more like 8%. Also true of informal institutions, of neighborhood and community where there were strong bonds that reinforced working class values, today, those neighborhoods have been shattered and scattered rootlessly to the four winds of the faceless, nameless alienation of suburbia.

Times are changing now a bit on the economic front, the US is well advanced in the processes resulting from the long-tern tendency of the rate of return on capital to decline. Industrial capitalism has been forsaken for the quicker profit from finance, where the abstraction of capital is itself in turn abstracted, and riches are gained not by production but by arbitrage, by sleight-of-hand. Surely this hollowing out shall lead to cracking and then collapse of the empty shell. However, the lack of a culture of solidarity, of working class institutions and socialist ideas and activists, means that the response to the economic failure of late corporate capitalism will come from the hard reactionary-populist right. We've already seen that in the political mainstream it was the most reactionary right faction of Congress that led the fight against the Billionaire Bailout Bill of 2008. Ol' Mike Huckleberry is sitting over on the sidelines with an economic agenda more populist and more aligned to working class needs than anything bourgeois corporate liberal Dems like Obama and Biden would ever consider. When the corporatist liberals inevitably fail in their efforts to rescue American finance capital on the backs of the working class, who are better positioned to take advantage of that opening, the socialist left or the reactionary populist right?

I believe the next few years offer we on the Left more opportunities than we've had in this country since the end of World War II, but not a lot of time to get it right. And the consequences of not getting it right...well, I'm older than most of you here. I won't have to pay as many of those prices as you will.

And a century ago black men lived in constant fear of lynching, native american children were forced to go to "indian schools", women had to go to back alleys to get abortions, women could not vote, there were no services provided to the citizens of the US by the state other than the "common defense", strikes were broken by the Army, dissenting war veterans were fired on by machine guns and trampled under charging cavalry in campsites in the grass in DC.

"left" does not equal "socialism". The country moved rightwards post-new deal, the country moved rightwards at the outset of WW1, it moved leftwards during the 60s/70s, it went back to the right in the 80s and into today, and no the pendulum is swinging back towards the left.

[DancingLarry]

Dissenting war veterans just got trampled by horses on Long Island last week. In 90% of the counties in America, there's nowhere for a woman to get an abortion. Nooses are hung in schoolyards as a means of intimidating yoing black men, and American's fastest growing industry, the private prison industry, is kept fully stocked with an ever and rapidly-growing population of young black and hispanic men.

I became a leftist in the 1970s, I have fought rear guard battle after rear guard battle, I have seen in those 30+ years NO significant advances, and MANY significant defeats. So I don't care what high school history texts, "The March of Freedom" or whatever, say, because I've lived the decline of the left in America, and I've seen the rise of our protofascist right form a mocked and scorned handful to a seething witch's brew with its hands on many levers of power.

[The Douche]

Dissenting war veterans just got trampled by horses on Long Island last week.

How dare you compare that incident to the bonus army! The worst injury sustained was what, a concussion? Bonus marchers, thier wives, and thier children were fucking killed.


In 90% of the counties in America, there's nowhere for a woman to get an abortion.

But they can be built and used. I'd also like to see your source for such statistics. And also, the "morning after pill" is available at drug stores all over the place, a socialy progressive concept as well.


Nooses are hung in schoolyards as a means of intimidating yoing black men, and American's fastest growing industry, the private prison industry, is kept fully stocked with an ever and rapidly-growing population of young black and hispanic men.

But they are free to vote, and the klan doesn't ride through thier neighborhoods nightly to kill and lynch the residents, and then get acquitted by an all-white jury. Why on earth would you compare hanging a noose in a tree to lynch mobs?

What about the prison industry? Did I say the US has totally abolished racism? No. I said the US has, in a number of ways, moved farther left.


I became a leftist in the 1970s, I have fought rear guard battle after rear guard battle, I have seen in those 30+ years NO significant advances, and MANY significant defeats. So I don't care what high school history texts, "The March of Freedom" or whatever, say, because I've lived the decline of the left in America, and I've seen the rise of our protofascist right form a mocked and scorned handful to a seething witch's brew with its hands on many levers of power.

Maybe you should take a step back from the "leftism" and take an objective look at the situation. Tell me that some form of government supportted health care (which both parties are conceeding to) is not a step to the left. But because it is not socialist, and it didn't come from the socialist movement, it cannot, in your mind, be "left". And what the fuck are you talking high school history texts for?

:GASP: OH NO! The fascists are coming, the fascists are coming!! Please, spare me.

[freakazoid]

Freakzoid is talking about people like "pretty boy floyd". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Boy_Floyd (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Boy_Floyd))

Yeah, thats who I was thinking of specifically. Also the song by Woody Guthry about him is really good, pretty much like all his songs. :)

[ashaman1324]

im stuck in america and were stuck in the cold war with nobody.
were almost as opposed to socialism as we were in the 50's because (for the most part) were ignorant of the rest of the world because we've been more powerful militarily and economically than them.
people dont see how socialism can benefit their lives, the media shows it in a bad light, and the government opposes it. theres three reasons to oppose it and none to support it.

[Lenin's Law]

what remarkably unmaterialist hypotheses

Agreed.

To the OP: Your rant reeks of an unscientific, unmaterialist analysis of the situation. Instead you just kind of repeat the vulgar generalizations of Americans that are typical in many sections of both the liberal-left (oh it's not that we liberals are reactionary, it's those dumb American workers! If only they would be more like us enligtened liberals..) and ultra-left (American workers are all bourgeois, f em!).

There is a worldwide assault on workers rights and labor unions for the past 20-25 years and this has been reflected in many countries besides the US, such as England where we saw the rise of Thachterism in the 80 and more recently the degeneration of the Labour Party in the form of "third way" Blairism where presently a Blairite Gordon Brown is the current PM. In Australia there was the right-wing administration of John Howard, Italy's Burlusconi to list but a few examples.

As for Latin America, the objective situation is far different than that of the United States or other wealthy countries, the contradictions of capitalism are far more pronounced, so it is natural that different political leaders will rise to power. This being said however, the left-populists like Chavez and Moralez are in no way immune from the extreme-right danger as many previous events have illustrated so unless the working class succeeds in creating a truly socialist revolution there is always the threat of a Pinochet around the corner.

Getting back to the United States: It is clear things that things are changing; especially with the youth. I was at a public university recently in a working class town and there was a huge dissatisfaction with the way things are going. Now, I can't say that dissatisfaction always translated into being revolutionary socialists (there are still many illusions for instance in Obama, thanks partly due to the left-liberal apologists, some on this site) but polls have suggested that upwards of 90% of the entire US population are not happy with the way things are going. This is a very positive sign. What is not positive is the fact that there is no real labour party or significant left presence that can effectively present the socialist viewpoint and analysis to a mass audience.

This however, I believe, will change due to events. With 25 states officially in a recession, with the rest of the nation to follow shortly, with the mass layoffs, rising unemployment, the expected dismantling of what's left of the welfare state and highly unpopular Wall Street bailouts, this can only result in a rapid increase in class consciousness and slowly destroy the illusions some had in capitalism.

I think the comparison of America, considered one of the most reactionary advanced capitalist countries in the world to pre-1917 Russia is, which was also known as the beacon of reaction and counter-revolution is revealing. So much so that in fact Marx feared and despised Russia while admiring many aspects of America! Now it seems we have the reverse. In any event, I think that because of a lack of a labour/social democratic party in the US, when radical change does come it will be swift and explosive.

[Jazzratt]

It was you who said that the the "dislike of 'big government' has always been a right wing thing." So no, I will not fuck off.

It is and always has been. It was and is the right that oppose welfare for the most disadvantaged of society, it was and is the right who oppose government control on the market and so on.

Anarchists, actual leftist ones anyway, on the other hand have long been involved in campaigns to help the average person in the here and now. Class War's defense of the NHS in britain springs immediatly to mind.


Maybe if less people found it acceptible for the government to exist it wouldn't be a problem.

Yes, and in the mean time what do you suggest actual workers do if they, say, fall ill? Pray that it gets better? :lol:


I'm not talking about people who preyed on others on the frontier. There were people who would do exactly as I described. There were people who would help out poor people and farmers by leaving them money that was stolen from the banks.

They threatened workers (like bank tellers) with violence and gave arbitrary aid to a few lucky poor people. How admirable.


Pretty much most of someones life is torwards benefiting themselvs. Should we now mandate that your entire life must be torwards helping someone else?

No, it shouldn't. But neither should our priority be petit-bourgeois ideas about "self relaince".


After all you don't want to be selfish now do you?

No, no I don't.


Not everything you do has to be put in context of is this a leftist action.

Obviously not, but some decisions are inherently political, especially if they involve trying to live by a right-libertarian ideal.


If it was then you should sell probably most of your stuff and stop drinking and smoking and put that money to helping someone else.

Lifestylism is for libertarian survivalist nutcases and soap dodging primmie nutters.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How romantic and idealist, pretty much a perfect picture of the American Zeitgeist. The dislike of "big government" has always been a right wing thing, along with a general fear of restrictions on markets and property rights. This is one of the major problems of American culture, especially when you consider the kind of scum from the american past that are idealised (gangsters, murderous outlaws and so on). Living outside the system helps no one but the selfish bastards doing it. Leftism is not a place for selfish bastards.

well put

[freakazoid]

Yes, and in the mean time what do you suggest actual workers do if they, say, fall ill? Pray that it gets better? http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-stuck-time-t92654/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Can't hurt, :D I think what needs to be done is instead of focusing on trying to get little reforms in here and there, not that they don't help, in trying to make things a little better. We are not here for the reform of government but its abolishment. I think what needs to be done is the workers need to say "We don't need the government to take care of us." and to set up things like free clinics, free stores, and whatnot, for example what was going on at Ashbury and Haight in Sanf Fransisco during the Summer of Love, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_Love, and groups like what the Diggers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers_(theater), were doing. I remember seeing an awesome documentary on PBS about it once. While I'm generally not a big fan of hippies, this is something they got right. You ask what is to be done in the meantime till the revolution, well I ask what is to be done in the meantime till the reform? You see, both are things that we don't have yet, why waste time on reform and making things only a little bit better to deal with when we could be working for the revolution? Instead of having the government taking care of us, which it generally sucks at helping people anyways, why not use direct action and have the people help each other? And by duing so you create the conditions necesarry for the revolution.


They threatened workers (like bank tellers) with violence and gave arbitrary aid to a few lucky poor people. How admirable.

So fighitng pigs in the street during protests is bad? And giving aid to poor people is also bad? :confused:


But neither should our priority be petit-bourgeois ideas about "self relaince".


No that shouldn't be our priority eitherm but who was suggesting it should be?


Obviously not, but some decisions are inherently political, especially if they involve trying to live by a right-libertarian ideal.

Being self reliant isn't a right-libertarian ideal. It is something we should all be. If you aren't self reliant then that means that you are reliant on something, and more than likely it is the government. We should look to helping each other and stop looking for the governement to take care of us.


Lifestylism is for libertarian survivalist nutcases and soap dodging primmie nutters.

Well you don't want to be greedy so you should sell everything. And soap dodging made me laugh, :D

[Jazzratt]

Can't hurt, :D

Actually it can. But that's an argument for S&E or Religion.


I think what needs to be done is instead of focusing on trying to get little reforms in here and there, not that they don't help, in trying to make things a little better.

You're building a fucking strawman. I'm suggesting that we do not oppose these reforms, that we make sure that they stay. Consider the shorter working day, that was a "little reform" won with the blood of workers and it's made our lives better and given us more time for learning and politics.


We are not here for the reform of government but its abolishment.

I never said otherwise.


I think what needs to be done is the workers need to say "We don't need the government to take care of us." and to set up things like free clinics, free stores, and whatnot,

That shouldn't be necessary. Why set up a free clinic where hospitals are nationalised and provided for tax money? Why not instead spend the time you would have done fannying about with that shit in organising strikes, organising politically and agitating among your fellow workers?


You ask what is to be done in the meantime till the revolution, well I ask what is to be done in the meantime till the reform?

What the hell kind of stupid question is that? In most civilised nations the reform is already there, or at least gathering decent support (aside America, it seems).


You see, both are things that we don't have yet, why waste time on reform and making things only a little bit better to deal with when we could be working for the revolution?

Because the reform takes fuck all time. You find a political candidate/party that supports it, tick their box once every four or five years and spend the rest of your time doing something to further the revolution. You seem to be under the impression that I'm suggesting we go to the government and make it as ideal as possible, which is bollocks because 1) there is no ideal government and 2) reformism wastes our time. I must ask you however why you see the need to waste time attacking the reforms.


Instead of having the government taking care of us, which it generally sucks at helping people anyways,

Really? It's not perfect but it's far better than nothing which is what right-libertarians like you propose. On a personal note fuck you the National Health Service (Government Hospitals :ohmy:) is the reason I am talking to you now rather than being mourned as another child lost to cancer at an early age.


why not use direct action and have the people help each other?

Because we're not trying to build communes, we're trying to build a new society.


And by duing so you create the conditions necesarry for the revolution.


The conditions for a revolution are a dclass conscious and militant proletariat. A well fed, healthy and educated one stands a much better chance of winning though.


So fighitng pigs in the street during protests is bad?

No. Shoving a gun into the face of some poor bloke who's just trying to get through the day is.


And giving aid to poor people is also bad? :confused:

You miss my point. A bank robbery gives a one time lump sum which can only be usefully given to one or two communities. What of the communities that did not get visited by Pretty Boy Lloyd and his ilk? What of the established towns where everyone had placed their money in the bank? Why is it morally superior to steal money from a bank and give it to a small group of people rather than tax money off people and plough it into investments that may well benefit everyone. I suspect that the frontier would have had more success if there was a tax on deposits into the bank which were then used to provide subsidies for poor farmers and their families, it certainly would have beneffited more people.


No that shouldn't be our priority eitherm but who was suggesting it should be?

You are. With your stupid ideas about "showing the government we don't need them".


Being self reliant isn't a right-libertarian ideal.

Yes it is. Collectivist (i.e left) ideas realise that no man is an island and we all rely on each other for our wellbeing. Trying to rely on just the safe is individualist (i.e right wing) bollocks.


If you aren't self reliant then that means that you are reliant on something,

Yes it does. For example, post revolution we will be relaint on our syndicates and communities.


and more than likely it is the government.

Currently yes. What's your point?


We should look to helping each other and stop looking for the governement to take care of us.

When your weirdo libertarian cult-militia builds a high quality, well equipped hospital, a worthwhile school and an alternate transport infrastructure please tell me. Oh while you're at it why don't you help your unemployed and incapacitated members continue to live.


Well you don't want to be greedy so you should sell everything.

I don't think you understand my point

[PRC-UTE]

what remarkably unmaterialist hypotheses

Culture is not material?

Marx commented that ideas, once they grip the masses become a material force.

The OP is basically correct. To put it crudely, USian culture is generally not very sophisticated or informed. When people want to blame or scaepgoat something they don't like they call it "socialist", whereas in many other countries people move to the Left and embrace socialism when capitalism causes them misery.

[PRC-UTE]

Agreed.

To the OP: Your rant reeks of an unscientific, unmaterialist analysis of the situation. Instead you just kind of repeat the vulgar generalizations of Americans that are typical in many sections of both the liberal-left (oh it's not that we liberals are reactionary, it's those dumb American workers! If only they would be more like us enligtened liberals..) and ultra-left (American workers are all bourgeois, f em!).

There's definitely a bit of truth in the OP. And you have to generalise when speaking about a group of people. Workers are not immune to being reactionary anymore than anyone else. to paraphrase Orwell, it's not necessary to idolise the working class to fight for them.

socialists in whatever country they live in shoudl honestly evaluate all conditions, including subjective ones, so they know how to proceed. dishonesty will not help us. many many working class people are hold reactionary views.

[FreeFocus]

There are deep cultural problems which can't even be fixed simply by "getting a socialist" into a major office. In order to win, this hypothetical candidate, too, must be a part of the deficient culture.

[Tatarin]

Uhm, how is Asia going to the left? Or the Middle East? Now, I agree the Middle East is in it's own situation, but I can't for example see Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone Egypt or Yemen, building something like Chaves's PSUV anytime soon.

Or what about Russia and Australia? Even Canada reelected the conservatives just now...

[freakazoid]

I'm suggesting that we do not oppose these reforms, that we make sure that they stay.

I didn't say we shouldn't oppose them. Thats why I said, "not that they don't help."


That shouldn't be necessary. Why set up a free clinic where hospitals are nationalised and provided for tax money? Why not instead spend the time you would have done fannying about with that shit in organising strikes, organising politically and agitating among your fellow workers?

Because they aren't, at least here. By doing these things you are directly opposing the government. You are getting people directly involved in setting up a communist/anarchist system. When it is set up as an example you can show people and ask them, how is this not better? How is that not agitating your fellow workers.


What the hell kind of stupid question is that?

Not stupid. You were saying that since it will be a while till the revolution we might as well work to make things a little better through reforms. And I was saying that it will also take time to set up these reforms too so why focus on small reforms.


Really? It's not perfect but it's far better than nothing which is what right-libertarians like you propose.

Really? So how is that Katrina clean up going along? It is the people putting in there time that is working, not the government. And when did I say that we should have nothing? I suggested stuff like Free Clinics! I proposed the people get involved! Look at how well the Black Panther Party did in there communities in making them better. That wasn't the government making it better but the people making there community better through direct action.


On a personal note fuck you the National Health Service (Government Hospitals ) is the reason I am talking to you now rather than being mourned as another child lost to cancer at an early age.

Why would you say "fuck you"?


Because we're not trying to build communes, we're trying to build a new society.

Your point?


The conditions for a revolution are a dclass conscious and militant proletariat.

Yup. And you build these things by getting the community involved in helping itself. By showing them that through direct action they can make a difference.


A well fed, healthy and educated one stands a much better chance of winning though.

Yup. And by doing the things that I suggested you get those.


No. Shoving a gun into the face of some poor bloke who's just trying to get through the day is.

How so? And the cops aren't just trying to get through the day to? They aren't trying to make a living for themselves?


What of the communities that did not get visited by Pretty Boy Lloyd and his ilk?

What of them? Are you saying that simply because he couldn't help the whole world that it wasn't worth it? So what about what this group is doing? http://www.revleft.com/vb/greek-robin-hoods-t88420/index.html


What of the established towns where everyone had placed their money in the bank?

Money in a bank isn't actually the peoples money. Your money is insured by the FDIC for up to at least $100,000. You are stealing from the government when you rob a bank. Or to word that better, you are taking back what money was stolen from you through unfair taxes when you rob a bank.


Why is it morally superior to steal money from a bank and give it to a small group of people rather than tax money off people and plough it into investments that may well benefit everyone.

As long as these taxes are done to take back from the bosses what they had taken from the workers then I don't have a problem with that. But why not do both?


I suspect that the frontier would have had more success if there was a tax on deposits into the bank which were then used to provide subsidies for poor farmers and their families, it certainly would have beneffited more people.

I suspect that the frontier would have had more success if we had set up a communist/anarchist society. Also, if there was a tax on deposits do you really think people would use the banks to deposit there money?


no man is an island and we all rely on each other for our wellbeing.

Actually we don't have to rely on each other for our wellbeing.


Trying to rely on just the safe is individualist (i.e right wing) bollocks.

Huh? Trying to rely on just the safe?



Yes it does. For example, post revolution we will be relaint on our syndicates and communities.

No one should be forced to have to rely on those. I was under the impression that if you were a part of the community then you got its benefits but if you weren't then you didn't. This mostly comes up in conversation when talking about lazy people who wouldn't contribute to society.


Currently yes. What's your point?

Because people tend to get fucked over when they have to rely on the government. Again my Katrina example.


Oh while you're at it why don't you help your unemployed and incapacitated members continue to live.

That is the whole point of setting up the stuff like Free clinics and such.


I don't think you understand my point

Perhaps not?


My main problem with reform, NOT THAT THEY DON'T HELP IN MAKING THE PEOPLES LIVES BETTER, is that that it is also a double edged sword. By making the peoples lives better you are also causing them to end up being relyant on the government to take care of them. You cause people to become complacent with there current situation, "Sure it's not perfect but at least it is bearable. Don't rock the boat." By doing some of the things that I suggested it gets people directly involved in creating a change, thereby giving them the confidence that they can directly make a change in there community and they then become more class conscious. It helps in creating a stronger class conscious because it shows the people how the current system exploits them. It gives people a working example of how it can work, and what it is since when most people think of stuff like communism they think tyranny. It builds a community of like minded people and connections. It IS communism/anarchy in action. How can you oppose that!?

[spice756]

Look at the US 55 years ago, compare that to the US today, and tell me it hasn't changed, that it hasn't moved to the left, and that culture has not evolved in a more humanist manner. The material conditions don't exist for a socialist revolution, they are building up though.

Yes the 60's civil rights movement for blacks ,sex revolution in the 60's but hardy left .The 70's ,80's , 90's and to now 2008 the same .Put it simple 1971 is no different than 2008 .In fact we are less church and state than before and the sex revolution is under attack.The US still does not have warfare state like in Europe or South America.There is still a red scare in the US not like Europe or South America.

Look they have prayer in school,prisons and other groups.They teach god in school .They anti-science and for creationism than evolution.

They do not want to teach evolution in scool.They are now anti-space program and anti-going up into space.There is more and more church in state than separation of church and state .

After 911 the US is becomg more and more conservative and theocray.And religions plays a big role in the US !!

[freakazoid]

Look they have prayer in school,prisons and other groups.They teach god in school .They anti-science and for creationism than evolution.

They do not want to teach evolution in scool.They are now anti-space program and anti-going up into space.There is more and more church in state than separation of church and state .

I've must of been going to the wrong school. :confused:

I'd say the main reason the US is the way it is is basically because of the whole red scare thing. That pretty much screwed us over.

[spice756]

It is funny on CNN they said food stamps,welfare,government bail out , medcare is socialism and that the US is really not capitalism but has some socialism.

The US is obsessed with the private sector.Just look at the ambulance medstar they are obsessed with the private sector.

http://redsanders.com/images/medstar.jpg (http://redsanders.com/images/medstar.jpg)

[Elway]

This is, in my view, a wonderful question, and what triggered me to register. (I live in Colorado, and John Elway has always been a private hero of mine, and perhaps most of the state, so I took the liberty of naming myself after him.)

First, there is a post I read by “cmoney”, from October 22, where he points out, very correctly, that America is not the country is was 55 years ago. The United States, today, compared to post-World War II United States, provides a far greater social safety net for its citizens. The “stuck in time” concept that “spice756”, is only relevant, when compared to western European democracies, which have had this unspoken view of, “Okay, capitalism sucks, but wacha gonna do? No body wants to go commie, so let’s heavily tax the capitalist and ‘worker successes’ (i.e., the professional upper middle class) in our country to finance the social safety net so that everyone has college, medical needs, and housing needs, courtesy of the state.” Anyway, that’s how I see it all. I’m not going to discuss the recent “Latin American” social improvements, as I don’t trust their longevity. (Admit it: Most of us here like the direction Hugo Chavez has taken Latin America toward, but the new socialism many are working for there isn’t yet solidified, as it is in Western Europe. We all believe, for example, that Belgium, a seriously capitalist nation, is more likely to continue medical services for all of its people, than we believe Venezuela is likely to maintain its recent agenda. That’s not a put down on the new socialist views emerging in Latin America, but a healthy cynicism.)

On to my view of “spice756’s” question:

Spice, in my opinion, THE greatest reason why the U.S. is so “slow” in moving toward what Western Europe has already accepted as part of their daily political expectations, is the American presidency, pure and simple. There is nothing quite like it anywhere else in the world. The U.S. President has great powers, especially in the form of the threat of a veto, and his/her time in office is severely limited. Eight years is a joke, in terms of long standing changes to U.S. domestic policy. Also, and this is key to my point, the presidency is not “tied” to the long term legislative process, beyond the scope of the given administration.

Each 4 years, Americans “reinvent” their expectations of their political views. This leads to little, long term traction. G.W. Bush did not have do “build” on the work of W.J. Clinton, who did not have to build on the work of G. Bush. B. Obama will probably jettison nearly every domestic achievement made by G.W. Bush, especially should he have a majority in the Senate, and doubly so should the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, making them in complete control to end debate and force a vote.

Most European parliaments, if not all, connect their political head of state, such as the prime minister, with the legislative body, such as the House of Commons. Success is measured as the success of the “party”, not the given administration, of which they don’t have a similar structure. One party leader, whether he/she is a good one, or a bad one, serving as prime minister, is very similar to another of the same party. In America, W.J. Clinton, J. Carter, and J.F. Kennedy, all have very different views of what direction their administration should be interested in.

I am, of course, not talking about the nearly no difference between these people on a global political measurement. Using such a measurement, the three Democratic presidents I mentioned are no different from one another, and have very little difference from, let us say, G. Ford, for that matter.

In America, this “reinventing” of our expectations in a new administration every 4 or 8 years, not tied to the overall achievement of our legislature, makes for a very “slow go”, when compared to the other parts of the world you have mentioned.




the US is off the chart in terms of religious fundamentalism and social backwardness. A huge percent of the population (something like a third - I'm trying to find the statistics) believes in miracles, that the earth is 6000 years old, etc.

While this may be true, and let's say it is, two stories run in mojor newspapers demonstrates how American's, overall, are changing their religious views:

The first is an amazing statistic, that more than half of Americans living today are not the same religious faith as their parents raised them to be, or simply not the same religion their parents' identify themselves to be.

The second is that a majority of Americas believe that "their religion" is not the only "pathway" (my word) to an enjoyable "after-life" (the words used by the poll.)

Taken together, these polls show that even if there is a 34% population that believes in fundamental Christianity (let's use them), and that to not believe in a literal interpretation of John 3:16, is to end up in a "lake of fire", as discussed in the Book of Mathew"; there are 51% of Americans who do not believe that to be the case. Compared to merely 2 generations ago, this is a staggering example of Americans, especially under 40 years, who do not accept fundamentalism.

In 1965, the vast majority of Americans identified themselves as Christian; this is no longer the case. What is "earth shattering", or America shattering, if you will, is that there are more and more young Americans who do not believe that religion is necessary to be "moral". The "Moral Majority" (which was never neither one of these adjectives), is shrinking, and I can't see how fundamentalism will ever mount a "comeback", given the views of young people today.


Look they have prayer in school,prisons and other groups.They teach god in school .They anti-science and for creationism than evolution.

This is VERY untrue. Even in right wing Colorado, I can genuinely report:

1. There is NO prayer in public schools, and the U.S. Supreme Court has thwarted any attempt to have such, including "moments of silence", and these have been ruled unconstitutional by both the Colorado and United States Supreme Court.

2. Prayer in prison is a recent issue, and is more tied to inmates' attempts to use the First Amendment for privacy times, special treatment, and demonstrating an "improved character" for early release, than any genuine "finding Jesus", etc.

3. Anti-science creationists are an EXTREEM minority of thought in U.S. public schools. The most recent example of this was the Kansas state school board, of which the members attempted to alter science books in favor of a "creationist" agenda. They had their moment for about 18 months, were voted out of office, and now Kansas has science books that do not mention creationism. (But to be fair to the comment made above by spice756, these "Creationists" are extreemly vocal, and work hard for their agenda, compared to mainstream American thought, which doesn't see a need in most regions of the country, to "work for" the laws of gravity and carbon dating.)

[Glenn Beck]

On to my view of “spice756’s” question:

Spice, in my opinion, THE greatest reason why the U.S. is so “slow” in moving toward what Western Europe has already accepted as part of their daily political expectations, is the American presidency, pure and simple. There is nothing quite like it anywhere else in the world. The U.S. President has great powers, especially in the form of the threat of a veto, and his/her time in office is severely limited. Eight years is a joke, in terms of long standing changes to U.S. domestic policy. Also, and this is key to my point, the presidency is not “tied” to the long term legislative process, beyond the scope of the given administration.

Each 4 years, Americans “reinvent” their expectations of their political views. This leads to little, long term traction. G.W. Bush did not have do “build” on the work of W.J. Clinton, who did not have to build on the work of G. Bush. B. Obama will probably jettison nearly every domestic achievement made by G.W. Bush, especially should he have a majority in the Senate, and doubly so should the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, making them in complete control to end debate and force a vote.

Most European parliaments, if not all, connect their political head of state, such as the prime minister, with the legislative body, such as the House of Commons. Success is measured as the success of the “party”, not the given administration, of which they don’t have a similar structure. One party leader, whether he/she is a good one, or a bad one, serving as prime minister, is very similar to another of the same party. In America, W.J. Clinton, J. Carter, and J.F. Kennedy, all have very different views of what direction their administration should be interested in.

I am, of course, not talking about the nearly no difference between these people on a global political measurement. Using such a measurement, the three Democratic presidents I mentioned are no different from one another, and have very little difference from, let us say, G. Ford, for that matter.

In America, this “reinventing” of our expectations in a new administration every 4 or 8 years, not tied to the overall achievement of our legislature, makes for a very “slow go”, when compared to the other parts of the world you have mentioned.


The "founding fathers" were fucking geniuses weren't they? They managed to invent the first modern totalitarian "democracy" and have it survive more or less intact and stable at its anti-democratic core for more than two centuries. All of this shit is straight from The Federalist and what have you.

Anyway, great post and welcome to Revleft.

[fabiansocialist]

Basically, because Americans are arrogant assholes who think they are better than everyone else, and that the rest of the world exists to serve us. Plus, have become too lazy to think.

Historically, the notion of collectivism is pretty much alien to us. Although we had a few spurts of it in the early 20th century with the heyday of the unions, it was never really all that popular a notion here.

America was geared for empire and imperialism from the start perhaps, and that goes back to our British roots. In so many ways, we were the perfect testing lab for capitalism, industry, and technology.


I have to agree with you on the above points. The USA is largely a nation of worthless scumbags. Maybe we might have a discussion that a nation of narcissistic, infantile, arrogant scumbags with a fetishistic attitude towards material goods is a precondition for American capitalism. Oh, sorry, in the USA it's called "rugged individualism."

[freakazoid]

he most recent example of this was the Kansas state school board, of which the members attempted to alter science books in favor of a "creationist" agenda.

They weren't attempting to alter the textbooks to give it a creationist agenda. All that they wanted done was to have a sticker placed on them saying something to the effect of that evolution isn't a solid theory and that there are other theories out there as well.


The second is that a majority of Americas believe that "their religion" is not the only "pathway" (my word) to an enjoyable "after-life" (the words used by the poll.)

Could you post a linky to the poll? :)

And welcome to the board. :thumbup:

[Elway]

Thanks for your words of welcome.

Freakie,

You are, of course, correct about the sticker issue, but in the scheme of things, a mandatory sticker is an "alteration" of the text, from my point of view. (Not gonna start a fight with you over it though, if that isn't your view of an alteration.) Still it was a silly side show for a bit.

Re: links to sources, they were stories I read in a reputable newspaper. I will attempt to find them.

[chegitz guevara]

How dare you compare that incident to the bonus army! The worst injury sustained was what, a concussion? Bonus marchers, thier wives, and thier children were fucking killed.

I'm not sure many of the bonus marchers were killed. The worst injury last week is that a comrade had his face stepped on by a horse. One of my comrades here was so angry he could barely talk.

As to the OP, there are many, many reasons why the U.S. is different. I there there are four main reasons: the lack of feudalism in America, the proximity of the USSR, ideology, and lastly, the material conditions of American life.

First, feudal class distinctions were abolished in the US with the revolution, by and large, and to the extent they existed at all. This means that Americans didn't grow up with class as an overt force in their lives, and with the exception of the slaves, workers class Americans had the option to escape and "go West" if conditions were too difficult. Thus, class conflict was muted because of a pressure valve and the lack of visible class distinctions.

Second, the the successful seizure of power by the worker class in Russia, European capitalists were forced to give a lot of concessions to their own workers (once fascism proved to be too dangerous a means of suppressing their workers). Although European politics has taken a rightward tilt since the dissolution of the USSR, the tradition of social democracy is much stronger there because of its historical successes.

In the U.S., the defeat of fascism coincided with a massive labor upsurge. Labor was able to wrest significant concessions directly from employers, without going through the government. This meant that no political party was dependent on maintaining those concessions, so that the major political parties could then attack the idea of government involvement in the economy. At the same time, the government could attack the Communists without the workers defending them, and socialism became equated with the foreign enemy.

Finally, because America is very spread out, the material conditions of our existence lead us to individualist awareness, rather than collective consciousness. Socialism is the politics of the cities, but Americans are mostly suburban. We don't gather in pubs, but stay at home with our families. We have an atomized existence, not a social one. In fact, pretty much the only place Americans interact as a community is in their churches.

To the extent that Americans are bought off by imperialism, it's not very much. Parasitism on foreign countries, while significant to those countries, is only a very minor part of our economy. In 1990, which I realize was nearly 20 years ago, foreign trade made up only 6% of the U.S. economy, and half of that was with Europe, most of the rest with Japan and the Asian tigers.

One thing that Third Worldists refuse to acknowledge is the massive productivity of the American work force. According to Gus Hall (who's been dead now about 20 years), the average American worker produces enough to meet his needs in about 2 hours. That means the other 6 hours went to the boss. Since then, labor's slice of the pie has only gotten smaller.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the U.S., the defeat of fascism coincided with a massive labor upsurge. Labor was able to wrest significant concessions directly from employers, without going through the government. This meant that no political party was dependent on maintaining those concessions, so that the major political parties could then attack the idea of government involvement in the economy.

That, comrade, is the absolutely main weakness of economism and tred-iunionizm in hindsight (since nobody made this argument in the 1890s and 1900s).

[spice756]

School prayer in its most common usage refers to state sanctioned prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer) by students in state schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools). Depending on the country and the type of school, organized prayer may be required, permitted, or proscribed. The separation of church and state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state), in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), is one legal reason given for proscribing state sanctioned school prayers. Freedom of conscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_conscience), as in Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), is another. Another argument is that public schools should remain neutral concerning religious issues. Prayer in school is allowed if it is a private organization (like a private school), some governments are trying to also discourage this.



In 1989, Joan Russow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Russow) challenged, in the British Columbia Supreme Court, the Public Schools Act (1872)’s requirement that in British Columbia all public schools were to be opened with the Lord’s Prayer and a Bible reading. The argument was similar to the Zylberberg case and the result was the same with the offending words in the act being struck out as being inconsistent with freedom of conscience and religion guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer



As a declared 'laicist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicism)' (roughly 'religiously neutral', secular) state, France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) has no school prayers. In fact, public servants are advised to keep their religious faith private, and may be censured if they display it too openly. The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious _symbols_in_schools) goes beyond restricting prayer in schools, and bans the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols by pupils in public primary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_school) and secondary schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_education_in_France).



First, there is a post I read by “cmoney”, from October 22, where he points out, very correctly, that America is not the country is was 55 years ago. The United States, today, compared to post-World War II United States, provides a far greater social safety net for its citizens. The “stuck in time” concept that “spice756”, is only relevant, when compared to western European democracies, which have had this unspoken view of,


Ya I should have said post 60's.

[Comrade B]

The US isn't stuck in time, its been going back in time for the last few years

[freakazoid]

!praw emit a ni era eW

[The Douche]

I'm not sure many of the bonus marchers were killed. The worst injury last week is that a comrade had his face stepped on by a horse. One of my comrades here was so angry he could barely talk.

As I recall, it was something like 40 people in total killed. (not sure though)

Of course seeing anybody hurt upsets me, and as an anti-war veteran myself I feel a special sense of solidarity with those guys, and a special sense of anger. But to comapre that to death is wrong, and devalues the deaths of the bonus marchers in my opinion.

[fabiansocialist]

Really? So you don't consider desgregation to me a left-ward move?

Legally there's been desegregation but de facto there has not. White flight, numbers of blacks imprisoned, average black wages and life expectancy all back me up. There's been a policy of "tokenism": a few high-placed blacks here and there (Uncle Tom-types like Colin Powell, Condi Rice) to give the impression race doesn't matter, more blacks on TV shows and ads, some blacks recruited by leading universities. Doesn't change the ground reality, though.


How about legalized abortion?

Yes, in cosmetic things like this, which don't affect the influence and privileges of the US oligarchy.


How about the discussion in this election of some sort of government provided (in the case of the democrats) or government supportted (in the case of the republicans) healthcare? These are some pretty major developments toward the left that are being conceeded by the bourgeoisie. And these concessions don't occur in a vaccum, they occur because the proletariat demands them as they swing farther to the left.

"Discussion" is the operative word. Nothing concete has occurred -- or will.

The American proles have their heads up their backsides: there's no class consciousness, and they're too stupefied by 60-hour workweeks and the "society of the spectacle." There's some limited union activity, yes (though not on the same scale as in decades past) -- but the aims of such activity are usually job security -- not anything political such as greater input in managerial decisions. American proles are like the proles in Orwell's 1984: they lack the vocabulary and concepts to understand their situation and how they they came to this sorry pass.

There is no American Left worth the name. Sorry to sound so negative and bleak -- but without a brutally frank assessment of reality, there can be no forward movement.

[chegitz guevara]

Legally there's been desegregation but de facto there has not. White flight, numbers of blacks imprisoned, average black wages and life expectancy all back me up. There's been a policy of "tokenism": a few high-placed blacks here and there (Uncle Tom-types like Colin Powell, Condi Rice) to give the impression race doesn't matter, more blacks on TV shows and ads, some blacks recruited by leading universities. Doesn't change the ground reality, though.

Yes, in cosmetic things like this, which don't affect the influence and privileges of the US oligarchy.

The reality on the ground is that for most Black people in the U.S., desegregation has improved their options. So too has legalized abortion been a boon for women. These are both very real gains for those affected by them. Class is not the only oppression people face, and socialists need to fight against all of it.

[BobKKKindle$]

Parasitism on foreign countries, while significant to those countries, is only a very minor part of our economy. In 1990, which I realize was nearly 20 years ago, foreign trade made up only 6% of the U.S. economy, and half of that was with Europe, most of the rest with Japan and the Asian tigers.

The fact that foreign trade accounts for only a small share of national income does not mean that the US is not parasitic. In Imperialism Lenin recognized that one of the main characteristics of imperialism was that the importance of exporting goods would decline, and the export of capital to the periphery would become more important, in terms of how the most developed parts of the capitalist system receive their wealth. He describes this as follows:

"Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition held undivided sway, was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital"

This means that if we want to get a real idea of whether the US is actually parasitic, we have to look at factor income from abroad, which reveals the extent of wealth transfers between the US and the global south, through interest payments, profit repatriation, and a whole range of other methods.

[chegitz guevara]

I didn't say there was no parasitism, only that it accounts for a very small part of the American economy. Most American capital invested abroad is, in fact, invested in other imperialist states. More than half of America's foreign capital is invested in Europe, for example.

This is by no means saying that imperialism isn't real or that imperialism isn't a factor or that America isn't an empire. In fact, I refer to the U.S. as the American Empire, or just the Empire, more and more frequently these days.

Why is this important? Because there is a tendency in the left to claim that the entire American worker class is bought off and participates in the exploitation of the Third World. At best, the existence of the extraction of foreign surplus capital by the American capitalist class means they can squeeze the American workers a little less. It does not mean that American workers receive the full value of their surplus value plus a little extra from the poor brown folks. That wasn't even true when the U.S. was half the world's economy, and it isn't true now, after nearly thirty years of union busting and lowered wages (10% on average in real terms since 1973).

In fact, the American worker class is one of the most heavily exploited in the world, if we are measuring the amount of surplus value extracted against the amount of value the worker is paid.

[Elway]

a few high-placed blacks here and there (Uncle Tom-types like Colin Powell, Condi Rice) to give the impression race doesn't matter, more blacks on TV shows and ads

I believe this oversimplifies what's gone on in the USA. There was a time when the ONLY people with power in the this country were not simply "white" people, but specifically, Anglo-Americans. That is, those with English, and I do mean specifically English, backgrounds.

French, German, Italian, and Irish Americans, though not enslaved, DID go through a period of discrimination and purposeful non-inclusion. You'd have to go back to the Ninteenth Century to watch the process of their inclusion, but my point is that, as they demanded and took their place in the mainstream of the USA, there were very few of them listening to others calling them "sell outs", who gave up their "Italian" or "German" cultures. Such arguments existed, and into the 20th Century, eastern Europeans also went through this, "You're no longer one of us phase."

It is VERY hard to remain in a nation, generation after generation, without buying into the culture. It's painful NOT to buy in. I dated a girl who was born in Armenia (the 2/3 once controlled by the USSR, and her family escaped there and came to the United States.) Her father was furious with her for going out with me. He wanted her to ONLY date Armenians. You heard this all the time in that community, and you still hear it from those 50 and older.

It is absurd for me to pretend that assimilation for her was has hard as it was for black Americans. If Powell and Rice are Uncle Toms, then so is Obama.

What I'm arguing is that EVERY black American should be a socialist, or leftist, according to this mentality. But such is not the case. The history of African countries and governments is not especially one of "socialism". Pre-Colonial Africa had wars, property laws, and dictatorship on its own, and there's no logical, "you're black, therefore you're progressive, or should be, when it comes to Marxism."

People throughout ALL of the USA vote and act against their class interests, so why not black Americans. A hundred-fifty years ago, the Republican party WAS the party of civil rights for black Americans. After the 30's, the South, ALWAYS hating the federal government, recreated the myth of "states' rights", and the Democrats to the north became the socially progressive party, though at a snail's pace. They just had faster snails than the GOP.

I believe that Powell and Rice are very intelligent individuals, who are who they are the way each of us are who we are. Either of them would have succeeded to the levels they achieved if they were Democrats. I think, though I'm not sure, that Powell thought of being a Democrat after his military service. Eisenhower, who never voted during his military career, was courted by the Democrats and Republicans in 1948 and 1952, and thought a while before choosing to be a Republican.

It makes it easier if you view Americans as people raised to believe they make their own economic decisions. They don't, of course, on a national or state level, but many things since childhood help you view things that way. You can choose any kind of music, skateboard, pro sports team and no one stops you from buying stuff associated with it; in fact you're encouraged to be a consumer at an early age.

If Powell and Rice are sellouts 'cause they worked/work for a Republican presidency, let's face it, any black American, not throwing bombs at the state house of Congress is a sellout. Democrats v. Republicans is stupid. There ain't no difference.

Get angry at these two, and Obama, for not over-throwing the system, but not for choosing one train moving at 5 miles an hour, versus one moving at 7 miles an hour.

[chegitz guevara]

Why does this thread keep popping to the top with no new posts?

[freakazoid]

Sometimes when I do a search for my name, to see what threads have new replies, there is sometimes at least one thread that will show that it has a message from today too. Don't know why but it is annoying. :(

[spice756]

Sometimes when I do a search for my name, to see what threads have new replies, there is sometimes at least one thread that will show that it has a message from today too. Don't know why but it is annoying. :(

I'm still looking for a reply to my thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/right-wing-nuts-t91673/index3.html

Stil no reply.:(:(

[Sendo]

Yes the 60's civil rights movement for blacks ,sex revolution in the 60's but hardy left .The 70's ,80's , 90's and to now 2008 the same .Put it simple 1971 is no different than 2008 .In fact we are less church and state than before and the sex revolution is under attack.The US still does not have warfare state like in Europe or South America.There is still a red scare in the US not like Europe or South America.

Look they have prayer in school,prisons and other groups.They teach god in school .They anti-science and for creationism than evolution.

They do not want to teach evolution in scool.They are now anti-space program and anti-going up into space.There is more and more church in state than separation of church and state .

After 911 the US is becomg more and more conservative and theocray.And religions plays a big role in the US !!

You have no clue what you're talking about. Your politics may be to the left, but don't think that you Canadians are so different and so better than the USA. We had a lot of people living in ignorance who got confused and scared by 9/11 and the govt offered them security. The fear is waring off, but we still have large reactionary groups through the country, but they aren't the majority.

So stuff it, before you make generalizations like Americans want Creationism in school. The right has been stepping up their activity lately but they are not more populous, in fact, the right is at a relative weak point in numbers right now.

We are not moving more towards a theocracy. The creation and expansion of the religious right was mostly in the 1980s. That was the time to fear theocracy. I'd be more worried about the media and public consciousness and the elites attacking Iran or Pakistan. The populace has slowly been getting more and more progressive since the late 60s. As Chomsky has said, the newspapers have to hide the truth more than ever because we have become more civilized. In the early days of Vietnam newspapers could have stuff on the front page like "US bombs another 40 villages last night" but you can't write that same headline today. You have to mangle it and run it through the Ministry of Truth first.