Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Capitalism evolved from slavery.

Posted 9 years ago on Feb. 14, 2012, 8:58 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A capitalists goal is to hire someone else to do the work . While he , the capitalist , keeps the profits.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

How Socialists Built America Again and again at critical junctures in our national journey, socialist thinkers, organizers, candidates, and officials have prodded government in a progressive direction. April 20, 2011 |

The following article first appeared in The Nation magazine. For more great content from the Nation, sign up for their email newsletters here.

This article is adapted from The “S” Word: A Short History of an American Tradition… Socialism, published in March by Verso.

If there’s one constant in the elite national discourse of the moment, it is the claim that America was founded as a capitalist country and that socialism is a dangerous foreign import that, despite our unwarranted faith in free trade, must be barred at the border. This most conventional “wisdom”—increasingly accepted at least until the recent grassroots mobilizations in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Maine—has held that everything public is inferior to everything private, that corporations are always good and unions always bad, that progressive taxation is inherently evil and that the best economic model is the one that allows the wealthy to gobble up as much of the Republic as they choose before anything trickles down to the great mass of Americans. Rush Limbaugh informs us regularly that proposals to tax people as rich as he is for the purpose of providing healthcare for kids and jobs for the unemployed are “antithetical” to the nation’s original intent and that Barack Obama’s reforms are “destroying this country as it was founded.”

When Obama offered tepid proposals to organize a private healthcare system in a more humane manner, Sean Hannity of Fox charged that “the Constitution was shredded, thwarted, the rule of law was passed aside.” Newt Gingrich said the Obama administration was “prepared to fundamentally violate the Constitution” and was playing to the “30 percent of the country [that] really is [in favor of] a left-wing secular socialist system.”


Truman did not cower at the mention of the word “socialism,” which in those days was distinguished in the minds of most Americans from Soviet Stalinism, with which the president—a mean cold warrior—was wrangling. Nor did Truman, who counted among his essential allies trade unionists like David Dubinsky, Jacob Potofsky and Walter Reuther, all of whom had been connected with socialist causes and in many cases the Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas, rave about the evils of social democracy. Rather, he joked that “Out of the great progress of this country, out of our great advances in achieving a better life for all, out of our rise to world leadership, the Republican leaders have learned nothing. Confronted by the great record of this country, and the tremendous promise of its future, all they do is croak, ‘socialism.’”

Savvy Republicans moved to abandon the campaign. The return to realism was led by Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who feared that her party was harming not just its electoral prospects but the country. That summer she would issue her “Declaration of Conscience”—the first serious challenge to McCarthyism from within the GOP—in which she rejected the anticommunist hysteria of the moment:

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism—

The right to criticize;
The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
The right to protest;
The right of independent thought.

Republicans might be determined to end Democratic control of Congress, Smith suggested in her declaration:

Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this nation. The nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny—Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.
   I doubt if the Republican Party could—simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest.

Most Republicans lacked the courage to confront McCarthy so directly. But Smith’s wisdom prevailed among leaders of the RNC and the GOP chairs of Congressional committees, who ditched the Liberty Against Socialism slogan and reduced Taft’s 1,950-word manifesto to a 99-word digest that Washington reporters explained had been cobbled together to “soft pedal” the whole “showdown on ‘liberty against socialism’” thing. Representative James Fulton, who like many other GOP moderates of the day actually knew and worked with Socialist Party members and radicals of various stripes, was blunter. The cheap sloganeering, he argued, had steered the party away from the fundamental question for the GOP in the postwar era: “whether we go back to Methuselah or offer alternative programs for social progress within the framework of a balanced budget.”

Imagine if today a prominent Republican were to make a similar statement. The wrath of Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin and the Tea Party movement would rain down upon him. The Club for Growth would organize to defeat the “Republican in Name Only,” and the ideological cleansing of the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Margaret Chase Smith would accelerate. Some of my Democratic friends are quite pleased at the prospect; as today’s Republicans steer off the cliffs of extremism that they avoided even in the days of McCarthy, these Democrats suggest, the high ground will be cleared for candidates of their liking. But that neglects the damage done to democracy when discourse degenerates, when the only real fights are between a party on the fringe and another that assumes that the way to win is to move to the center-right and then hope that fears of a totalitarian right will keep everyone to the left of it voting the Democratic line.


We live in complex times, when profound economic, social and environmental challenges demand a range of responses. Socialists certainly don’t have all the answers, even if polling suggests that more Americans find appeal in the word “socialist” today than they have in decades. But without socialist ideas and advocacy, we will not have sufficient counterbalance to an anti-government impulse that has less to do with libertarianism than with manipulation of the debate by all-powerful corporations.

Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy were not socialists. But the nation benefited from their borrowing of socialist and social democratic ideas. Barack Obama is certainly not a socialist. But he, and the nation he leads, would be well served by a similar borrowing from the people who once imagined Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the War on Poverty. John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent. http://www.alternet.org/news/150683/how_socialists_built_america/?page=entire

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

The closed minded thinking about Socialism by the capitalist movement .. has always been "brainwashing propoganda" imho

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

Greed is the unifying and terrifying catalyst in capitalism. Socialism threatens that irrational mindset as does any kind of fairness and enforcement of it. Capitalism is a cancer, left unregulated and restricted. It's like a band of outlaws in a town, without a sheriff, deputies and posse, the town is at their mercy.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

We need Wyatt Earp !

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

Like zombie movies, westerns had/have a hidden meaning.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!! ©

Image & Vote! Image & Vote! "We the 1%" Is NOT What They Wrote!! ©

[-] -1 points by Odin (583) 9 years ago

Or Matt Dillon.

[-] 1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

Socialism built the railways that opened up the west, invented the airplane, built the great agriculture, built the great cities across the country, build Ford, GM.. Oh wait this just in....,it was capitalism not socialism that did this. Sorry.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Once again....propaganda!!! Built from the sweat, blood and deaths of who, or should I say whom? Agriculture? Don't make me gag!! We know who worked the fields, built this country up. And who is being stopped from working the fields now?? Ford, GM..etc...Big Deal!! It still didn't stop the Great Depression, Soup lines, Recession or Welfare!! So, who is benefiting and who has benefited from Capitalism? .Hell, 1929 had more rich folks jumping out the window from the crash on Wall Street than Bernie Madoff!! They cared about no one but themselves and would rather die from not having material gains than helping their families, friends and their country survive!!! Greed, selfishness, and madness!! No thanks!!

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

you are a good communist. by the way that's just a myth about folks jumping out of windows. But you commies really love the great depression, you forget about the other hundred's of prosperous years.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

Wait a minute, tomahawk99, don't let them pin the Depression on capitalism. It was the govt created banking cartel, the Federal Reserve System, the creature from Jekyll Island, that makes the boom & bust cycle go round. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Prosperous for who "forked tongue"??

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 9 years ago

Prosperous for everyone. When the work is there everyone makes money do they not?

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Sure, as long as you remain living in that imaginary world you're in right now!!
I don't think you all get it....people aren't buying the BS anymore....not here in America, not in Europe, or across the globe, or in any other country.
Another war is on the horizon because of the oil situation, and countries with non submission to western policies. Everything is in complete chaos, so why do you all pretend that you have the answers and that either capitalism and/or socialism is even a way of life that will even exist anymore?
Why are you hanging on to those old fart smoke screen illusionary make believe ideals that has not done a damn thing for anyone except put them at the mercy of your corporate cronies? Get with the program...give some real food for thought....what are you gonna do with the rest of your lives??? I hate to burst your bubble, (not really) but you all truly need a reality check!!!

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 9 years ago

You know... except for create every invention that you use today

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Sure, as long as you remain living in that imaginary world you're in right now!!

Unfortunately, you are one of those corporate ass kissers who don't know any better, not about this country, nations within a nation, or anything else that is not a part of propagandized paleness.....so please...go on about your business of remaining programed and just read...don't reply because it only shows your true ignorance....OK??

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

You don't really believe that a person has to be bribed with wealth to create, do you? That is a very simplistically shallow view of your fellow man. Capitalism did not create shit, Take that political talking point and think about it. People create because they are bored, strapped for time or just want an easier way to live their lives. WE don't need capitalism to be creative. Your reply makes me believe you are young and naive, or old and selling an idea.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 9 years ago

Neither did no incentives.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

The incentive is to be able to say, "Yeah, I did that. How 'you like me now?"

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 9 years ago

No the incentive is to make money to support yourself and your possible family. But you know if you can survive on good feeling then go right ahead

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

Now, you just flipped the whole conversation to prove a point and not stay on topic. Reread what we were talking about and see how you just put the cart before the horse, meaning you are an impulsive child, or a ideological hack. Capitalism was first the incentive for all inventive creation, then it becomes the reason for feeding your loved ones. So if your possible family was supported, would you still be incentivized to create? I say yes, and I say capitalism as the reason to create is a farce. But I will agree with you that capitalism is a force of bribery that forces you to create so you can feed your family. Mild difference, don't you think?




[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago
[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Actually, it was an equal business partnership that built the airplane and started ford and GM, more akin to anarcho-syndacism than market capitalism.

No shareholders, nor design teams, large banks were also unnecessary, and outsourcing was unheard of. The most touted Ideas of todays business were nowhere to be seen in building this great nation.

And it was done when we taxed imports AND exports.

In fact many of the most successful businesses started with an anarchistic basis of equal benefits of all participants. Only later did they stray from this, to their peril, ones that stayed on this model never needed a bailout, and they are the most stable of companies, come hell-or-high-water

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

the size of the teams, and banks or lack of banks and outsourcing (i do hate that one, especially the offshore outsourcing) are still all capitalism, not socialism.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

I'm mainly bashing free market unregulated capitalism, for that isn't what built our great nation, but it is what is bringing us down.

Anarcho-syndacism style business models are what work best, and it's been proven over and over. My credit union could give a damn about the bailouts, they never were in danger, also my power co-op didn't go haywire during the energy 'crisis' and my par insurance offers me the best rates and has been an anarchist-syndacate since 1880. And it's the highest rated insurer in the land. it's owned by all the policy holders and agents, not shareholders.

But this isn't socialism either, it's capitalism mixed with democracy where the workers and customers have a say in what is produced, and it works beautifully.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

that type of business is fine but not all types of business have been like that. Boeing, Apple, Google don't follow that model, neither where the train barons, nor the car companies.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

actually Apple, ford, GM and google (plus oracle, IBM, and intel) all started this way and got through the crucial start-up phase, with the owners being the employees, it was only later they went to the traditional model.

And that's the key, this model works well and is stable not just during start-up, but even in the growth phase, and even in the multinational phase

google mondragon, and you'll see a worker/owner business that has whether the european crisis very well, and providing a good living for said owner/ workers.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 9 years ago

You're right, it was the government though who saved the farmers in the dust bowl days, built the dams to provide flood control and hydro-power, set land aside for national parks, and built the interstate highway system.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Which farmers?

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 9 years ago

Farmers in the mid-west and the south-west had a lot of soil erosion problems due not only to the dry weather, but also I believe to bad planting and cultivation methods, and deforesting too much of the land. I would have to look it uo to give you a better answer (don't have time now), but that's close. google up dust bowl and CCC. It was a massive reforestation of the land, and more.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

I understand and I know that history, too dam well, but it seems to be a reference to a time frame that did not include all peoples. There are certain segments of society that have been ignored, overlooked, and made outcasts....so the so-called government did not set out to save all farmers or even care about all of this countries peoples and their calamities!.. It is that segment that was self sufficient and thrived, amongst themselves, with a system that worked before and even after the "NEW DEAL", but that too was taken away, from certain ones..and hidden under the false pretense of capitalism. Self sufficiency was and is nothing foreign in this country! I don't understand why people choose to ignore that fact as if that too is a myth! That segment of the world and society have not disappeared, or slid into the abyss. They have been here from the beginning and will continue to be here and exist and flourish on this planet, whether folks like it or not!. There seems to be a one sided mind set on this forum and unfortunately that is what has caused the downfall of the whole global economy, believe it or not! Not one man, or group, or creed, or race, exists all by itself in this nation or in the world! One cannot rely upon the government to supply everything in existence, but as with this country, the masses sat back, and let it take place, under false pretenses of the members of government. It is not the law that is corrupt, it is the people who use it for their own selfish greed and means. It is not the Constitution that is evil, it is the men and women who refuse to let the principles come to the forefront as set forth in what has been written! . Now, here stands a nation where all are angry and confused because the so-called government always showed their true colors of manipulation, but your rose colored glasses refused to see it!!

So, stop talking gibberish and get to the heart of the problem....human equality!!

[-] 1 points by Bighead1883 (285) 9 years ago

Now that`s saying it like it really is.This is the type of comment needed to feed our thinking..

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 9 years ago


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago


Everyone should refresh their memory on the history of the Dust Bowl. We are heading there again. It will happen due to the trend in the global warming process. The only thing standing in the way of a repeat is us and our willingness to prepare for it and to get systems in place to fight the wide spread and prolonged drought that is happening now and getting worse. We must be able to bring large quantities of water to an amazingly large area of land. We also need to upgrade this area of land to be more resistant to the factors that feed aridity.


[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

the state does some good things, the military, the fbi, the cia, the fda. the border patrol, the police , but, its debatable that the government got us out of the depression, may have made it worse and longer, like Obama is doing now .

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Oh......so Obama is to blame? Well tell that to Yahoo since they have already stated he is to be the next Pres...... But the true fact of the matter is, all that you named above was created to control people....not help them!
FDA approves junk for food, for cash and Congress approves Junk for Wall street to sell..for cash!!

Anyway you are using the wrong acronym for your sign in also which displays your racial bigotry, since history has shown that most scalps were taken by the pale skins as souvenirs. So the myth of the true tribes who lived here as being "Indians" is not only a myth, but a lie.... So, if you truly want to have some credibility....(which you don't) change your name.

As for people committing suicide in that era.....you weren't around, so how would you know....how many elders have you talked with??

Besides, why would such a great (perpetrated) nation want anyone to know that any how...would you? No different than having skeletons in the closet, which the people of this great government throughout history have had a lot of.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

i'm a Blackhawk fan..hence the tomahawk, you moron.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Tomahawk, "Blackhawk", chicken hawk, I don't give a damn....just like the Cleveland Indians....it is all racist rolled into one category...oppressive mentality...so if you consider me a moron....consider where you really originated.....then we can talk...Europa!!

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 9 years ago

Yes and I will concede that altruisic people helping people works well too. Although there aren't many left, the people who were in the CCC and their families might argue with you, and that Roosevelt's New Deal was a Godsend and one of the main reasons that got us out of the Depression. In the end though, it was the spending that went towards gearing up for World War II that really got us back on our feet. That will all be debated forever though.

Vermont, as an example, having that famous independent spirit was a very conservative state early in the 20th century, and one of its native sons became President, Coolidge. Roosevelt carried every state in the country in the 1936 election except for VT and ME. Today VT is considered the most liberal state in the nation. What caused this transformation? Aside from a lot of tourists deciding to stay (much to the chagrin of the natives...heee), it was the 1938 Yankee Clipper Hurricane which devastated VT. The Federal help that they received not only helped VT recover, but also helped develop a 20th century infrastrucure.

It cannot be denied either that President Coolodge's (1923-1929) laissez faire economis policies helped cause the Great Depression. In 1928, the super wealthy held 28% of the wealth in the country...those same deregulatory policies have brought about almost exactly the same concentration of wealth in the country today...... compare that to 1980 when the super-rich held approximately 10% of all wealth. Think about that..

[-] -3 points by B76RT (-357) 9 years ago

FDR WAS a socialist

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

FDR was a capitalist, too.

And he saved the country from fascism and untethered capitalists. Something we desperately need today

The bail-out of Wall Street was socialist.

The vast array of commons used by capitalists to make vast fortunes is socialism.

The internet is socialism!!

YOU ARE a socialist!

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 9 years ago

you are sadly misinformed

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 9 years ago

If the RW-Cons have taught me anything, it is that if anybody partakes in socialism then they, too, are socialists. And since you are imbibing in the socialist invention and services of the internet (and this site) you, B76RT, are a SOCIALIST!!!! Possibly born in Kenya, too!!

[-] 1 points by B76RT (-357) 9 years ago

your masters taught you well. too bad they taught you agenda instead of truth.

[-] 2 points by human6 (88) 9 years ago

You are confusing capitalism with corporate-fascism, corporate fascism is an economy in which the power of state and corporation is merged, this system is often based in regulation, to aid the largest corporations and hurt the smaller competition, barriers to entry, to stop competition, and legal one sidedness to aid in killing competition.

in a free market you don't have these behemoths you have small companies that can service, without, the 4 monopolies, the money monopoly, the rent monopoly, the tariff monopoly, the patent monopoly. These monopolies grown out of state power are the barriers to a free market

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Big or small, they are both competing to exploit the working man.. I am not concerned with their inner battle . They are the enemy one and all.

[-] 1 points by human6 (88) 9 years ago

Don't like capitalism, go live on a commune i'm not stopping you, you can live how you want, i am actually a socialist, but i am first a volutnaryist, i want socialism but not forced on anyone, i'm righting a book of my theories.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

so what about the owner/ sole proprietorship? is he the enemy? what is wrong when the worker is the owner?

Or is it just that anyone that has more is the 'enemy'?

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

it's not about having more , it's how they intend to get it .. thats what seperates the back riders from the working man.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 9 years ago

Market Capitalism is a participatory system, not a hierarchical system.....those who participate are rewarded, those who do not, are not.......

Socialism rewards those who do not participate....

Market Capitalism is only limited by the creation of it's principles.....

Socialism is limited by the other participants of the system

Socialism is tyrannical, whether by despot or the mob

Market Capitalism has it's base in liberty and responsibility, it is the only "free" system that does not enslave or shackle men to one another

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

the debtor's prisons of the 1800's would beg to differ.

If a 'Christmas Carol' was written with todays crony capitalism, I believe old Ebinezer woulda forclosed even more instead of seeing the light

Also, his nephew woulda gotten a bailout, bob cratchet woulda been involved in an accounting scandal , and tiny tim woulda sued for mesothelioma.......Then the whole accounting firm would have been outsourced to India..... we are so screwed.

Not that I don't like capitalism, just that todays excesses are out of hand, and hope more anarchistic -syndacist models of capitalism are used, as they work and are safe and secure institutions (credit unions, power co-ops, par insurers etc.)

but that's just my nickels worth.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 9 years ago

All economic systems evolved from slavery.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

I disagree

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (311) 9 years ago

Capitalism is slavery in disguise.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

Hypocrites the lot of you!!!

Talk and rhetoric will not hide the fact that this country gained its wealth from the selling human livestock!!!

No matter what you put on this forum, the truth of what your forefathers did to create this alleged great nation of ours is covered with blood, floating down rivers filled with human remains!!! No amount of fakery or rhetorical pride, or bullshit intellectualism will ever, ever, ever change that!!

So, when you all start to wake up and smell your own asses...perhaps life will be better for the masses....not masters!!

OW is trying to show you that this shyt is OVER!!!!!

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 9 years ago

I don't think oversimplifying capitalism really helps us very much.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

I'm sorry, but capitalism has been around for a lot longer than the past couple hundred years, and same with the other main systems of economics.

In fact, I'd say that capitalism has been around for as long as there has been a medium of exchange between free peoples, just as socialism has been around for as long as there has been any elite group that controls the means of production in the name of watching over an enslaved people.

When the first settlers in sumer decided to trade grain for goods (forms of capital) capitalism was born.

When the first god-kings convinced their peoples in sumer to give up their freedom in exchange for security, communism was born.

And when the first Pharaohs convinced free men to exchange taxes for basic security in times of scarcity, then socialism was born.

These 3 systems all employed varying levels of slavery to sustain them, sometimes freedom came with the price of insecurity, sometimes freedom was taken in the name of the greater good, and sometimes freedom was willingly given up in the name of security.

This was the case from the neolithic to the late bronze age, then something changed..... and the ultimate system was born that maximizes freedom and security, while providing stability in a dangerous world of the late bronze age/ early Iron age.

Drovers in the Levant co-operated to dig mutual wells and maintain oasis, while herding chattel and trading between the power players of 3 continents.

They had no personal government, other than ruling their own passions, and engaged in capitalistic exchange. When a dispute arose, the community at large decided the matter and their system could best be described as anarcho-syndachism.

These co-ops were for the mutual benefit of all it's individual syndicate/ members. In other words each individual grouping, usually by family affiliation, benefited from their own hard work and not on others hard work.

In this environment the first alphabet was born along with notions that individual freedom were inherent blessings from heaven, and not the whimsy of a god-king.

This didn't last, as the ensuing prosperity was too much to be ignored by the 3 major powers (egypt, Hatutia, and babylon)

But this model was repeated later by the ancient hebrews, with the same results, and world powers again crushed it, for true freedom was a danger to the slaver, though not the slave.

And this model would again arise in Athens and resulted in a golden age and the birth of democracy. But the world powers were again challenged, and it took the slavers of sparta, and nearly 2/3 of the greek world, and even then, it took the help of persia to defeat athens.

For the slavers don't like it when slaves have hope or when non slavers do better than them without enslaving their fellow man.

But that's history

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Exploitation of the fellow man is the basic principle of capitalism as was slavery. Which makes me ask the question? Did slave owners claim they worked hard for their wealth , as we so often hear the capitalist makes claims today ..?

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

your post is where capitalism leads to if anarcho-syndacist practices aren't adopted.

If you reread my whole post, capitalism is the starting point, but does devolve into wage slavery when the laborer has no say in how the product of his labor is divided up.

Which is why syndicates work well, google mondragon in spain, or visit a farmer co-op, or anytime someone becomes a member of a power co-op.

It's about the worker and his customers benefiting from his labor, not a shareholder, not a bureaucrat. And it's about democracy in all things, having a say in how your labor is used, and voting with your dollars and ballots

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

it's an interesting recap of history. The struggle for freedom goes back a long long way. But how far have we really evolved .. when the exploitation found in capitalism today still remains ..

thanks for the lesson

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 9 years ago

just as socialism has been around for as long as there has been any elite group that controls the means of production in the name of watching over an enslaved people.

Controlling the means of production privately is capitalism. When that control is democratized, it's socialism.

I define it by the theory from which it's derived, not from workings of current or previous socialist parties.

You define capitalism as exchange between free people, however the majority of people under a capitalist system own no land or means of production, and are therefore forced to sell labor in order to survive. That is not a valid definition of freedom and so this definition of capitalism is contradictory.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

you have a keen eye luparb

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

your post:

Controlling the means of production privately is capitalism. When that control is democratized, it's socialism.

if the socialism that you describe is the democratization of the means of production by way of the state, then this is classical socialism and statism, whereby, no matter if it starts off good, ends up for the benifit of the powerful few in government

But if that democratization is through those whom labor and/or their customers, then this is neither socialism or pure capitalism, but anarcho- syndicalism.

and yes, capitalism is started by free people, but history shows that syndicalism needs to be adopted, if they wish to remain free, to avoid the dangers that you rightly point out with:

however the majority of people under a capitalist system own no land or means of production, and are therefore forced to sell labor in order to survive. That is not a valid definition of freedom and so this definition of capitalism is contradictory.

The state can be just as ruthless as board members, if not more so.

I'd rather trust those I work with and sell to.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 9 years ago

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery."

--Thomas Jefferson--

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Jefferson had an eye on it ..

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 9 years ago

Yes he did - he realized the potential for tyranny; we are witnessing it's birth.

[-] -2 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

It's birth? Get real.

You are witnessing it's maturity and all it's manifestations which are now impossible to hide from the eyes of the public.

Only the birth of these things which cannot be hidden, or easily explained away, are being witnessed, and only by a small amount of the people who have not continued to be lulled by their dolled out comforts.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 9 years ago

"lulled by their dolled out comforts."? Oh you are speaking of the bailed out banks and the rich. I agree - it is welfare. Got it

[-] -2 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

Not really, the people bailed out are those running the show.

They've dolled out enough that our farce of a democracy does not have anything representative of the majority actually RUNNING DC without any accountability or consequences for even treason.

The masses, lulled by HD TV, video games, the superbowl, their pittance weekly paychecks etc... accept that only rich people can be elected and do their brand of serving The People.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 9 years ago

"The masses, accept that only rich people can be elected and do their brand of serving The People."

You are totally delusional - I disagree

Just wondering how many OWS'ers out there accept this statement?

Vote up or down - Agree - vote up for PretendHitGirI's post. Disagree - vote up for this post

[-] -1 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 9 years ago

You can speak for the masses?

Their state of mind and thinking has been very clearly proven by the caulksoakers they've voted in for many years now.

How can anyone disagree with that?

Further basis for reality...... nary a single elected person has been tried for any of their blatant treasonous activities.

To disagree says that OWS truly is the masses when in fact, the majority will go to the booths in November and vote for whatever is offered. Then cry for another 4 years.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

Yes, and it still is a slave system, only now we have wage slaves, afraid to decent for fear of being made homeless. (the reason the 1% keep chipping away at any and all programs that aid the underemployed?)

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Astute observation...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

Capitalism more directly evolved from feudalism.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

There is a strong similiarity between slavery and capitalism.

With slavery, the master work the slaves for profit and in return fed , clothed and sheltered the slave. Of course there would have been an original purchase cost to owning the slave.

With Capitalism, the employer does not feed , cloth or shelter his employee but instead pays with cash for the work performed and the employee than uses the cash to feed , cloth, and shelter himself. In this the employer does not own the employee but rather rents the employee.

With slavery and capitalism both owner and employer profit from both slave aand employee in an exact manner . As the product produced by slave or employee belongs directly to the master/employer.

The evolution was when slavery became abolished . and the slave was given freedom . but the exploitation of slave , now employee remains the same.

With feudalism evolving into capitalism there is also traces of similiarity. With authority.

Socialism or communism would be in direct opposition to this where the idea would be to share the profit evenly amongst the population .. instead of being hoarded by the rulers.

Mankind has a lot of history with economics , some of it evolved by control of power , and some was actual thought out methods.

thanks for your comment.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

Actually, in a slave system, the slaves were part of capital, and the slaves, themselves, were not part of the general economic system and hence did not purchase goods through consumption to increase demand.

Also, please do not forget that slaves were not free. They were chattel. Big difference.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Yes very big difference .. but the similiarity of exploitation remains the same .. this does not happen in socialism. Where would you say socialism evolves from ? I would say it has more of a "freedom sound to it than capitalism.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

Socialism evolves, theoretically, from capitalism after capitalism fails.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Capitalism in itself is a failure as it exploits ones fellow human being. Socialism does not do this . Socialism is not some by product of capitalism . Socialism conquers capitalism by its very essence freedom. by removing the exploitation factor.

[-] 3 points by JuanFenito (847) 9 years ago

Thank you, I agree. Socialism does not exploit people, because it requires force to perpetuate a socialist system. Unlike capitalism, the natural order of human trade, socialism cannot allow people to exploit each other because there is a central authority deciding what happens, instead of allowing people to merely trade goods and services for labor, which always end up exploitive.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 9 years ago

Very well put FO !!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

Okay. I'm curious, if you feel that way, may I ask why you posted this the other day?:


[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

in defence of the consumer .. which no one seems to consider .. it's all about wealth and profits ..just as I point out the exploitation of the fellow human being .. somehow that doesn't get listened to in the equation of capitalism ..

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

Thanks for explaining.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

beautifulworld, the root of this whole protest is about unfairness.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

I know. Sometimes I just don't understand you, but now I do.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

I want equality . I am the guy on the bottom being stepped on every day .. working 60 -70 hrs per week .. and being told I am nothing. It's over , this protest has begun, and we will not stop until we either destroy the enemy , or they surrender.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

I know that we often agree, but you also posted something about how the occupiers should pack up and go home. You confuse me, FriendlyObserverB.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

beautifulworld, it was a hard post to write, I knew it would be misunderstood and place me in a bad light. ..But I had to .. the movement needed a "slap in the face " There are many people who support this movement , and when something goes wrong it looks bad on all. stay in line or get out.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Yes they are making a mess of this protest .. packing up was a one chance option of redemption. have you ever heard of " let's not lower our standards to that of the enemy" We need to set a higher example and not lose our dignity in this fight. Plus in one of my threads I posted , the length of this protest was set for two months .. the psychological break down begins to have a detrimental effect on the protestors .. they need the break .. walk away clear their minds .. Beautifulworld, we are not egypt or syria , or libya , .. I have seen protests get out of hand recently in Erope .. cars burnt , vandalism and mayhem .. it is all just a bad bad scene of inappropriate behaviour.. we don't want that here ! Insults and vulgarity .. the whole world is watching.. and shaking their heads in disgust at this protest. But all that said , I thank OWS for ignite this discussion. And that , perhaps may be their one and only accomplishment required. the rest is up to us .. the ball is rolling can we take it to the next step.. ? We rely on the OWS to lead when that maybe wasn't their purpose.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

My 75 year old Aunt occupies a town in New England every Sunday afternoon and as far as I know she isn't burning cars or windows. To parlay what happened in one place, at one time, onto this whole movement is not right, in my opinion, but you are, of course, free to see it how you like. The movement has had some growing pains and challenges, but "pack up and go." I disagree.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

And it makes everyone "equal" with no real "individualism". Everyone is a "commoner" except for those who are in control.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

and that bothers you because you want to be the guy on the bottom being exploited .. in your capitalist dream.

in socialism we are all in control.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

No, it doesn't bother me but you must understand someone is going to be in charge.

Where do you want to fit into the "Socialism chain"?

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 9 years ago

I'll tell you where I want to fit, right wherever I am told by the central authority that decides these things. I dislike capitalism for several reasons, not the least of which are my testosterone levels. The problems in this world are caused by people freely trading things with each other, just as unchecked free trade brought down the indigenous indian tribes of pre-colonial america. If I had a choice where to buy my groceries, the DMV or the grocery store, I would pick the DMV because the people are in control.



[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

So the fact that capitalism has built the highest standard of living means nothing, FOB? Forget the slick slogans & look at the reality on the ground. Socialism fails where free enterprise (not corporatism) succeeds.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

A sales profit cap on the free market would improve capitalism. But this would not make it socialist. And perhaps a cap would also raise the standard of living for the lower class. Allowing everyone a comfortable standard of living while still using the fundamentals of capitalism.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

It would be better to remove the regulatory, tax, & licensing means that the 1% use to get over on us, IE let free markets work. This will make everyone better off.

[-] -2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Slavery worked too. Why did they abolish it ?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

Hmmm. Let me think. Slavery didn't work, FriendlyObserverB. The South had the worst economy going and were unprepared for the Industrial Revolution when slavery ended. They were back in the Dark Ages. And, And, human beings were enslaved! The South still suffers today from the economic ravages of their slave economy.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Whats really sad is that it did not really end in this country.

See PBS special - Slavery by another name.

Then consider Prisons for Profit.

We must learn from the horrors of history if we are to defend against repeats.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

I agree. We are still feeling the results of that slave economy. It ravaged this nation and we still haven't had the courage to deal with it. A true horror of history.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

300 years of slavery? I guess at the time they just didn't see it wasn't working. Just like backriding capitalism isn't working today. Again they don't see it.

( btw bw, it was in jest)

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

Okay. And, no it wasn't working. Any economic system that chains people and causes the wreckage of poverty and racism and death that that system did was not working.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Hmmm let's see.. How many families lost their home in the past few years. Yes caplitism is working too. And isn't the whole world teetering on the worlds worst depression ? Of course capitalists will go down with the ship without surrender. Just as the south fought viscously to hold on to .. What ? A failed system?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

You know I agree with you that capitalism is a failure. It leaves out a lot of people too, but it is in no way as heinous as slavery.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

It has evolved. They don't use the learning tree no more. Thanks to human rights and government legislation.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

What is the learning tree?

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

Did it? The industrial revolution, that capitalism made possible, made slavery an anachronism. It wasn't working so well by the time it ended IE it wasn't economically viable anymore.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Free markets don't work.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

How do you know? We don't have any. What you see failing around you is the mixed economy not the free market.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

The problems we have within the economy all point back to free markets and unfettered profits. A cap on profits will fix the problem.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

No, the problems we have go back to licensing, regulation, & taxation. Eliminating those will fix the problems.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Yes, a cap on unfettered profits is one more regulation we need. A cap is one small step for man and one huge step for mankind.

[-] 2 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

More like a jackboot stepping on our throats. You're attacking the symptom rather than the cause. Matter of fact, you think that the cause is the solution. Unfettered profits come from the 1% using the govt to their benefit. It is the free market that protects us from them & their bought off govt.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

You are not speaking from the working mans point of view. You are a small business competing with corporations for consumer profit. A cap will go on you both.

[-] 2 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

A cap? Do you mean a yarmulke or a baseball cap? :-) Jokes aside, why would you want to hinder small business? They're the anti-corporation.

Regardless, the free market protects the workingman too. The 1% use their govt buddies to mess them over too. When they stifle competition the workingman's options are limited.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

A cap on sales profits would protect the working man from both of you, Corp or small business. But I see your point how the rival between the two favors the consumer. Somewhat. But this is equivalent to who pays morefor the slave. Does this really make any difference to the slave?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 9 years ago

I didn't say anything about the indians

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

I know, but the people that tout the railroads as a great achievement usually don't know the genocidal foundation they were built on.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 9 years ago

Small business is good but didn't Carnegie basically allow for the railroad revolution?

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

I like Sherman for that dishonor:

"The eradication of the Plains Indians by the Union army was an indirect form of corporate welfare for politically connected railroad companies who enlisted the coercive powers of the central state to steal Indian property while engaging in a genocidal policy. Like many citizens today, the Indians were victims of governmental power, not of capitalism or European culture, as today's politically-correct historians insist."


[-] 0 points by wellhungjury (296) 9 years ago

An entrepreneur may keep the profit, but it is not because they are not working. Just because they may not be the person that is building the widget, does not mean they are not hard at work. Besides, the labor gets their reward for work in wages. The entrepreneur gets their reward in profit.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

If the waltons never hired anyone , and just the three of them ran the store would they have the wealth they have today? No, of course not. So the wealth they do have now must really belong to their workers they hired. But they kept it for themselves unearned.

[-] 0 points by wellhungjury (296) 9 years ago

If only the three of them worked at the store, then they would not be as wealthy as they are...that is correct. But it was their ideas and ability to plan, organize,lead and a willingness to take a chance, along with the labor that did created that wealth. I am sorry but at what point do you tell someone that they did too good? How much is someone allowed to earn? You may not like it, but what you could do is try to duplicate it. (Not sure you realize the risk and work behind such an endeavor or how many who try fail.) Then if you want to pay better, give better benefits or be a strong philanthropist, then the world will be a better place. Walmart, for all its good and bad, still gives a lot low skilled workers a good job. There is some good that comes out of that, period.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Yes I agree and slaves should have been happy too. With all the trouble the slave owners endorsed just setting it all up. And what did slaves really have back in Africa. Totally ungrateful slaves. No thanks from them at all.

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 9 years ago

There is no one making them work there. They can leave and get a better job somewhere else. So tell me, what is the right way? You want to be silly or do you want to add substance to your rant?


[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 9 years ago

A lot of these threads are starting to look like 1920's Europe.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Would you care to share what Europe was talking about in the 1920's ?

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

Did you just try to hinder debate with the nazi card? Why is it tyrannical to talk about a nation's economic and social underpinnings? In other words, we have free speech as long as we don't talk about anything substantial 'cause I would not want to be labeled a Nazi by the inquisition. :)

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 9 years ago

Not trying to label anyone with anything. But so many of these anti capitalist the world is horrible stop the slavery Marx/National Socialism is the answer posts are very reminiscent of that period. Do you deny that?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

Well, i believe in times of distress and uncertainty old ideas are weighted and their consequences pondered. Also, i believe that if a new direction is to be pondered, then it is fitting that we talk about how we got to this point in time. But i will say that even your words are needed so as to hinder us from blindly marching to a final solution because, I believe, there never is one. each solution creates new problems. I guess what i'm saying is that it is good to debate and learn, as long as we acknowledge that there will never be a utopia, but things can get better.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 9 years ago

Very well said.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 9 years ago

Wait, they had forums back then? Link plz

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

I like the controversial posts. I often think that capitalism would not have its moral high ground If it were not for Christianity. No other economic doctrine subdues the earth as well as Capitalism. And those that are the most capitalistic always purport to be the most deserving of God's grace. In fact there is a Free Market lobbing firm that derives their influence and justification from their understanding of the bible. If you make it in America It is because God has smiled on you. So I agree that Capitalism evolved from slavery, but Christianity was its morel impetus. Whether that is a bad thing or good thing, I won't say, but the evidence is not flattering for the American Way.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Capitalism is controlled by wealth. Basically the one with the money is in charge of our commerce .. It grows/feeds on itself and becomes very powerful . As the capitalists grows his wealth through the exploitation of others , he gains further control and eventually as you say, subdues the earth.

thanks for your comment.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Actually, if you look at the early church, it too, is a model of anarchistic syndicalism: Acts 2:42-44

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.

They were a collection of like minded individuals that mutually benefited from their daily labors.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

Or you can make something out of materials from your house and sell them for a profit.

Not exactly slavery.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 9 years ago

you hire others to do the work tooo....does that make you a slave owner/runner?

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

Straight from Marx, and we all know how well communism works!

[-] -2 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 9 years ago

The USA ( United Slavery Almalgamated ) is about making the the slaves think they are free.

Slavery failed in about 1840's, after that the agrarian gig failed, and the industrial gig required a 'new thinking' for the slaves.

Today we have an excess population, most MUST DIE.

Just stating the facts.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

thanks for your comment.

interesting thought.. slaves were becoming obsolete .. perhaps with the entering into the industrial revolution.. haven't seen that before ..

[-] -2 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 9 years ago

Folks here simply don't understand USA history.

The USA is was an Prison Colony from day one, but the convicts didn't work out, so the 'investors' southern plantation owners brought in slaves from Africa, hand-picked folk that would work, and had been slaves for 1,000's of years.

That all worked fine until the USA was the most productive cotton producer in the world, so Britain&France created in their day a CIA coup that ineffect led to the civil war, and ended 'slavery' post that the USA could no longer compete and the south collapsed. 'Slaves' went north for work, by the 1880's the industrial revolution was taking place in Europe but the US had cheap commodity's, and lots of trees to make fuel to smelt Iron.

Never forget that the USA is a prison colony, and from day one the leaders were rich white men. Who saw the 'citizens' as ignorant assholes.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

so when they ring the bell of freedom they are just blowing wind in my ear..

[-] -2 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 9 years ago

The more laws the nation, the more corrupt the nation. Fact.

The more a nation has to tell its citizens "How great they are, ..." the more likely the nation is a failed state. Fact.

The USA is a fucked up failed Prison Colony, and now even its paper-money is becoming worthless, and the entire nation of 300 Million parasites will go cannibal.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

okay hold on .. there are a lot of good honest hard working people in the United States, and they are just as caught up in the whole mess as everyone else. And fact is those good people will one day stand and up and overthrow the whole damn mess.

[-] -2 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 9 years ago

The USA revolution (1776) ONLY had 5% of the people involved, 95% of the USA public were too busy working or living to bother with the 'revolution'

Today 'IF' you have 'good honest working people' and they 'stand-up' the system (DHS/FBI) will put them in prison PRONTO.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

in a democracy we stand up with our votes . perfectly legit and nothing to get arrested over.

[-] 0 points by Renaye (522) 9 years ago

owsleader2038, I've been reading your posts over the last several days. It is clear you are very educated. It is also clear that you have enough knowledge about OWS that we aren't privy to, perhaps even inside information. I would like to ask you what your backgoround is.....are you one of the White Hats, doing what you can to warn, and do some good?

[-] 0 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 9 years ago

Spent my entire life in special forces, spent my entire life seeing the world, speak over a dozen languages fluently. Spent my entire life the ABC's, block Airway, stop Breathing, halt Circulation.

No good can come from the USA, it is toast, a nation of parasites, facing a coming civil war, to fight over the little has that has not been plundered. The smart left the Usa LONG ago with property and freedom.

There are NO white-hat's. Urban mythology. The living fled the USA years ago, today only the dead are still residing in the USA.

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 9 years ago

And Marxism developed into slavery. Try again.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

Let me make a suggestion for those of you who feel "capitalism" is a form of slavery - start "farming". That will solve anyones problem who is against capitalism.

Simply get some land, farm it, build your own house from the surrounding forest, buy some livestock, farm the land and live happily ever after.

No need to buy modern day equipment or for that matter have electricity or water pumped to you house. You will need to be on your own because you must realize that if you have something provided for you by someone else, they are using "slaves" to provide this to you.

It was done back in the 60's with the "hippie movement" so there is no reason why it can't be done today if you feel that strongly against "capitalism".

Oh and by the way, no cell phones, internet or televisions. You wouldn't want to go against your commmitment to do away with capitalists and slavery.

[-] -1 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 9 years ago

The USA is the most 'communist' nation on earth.

Go travel folks, China has had 'wild west' capitalism, since the 1980's.

The USA is a failed state, the reason OWS even exists is that the kid's have no future, their expensive educations aren't worth shit in todays USA.

Today's USA is the worst kinds of FASCISM ( When corporations control government ), today's USA is NOT worth fighting for, or dying for,

The ONLY reasonable 'fix' is to flea to a FREE COUNTRY.

[-] 0 points by Renaye (522) 9 years ago

Which country would be your first choice?

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 9 years ago

Hey, like I stated - if you don't like what's going on with regard to "capitalism" then go buy some land and farm it.

There is lots of farm land for sale in this country and it will give your "kids" a future.

Let me ask you - have you ever been out of the United States and visited "foreign" countries?

[-] 0 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 9 years ago

You leave your children a farm in the USA, and you leave them with tax debt. Go to a country that doesn't tax farms and provides free power and water. There are many such countrys.

I'm a free citizen of the world. The USA is the last fucking place on earth I will set foot.